1/. Only bring up Forgotten Realms issues here.
Issues involving other settings don't belong on these forums. They just add to the confusion in what is already a very popular series of threads that get very long very fast.
2/. Stay on topic.
This type of thread has proved to be incredibly useful to a large number of members. However previous threads were long enough as it is, and pretty daunting to a newcomer. Posting off topic makes this worse. There is no point having a thread solely devoted to asking a specific people questions if it gets sidetracked.
I am not being overly heavy with a request to stay on topic as the sidetracking seen on past thread has generated complaints. In other words those of you who don't stay on topic are spoiling this thread for others. If you want to discuss issues that come up as a tangent on this thread then create a new topic. Link to the new topic by all means, but stick to direct questions or direct discussion of the answers. Any thread hijacking posts that lead to complaints will simply be deleted.
3/. Follow the golden rule.
Feel free to disagree with Richard or any other poster but remember “It is ok to attack the ideas written by a poster. It is not ok to attack the person writing the ideas. If you can’t tell the difference, then perhaps you shouldn’t post on that theme.”
4/. Rules & Supplements only
The questions should be about supplements and core rule books, not about FR fiction. It was decided that we are no longer allowed to discuss FR novels on these boards.
5/. BEHAVE!
There is no obligation for any of the authors to respond to these questions. In fact with all the insults that have been flung at them over the years it is a miracle any of the authors still frequent these boards. Don't get angry if your question isn't answered. Stay polite to those authors who do answer, and don't chase them away!here
Will the one about the missing section in Chapter 4 come soon as well? I remember it being stated that information on all the Draconic deities will be given along with their roles in Faerun and their worshippers roles too or something along those lines? Thanks.
Question about the Dragons of Faerun web enhancement.
Will the one about the missing section in Chapter 4 come soon as well? I remember it being stated that information on all the Draconic deities will be given along with their roles in Faerun and their worshippers roles too or something along those lines? Thanks.
A bit of clarification. I said I know there is a table of draconic deities that I turned in. I *suspect* it will appear in the DoF WE, but I do not know for sure. Also, it's a table. Assuming it does appear, it will give you the bare bones, but not a ton of descriptive detail. There was never room budgeted for that, so I didn't write it.
--Eric
A bit of clarification. I said I know there is a table of draconic deities that I turned in. I *suspect* it will appear in the DoF WE, but I do not know for sure. Also, it's a table. Assuming it does appear, it will give you the bare bones, but not a ton of descriptive detail. There was never room budgeted for that, so I didn't write it.
--Eric
Oh I see, between what you and Eytan have said previously I wasn't sure exactly what was going on with that. I remember someone else requesting to Eytan if Sardior could be included back on the other thread, too. So I was under the presumption that Eytan, or you, or both of you were in the process of writing that WE for Dragons of Faerun as a bonus or something.
So what I was hoping to see in Dragons of Faerun since I first heard of the product coming out might not be shown at all? Well that blows.
Thanks for the reply, guess all I can do is cross my fingers now.
Or hope it's seen as an article in the pages of Dragon Magazine maybe?
Are we there yet?
Is there anyway you could tell me her race(s) class and class levels?
The Pale Symbil. I would like to use her in my Underdark campaign. I've figured out that she's a deep imarski, but in the novel Araevin mentioned that she was also some kind of vampire. I've never seen a vampire that could suck souls and magic.
Is there anyway you could tell me her race(s) class and class levels?
We can't tell you much at all about products that have not yet appeared in a current WotC catalog. It's our policy. Right now, our catalog runs through the first trimester of 2007, so I just can't say anything about products that are back half of 2007 or anywhere in 2008.
Hope that makes things clearer. Sorry I can't just say, "Sure, you'll see that dwarf book in about six months!" but we work a fair distance "out" and have other products to do first.
Still waiting (fairly) patiently for FR Dwarf book, Cormyr and Dales regional source books.;)
Are we there yet?
Thanks in Advance,
-Garidas
I was wondering, what books are we getting for the FR?
Thanks in Advance,
-Garidas
From here on to April 07, adventure books unfortunately (with two more adventure books after that because the one in April is just one of three).
One day they'll give Faerun enough detail all around, then one fateful day they'll cover the rest of the world...but until then, all I can do is hope and wait.
I don't know if I had a specific monster or class in mind. I suppose I would start with a Deep Imaskari wizard, about 16th to 20th level. Then I would create a "magic-drinking" template that was built around the idea that you drain away somebody's stored spell energy and gain power, youth, vitality, etc., in the process. I don't think I would describe her as undead, but I figured that she'd prolonged her life for centuries by draining other people dry.
You might look at Ensul's Soultheft in City of Splendors: Waterdeep. It does something along the lines Rich lays out.
--Eric
We can't tell you much at all about products that have not yet appeared in a current WotC catalog. It's our policy. Right now, our catalog runs through the first trimester of 2007, so I just can't say anything about products that are back half of 2007 or anywhere in 2008.
Will there be any new sourcebooks for FR ?
You might look at Ensul's Soultheft in City of Splendors: Waterdeep. It does something along the lines Rich lays out.
--Eric
Awesome you guys.
Could you guys maybe do something, like remove everything past the fifth paragraph on the page detailing "32: Athenaeum Arcanum (EL8)", or at least put it on a separate page accessible by a link that warns the viewer that they are about to look at a spoiler??? There is enough in the room's description in the five paragraphs preceeding the sections on creatures and tactics to give some idea about the adventure, without spoiling a potential BBEG encounter...
The yochlol have seen their fourth version (since creation) being published in the Fiendish Codex I. They look far more capable now, but the statblock misses the Level Adjustment information. Maybe they are not intended for use as characters - the 3REsized yochlol of the Monsters of Faerûn book had LA +6, an ECL of 12 - but it would be a necessary information nonetheless, given equipment and all. I would rate them alongside erinyes these days, but maybe you can give a more official answer to that question.
Thanks in advance,
Zanan!
I know it's a massive undertaking(I've worked with another gaming company so I know how much is involved), but a Level 1 to 20 and beyond would be a wonderful and memorable expierence for us FR gamers(and a big help to DM's like me who don't have enough time in the week to plan every session.)
Thanks.
I know the designers have said that they already have everything up until 2008 or so on the board..which is cool, I wish to god I had my work caught up until 2008. Anyway I was wondering if there are any plans for a big adventure...like City of the Spider Queen? I think it would be well-received, even if we had to wait until 2009.
I know it's a massive undertaking(I've worked with another gaming company so I know how much is involved), but a Level 1 to 20 and beyond would be a wonderful and memorable expierence for us FR gamers(and a big help to DM's like me who don't have enough time in the week to plan every session.)
Thanks.
Oh God, noooo, no more adventures please!!! :P
Seriously, they got Mysteries of the Moonsea as a super-mini adventure book, then they came out with Twilight Tomb, though a mini-adventure, still an adventure, and the only FR book coming out won't be until April 2007 called Cormyr: A Tearing of the Weave and that's a freaking hardcover super-adventure that spans not one whole book, but THREE whole books.
So I think you got your wish and I also think that's way more than enough FR adventures. If someone wants more, I'd say subscribe to Dungeon Magazine and adapt those adventures to an FR campaign (that's what I do) and, in fact, some Dungeon adventures are set in the Realms. I seriously want them to move back to Regional books so I can at least continue my false hopes and dreams that there will be a 3E Kara-Tur/Maztica/Zhakara coming.
It does not make sense to cram all the info (both DM and player relevant) into one book because it spoils the fun for both parties.
The old grey box had a sort of travel guide for the players which they could use to "know" stuff. All the books focus on the DM because they contain info no player should have (I would chop off some heads if my players started reading Lost Empires of Faerûn, for example).
There is "crunch" and there is "CRUNCH", as well as there is lore and LORE, the caps version standing for the DM's info. With all of it in one book the DM would have to copy the relevant player info so that the LORE or "CRUNCH" does not fall into "enemy" hands.
Will we see a solution to this dilemma anytime soon?
Oh God, noooo, no more adventures please!!! :P
Seriously, they got Mysteries of the Moonsea as a super-mini adventure book, then they came out with Twilight Tomb, though a mini-adventure, still an adventure, and the only FR book coming out won't be until April 2007 called Cormyr: A Tearing of the Weave and that's a freaking hardcover super-adventure that spans not one whole book, but THREE whole books.
So I think you got your wish and I also think that's way more than enough FR adventures. If someone wants more, I'd say subscribe to Dungeon Magazine and adapt those adventures to an FR campaign (that's what I do) and, in fact, some Dungeon adventures are set in the Realms. I seriously want them to move back to Regional books so I can at least continue my false hopes and dreams that there will be a 3E Kara-Tur/Maztica/Zhakara coming.
Oops didn't realize that the Cormyr book was a big adventure...nevermind I'm good LOL.
In addition to the reply on Dwarves of Faerun, I know myself and many others around here would love to see an Elves of Faerun sourcebook as well. Explaining the goings on in Evermeet, Evereska, and the old kingdoms renewed(most obviously refering to Myth Drannor here as well as others). And maybe some new PrCs for some beloved 2ed material such as the Feywarden of Corellon and the Knight of Evermeet amongst others, and I seriously doubt it would happen but maybe a true to 2ed Bladesinger, but I can live without that. Overall(but I cant speak for everyone) I think this book would be well recieved amongst our community. You could even make a whole set out of the races books and add a book for Halflings and Gnomes in there as well, then seeing how those sold maybe expand on some of the other lesser used/known races. Thanks.
Well said, and I agree completely!
Oops didn't realize that the Cormyr book was a big adventure...nevermind I'm good LOL.
Yeah, not one, but THREE, too. Played in succession or independantly.
Three hardcover books that could've, with good reason, been regional books or books on more specific matters in Forgotten Realms like an Artifacts of Faerun or Giants of Faerun or other such.
So you're good on adventures, while FR fans like myself are on the losing end.
I am wondering since a lot of Lost Empires of Faerûn IMO was used for Nethril info, which is cool but can we get some more info on that group of humans who's influence still affect Toril today.
Does any of the novells affect game play in anyway or do I have to buy all the books to get info on them.
Would be nice to see some of the items that are being used get fleshed out.
Like the Purple Palace.
-- George Krashos
Yeah, not one, but THREE, too. Played in succession or independantly.
Three hardcover books that could've, with good reason, been regional books or books on more specific matters in Forgotten Realms like an Artifacts of Faerun or Giants of Faerun or other such.
So you're good on adventures, while FR fans like myself are on the losing end.
Not really, I know people want sourcebooks but I really don't see a point for like a Cormyr/Dalelands sourcebook, I think they did an excellent job detailing that out in Core Book.
But that's just me, but I do think they could use a Baldur's Gate book like Waterdeep!
Buy the novel "Darkvision" by Bruce Cordell. It focuses on the Deep Imaskari and Imaskar in general.
-- George Krashos
Read that book but a source book that has that info would be nice.
Did the race that created the yaunti, did they get portal magic from Imaskar?
Not really, I know people want sourcebooks but I really don't see a point for like a Cormyr/Dalelands sourcebook, I think they did an excellent job detailing that out in Core Book.
But that's just me, but I do think they could use a Baldur's Gate book like Waterdeep!
The main attraction to the Realms has historically been the sheer amount of lore in its books. That's why many of us who got into the Realms in previous editions are looking for more sourcebooks. It's equivalent to paying monthly for a satellite channel you really really like, and suddenly it gets turned into a different channel altogether - without the original channel existing any more at all.
The main attraction to the Realms has historically been the sheer amount of lore in its books. That's why many of us who got into the Realms in previous editions are looking for more sourcebooks. It's equivalent to paying monthly for a satellite channel you really really like, and suddenly it gets turned into a different channel altogether - without the original channel existing any more at all.
That also happens to relatively new players like me who love that kind of books.
Read that book but a source book that has that info would be nice.
Did the race that created the yaunti, did they get portal magic from Imaskar?
The sarrukh pre-date the Imaskari by millenia.
-- George Krashos
Not really, I know people want sourcebooks but I really don't see a point for like a Cormyr/Dalelands sourcebook, I think they did an excellent job detailing that out in Core Book.
But that's just me, but I do think they could use a Baldur's Gate book like Waterdeep!
You're kidding??? Right??
WotC could do 300+ pages on the Dales and Cormyr without even breathing hard.
You're kidding??? Right??
WotC could do 300+ pages on the Dales and Cormyr without even breathing hard.
Not really. I think WOTC have detailed out what needed to be detailed out. A dale/lands Cormyr book is rather redundant. Those two places got more pages than any other regions in the campaign setting, maybe next to Thay.
They could make a book, but to me, as a DM, I don't need one...they gave me everything I need already.
But again that's my personal preference.
Not really. I think WOTC have detailed out what needed to be detailed out. A dale/lands Cormyr book is rather redundant. Those two places got more pages than any other regions in the campaign setting, maybe next to Thay.
They could make a book, but to me, as a DM, I don't need one...they gave me everything I need already.
But again that's my personal preference.
The FRCS (and previously VGtC, The Dalelands, and Cormyr, all 2e products) gave enough to play in Cormyr and the Dalelands and be perfectly happy.
However, there is much, much more that could be said that would add to the depth and interest of the region in a sourcebook.
To each his own. Personally, I'll continue to delve into any topic I'm asked to write about if I get to explore new and interesting aspects of the Realms.
Next project? The Shadow knows ... (to quote an old-time radio classic).
--Eric
Good job!
Did the race that created the yaunti, did they get portal magic from Imaskar?
You do realise that the Sarrukh have actually existed for a significantly longer period of time than have the Imaskari?
I'm almost thinking this has been asked before, but if there were more time, money, etc., you think we would've eventually have seen F&P-esque 3.X Edition official stats for the deities that were left not fully statted in Faiths & Pantheons? I've always hoped to see new official takes on the likes of Moradin, Correlon Larethian and Garl Glittergold (in their Realms personages).
Dear Mr. Boyd,
I'm almost thinking this has been asked before, but if there were more time, money, etc., you think we would've eventually have seen F&P-esque 3.X Edition official stats for the deities that were left not fully statted in Faiths & Pantheons? I've always hoped to see new official takes on the likes of Moradin, Correlon Larethian and Garl Glittergold (in their Realms personages).
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
If I do understand it and if there was another opportunity to revisit the deities, I would suggest expanding the churches, not giving stats for additional deities. I think the former would be of more use to more gamers, although I can understand the desire for the latter.
--Eric
I'm not sure if I understand the question.
If I do understand it and if there was another opportunity to revisit the deities, I would suggest expanding the churches, not giving stats for additional deities. I think the former would be of more use to more gamers, although I can understand the desire for the latter.
--Eric
I agree. Well, mostly. Both would be best.
But for the time being: What are the chances of us getting at least the Divine Ranks for the rest of the FR deities? In a future book, or just in a Web Enhancement or Article?
And will there be any book that has the effects Lolth's Silence had on the Dark Seldarine? What were the DRs of Vhaeraun, Ghaunadaur and so on before the silence, and what are they now, after. For that matter: What's the effects on Eilistraee and Lolth herself? Is this going to be detailed in a book, or could we get a web enhancement/article for that?
I mean, even in 2E the deities had to split into 3 books (Powers&Pantheons, Faiths&Avatars, Demihuman Deities) and they still had room for a 4th book (Orc Pantheon, Draconic Pantheon, all done via Faiths&Avatar-style)
A Faiths&Pantheons II would be nice to see, and maybe they can cover the other pantheons such as the Giant Pantheon, Draconic Pantheon, Goblinoid Pantheon, and a few miscellaneous others.
I mean, even in 2E the deities had to split into 3 books (Powers&Pantheons, Faiths&Avatars, Demihuman Deities) and they still had room for a 4th book (Orc Pantheon, Draconic Pantheon, all done via Faiths&Avatar-style)
Would this be worth giving up another Realms product for? In the past year, which product would you have given up (without the benefit of hindsight)?
While I understand the desire for completism, I suspect more gamers would be benefit by delving into new territory, rather than giving more of existing territory (which, arguably, is a logical extraction of what's been printed so far).
--Eric
Would this be worth giving up another Realms product for? In the past year, which product would you have given up (without the benefit of hindsight)?
While I understand the desire for completism, I suspect more gamers would be benefit by delving into new territory, rather than giving more of existing territory (which, arguably, is a logical extraction of what's been printed so far).
--Eric
Easy, Mysteries of the Moonsea.
How likely is it in you all's opinion of a book about the Chultan Peninsula? We're coming up with a Dungeonscape and a Cityscape soon. We haven't had a Jungle themed book yet. Is a Chultan book unlikely because of a potential non-specific Jungle themed book?
I'd think it's pretty unlikely, as most of the area was adequately covered in Serpent Kingdoms. The only thing not covered was Chult proper, but I don't think that area is likely to be revisited soon...
-- George Krashos
Mr Boyd, I was wondering, theres been a lot of material translated from 2nd to 3rd edition. Kits to PrC's updates for all the spells and so on but theres one spell that I look for a revision on everytime a new book comes out(I was really hoping it would be in Spell Compendium). And thats the almighty Chromatic Orb and I was wondering, seeing as its just one spell, if there is some way to possibly include this in an upcoming product. Thanks.
It's a tough spell to convert to 3e, as I don't think it really fits the rules any more with the scaling power.
Here's a thread by folks who have tried:
http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-111949.html
--Eric
Would this be worth giving up another Realms product for? In the past year, which product would you have given up (without the benefit of hindsight)?
While I understand the desire for completism, I suspect more gamers would be benefit by delving into new territory, rather than giving more of existing territory (which, arguably, is a logical extraction of what's been printed so far).
--Eric
Without Hindsight? Mysteries of the Moonsea. (With hindsight: Champions of Ruin)
How likely is it in you all's opinion of a book about the Chultan Peninsula? We're coming up with a Dungeonscape and a Cityscape soon. We haven't had a Jungle themed book yet. Is a Chultan book unlikely because of a potential non-specific Jungle themed book?
As Krash notes... the Jungles of Chult accessory provides a detailed analysis of that particular region of the Realms -- with Serpent Kingdoms updating some of that initial lore.
Mr Boyd, I was wondering, theres been a lot of material translated from 2nd to 3rd edition. Kits to PrC's updates for all the spells and so on but theres one spell that I look for a revision on everytime a new book comes out(I was really hoping it would be in Spell Compendium). And thats the almighty Chromatic Orb and I was wondering, seeing as its just one spell, if there is some way to possibly include this in an upcoming product. Thanks.
Would this be worth giving up another Realms product for? In the past year, which product would you have given up (without the benefit of hindsight)?
While I understand the desire for completism, I suspect more gamers would be benefit by delving into new territory, rather than giving more of existing territory (which, arguably, is a logical extraction of what's been printed so far).
--Eric
Well, isn't 3E supposed to satisfy the new customer base as well? This material will delight veterans and be "new" to the recent gamers (unless they've done A LOT of studying 2E FR books, which I highly doubt the majority has). I'd have to say the same line of reasoning goes for converted monsters from older editions as well, or anything brought back from older editions. New stuff is good, but not when it always trumps old stuff.
And, in actuality, a book of that scope hasn't been done yet even in past editions. Sure there was Monster Mythology and a couple of others, but it wasn't a Faiths&Avatars. Personally, I don't use Faiths&Pantheons except for the prestige classes. I would've preferred a Monstrous Pantheon book ala Faiths&Avatars, but seeing how a book of that scope is beyond 3E's trend with word count and money saving techniques on books and low page count, I would deal with a 3E version of one.
And, in hindsight, I'd have love to give up Mysteries of the Moonsea for something like that book. As for not in hindsight, anything that goes along the lines of MotM I would say ditch. :D
Are there any plans for a revised and updated Epic Level Handbook? I like playing epic level campaigns but the rules could use a lot of fine tuning (particularly the epic spellcasting rules) and would benefit from a greater variety of options in the way of magic items, prestige classes, and class features for base classes (more feats would be nice too, but I'm happy with the selection that already exists).
Thank you for taking the time to answer people's questions, and keep up the good work.
You really got your Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist as a seaman apprentice? I knew a few E-4s who did, never heard of an E-2 doing it. (I'm a former SWO.)
I couldn't find an "Ask the Core authors/designers thread" so I figured that this would be the most appropriate place to ask.
Are there any plans for a revised and updated Epic Level Handbook? I like playing epic level campaigns but the rules could use a lot of fine tuning (particularly the epic spellcasting rules) and would benefit from a greater variety of options in the way of magic items, prestige classes, and class features for base classes (more feats would be nice too, but I'm happy with the selection that already exists).
Thank you for taking the time to answer people's questions, and keep up the good work.
What is the format of the upcoming Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave? How does its format differ from past products?
Are there any plans with elves (sourcebook, supplement, other than novels) considering the new Year of the risen elfkin (considering the dragon year)?
I couldn't find an "Ask the Core authors/designers thread" so I figured that this would be the most appropriate place to ask.
Are there any plans for a revised and updated Epic Level Handbook? I like playing epic level campaigns but the rules could use a lot of fine tuning (particularly the epic spellcasting rules) and would benefit from a greater variety of options in the way of magic items, prestige classes, and class features for base classes (more feats would be nice too, but I'm happy with the selection that already exists).
Thank you for taking the time to answer people's questions, and keep up the good work.
I also agree that there is need for an up to date epic book. I know this will only be of interest to warlock enthusiasts, but I do have a fairly extensive epic warlock web enhancement coming out at the end of the month.
I also agree that there is need for an up to date epic book. I know this will only be of interest to warlock enthusiasts, but I do have a fairly extensive epic warlock web enhancement coming out at the end of the month.
Is it year of the warlock or something? Epic warlock WE, NWN2 soon to be released with warlock as one of the playable classes. The archfiends must be watching this world keenly right now. :D
Not that I complain, mind you. I love warlocks. I think I'll go and play one in RPG soon.
Also, would there be a chance of seeing a web enhancement or product with some Realms specific Epic level content? I know Power of Faerun was supposed to cover that, but when I thumbed through it, it mostly seemed to be about ruling your own realm and/or controlling your minions.
On a selfish note, would it be possibile to see something like the prestige classes from the following thread on the Candlekeep forums make it into the Realms canon?
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7815
:D
Can you please suggest to me somewhere sensible else for the few remaining survivors to have fallen back to? Do this one thing for me and I'll consider your 'debt' paid.
In the unlikey even that anyone takes offence on Mr Baker's behalf, and trust me stranger things have happened, I'd like to point out that any 'anger' or 'indignation' on my part is entirely faux, I'd just like a sensible suggestion.;)
Mr Baker, with your last Mythal series of books, excellent though they were, you ruined my long planned campagin by having the Fey'ri get their butts whooped so hard. In the interests of continued player/developer relations I'm asking you for help.
Can you please suggest to me somewhere sensible else for the few remaining survivors to have fallen back to? Do this one thing for me and I'll consider your 'debt' paid.
In the unlikey even that anyone takes offence on Mr Baker's behalf, and trust me stranger things have happened, I'd like to point out that any 'anger' or 'indignation' on my part is entirely faux, I'd just like a sensible suggestion.;)
You really got your Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist as a seaman apprentice? I knew a few E-4s who did, never heard of an E-2 doing it. (I'm a former SWO.)
Yes, I finished my ESWS qualification just over a month before I hit E-3. There are a few E-3s on my ship (I'm on the USS Abraham Lincoln) that have their ESWS, but I'm the most junior person I know to have completed it.
My guess is that the survivors would make their way back to hidden boltholes in and around the southern High Forest. Sarya had a hidden stronghold beneath Lothen of the Silver Spires; that can be as small or extensive as you like in your campaign. That's where I would put them.
Many thanks Mr Baker, that'll work out just fine, a couple of anti scying measures to stop the Elves searching them out and we'll be just dandy again.
Mr Baker, with your last Mythal series of books, excellent though they were, you ruined my long planned campagin by having the Fey'ri get their butts whooped so hard. In the interests of continued player/developer relations I'm asking you for help.
Can you please suggest to me somewhere sensible else for the few remaining survivors to have fallen back to? Do this one thing for me and I'll consider your 'debt' paid.
In the unlikey even that anyone takes offence on Mr Baker's behalf, and trust me stranger things have happened, I'd like to point out that any 'anger' or 'indignation' on my part is entirely faux, I'd just like a sensible suggestion.;)
Either what he said, or just ignore what he wrote. Let Sarya survive along with a couple hundred Fey'ri and lie low for a little while.
Yes, I finished my ESWS qualification just over a month before I hit E-3. There are a few E-3s on my ship (I'm on the USS Abraham Lincoln) that have their ESWS, but I'm the most junior person I know to have completed it.
That's remarkable, congrats! Thank for your service!
http://www.amazon.com/Drow-Underdark-D-Supplement/dp/0786941510/
The original Drow of the Underdark was a Realms supplement in 2nd edition. Is this also a Realms supplement? Or is it a generic D&D supplement? If it is generic, will there be any info in there that is specific to Realmsian Drow (for example the fall out from WotSQ)? Thanks in advance for your reply.
I have a question about an upcoming supplement. On Amazon, there is a supplement listed called Drow of the Underdark. The link is here...
http://www.amazon.com/Drow-Underdark-D-Supplement/dp/0786941510/
The original Drow of the Underdark was a Realms supplement in 2nd edition. Is this also a Realms supplement? Or is it a generic D&D supplement? If it is generic, will there be any info in there that is specific to Realmsian Drow (for example the fall out from WotSQ)? Thanks in advance for your reply.
It's kinda of funny how you can find out more about what coming out with Amazon then you can with Wizards lol.
On Amazon, there is a supplement listed called Drow of the Underdark. The link is here...
The original Drow of the Underdark was a Realms supplement in 2nd edition. Is this also a Realms supplement? Or is it a generic D&D supplement? If it is generic, will there be any info in there that is specific to Realmsian Drow (for example the fall out from WotSQ)? Thanks in advance for your reply.
Maybe it's a generic supplement the way Races of Eberron was a generic one.
But with this name, it's mainly about spider-kissers, anyway.
I thought the Year of the Drow was over? People are going to be sick of drow eventually with all this stuff.
I thought the Year of the Drow was over? People are going to be sick of drow eventually with all this stuff.
How many books does the Drizzt series contain now? And what else is there? Like a 6-book series and another with three more books? And people aren't sick of it yet.
I guess drow are and will remain in high demand. In fact, I can see them releasing a "Drow of the Surface" book right behind that one ;)
Drow again? Of all the book ideas they could do (Book of Perfect Balance, Book of Fey, Book of Giants, Complete books, Fiendish Codex 3: Yugoloths) they do a hardcover drow book?
I thought the Year of the Drow was over? People are going to be sick of drow eventually with all this stuff.
I'm getting sick
I'm getting sick
I understand some folks distaste with Drow material, but I for one can't get enough of it. Regardless of that though, Drow sell. The novels are a hit and there has as of yet to be a true 3rd edition Drow supplement. The closest thing was Underdark for the realms, but that was a regional sourcebook, not a "Drow" book. There was the City of the Spider Queen Super adventure, but again that was an adventure and not a sourcebook. So by my estimation, the Drow are long overdue for their own 3rd edition book. JMHO.
However it WILL sell and that's what's important here, the moneymen get a huge say in what's released, and know that this'll do huge bank.
I do think that the book's a good idea. We had a book for humans and human-decended races, one for gnomes and dwarves, one for elves and halflings, even one for dragon-descended races.
So the drow can use a book. Personally, I'd have gone with a "Races of the Dark"/"Races of the Deep" kind of thing, with Drow, Duergar, Svirfneblin, or with a Drow of Faerûn book (with both drow of the Night Below and the Night Above), but this is okay.
One important link I want to point out again: If something is sure to sell well, that means that a lot of people want it. Wizards giving a large number of people what they want is a good thing, for both Wizards and the fans.
I do think that the book's a good idea. We had a book for humans and human-decended races, one for gnomes and dwarves, one for elves and halflings, even one for dragon-descended races.
So the drow can use a book. Personally, I'd have gone with a "Races of the Dark"/"Races of the Deep" kind of thing, with Drow, Duergar, Svirfneblin, or with a Drow of Faerûn book (with both drow of the Night Below and the Night Above), but this is okay.
Agreed KaeYoss. I love the Drow personally, but empathize with those that don't. Personally, I thought that surely there had been a 3rd edition Drow book, but I went through and couldn't find one except for a lot of 3rd party stuff. So it is time for a Drow book. I would prefer a Realms specific one, but I will take what I can get.
Personally, I thought that surely there had been a 3rd edition Drow book, but I went through and couldn't find one except for a lot of 3rd party stuff.
Yup. I browsed a couple of those and found some of the most broken pieces of d20 rules I lever set eyes upon. Tragic, really, since there's so many people ranting about drow are so twinked, and some people go and make it so.
So it is time for a Drow book. I would prefer a Realms specific one, but I will take what I can get.
A Realms book about drow would indeed be good - especially since we only can get that from Wizards. There's tons of generic drow books, as you have remarked, but a real FR drow book cannot be done by anyone else.
Since it's Drow of the Underdark, it sounds as if they'd either make it an official FR book or draw heavily from Realms sources. Maybe they liked what they did with Races of Eberron, which looked like a D&D book, not an Eberron campaign supplement, so non-Eberron players would be interested in it, and it was supposed to contain information on putting those races into non-Eberron games.
Could be that they use all the FR flavour (Dark Seldarine, racial history, equipment, lots of places), but sell it as generic D&D book including information on how to drop the FR brand of drow into a homebrew. Provided that the FR content isn't lacking (and it seems that this would be a good place to revice the Dark Seldarine!), I have not too many problems with it (Except that the look would suck. I want my FR books to look like FR books. Maybe a hybrid design?)
Everyone else, feel my pain!
/emo
Also I believe with most players is: RPG on surface >>>> RPG in Underdark so why isn't this respected
Drow is one of those races has a fanatic like following (we know who to blame for the waves of CG rebels trying change the image of their evil race) and a book about them is likely to do well.
Or it could fail utterly as I doubt it’s going to be the type that doesn't get either large-scale condemnation or praise.
(SR is too overpowering for PC's to have.)
You pay through the nose for it. LA +2 is enormous, especially at low levels. Most roles drow excel in are severely weakened by those two levels they stay behind.
You pay through the nose for it. LA +2 is enormous, especially at low levels. Most roles drow excel in are severely weakened by those two levels they stay behind.
Actually it's LA+1 now..3.5 update I believe. But we're getting off-topic.
On topic....Mr. Boyd and Mr. Baker, I would like to thank you for all your hard work and dedication on these projects and your efforts on these boards to make it feel that you actually care about us fans. I think D&D is one of the last great industries that you can almost bet that when you pick up a sourcebook and look at the author, you can probably say that they care about the game just as much as you do.
Just my two cents.
Actually it's LA+1 now..3.5 update I believe. But we're getting off-topic.
Nope, still +2. CR is +1, but that's not the same.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm#drow
Actually it's LA+1 now..3.5 update I believe. But we're getting off-topic.
On topic....Mr. Boyd and Mr. Baker, I would like to thank you for all your hard work and dedication on these projects and your efforts on these boards to make it feel that you actually care about us fans. I think D&D is one of the last great industries that you can almost bet that when you pick up a sourcebook and look at the author, you can probably say that they care about the game just as much as you do.
Just my two cents.
It's just not fair, Underdark and CotSQ, so manny novels and now this, why's a subrace getting more attention than an entire race or all demihuman races together, that's why I'm getting sick
Also I believe with most players is: RPG on surface >>>> RPG in Underdark so why isn't this respected
Well, Underdark wasn't just about Drow. It was about the entire Realmsian Underdark, and was a regional sourcebook. The Drow only made up a part of this book. CotSQ was a super adventure that was made to coincide with the novels, but didn't have a huge amount of Drow sourcematerial, which is as it should be because it's an adventure. I will repeat that there hasn't been a 3rd edition Drow sourcebook Realms or otherwise.
As to your point about "fairness", WotC isn't in the business of being fair, they are in the business of making money. Drow sell. Better than almost any other race. If you think that is patently unfair, try to start a worldwide campaign to get D&D fans to stop buying Drow material. I can almost guarantee you won't succeed, because Drow are just that popular. It is no accident that the WotSQ novels all ended up as New York Times Best Sellers. It is also no accident that the Drizzt novels are also New York Times Best Sellers. As KaeYoss pointed out, anything that sells well for WotC helps support the hobby and that is good for the game as a whole. So even if you think you have 74,000 times as much Drow exposure as you want you need to recognize what will help WotC be profitable as a company and consequently good for the game as a whole.
As to your point about "fairness", WotC isn't in the business of being fair, they are in the business of making money.
Oh really, you work for them, lawyer? I have every right to criticize fairness, I certainly won't criticize business.
If you think that is patently unfair, try to start a worldwide campaign to get D&D fans to stop buying Drow material.
That'd be fun, good suggestion.
Bla, bla
Drizzt's novels are for noobs, I was also an enthusiast once
So. let's knock it off and get back on track.
What level does Cormyr:Tearing of the Weave, start at?? And what lvl will you end at when the whole series is out and all is said and done? I'm really looking foward to this(I'm one of those DM's that doesn't have any time to plan so published adventures are a blessing). Any insight would be helpful(just in case it starts at level 5 I want to have my guys there so when I buy it we can jump right in).
Another question, are we going to see more information on the seas and the civiliations beneath them any time soon, as it seems to be slightly underutilised in the grand scheme of things?
Okay I gots me a question...
What level does Cormyr:Tearing of the Weave, start at?? And what lvl will you end at when the whole series is out and all is said and done? I'm really looking foward to this(I'm one of those DM's that doesn't have any time to plan so published adventures are a blessing). Any insight would be helpful(just in case it starts at level 5 I want to have my guys there so when I buy it we can jump right in).
I think it starts at 4th and carries you to about 8th level. If you have 5th-level PCs it should be fine (I think the adventure is a little on the challenging side), but it would be a real grind for 3rd-level characters.
Thanks for the timely answer, Mr. Baker. I hope the whole adventure goes to 20th and beyond. It be nice to see an epic lvl adventur.
In Shining South, it says that the Drow City of Thlin'det(I can't spell) rules Dambrath from the shadows. Now, in the Underdark book it gives the same description(pretty much). My question is this...
How big is Tlin'det? Is it bigger than Menzoberrazzan? Or is it smaller? I am just thinking it would have to be larger than Menzo in order to rule or even have influence over an ENTIRE country, especially that close to Halruaa.
Thanks for any help, my guys are going there eventually and I want to make sure I do the city justice.
I think the drow of Tlindhet hold down Dambrath through proxy rule. They can't govern the whole country themselves, but they can create a class of governors to do their oppression for them. Hence the powerful half-drow nobility who really run the surface parts of the country.
Okay I have another question since no one else does lol.
In Shining South, it says that the Drow City of Thlin'det(I can't spell) rules Dambrath from the shadows. Now, in the Underdark book it gives the same description(pretty much). My question is this...
How big is Tlin'det? Is it bigger than Menzoberrazzan? Or is it smaller? I am just thinking it would have to be larger than Menzo in order to rule or even have influence over an ENTIRE country, especially that close to Halruaa.
Thanks for any help, my guys are going there eventually and I want to make sure I do the city justice.
Now, I have one other question and I promise I'll leave you guys alone for while(seeing how know one else is asking lol).
One of my guys is looking to become a War Wizard in Cormyr(yeah I know how am I gonna move a campaign from Cormyr to Dambrath and shining south? That's what portals are for lol). Now I couldn't find anything on the Wizard's Website to update it to 3.5. To be honest, the 3.0 version really doesn't scream "WAR WIZARD!!" So I thought about giving it the base attack of a fighter (+1 thru +5). And then giving WF(martial Weapon) at 1st lvl(it may already do this, I don't have the book in front of me). Everything else would be the same but then at 5th lvl I would give the wizard Weapon Specialization(same weapon with WF), And an additional Die of damage with lvl dependent spells i.e. Fireball and Lightening Bolt, but not like Magic Missle.
Any help would be much appreciated.
In addition, the warmage "story" dovetails nicely with the Cormyrean War Wizards. The warmage academy of Tarth Moorda described in Complete Arcane would look just fine somewhere on Cormyr's Stonelands frontier.
Awesome answer Mr. Baker, thank you...now if my guys argue with me I can be like "Nuh uh, Mr Baker said so lol." (They like to argue...I have yet to figure out why?)
Now, I have one other question and I promise I'll leave you guys alone for while(seeing how know one else is asking lol).
One of my guys is looking to become a War Wizard in Cormyr(yeah I know how am I gonna move a campaign from Cormyr to Dambrath and shining south? That's what portals are for lol). Now I couldn't find anything on the Wizard's Website to update it to 3.5. To be honest, the 3.0 version really doesn't scream "WAR WIZARD!!" So I thought about giving it the base attack of a fighter (+1 thru +5). And then giving WF(martial Weapon) at 1st lvl(it may already do this, I don't have the book in front of me). Everything else would be the same but then at 5th lvl I would give the wizard Weapon Specialization(same weapon with WF), And an additional Die of damage with lvl dependent spells i.e. Fireball and Lightening Bolt, but not like Magic Missle.
Any help would be much appreciated.
I'm sorry for disagreeing with you but thank you so much for your time and effort. If you have any other suggestions, I would appreciate it.
Thanks again.
I believe there are some alternate class features in Player's Handbook II that let you get some non-damaging spells at a bit of a cost.
That's right.
Thanks for the answer Mr. Baker...normally I'd agree with you but I find the Warmage to be broken beyond belief. In a different game we have a Warmage War-Forged at 11th lvl. He's basically broken the game cause he can blast things into oblivion, especially with Sudden Empower and Sudden Maximize...and he has the Orb spells from Complete Arcane which, IMO, are broken as well. Because of it we have to end the Eberron game and we've started this Forgotten Realms game.
I'm sorry for disagreeing with you but thank you so much for your time and effort. If you have any other suggestions, I would appreciate it.
Thanks again.
Warmages are only good at one thing and one thing only. If the DM plays on the Warmages term he will have problems. Energy resistance and SR may only delay the Warmage from finding the war through, so you have to use different tactics.
The DM should have the monster take hostages, and hold them in front. Can't fireball the monster without killing the hostage(s), and can't orb without risk of hitting the hostage.
Also use other tactics such as grappling the warmage (if the begg can't grapple himself, there are enough spells that produce grapple effects these days). Can also use Anti-magic aura to put everyone on the even playing field. Can also employ invis, concealment spells, blink & improved blink, use illusions to get the warmage to fire at the wrong or nonexisting person.
Use enchantments on his comrades to get them to fight him, if he's willing to kill them then you have a player problem not a game problem.
Warmages are only good at one thing and one thing only.
Yeah, but they're really good at it. If you were to give a normal wizard that kind of blasting power, without a severe limit like the warmage's limited spell selection, you can as well give it proficiency in dual-wielded katanas and a black suit....
If the DM plays on the Warmages term he will have problems.
Since when is the DM supposed to play on the players' terms?
The DM should have the monster take hostages, and hold them in front. Can't fireball the monster without killing the hostage(s), and can't orb without risk of hitting the hostage.
Can use magic missile to fry the monster without harming that hostage at all.
I have mentioned this thing once before, but I do it one last time: I long for a nice looking NPC-book.
Forgotten Realms is full of interesting heroes and villains that would be very nice to get stats for.
I know many of them already is detalied in the source books. But I am not talking about those, not about Elminster, Storm and so on. I am talking about the rest. The many novels are full of them for example.
And why not a couple of new characters as well in that book? A few adventure groups to that, evil as well as good natured ones, would make it even better.
Say, one character per page, with a picture included; characters from Evermeet in the west to Thay in the east. DMs would find such a book very useful and fun to read I think.
Anyhow I wish you authors/designers a good luck. You will always have my respect. I love your work.
I think the Wizard class coupled with the War Wizard of Cormyr PrC, coupled with the right feats, fits the fluff-history just fine. Of course, I think the Militant Wizard Kit in 2E was even better, and wouldn't mind seeing a Wizard Substitution progression based on it. There might already be one out there, but I haven't picked up any of the newer books.
The Warmage class itself does not really fit with the War Wizard. It's too focused on melee (War Wizards only use that when all other options have been exhausted) and, at mid and higher levels, it pales in comparison to normal Wizards in the ability to control the battle field (one of the jobs of the War Wizards of Cormyr). That's much more important in open battles than throwing fireballs all day long.
The High One Warrior-Wizard substitution levels for the wizard class might interest you... (downloadable here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060327a )
You need two levels of paladin to qualify, but the substitution levels become truly powerful if you have at least 5 levels of paladin, as you can then apply the wizard familiar benefits upon your paladin special mount.
Also note that the War Wizards of Cormyr are meant to be Wizards who control the battle-field and provide magical support in terms of both defense and offense. While they're trained in the use of swords and the like in emergency cases, they're not meant to actually be using them.
I think the Wizard class coupled with the War Wizard of Cormyr PrC, coupled with the right feats, fits the fluff-history just fine. Of course, I think the Militant Wizard Kit in 2E was even better, and wouldn't mind seeing a Wizard Substitution progression based on it. There might already be one out there, but I haven't picked up any of the newer books.
The Warmage class itself does not really fit with the War Wizard. It's too focused on melee (War Wizards only use that when all other options have been exhausted) and, at mid and higher levels, it pales in comparison to normal Wizards in the ability to control the battle field (one of the jobs of the War Wizards of Cormyr). That's much more important in open battles than throwing fireballs all day long.
And Bitter Thorn - I'm not sure, myself.
However my query isn't about the novels or rather the stories/content themselves but more of a publishing query. If this is inappropriate then i apologise in advance and can admin kindly remove it as i took it on board to be the content/FR fiction itself.
I have just finished reading the recently new edition reprint of Douglas Niles's Moonshae trilogy and was wondering if WotC have any plans to reprint the 2nd trilogy The Druidhome Trilogy"
If anyone can give me some detail that be great as i am tempted to either wait if there is or just end up buying a old copy somehwere.
Thanks in Advance.
Kyo
Interesting, Purple. It would serve well to represent Azuth's Paramanders, I suppose. Not so much the War Wizards, though.
And Bitter Thorn - I'm not sure, myself.
We have considered replacing MW prof for another prereq. It just seems inconsistant with the extant lore.
I'm open to suggestions.
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=715973
Anyway, I was proposing the idea of an Annual on FR news and events, the thread has generated some interest and desire - and I would like to hear your opinions on the posibility.
Understanding that a similar product was put out for Greyhawk (Gazetteer) - but that line doesn't run these days? Being that FR is pretty much a live environment (product and boards) I think it would have potential.
Yes, Dragons of Faerun has pretty much established him, supposedly thanks to Gareth Dragonsbane.
The thing is, I was wondering... What should Bahamut's homeplane be?
The only two suitable planes to me sound like either Dragon Eyrie or House of the Triad, more likely the former.
Monch
Okay, about Bahamut in the Realms...
Yes, Dragons of Faerun has pretty much established him, supposedly thanks to Gareth Dragonsbane.
The thing is, I was wondering... What should Bahamut's homeplane be?
The only two suitable planes to me sound like either Dragon Eyrie or House of the Triad, more likely the former.
Wasn't there some reference that Bahamut has a realm in Mount Celestia. And if I'm not mistaken, Mt. Celestia is accessesed from the House of the Triad.
Monch
I do not see any mention of Bahamut residing in Mount Celestia in Dragons of Faerun. Unless Mr. Boyd (who worked on DoF) or someone else in charge of Realms canon says so, I'm not sure what to believe.
I do not see any mention of Bahamut residing in Mount Celestia in Dragons of Faerun. Unless Mr. Boyd (who worked on DoF) or someone else in charge of Realms canon says so, I'm not sure what to believe.
I remember where I saw it now. It's in the 3rd edition book Manual of the Planes. Look for the entry for Mount Celestia and you'll find Bahamut's Palace floating between levels 1 - 4. I know it's not a Realms book, but it doesn't seem to be in conflict with anything Realms wise.
Monch
In 2E, Bahamut's realm was able to travel between planes. Primarily it was located in Mount Celestia, but it also traveled to Elemental Air (and maybe elsewhere). There's no reason it can't still do that and travel from the Triad to the Dragon Eyrie or wherever.
I really like the idea of a realm that drifts from the skies above Dragon Eyrie to the skies above the House of the Triad and back.
--Eric
What about Ramman? I remember in the previous "Ask the authors/designers thread", it was established that not much official Realms lore was established on him, but I was wondering: Is this the main reason this member of the Untheric Pantheon didn't make it into Powers & Pantheons or is there something else?
Are you asking why Ramman was killed off in Powers & Pantheons? There's a lot of reasons, most of which I only recall vaguely.
From a storytelling perspective, his death illustrated the dangers of the Time of Troubles (without off'ing another fan favorite deity). From a space perspective, that was one more god we could skip which was helpful, given the limited page count. From a campaign strategy perspective, his death was one piece of a plan to largely eliminate the Untheric pantheon, which had several beneficial effects on the campaign setting.
--Eric
If, say, two nations that both follow Lathander go to war against each other, will Lathander favor one side and deny the other side's clerics their spells?
And to add to the confusion, what would happen if this "faithful" side loses, would the god lose in power due to the lack of people's faith?
From a space perspective, that was one more god we could skip which was helpful, given the limited page count.
--Eric
This is what I'm talking about.
This is what I'm talking about.
IIRC, this was NOT the primary reason.
--Eric
Maybe I missed it, but has the Dragons of Faerun web-enhancement been released yet?
Hi there
Maybe I missed it, but has the Dragons of Faerun web-enhancement been released yet?
The Excel spreadsheet has been released.
The chapter on the City of Wyrmshadows has not yet been released. Last I heard it was at the typesetters.
--Eric
If not, are there any plans for it?
I completely agree with you about the whole deal with Chromatic Orb, having possibly abused that spell (I confess :embarrass ) in the Baldur's Gate games and Icewind Dale 2.
The thing is, do you think it could possibly be dividing into lesser, greater and/or mid-level forms to balance it out? I've seen a few threads where people have tried to give it a homebrew 3.5 Edition rehash, so I what I ask above, IMHO has to be asked.
For example, the orb that is touch-attack, death-or-paralysis (was it the black orb? the gray orb? don't recall right now, don't have 2E source in front of me) probably ought to be an 8th-level spell, maybe 9th. It's a touch attack that kills or renders helpless whatever it hits, regardless of save. That ain't a 1st-level spell. The orb that's 1d4 damage and the target is blinded for a round, well, heck, that's not so bad. That could stay a 1st-level spell.
Dear Mr. Baker,
I completely agree with you about the whole deal with Chromatic Orb, having possibly abused that spell (I confess :embarrass ) in the Baldur's Gate games and Icewind Dale 2.
The thing is, do you think it could possibly be dividing into lesser, greater and/or mid-level forms to balance it out? I've seen a few threads where people have tried to give it a homebrew 3.5 Edition rehash, so I what I ask above, IMHO has to be asked.
There is something that confuses me the more I think about it.
If, say, two nations that both follow Lathander go to war against each other, will Lathander favor one side and deny the other side's clerics their spells?
And to add to the confusion, what would happen if this "faithful" side loses, would the god lose in power due to the lack of people's faith?
I have often wondered this myself. I second this question.
Is there any significant Maztica info in any of the sourcebooks, preferably with prestige classes, deities, possibly monsters?
If not, are there any plans for it?
Good luck on that one, there's beena cry for more TORIL stuff (not Faerun) for quite awhile. You won't ever see Maztica/Zhakara/Kara-Tur material because they don't have any plans on it and that's because they won't ever have any plans on it. They're basing its quality on sales from over a generation ago. Which makes no sense. They can revamp it and make it plenty more attractive to consumers now, especially considering the fact they have a much larger new fan base than veteran.
And, yes, I have given up ALL hope on ever seeing those areas of Toril brought to light again...at least in 3E.
I was reading part of your short story from Realms of the Elves. I must say I was impressed.
I was curious: If you were given the cue or what-not to do such, would you be enthusiastic about writing a short story - or even a whole novel - dealing with some aspect of the dwarves of the Realms?
Lately,in recent games atleast, i have noticed a lot of Githyanki activity, both demon stone and neverwinter nights 2 have used the gith as part of the greater stroy, so much as the PC in NWN2 is given a title by the gith, is this the start of something bigger in the realms or two random and issolated events. i mean you do have the whole sword stalker reason for them being there.
I'd be happy to write about dwarves, but I think it would be a tough sell to much of our audience (and I know our book editors would be pretty shaky on supporting such a notion). We think that most of our readers just aren't that interested in dwarf protagonists in a story. I don't know why that is -- they're fine as supporting characters. But they just don't seem to have the same "starring role" capacity that humans or elves (or drow!) do.
Dear Mr. Baker,
I was reading part of your short story from Realms of the Elves. I must say I was impressed.
I was curious: If you were given the cue or what-not to do such, would you be enthusiastic about writing a short story - or even a whole novel - dealing with some aspect of the dwarves of the Realms?
Thanks, glad you liked the story!
I'd be happy to write about dwarves, but I think it would be a tough sell to much of our audience (and I know our book editors would be pretty shaky on supporting such a notion). We think that most of our readers just aren't that interested in dwarf protagonists in a story. I don't know why that is -- they're fine as supporting characters. But they just don't seem to have the same "starring role" capacity that humans or elves (or drow!) do.
Maybe try a half-dwarf main protagonist. They're tall like humans and elves but very dwarvish otherwise.
Anyways, I got another question, Mr. Baker, about Player's Guide to Faerun.
When it comes to the age tables for dwarves and elves, it gives the maximum age being "+d%." Is that correct? If so, how exactly does that work?
Edit: Also sent you a PM about something.
Thanks, glad you liked the story!
I'd be happy to write about dwarves, but I think it would be a tough sell to much of our audience (and I know our book editors would be pretty shaky on supporting such a notion). We think that most of our readers just aren't that interested in dwarf protagonists in a story. I don't know why that is -- they're fine as supporting characters. But they just don't seem to have the same "starring role" capacity that humans or elves (or drow!) do.
Rich, is that a function of market research like focus groups, or have products like Races of Stone and Dwarves Deep sold poorly? I, for one, would love to see more Dwarf-centric products, including novels, particularly in the realms. I feel that this is a woefully underdevoloped market.
*sigh* Yes, how I wish WotC would turn their heads and really say "Yeah, we really need to write good novels about dwarves." But I'm just one person, so I guess my desires don't really matter.
Anyways, I got another question, Mr. Baker, about Player's Guide to Faerun.
When it comes to the age tables for dwarves and elves, it gives the maximum age being "+d%." Is that correct? If so, how exactly does that work?
Edit: Also sent you a PM about something.
Rich, is that a function of market research like focus groups, or have products like Races of Stone and Dwarves Deep sold poorly? I, for one, would love to see more Dwarf-centric products, including novels, particularly in the realms. I feel that this is a woefully underdevoloped market.
Thanks, glad you liked the story!
I'd be happy to write about dwarves, but I think it would be a tough sell to much of our audience (and I know our book editors would be pretty shaky on supporting such a notion). We think that most of our readers just aren't that interested in dwarf protagonists in a story. I don't know why that is -- they're fine as supporting characters. But they just don't seem to have the same "starring role" capacity that humans or elves (or drow!) do.
It's weird, really. So many people who would probably call themselves "dwarf fanboys", and proudly so.
Not that I'm dying for books with dwarven main characters. In fact, part of me is against it: already many dwarf supporters are almost insufferable - as bad or worse as those "rabid elf fanboys". Give them a novel to boost their ego further, and you'd have to put them all down ;)
Seriously, though, I guess a dwarf doesn't make the best protaginist because your average dwarf is usually depicted as taciturn and somewhat obsessed with bashin orc's skulls, metal, stone, and, of course, ale. Throw in the occasional "treehugger" speach against elves, and you're done.
Our own human nature tends to like tall people. I think this is somewhat supported by some studies I might have heard about somewhere... (i.e. tall people on average more successful, etc. that kind of nonsense...)
Featuring a dwarf, gnome or hobbit as a star would tend not to work overall, due to our own perception. Look at Tolkien, who yes, used small folk as main character (if one can say that), but clearly illustrated "the races of men" as being superior and/or the only hope against Sauron (i.e. elves are going on a cruise, dwarves are morons, hobbits can't do anything except that [gasp!] taller than usual Baggins... etc.)
Imagine a novel starting way back, in the times of Delzoun, then jumping back and forth as today's dwarves uncover a deep mystery...
But whether or not a long line of dwarf-themed books is viable, I'd be very surprised if the demand isn't there for at least one. And we have reason to think one may be in the works.
As I've said before, I think the norm for Realms books should be adventuring companies, not single stars with supporting characters.
I think the popularity of elves over dwarves owes a lot to superficial, infantilist modern popular culture which extolls slimness, youthfulness, bodily and facial hairlessness and a particular kind of glamorous beauty over hard work, craft, stamina and wisdom.
It was not so long ago that people's lives consisted of work and nothing else. Now that we managed to move away form it, people don't want to do it again in their fantasies. People usually don't have fantasies like: "Damn, I'd have loved to be one of those guys who worked 14 hours a day in a coal-mine until they dropped dead with 30".
And even today, many people still have to work more than half their waking hours, with only a couple of hours remaining for leasure activities. It's only natural that noone wants to spend thse leasure hours pretending to be a guy who works most of his waking hours and immensely enjoying it.
Another thing elves have going is their social grace. They have manners. People like that. Dwarves are often depicted as socially inept, bad-mannered brutes, nothing you aspire to in our times (especially since that will make it harder to get a decent job).
I thoroughly enjoyed your trilogy.
I am just wondering which spells Araevin uses in combat against the demons and demonfey.
E.g. which spell can make a spell shield fold onto its bearer?
Which spell can reflect a necromantic spell cast at Araevin?
I am sure that it is hard to come up with spell names out of memory, but maybe you could tell which D&D books you used for your novels.
I had a look into the PHB, Spell Compendium, and FRCS, but either I missed the spells there or you used other books... or did you actually invent some of the spells for the novels?
Looking forward to your reply,
Günther
arcane lock, levitate, guards and wards, major image, light, invisibility (sphere), arcane mark, teleport, sending, swift fly, magic missile, prying eyes, mage hand, stoneskin, disintegrate, prismatic, plane shift, lightning bolt, Bigby's x hand, fireball, wall of ice, spell turning, orb of force, see invisibility, illusionary wall, locate object?, telekinesis, reciprocal gyre, vision, break enchantment? or Mordenkainen's disjunction?, blink, fire trap, sink?, spellshield?, major image?, limited wish?, planar binding, power word stun, undeath to death, binding, invert spell shield? plus unique spells with elven names only plus all existing spells that deal with portals
These spells are unindentified: ''violet lightning'', ''spinning green chain - negates spellcasting - form of forecage?'', ''sulphur-crimson fire trap'' etc
Hope this helps
And I know that he never uses necromancy
and his wand - resonating bolt, the other wand - I presume dispel magic
I don't think we have sales info or market research to support our conclusion that novels ought not to feature dwarf protagonists. Maybe the folks over in our Books department have some hard evidence (I think a Dragonlance book or two might have featured a dwarf protagonist, but I don't know which ones or how well they did). Even if our Books folks don't have hard evidence, my intuition is that they're right.
I can still hope, though. Thanks for the feedback!
But whether or not a long line of dwarf-themed books is viable, I'd be very surprised if the demand isn't there for at least one. And we have reason to think one may be in the works.
As I've said before, I think the norm for Realms books should be adventuring companies, not single stars with supporting characters.
I hope for the former and concur with the latter.
Richard Baker and friends: That would be a very interesting article to put on the Forgotten Realms website. "Spells of the Realms" where you give the mechanics to new spells cast by novel characters. I've read so many FR novels with spellcasters and would say to myself,"I wish they had THAT as a D&D spell." One good example is that spell the white dracolich in The Ruin casted, a wall of negative energy that washes over enemies like a tidal wave (or maybe it was a disintegration wave, cause I believe that's what it did). I'd love to see that as a D&D spell.
And then, you'd also get that same reaction from your players that read the novels, who constantly come up to you and ask if they can research a spell like a character's from a certain novel.
Just a suggestion, though.
There doesn't seem to be any current plans for 3e campaign settings for Arcane Age, Al-Qadim, The Horde, Kara-Tur, Maztica, but is there any chance that Wizards of the Coast and the Forgotten Realms writers might start to provide simlar customer support for these sub-settings to that provided for the non-FR out of print settings (like Birthright, Greyhawk, Spelljammer and Planescape)?
At the moment there are no dedicated forums in the Wizards community boards for people to discuss these cult FR offshoots, no Oracle mailing lists to help fans organise 3e conversions of TSR material that WotC don't seem to currently plan to work with and no "official website" to help co-ordinate amatuer work.
This means that any questions about the out of print FR stuff are likely to get buried in all the Faerun stuff. And from the WotC/writer side, it also means that you can't tell what percentage of people are actually interested in any of those FR settings.
I believe that the "official" Dragonlance site helped create enough customer demand to justify the 3e Dragonlance Campaign Setting book (which I own) and wonder if the same sort of approch could proove (or disprove) that their is enough demand for 3e versions of the other campaign settings based on Toril.
Is there any chance that you could publish a few Bonus Web Enhancements that give some information related to these settings (e.g. a "Faiths and Pantheons" web enhancement giving 3e stats for the Maztica gods)?
Would the forum staff be allowed to create subforums for these out of print FR settings within the Realms HQ? Would the FR game designers be willing to visit those forums and answer questions about 3e conversions? Is there any posibility of having those "official" sites?
----------
While I'm talking about the disused FR settings, does anyone know which one is (that's "is" not "was") the most popular (and therefore the most likely to be the first one republished by WotC)?
(As a Spelljammer fan, as well as a Forgotten Realms fan, I was hoping to see something related to Kara-Tur, but when I saw the 3e Oriental Adventures hardback I got the impression that WotC didn't think that Kara-Tur would appeal to todays roleplayers. The book seemed to imply that TSR's oriental products were unrealistic in some way.)
However, I'd specifically be interested in knowing which one of these out of print FR settings is most popular with the writers. So if the bosses at WotC gave you a bunch of cash and an office and told you to produce a 3e sourcebook for one of the disused FR settings, which one would you most like to bring back to life? And why would you pick that particular setting?
The spell-shield collapser was "reciprocal gyre." The spinning green chain was some version of the "howling chain" spell from Seven Sisters. I don't recall what I had in mind with violet lightning, that might have been a plain old "lightning bolt" or "chain lightning" with a bit of food coloring.
I was wondering the same thing, though I know some spells that Araevin uses:
arcane lock, levitate, guards and wards, major image, light, invisibility (sphere), arcane mark, teleport, sending, swift fly, magic missile, prying eyes, mage hand, stoneskin, disintegrate, prismatic, plane shift, lightning bolt, Bigby's x hand, fireball, wall of ice, spell turning, orb of force, see invisibility, illusionary wall, locate object?, telekinesis, reciprocal gyre, vision, break enchantment? or Mordenkainen's disjunction?, blink, fire trap, sink?, spellshield?, major image?, limited wish?, planar binding, power word stun, undeath to death, binding, invert spell shield? plus unique spells with elven names only plus all existing spells that deal with portals
These spells are unindentified: ''violet lightning'', ''spinning green chain - negates spellcasting - form of forecage?'', ''sulphur-crimson fire trap'' etc
Hope this helps
And I know that he never uses necromancy
and his wand - resonating bolt, the other wand - I presume dispel magic
Forgive me if you have been asked this before, but I couldn't find any information about this in the FAQ or on the main Wizards of the Coast website.
There doesn't seem to be any current plans for 3e campaign settings for Arcane Age, Al-Qadim, The Horde, Kara-Tur, Maztica, but is there any chance that Wizards of the Coast and the Forgotten Realms writers might start to provide simlar customer support for these sub-settings to that provided for the non-FR out of print settings (like Birthright, Greyhawk, Spelljammer and Planescape)?
At the moment there are no dedicated forums in the Wizards community boards for people to discuss these cult FR offshoots, no Oracle mailing lists to help fans organise 3e conversions of TSR material that WotC don't seem to currently plan to work with and no "official website" to help co-ordinate amatuer work.
This means that any questions about the out of print FR stuff are likely to get buried in all the Faerun stuff. And from the WotC/writer side, it also means that you can't tell what percentage of people are actually interested in any of those FR settings.
I believe that the "official" Dragonlance site helped create enough customer demand to justify the 3e Dragonlance Campaign Setting book (which I own) and wonder if the same sort of approch could proove (or disprove) that their is enough demand for 3e versions of the other campaign settings based on Toril.
Is there any chance that you could publish a few Bonus Web Enhancements that give some information related to these settings (e.g. a "Faiths and Pantheons" web enhancement giving 3e stats for the Maztica gods)?
Would the forum staff be allowed to create subforums for these out of print FR settings within the Realms HQ? Would the FR game designers be willing to visit those forums and answer questions about 3e conversions? Is there any posibility of having those "official" sites?
----------
While I'm talking about the disused FR settings, does anyone know which one is (that's "is" not "was") the most popular (and therefore the most likely to be the first one republished by WotC)?
(As a Spelljammer fan, as well as a Forgotten Realms fan, I was hoping to see something related to Kara-Tur, but when I saw the 3e Oriental Adventures hardback I got the impression that WotC didn't think that Kara-Tur would appeal to todays roleplayers. The book seemed to imply that TSR's oriental products were unrealistic in some way.)
However, I'd specifically be interested in knowing which one of these out of print FR settings is most popular with the writers. So if the bosses at WotC gave you a bunch of cash and an office and told you to produce a 3e sourcebook for one of the disused FR settings, which one would you most like to bring back to life? And why would you pick that particular setting?
I've recently seen a thread start asking about the origins of Ilmater.
The thing is, some speculate that - what they believe is the official canon - that Ilmater is an ascended mortal.
I checked both Faiths and Avatars and Faiths & Pantheons on this, and found no evidence. Can you shed some light on the Crying God's canon origins, perhaps?
The thing is, some speculate that - what they believe is the official canon - that Ilmater is an ascended mortal.
If it's canon, they don't have to speculate and should cite a source.
If it's canon, they don't have to speculate and should cite a source.
I have yet to see somebody present a source.
I'll pass along the suggestion to our webmaster. Sub-forums in the FR forum seem like a good idea, but I'm not sure if we would create home pages for those demi-settings on our site.
Thanks for your support on the issue of sub-forums Mr Baker. Until/unless WotC bring out new books for these settings, sub-forums will be the best place for fans of the "extended" Forgotten Realms to meet each other.
As for home pages, I was actually proposing that Wizards adopt the same strategy that they did with the non-FR out of print settings. So I was suggesting that external websites similar to Planewalker.com (Planescape), The Burnt World of Athas (Dark Sun), Beyond the Moons (Spelljammer) and The Vaults of Pandius (Mystara/Hollow World/Savage Coast) be given permission to provide non-profit support for these sub-campaign settings.
I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that you (WotC) had some sort of competition to let the fans vote for their favorite fan-site, then allowed that fan-site to become the "official" place for people to submit fan material. To be honest, I'm still searching for good websites for all of the FR sub-campaign settings, but Al-Quadim.com looks pretty good.
For now it might be good enough to set up sub-forums.
Perhaps if enough people use them WotC could then set up official "oracle" mailing lists for the settings. And if enough people continue to use the forums (and mailing lists) WotC could set up a contest to find and approve a fansite for each sub-setting.
I would eventually hope that enough fans would write to justify an official WotC 3e product, but in the meantime these settings badly need some informal and/or unofficial support and anything you can get us would be great.
(I'd personally be most interested in seeing 3e/3.5e conversions of out of print FR sub-campaigns.
For Maztica, I'd most like to see gods done, but I'm sure that a lot of other stuff would interest me.
For the Arcane Age sub-setting I'd like to see someone do 3e/3.5e conversions of all the FR gods that were killed off before the WotC Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback was printed. Obviously it made no sense to include dead gods like Leira or Mystryl in the 3e FRCS. However they would be essential for fans that want to play in FR's version of "d20 Past".
For Kara-Tur, I'd like to see a collection of rules that would help me get the 3e Oriental Adventures to work with the Kara-Tur setting. At the moment, the amount of work involved in doing that has put me off of buying the book.)
Thanks again for talking to the webmaster about this. I look forward to finding out what he/she is able to do for us. And if things work out, I look forward to having some discussions with the fans of the cult FR settings.
We've already been introduced to the 2nd Trimester of 2007 catalog and no FR regional books are in there. That's close to 2 years of no regional books.
If there will be, is there going to be any in the 3rd Trimester or at least 2008, or are the Realms, as we know it, dying?
Can we assume that there will be no more FR Regional sourcebooks?
I sure hope not.
If there will be, is there going to be any in the 3rd Trimester or at least 2008, or are the Realms, as we know it, dying?
I really hope they're not planning to retire the realms and use only Eberron and some weird other setting when 4e comes out soon. I don't really play that much D&D. I play mostly Forgotten Realms. They just happen to use D&D rules. If 4e doesn't have FR, I don't see why I should buy it.
Oh I do have one question can Bazim Gorag breed more of his kind or is he way too unique for that? I hope he can because two headed slaadish beasties for an army would be cool.
Bye!
Can we assume that there will be no more FR Regional sourcebooks?
We've already been introduced to the 2nd Trimester of 2007 catalog and no FR regional books are in there. That's close to 2 years of no regional books.
If there will be, is there going to be any in the 3rd Trimester or at least 2008, or are the Realms, as we know it, dying?
Hello RichBaker I'm way behind on reading the responses but wanted to say thanks anyway for all the Realms stuff you at Wizards are producing so have a nice day and keep up the good work.
Oh I do have one question can Bazim Gorag breed more of his kind or is he way too unique for that? I hope he can because two headed slaadish beasties for an army would be cool.
Bye!
I have a rather specific set of questions regarding material found on pages 86-87 of the Lost Empires of Faerun.
In describing several of the sites of the ancient dwarven kingdom, Ammarindar, the text uses a location called "High Gap" in the Greypeak Mountains as a reference point.
[INDENT]"North and west of High Gap is a small group of well-tunneled mountains collectively called Northpeak, in which Ammarindar's most active mining complex was located."[/INDENT]
Where exactly is the High Gap in the Greypeak Range?
I've search maps from The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Silver Marches with no luck in finding a "High Gap".
I do, however, see a gap in the Greypeaks know as the Night Gap. I also see a location called the Dawn Pass. In relationship to these locations, where would I find the "High Gap"?
I'm seeking to site the locations for the Northpeak Mines, Citadel Yaunoroth, Royal Caverns of Splendarrmornn, and the College of Xothol. Any guidance that you could offer would be greatly appreciated.
Also, where along the Delimbiyr River are the Shining Falls located?
Many Thanks,
Summerstar
Oh I do have one question can Bazim Gorag breed more of his kind or is he way too unique for that? I hope he can because two headed slaadish beasties for an army would be cool.
Apply the multiheaded template from Savage Species on Slaads to get what you want.
Dear Mr. Baker & Colleagues,
I have a rather specific set of questions regarding material found on pages 86-87 of the Lost Empires of Faerun.
In describing several of the sites of the ancient dwarven kingdom, Ammarindar, the text uses a location called "High Gap" in the Greypeak Mountains as a reference point.
[INDENT]"North and west of High Gap is a small group of well-tunneled mountains collectively called Northpeak, in which Ammarindar's most active mining complex was located."[/INDENT]
Where exactly is the High Gap in the Greypeak Range?
I've search maps from The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Silver Marches with no luck in finding a "High Gap".
I do, however, see a gap in the Greypeaks know as the Night Gap. I also see a location called the Dawn Pass. In relationship to these locations, where would I find the "High Gap"?
I'm seeking to site the locations for the Northpeak Mines, Citadel Yaunoroth, Royal Caverns of Splendarrmornn, and the College of Xothol. Any guidance that you could offer would be greatly appreciated.
Also, where along the Delimbiyr River are the Shining Falls located?
Many Thanks,
Summerstar
The old FR11 Dwarves Deep supplement had geographical locations for Ammarindar. The College of Xothol and Citadel Yaunoroth were introduced in LEoF so aren't mentioned there. A nice remote location in the Graypeaks would be appropriate for Xothol, I would say, while you can place Yaunoroth where it best 'fits'.
-- George Krashos
I just found out something about out of print FR settings since I first asked my question.
For now it might be good enough to set up sub-forums.
Perhaps if enough people use them WotC could then set up official "oracle" mailing lists for the settings. And if enough people continue to use the forums (and mailing lists) WotC could set up a contest to find and approve a fansite for each sub-setting.
Although they don't have any forums for out of print FR stuff, Wizards of the Coast actually already run one mailing list for one out of print FR campaign setting (Al Qadim).
It took me ages to find the list's wepage, so here is a direct link for any AQ fans:
Archives of AL-QADIM-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
(You can join or leave the list, read old posts or change your settings on that page. There were 121 subscribers when I looked. That's not bad considering it gets a lot less advertising than other out of print settings.)
So thanks to WotC for setting that one up, but I'm sure lots of us would still like to see the rest of the settings supported in a similar way both here and on the Oracle mailing lists.
And thanks to you (RichBaker) for offering to mention this to the webmaster.
The old FR11 Dwarves Deep supplement had geographical locations for Ammarindar. The College of Xothol and Citadel Yaunoroth were introduced in LEoF so aren't mentioned there. A nice remote location in the Graypeaks would be appropriate for Xothol, I would say, while you can place Yaunoroth where it best 'fits'.
-- George Krashos
Many thanks! This was helpful. I don't have access to FR11, but your response prompted me to search the archives here for related 2e material. In The North and Savage Frontier .pdf files there are maps that reveal somewhat different geography for the area. Both High Gap and the Shining Falls are marked, however, so I'm good to go. Thanks again!
I am hoping they do FR sourcebooks again soon and that this Adventure Module thing is just a fad that will soon be satisfied by the end of 2007.
When 3e was released, Ryan Dancey and others at WotC gave many reasons why WotC shouldn't be in the adventure-making business but should instead provide high-value rulebooks from which third parties can make adventures. Has there been some movement away from this point of view? If so, can we reasonably assume that if more designer time is being devoted to adventure modules, less designer time is available for other products like the FR regional sourcebooks? (As an FR fan, I hope not...)
When 3e was released, Ryan Dancey and others at WotC gave many reasons why WotC shouldn't be in the adventure-making business but should instead provide high-value rulebooks from which third parties can make adventures. Has there been some movement away from this point of view? If so, can we reasonably assume that if more designer time is being devoted to adventure modules, less designer time is available for other products like the FR regional sourcebooks? (As an FR fan, I hope not...)
Is there any way you can remind them to post it because I believe it may have been forgotten. Unless, of course, it's been post-poned to be put on the site. I didn't know who exactly to contact so I hope you can rectify the situation or inform me of the email to best send this notice to. Thanks.
Now I wonder about the source for unique Realmsianish Devils and Demons and Slaadi so I hope you get enough interest to publish a book or a bit in a book about Realmsian planar baddies like these -------and I hope the answer is not the same for each.
So to make it topical I know you can’t give away details for products that haven’t been publicly scheduled yet but in a general sense can you RichBaker say if there is some bit of Realms planar lore in the works? I’ll take crunch too if you’ve got it.
Have a nice day!
Peter Lowenbrau Griffin is pure evil.
Mr. Baker: This question isn't Realms-specific but it's D&D related. On the 11/10/06 News Article on the website posted HERE, it's stated that they were going to post the Swiftblade prestige class (cut from Complete Mage) on the website in November. November has come and gone and still no sign.
Is there any way you can remind them to post it because I believe it may have been forgotten. Unless, of course, it's been post-poned to be put on the site. I didn't know who exactly to contact so I hope you can rectify the situation or inform me of the email to best send this notice to. Thanks.
Well, one of the things we discovered with the d20 license was that folks we expected to happily produce adventures decided to produce rulebooks instead.
I was under the impression that this text from the d20 System Guide 5.0:
A minimum of 5% of the text (word count or letter count) of a Covered Product must be Open Game Content and must comply with the terms of the Open Game License version 1.0a.
...combined with this text from the OGL:
You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.
...made it impossible for third party adventure writers to create adventures for WotC's campaign settings like the Forgotten Realms. I suppose someone could create a really generic adventure, but DMs using the Realms would be forced to fill in so many blanks that many of them would be put off of the product.
Perhaps the d20 publishers misunderstood the purpose of the d20 STL and thought that you wanted them to invent parallel worlds that were compatible with the SRD. That is certainly how I have always read those licences.
Maybe the WotC legal people could release a Forgotten Realms Adventure licence that enables other companies to release adventures that DMs can use with the FR setting without conversion. That way you could get back to doing the sourcebooks, the people who want adventures could have an alternative source and companies could support FR fans without challanging your trademark status.
Over the last couple of years we feel that we've discerned a dearth of high-quality, widely distributed D&D adventure material, and we think that's not great for the game. So we've been producing more adventures ourselves.
To be honest, even if you ignore the problems many d20 System publishers have in understanding the wording of the OGL, I still think it is more logical for FR adventure writers, FR setting deigners and FR novel writers to be working for the same company. I'm sure that there are all sorts of FR secrets that you know, and can't reveal to people outside WotC. But if someone writing an adventure was also a WotC employee then you would be able to share information that would help them write a great adventure that didn't accidentally clash with other products that were not ready for release.
I think that the d20 System publishers probably wanted to have that sort of internal continuity when they decided to create their own gameworlds from scratch.
We've also been experimenting with new formats and new presentations for adventure material to find out what does the most good for the most DMs (and, of course, sells the most). These days we think we need to see a good balance of adventure material and rule material; due to the idiosyncracies of the schedule you're seeing a bunch of adventure material in the current catalog.
My one and only beef with role playing products from all companies (and this goes back to the TSR days) is that as game lines expand it becomes harder and harder for someone to understand what they all are. Some books require you to own other books but it isn't always obvious what books you need (e.g. FRCS requires you to own the PHB [and perhaps DMG and MM] but can someone tell if City of the Spiderqueen requies you to own Underdark). I don't know what RPG shops in the USA are like but over in the capital of England the majority of the few remaining RPG shops now have a tendancy to shrink wrap everything, so if you can't find an online preview for something it is almost impossible to make an informed purchasing decision. So if your marketing people ever want to increase the likelyhood that someone like me buys one of your new products it might be nice if they could stick up a list of the other things needed to use a particular book.
And to be honest the 3e/3.5e FR setting now has so many products that I think some sort of visual aid (like a tree of all FR products) might help newbies work out what other WotC books they could bolt onto their existing game. I just spent about 10 minutes struggling to find a page with information about City of the Spider Queen. If I had been in a British shop faced with a shrink wrapped copy of the book I would never have bought it. I might as well buy things directly from WotC or from Amazon if I can't open the books.
Sorry this has turned into a bit of a rant. I think the authors of FR themselves are doing a great job, but the people between me and WotC are making it hard to work out what books I should spend my cash on. If it wasn't for the fact that authors are putting things like Web Enhancements online I wouldn't have any clues to help me buy stuff. Do any of your marketing guys ever look at the non-US market? I think that a lor of us non-Americans could do with a hand.
can someone tell if City of the Spiderqueen requies you to own Underdark)
City of the Spiderqueen does not require the Underdark book. You'll be fine without it.
The official WotC overview of the plots of the Cormyr and Shadowdale modules seem to imply that these adventures are written for good-aligned heroes, or at least for heroes that have a tooth against Shar/Cyric/Bane.
Would it be playable by, let's say, a group of Zhentarim-hating, moraly-ambiguous Sembians? or by Mask followers set on foiling Shar's and Cyric's plans?
I guess my question is: how "good" do the heroes need to be, in order to convincingly follow the plot-line of the modules, without too much tinkering on behalf of the DM?
Thanks a lot in advance for your reply.
Bocklin
Where is a good place to look for more detailed information on Calimshan? I've been trying to find a little more history on the place and am at a loss where to look? I'd appreciate some help, and I'm sure my players would too.
You could start with the 2nd Edition supplement "Calimport".
It is available as free downloads on WotC's website:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads
Have fun.
Bocklin
The Ice Lich Lossewarn (sp?) in Champions of Ruin, with his levels and Lich template should be cr-21, is the cr-23 rating due to the special ability that he has to paralyze things permanently.
Another question for you (sorry to "assault" you like this). It is about the "Power of Faerûn" plotlines. There are a couple of very interesting stories which are given a timeline in the various chapters and I was wondering if there was an official position at WotC about these: are they official canon or just suggestions?
Are we likely to see the Risen Sun heresy come up in future products and especially Sunlord Daelegoth's efforts? What of the "Sothillisian Empire" timeline? Will future authors work as if these had happened as per PoF?
I thought these were great plotlines and it would be sad to not see them become a part of the official Realms (it will be part of mines, for sure).
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Bocklin
PS:
Hi other Forumists. I am asking for an official answer, not another gamer's opinion. Thanks for not starting a debate here about if you think they are indeed canon or not. If you want to do so start a new thread or try Candlekeep: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8425
Dear Rich,
Another question for you (sorry to "assault" you like this). It is about the "Power of Faerûn" plotlines. There are a couple of very interesting stories which are given a timeline in the various chapters and I was wondering if there was an official position at WotC about these: are they official canon or just suggestions?
Are we likely to see the Risen Sun heresy come up in future products and especially Sunlord Daelegoth's efforts? What of the "Sothillisian Empire" timeline? Will future authors work as if these had happened as per PoF?
I thought these were great plotlines and it would be sad to not see them become a part of the official Realms (it will be part of mines, for sure).
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Bocklin
PS:
Hi other Forumists. I am asking for an official answer, not another gamer's opinion. Thanks for not starting a debate here about if you think they are indeed canon or not. If you want to do so start a new thread or try Candlekeep: http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8425
Rich- quick question
The Ice Lich Lossewarn (sp?) in Champions of Ruin, with his levels and Lich template should be cr-21, is the cr-23 rating due to the special ability that he has to paralyze things permanently.
The Mask followers bit would be harder to do in Cormyr, just because Shar and Cyric are trying to hide their activity there. But it could work as a "go to this spot, we know there's something Sharran going on there, we just can't prove it yet" type setup.
Dear Rich, Dear Eric,
The official WotC overview of the plots of the Cormyr and Shadowdale modules seem to imply that these adventures are written for good-aligned heroes, or at least for heroes that have a tooth against Shar/Cyric/Bane.
Would it be playable by, let's say, a group of Zhentarim-hating, moraly-ambiguous Sembians? or by Mask followers set on foiling Shar's and Cyric's plans?
I guess my question is: how "good" do the heroes need to be, in order to convincingly follow the plot-line of the modules, without too much tinkering on behalf of the DM?
Thanks a lot in advance for your reply.
Bocklin
Thanks a lot: two answers that make my day!
Bocklin
Yes, these events are "canon." We don't have immediate plans to show most of those storylines moving forward, simply because our product schedule is taking us to other parts of Faerun for a while (Cormyr, Shadowdale, Undermountain). But when we return to Amn (and other locales where the storylines are relevant), we'll certainly factor Power of Faerun events into whatever we do next.
Sweet... :D
I'm pretty sure Cormyr is playable by your neutral, mercenary-ish type heroes without much trouble. You might find it handy to have the first NPC contact offering a big reward or contract for solving the mystery, rather than counting on the heroes' altruistic impulses. In fact, the Cormyr set-up might even work a little better that way, because it might make sense to present a "I don't want to get caught interfering with this, so I'm hiring someone anonymous to look into it" spin on the adventure setup.
If the NPC hesitates due to a lower bid from another adventuring party (one with a royal charter mind you!), the opening act of the PCs could be to 'eliminate the competition...' :D
Edit: By the way Rich, yes, thank you very much for these answers! Merry Christmas to you and your whole family!
Wizards of the Coast will be closed until January 2nd for our holiday break, so I won't be keeping up on the boards. Don't get annoyed if it takes me a while to post a reply to anything you guys bring up here!
Merry Christmas all!
I would like to ask a question though for you to get back to whenever you have the time... will the Most Noble Order of the Radiant Heart be in the Complete Champion sourcebook? 'Cause that's all I want for Christmas!! Thank you for your time, sir, and Merry Christmas to you and yours.
*imagine a smiley face with a Santa hat*
Happy new year and welcome back to the office! Don't worry, we're still here to nag you with all our questions. :D
Well, not a question this time, but rather a belated thumbs up for the Web Enhancement to "Sons of Gruumsh".
It's always much work to reshape a module so it fits higher levels (especially those where the bad guys have class levels) and I am always unsure as to how to boost the loot. So having it done for me was great and I could plug the higher level module straight into my campaign. It really convinced me to buy the book.
Now... I already have "the Twilight Tomb" module, but would nevertheless be very happy for a similar Web Enhancement on that one. Any chance this is what we are going to get?
Anyway, thanks as always for your time and support.
Best wishes,
Bocklin
I recently saw this thread and - after seeing you were partly responsible in the making of Unnaproachable East - had to ask: could you possibly assist in making a (makeshift) weather table for Rashemen?
The thing is, there is one in Silver Marches, and - according to a poster in the linked thread - one in Shining South as well.
Granted, UE covers a number of regions, but I must digress, can you possibly help in this?
(I put together the charts in Silver Marches, so I'm glad you like 'em! I'm not sure how many DMs like tools of that sort, but outdoor adventuring is such a big part of the North, it seemed like a good idea.)
Dear Mr. Baker,
I recently saw this thread and - after seeing you were partly responsible in the making of Unnaproachable East - had to ask: could you possibly assist in making a (makeshift) weather table for Rashemen?
The thing is, there is one in Silver Marches, and - according to a poster in the linked thread - one in Shining South as well.
Granted, UE covers a number of regions, but I must digress, can you possibly help in this?
(I put together the charts in Silver Marches, so I'm glad you like 'em! I'm not sure how many DMs like tools of that sort, but outdoor adventuring is such a big part of the North, it seemed like a good idea.)
I have the Shining South and I can say I enjoyed the charts very much when I used the book. Allowed me to add in a new element without too much work on my part (though I image you spend quite a bit of time researching weather patterns when you did the ones for Silver Marches).
I hope any future regional books include them too.
I've tried to make some charts for custom campaigns, but decided it was easier to use the ones in DMG (and the Environmental books) or to just swing with it on a weather I feel like mood.
Perhaps you can answer this question. With Cormyr, Tearing of the Weave (March 2007) & Shadowdale, Scouring of the Land (July 2007) there will be an Forgotten Realms superadventure, but on the wizards product homepage both books are named accessories. Are both books are adventures with information on cormyr & shadowdales or are both books like Mysteries of the moonsea?
I am sorry for my english
I love the book lost empires, I was wondering if there were any plans even in the far future of possibly bringing more information on the lost empires both novel and sourcebook wise. I really would like to run a game far into the past, like when humans were nothing but barbarians and the elven nation was at its peak.
I'm glad you liked Lost Empires of Faerun! I had a lot of fun working on it. We don't have any immediate plans for sourcebooks or novels focusing on "ancient age" Faerun, but little tidbits about times long past keep cropping up. For example, the short story collection "Realms of the Elves" leads off with an excellent story (by Richard Byers, I believe) set in the time when dragons ruled Faerun and the elf kingdoms were just beginning to shake off their dragon overlords. That might be worth checking out for your particular campaign.
Cormyr and Shadowdale are really adventures; I think our marketing folks are stretching the definition of accessory. However, each includes an appendix that discusses source material relevant to each adventure. For example, Cormyr has an appendix discussing the region around the Vast Swamp, where the adventure takes place. Shadowdale obviously includes an appendix on Shadowdale. These bits of source material really don't account for more than 10 pages or so of each adventure, but it's certainly more than you will find in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardbound on those areas.
Hallo Mr. Baker
Perhaps you can answer this question. With Cormyr, Tearing of the Weave (March 2007) & Shadowdale, Scouring of the Land (July 2007) there will be an Forgotten Realms superadventure, but on the wizards product homepage both books are named accessories. Are both books are adventures with information on cormyr & shadowdales or are both books like Mysteries of the moonsea?
I am sorry for my english
A question regarding the Nether Scrolls in Lost Empires of Faerun. There seems to be a big debate on these forums on how these scrolls work when PC's read/use them. I'll try and sum up the question as best I can.
Do PC's gain a level for every "scroll" (10 scrolls per chapter) they read, or every "chapter" (5 chapters all together) along with a special ability?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Renvale999
Do PC's gain a level for every "scroll" (10 scrolls per chapter) they read, or every "chapter" (5 chapters all together) along with a special ability?
I wrote to Customer Service about that once, this is what I got in return:
You only get the bonus of an extra arcane level once. If you read
multiple scrolls, you only get 1 extra level. If the DM wishes to change
this for his/her campaign, then they may do so as they see fit. Have fun
and good gaming!
What I'd love to know is if you've similar plans for Myth Drannor? And if so - how far down the pipeline is it?
I have seen that Undermountain is in the pipeline for release mid-year. I loved Undermountain (2nd ed) and can't wait for the revised version.
What I'd love to know is if you've similar plans for Myth Drannor? And if so - how far down the pipeline is it?
Unless they plan to do stuff that's in the past (relative to canon FR's present date), any Myth Drannor Book will be a city book like Waterdeep: City of Splendours, not a Dungeonbook.
Now for the bad news: Our 2007 and much of the 2008 schedule is set in stone at this point, so even if I could talk everyone into it, you wouldn't see it before 2009. By that time the outcome of the Last Mythal will be several product years back, so we'd have to do Myth Drannor 2-3 years before the current Realms timeline as of the publication date. It doesn't seem likely. But darn, it's a good suggestion!
I have seen that Undermountain is in the pipeline for release mid-year. I loved Undermountain (2nd ed) and can't wait for the revised version.
What I'd love to know is if you've similar plans for Myth Drannor? And if so - how far down the pipeline is it?
Are there any wild elf tribes in it? I heard of an evil one living in the Dire Wood, but are there any others? I couldn't find any information on it, just talk of there being moon and wood elves. It makes perfect sense for there to be wild elves there, too, and was wondering if officially there are any?
Thanks.
Myth Drannor? Darn, what an idea! I think the new Undermountain format would have worked very well for the ruins. Wish I'd thought of that a few months ago.
So where do I apply for a job?...
Namely yours...;)
The book could show New Myth Drannor's place in Faerûn.
A new build-up of the city.
The new Mythal's abilities.
Relations with neighbours (including certain dark-skinned, elf-shaped ones. Aren't there Vhaeraunites thinking that all elven races should be allied in order to make them a major power player again? Isn't that notion even supported by Vhaeraun himself?)
A small section about the surviving Daemonfey (including a small adventure that involves fey'ri.)
New feats, prestige classes, a racial write-up of that special breed of Eladrin-empowered elves (not unlike the half-demon Daemonfey, and a planetouched variant equal to the fey'ri).
Mr. Baker, Ironically I just did read the novel realms of the elves, the book you suggested to me. The only problem I had with the book was they potrayed the gold dragon to be more of a dictator. Something about that gold dragon was unnerving.But then again I shouldnt assume all gold dragons behave the same way.
Something about that gold dragon was unnerving.But then again I shouldnt assume all gold dragons behave the same way.
I think the idea that R. Byers was trying to convey is that a Lawful Good Dragon tyran can be much of weigh to bear for the local population.
The Gold Dragon thinks he knows better than you, tries to improve your life and make his kingdom a thing of beauty, but in the end there is not much democracy and everybody has to "recognise" his moral superiority.
I think it's quite a good pitch for a story that tries to explain why the elves (and to some extent the humans) would want to do their best to break the dragons' reign with the dracorage mythal: "even if our ruler is good and benevolent, he's a pain in the... Imagine what it would be if we were ruled by a Blue!". ;)
Bocklin
Mr. Baker, Ironically I just did read the novel realms of the elves, the book you suggested to me. The only problem I had with the book was they potrayed the gold dragon to be more of a dictator. Something about that gold dragon was unnerving.But then again I shouldnt assume all gold dragons behave the same way.
That was "back in the day", when the Dragons reigned supreme. The metallic dragons weren't as good back then as they are now.
I think somewhere in the Year of Rogue Dragon books a metallic dragon admits that the elves' doings safed the metallics from themselves.
I was wondering on the release schedule of Cormyr Tearing of the Weave and the rest of the adventure books in the campaign. How long between releases, are we talking a year or a couple months?
Dear Mr. Baker,
I was wondering on the release schedule of Cormyr Tearing of the Weave and the rest of the adventure books in the campaign. How long between releases, are we talking a year or a couple months?
Some pages ago, Rich said there would around 3 months between each books.
The second one ("the scouring of Shadowdale") is coming out in July (it's already in the products listings) and you can probably expect the third one for November.
Bocklin
The second one ("the scouring of Shadowdale") is coming out in July (it's already in the products listings) and you can probably expect the third one for November.
Right.
Question: So there's definitely no hope of a Dragons of Faerun WE concerning the missing sections of Chapter 4 and a summary on each of the Draconic Deities so they can be "3E officialized" in canon 3e FR material?
Don't give up hope. A lot of things are in the pipeline. I'm not entirely certain which missing sections of Chapter 4 you're referring to.
Don't give up hope. A lot of things are in the pipeline. I'm not entirely certain which missing sections of Chapter 4 you're referring to.
It was mentioned in the previews on the website and again in the introductory chapter of Dragons of Faerun. There was a section on playing characters who are servants to the draconic deities and then one on how to play half-dragons in Faerun.
I don't know if you're in charge of the errata for Player's Guide to Faerun, but I know you were involved with the book itself.
What I'm wondering about is Duergar and the Resist Poison feat. According to Underdark - which is 3.5 Edition D&D AND came out before PGtF, Gray Dwarves are immune to poison. Is there any point with Duergar from the Underdark (Northdark) having Resist Poison as a regional feat (let alone a few they should really use) in general?
BadCatMan brought this to my attention in a thread concerning the PGtF errata, which states that Daylight Adaptation was turned from a regional feat into a general feat. Will Resist Poison meet a similar fate, or at least be removed from the "Dwarf (Underdark [Northdark])" regional feat list?
Which is it?
I assume it's the Races of Faerun version since it's the most recent one. If that is true, I have another question. What is the caster level of the spell-like ability? It doesn't state anywhere what it is in the description. I assume the caster level for alter self is equal to character level or no?
Thank you. I hope to receive an answer before my session this Sunday.
QUESTION #2: I have a question pertaining to the Knowledge (local) skill. It's now clear that, in the Realms campaign, you must choose a region for your Knowledge (local) skill and it applies to questions relating to that region while questions relating to others use the skill ranks for those (or 0, if there are none).
Problem is, how does one use Knowledge (local) in the Realms to identify humanoids? One of my players was trying to identify a skulk they were fighting, but we got confused as to how to go about using Knowledge (local) for that. She has Knowledge (local, Waterdeep) but the group wasn't in the Waterdeep city or region. So should she use her Knowledge (local, Waterdeep) or an untrained check?
What do you do in that situation?
1)What is the starting point (which city in Cormyr?) for the module?
2)Are any character classes (such as Mages) required or recommended to be included in the party?
3)Also is the module in general city, wilderness, and/or dungeon-based?
From a few pages up in this thread:
Show
Starting point is Wheloon, then going to the Vast Swamp and then Plane of Shadow.
I assume a mix of city and wilderness with a couple of dungeonity locations? :D
Starting point is Wheloon, then going to the Vast Swamp and then Plane of Shadow.
I assume a mix of city and wilderness with a couple of dungeonity locations? :D
Dear Mr. Baker,
I don't know if you're in charge of the errata for Player's Guide to Faerun, but I know you were involved with the book itself.
What I'm wondering about is Duergar and the Resist Poison feat. According to Underdark - which is 3.5 Edition D&D AND came out before PGtF, Gray Dwarves are immune to poison. Is there any point with Duergar from the Underdark (Northdark) having Resist Poison as a regional feat (let alone a few they should really use) in general?
BadCatMan brought this to my attention in a thread concerning the PGtF errata, which states that Daylight Adaptation was turned from a regional feat into a general feat. Will Resist Poison meet a similar fate, or at least be removed from the "Dwarf (Underdark [Northdark])" regional feat list?
Regarding Knowledge (local)... well, Realms has something that core D&D can't assume in Joe DM's campaign, which is a reasonable way to specify "this is the part of the world I happen to know well." So that's why Knowledge (Local) works differently in FR. I don't know why this bit of PGtF doesn't talk to the "humanoids" bit in the 3.5 PH, we should have caught that. I don't think we have errata on that yet.
In my own game, I'd simply move knowledge of humanoids out of (Local) and into (Geography). It seems to me that knowing something about the various races and civilizations you might run into anywhere is a much better fit in Geography anyway. You may want to allow your players to reallocate Knowledge skill ranks accordingly if you decide to make that change.
QUESTION #1: I have a big question about Fey'ri and their racial traits. In Monsters of Faerun, they have Alternate Form as a special quality. However, in Races of Faerun, they have alter self as a spell-like ability.
Which is it?
I assume it's the Races of Faerun version since it's the most recent one. If that is true, I have another question. What is the caster level of the spell-like ability? It doesn't state anywhere what it is in the description. I assume the caster level for alter self is equal to character level or no?
Thank you. I hope to receive an answer before my session this Sunday.
QUESTION #2: I have a question pertaining to the Knowledge (local) skill. It's now clear that, in the Realms campaign, you must choose a region for your Knowledge (local) skill and it applies to questions relating to that region while questions relating to others use the skill ranks for those (or 0, if there are none).
Problem is, how does one use Knowledge (local) in the Realms to identify humanoids? One of my players was trying to identify a skulk they were fighting, but we got confused as to how to go about using Knowledge (local) for that. She has Knowledge (local, Waterdeep) but the group wasn't in the Waterdeep city or region. So should she use her Knowledge (local, Waterdeep) or an untrained check?
What do you do in that situation?
In my own game, I'd simply move knowledge of humanoids out of (Local) and into (Geography). It seems to me that knowing something about the various races and civilizations you might run into anywhere is a much better fit in Geography anyway. You may want to allow your players to reallocate Knowledge skill ranks accordingly if you decide to make that change.
Aren't humanoids covered under Knowledge: Nature? (DHTBIFOM now, but I've been using that for years!
)PS...There is a thread in the D&D Mature Topics forum that discusses gay characters in the realms, which contains alot of discussion of this topic.
Question: Why aren't there more openly gay characters in the realms?
Perhaps most authors are unconfortable with the topic. Maybe they don't want to offend with tasteless descriptions, and before they do it wrong, they'd rather not do it at all.
Perhaps most authors are unconfortable with the topic. Maybe they don't want to offend with tasteless descriptions, and before they do it wrong, they'd rather not do it at all.
But they don't have any problem writing about Quenthel Baenre and her battle captive? I mean Phaeraun hardly made veiled references, and it seems that the published game material have a couple rather obscure characters who are, while the info on Drow pretty much leave it all wide open for the priestesses, but talk nothing about the men, even about the worshippers of Vhaerun now in Cormanthor.
I mean, and I'm not trying to get up on my soapbox, but there are gay gamers, and readers, and if the realms is a really egalitarian place, how about a character or two out of the hundreds, who are openly and honestly in a same-sex couple but who are maybe members of an all-male fighter society, or generals in an army, or wizards, they often seem to end up alone in towers out in the middle of nowhere. Just a little spotlight, not necessarily volumes.
Plus, it'd be nice to have a little bit of official word from the WoC people
But they don't have any problem writing about Quenthel Baenre and her battle captive?
I said most authors, not all authors. Some, obviously, have no problems with it. The WotSQ books are one instance, the Baldur's Gate Novels another (Imoen was said to hate men, and in the BG2 book she became good friends with some drow female)
I mean Phaeraun hardly made veiled references
Are you saying he is gay or do you complain that he never said anthing about it? (Isn't wholly clear to me, and I can't remember anything about him)
but talk nothing about the men, even about the worshippers of Vhaerun now in Cormanthor.
Well, that's mainly because the Cormanthor Drow Vhaeraunites aren't gay.
I mean, and I'm not trying to get up on my soapbox, but there are gay gamers, and readers, and if the realms is a really egalitarian place, how about a character or two out of the hundreds, who are openly and honestly in a same-sex couple but who are maybe members of an all-male fighter society, or generals in an army, or wizards, they often seem to end up alone in towers out in the middle of nowhere. Just a little spotlight, not necessarily volumes.
As I said: I think most authors aren't too comfortable with the theme, and most probably don't want to have a homosexual protagonist.
Are you saying he is gay or do you complain that he never said anthing about it? (Isn't wholly clear to me, and I can't remember anything about him)
Well, that's mainly because the Cormanthor Drow Vhaeraunites aren't gay.
As I said: I think most authors aren't too comfortable with the theme, and most probably don't want to have a homosexual protagonist.
No, Phaeraun makes a comment about Quenthal and Danyfae and their private moments.
That's a generalization. The Vhaeraunites are rebels from a female dominated society, and I think most of them are men, so its likely that some of them are gay. Plus, there's a Vhaeraunite in Skullport who has a male lover.
Why would they not want a homosexual protagonist? In the realms in general there is plenty of room for a protagonist who has a male 'companion' in his adventuring band or somewhere within the story line.
I mean, and I'm not trying to get up on my soapbox, but there are gay gamers, and readers, and if the realms is a really egalitarian place, how about a character or two out of the hundreds, who are openly and honestly in a same-sex couple but who are maybe members of an all-male fighter society, or generals in an army, or wizards, they often seem to end up alone in towers out in the middle of nowhere. Just a little spotlight, not necessarily volumes.
The ruler of Elversult and her consort.
-- George Krashos
Suffice it to say that in Ed's original Realms, gay characters are present and often unpersecuted. One can't blame authors for writing about what they personally find to be tasteful.
If you want to talk more about the whole homosexuality in the Realms thing, hit me up on AIM. If I'm not going insane from work, I'll message you back fairly promptly.
Also, in Eric Scott de Bie's stories, there ARE gay characters - he's admitted to this. They just don't run around waving rainbow flags.
That's a generalization. The Vhaeraunites are rebels from a female dominated society, and I think most of them are men, so its likely that some of them are gay.
No more (or less) than any other culture or race in Faerûn. If there's a difference, it's quite small I'd say.
Plus, the core of it is that this frankly doesn't belong into the campaign setting or any other rulebook (except stuff like the Book of Erotic Fantasy). It is, after all, a topic for a mature audience only (the whole sex thing generally is).
Why would they not want a homosexual protagonist?
Ask them. All I know is that I wouldn't want to have one. Too much extra stuff to take care off for too little pay-off. It's a narrow path you'd have to walk if you introduce something like that:
On one side lies the peril of letting it all slip into cliché, and have the character devolve into bad slapstick, like in those movies where they all wear pink leather, make bad jokes about people's behinds and talk in those overdone voices.
On the other side lies the peril of not using it properly. Something like: "He was a powerful mage and dabbled in swordplay. Oh, by the way, he's gay. On this particular morning he had to fight two dire wolves and..." and that would be the only mention of his sexual outlook. It would seem like something thrown in for no particular reason.
I guess many authors won't want to touch the topic with the obligatory 10-foot-pole.
Twenty years and a change of management from Midwestern to Northwestern values later, we have a lot more room to explore the question if we want. Thus we were able to really examine one of the logical consequences of drow society in War of the Spider Queen.
But here's the catch: Why call out a character's sexual orientation unless it's important for the story at hand? Frankly, it is almost never relevant in game material. We don't tell you very much at all about Joe NPC's children, parents, siblings or cousins. Telling you who that character is dating just isn't that important. And if we do point it out, then it looks like we are going out of our way to make a real-world societal statement in your game. For my own part, it drives me nuts when actors or directors stick their politics in my face when I just want to watch a movie. I sure wouldn't want to do that to someone else.
So, that sums it up for me. If it's important to the story, then yes, we can do it. But if it isn't, I don't see a reason to make a big deal about it.
Question: Why aren't there more openly gay characters in the realms? I understand that the audience for the realms novels may include young audiences, but there are ways of portraying openly gay characters, sword brothers, that aren't explicit but also aren't obscure references.
PS...There is a thread in the D&D Mature Topics forum that discusses gay characters in the realms, which contains alot of discussion of this topic.
If one's writing an action novel, then one shouldn't really touch too deeply on ANY sort of romantic relation (straight or homosexual), unless it's a consequence of the lauded war-passion.
However, if one's writing a novel to explore one's character or the interaction of characters (something I'd like to see more in FR novels, but I know is unlikely), then such things would be impossible to ignore. Even in every day life, outside of intimacy, the interactions between members of two genders that are attracted to each other (or potentially so) can be quite noticable.
And, ironically, one of the books I'm currently reading is the latest one by Terry Goodkind. Talk about political viewpoints.
Very good reply, Rich. (Translation: I agree, so it MUST be good!)
I agree as well (fancy that), excellent evaluation. In a book I once read (can't remember the name, it was 30 years ago) the main character turned out to be gay, but the way it was done you didn't know this until the last chapter. He was a conan-barbarian type character and acted basically the same as any other charcter with that archtype. In the end, there was a reason for reveiling his preferences (an amourous princess), but the point is if it was never revealed the character STILL would have been gay, we just wouldn't have known it. That is as it should be.
And, ironically, one of the books I'm currently reading is the latest one by Terry Goodkind. Talk about political viewpoints.
Is that the one AFTER the one where Kahlan looses her memory? Spreading that plot hook over more then one book just about killed it for me. I'm not sure if I want to read the series anymore; like WoT, its just spinning its wheels and going no where. More like a soapbox for the authors political veiws then a good yarn, which is how it started out.
Say...Rich, is information on the new elf realm where the High Moor was going to be published anywhere soon? Will we find out the reason for the name of the year 1375, year of the Risen Elfkin?
Well, the Lady Penitent trilogy kicks off in that year, and there seems to be a lot going on in nearly every dark elven faith. Maybe the elfkin part refers to drow as well as other elves (or even instead of).
Drow returning to the surface.
The rebuilding of Cormanthyr.
The returm of Miyeritar (I think).
Lots of 'Elf activity' going on this year.
They were trying to make sure they didn't print something that might lead to yet another adverse public relations issue.
As far as I know, the 80s media 'controversies' were nothing but profitable for TSR, so commercial concerns don't explain the Code of Ethics (which forbade depicting law-enforcement officers negatively amongst other political self-censorship), removal of demons and devils, and other TSR strangenesses.
Inquiriing minds want to know
This is to the powers that be. Is Greyhawk still the default setting? If so what is the current situation of the Flanaess? What is the current year? Who's alive who's dead?
Inquiriing minds want to know
This is the Forgotten Realms thread, so you're exactly in the wrong place to ask about Greyhawk. :P
GH is still the standard-D&D setting, but they don't do much with it. Except maybe the whole Living Greyhawk thing. Isn't there an extra forum for that around? You should ask there, there should be dozens of people who know about GH.
Is that the one AFTER the one where Kahlan looses her memory? Spreading that plot hook over more then one book just about killed it for me. I'm not sure if I want to read the series anymore; like WoT, its just spinning its wheels and going no where. More like a soapbox for the authors political veiws then a good yarn, which is how it started out.
I know its off topic but Sword of Truth novels and WOT are both ending. The Sword of Truth novels ends in a trilogy with the plot you just described and Robert Jordan has stated that there is only one more book he is writing even if it has to be 2000 pages and they have to create a new binding technique for it. I think both authors are spinning excellent yarns while putting in some of their own political views. Just my two cents though.
This is to the powers that be. Is Greyhawk still the default setting? If so what is the current situation of the Flanaess? What is the current year? Who's alive who's dead?
Inquiriing minds want to know
I don't know Wizards' current position, but originally the sense in which the World of Greyhawk was the default setting was that a modified and cut-down version of it sometimes called Greyhawk Light would provide proper names and host certain setting assumptions for the core rulebooks and modules. That's all 'default setting' meant. There is at present no official World of Greyhawk setting in the sense of having a set detailed continuity, or 'current' timeline.
Does it make it easier for the Realms department? Did it evolved or come full cloth from some meeting? What does it seem that it was handled poorly with it's appearance? Half the complaints about seem to come from it just being there always.
Could it have been phased in better with a Realms Shaking Event or is the change part of a plot hook that is waiting to be filled like Shade or the Seventh Sister?
I just want something that could avoid having the coversation going over the same topics. At least this answer might lead to a new arguement from time to time.
Thanks
HVulpes, going crazy.
I hear many arguments both ways, with people saying "it doesn't exist if its not mentioned in 3e".
Two cases come to mind, although there are probably hundreds -
1) Elrkazar, I'm in the middle of Blackstaff and it mentions it. I'm sure that it still exists, but there are plenty of people who argue it does not because its never appeared in a canon 3e source. Those same people argue that a novel is not canon, BTW.
2) The Helmlands - Is it there or isn't it? I think it is, but since it's never mentioned in 3e once again people are saying it no longer exists.
Can we have some clear ruling on this once and for all? If its not mentioned in newer material (and I mean this pertaining to anything FR), does it stiil exist?
I know its off topic but Sword of Truth novels and WOT are both ending. The Sword of Truth novels ends in a trilogy with the plot you just described and Robert Jordan has stated that there is only one more book he is writing even if it has to be 2000 pages and they have to create a new binding technique for it. I think both authors are spinning excellent yarns while putting in some of their own political views. Just my two cents though.
I'm happy about the SoT, because it really was going nowhere, but I hate the idea Jordan is 'rushing' his ending. There are way too many plot hooks dangling to be ended with one book. Perhaps split his 2000 pg. book into a trilogy a'la SoT seems to be doing would be a better way to go. I hate this attitude of 'just get it over with quickly', I feel I wasted my time with the last 11 books.
Just so I can stay in-topic with this post, isn't it correct that if a source (either Core or FR) doesn't specifically change a piece of canon from 2e, then it assumed to still exists in 3e?
Markus, I am pretty sure that that's correct, I think I actually read somewhere in one of the core books to refer to the second edition materials, and it might have been in the section on Undermountain in the Waterdeep: City of Splendors book.
Obviously there is SOOOO much 2nd edition material out there that it would be stupid to have to redo all of it except to convert things or add things in the 3rd edition, unless like in some instances I think they outright changed things especially if it didn't really translate to the new edition material.
I know I read it somewhere, maybe it was in the intro to the FR Campaign Setting book, or something.
I'm hapy about the SoT, because it really was going nowhere,but I hate the idea Jordan is 'rushing' his ending. There are way too many plot hooks dangling to be ended with one book. Perhaps split his 2000 pg. book into a trilogy a'la SoT seems to be doing would be a better way to go. I hate this attitude of 'just get it over with quickly', I feel I wasted my time with the last 11 books.
Well the man does have a potentially deadly disease and although he has every intention of beating it, I would really like him to finish the novel just in case. Especially since I believe that I read that he will not allow anyone to finish the series in the event of his unfortunate demise. Apparently his reason for only one more book no matter how long, is that there is no good place to stop another book. Apparently there are no more events worth ending a book with.
The problem is with geographical locations. Since they changed the map horrendously (big mistake, I think) people tend to think a lot of places were "wiped" out.
Not necessarily. I remember reading that the original intent of the map changes was that Toril was too damn big. So, in other words, Erlkazar is still there, it's just a smaller realm than it was before. I've compared the 2E maps of Erlkazar and the 3E maps of the region. Some areas got twisted around and decreased in size, but I would have to say Erlkazar is definitely still there and can be fit in the area.
Then again, you do not have to use the 3E map at all. I use the 2E maps still (via Forgotten Realms Atlas) and it's a lot better really.
So Sean, Skip, Jeff, and myself (but mostly Sean and Jeff) batted around some ideas about how and why the FR cosmology ought to be different. Clearly, several of the Great Wheel planes were odd fits with the FR pantheon. And many core deities and divine realms clearly didn't exist in the Realms. For example, Thor wasn't in the Realms pantheon, and there really shouldn't be any Valhalla or Muspelheim or Rainbow Bridge. But if you read *core* planes material, you'd find out about all these things that presumably have no existence at all in the FR cosmology.
So, rather than tell you "use the Great Wheel, but ignore this, this, and that part of it" it made more sense to us to compile a list of the divine realms/planes that actually *should* exist in the context of the FR pantheon. If your Faerunian PCs went traipsing around in the outer planes, they ought to be visiting the heavens and hells of Faerunian gods.
Since we were talking about codifying the planes we already knew existed, and omitting the Great Wheel planes that we knew didn't, it didn't seem to make sense to portray this as a "change" to the planes. Instead, we felt that this was the way people from Faerun would have been looking at them all along.
Hope that helps to clear things up!
I want to know the reasons behind the changes of the cosmology of the realms. I am tired of the Wheel and Tree debate repeating it's self over and over again. I just want to know some of the reasons for the change (which I am guessing are good ones).
Does it make it easier for the Realms department? Did it evolved or come full cloth from some meeting? What does it seem that it was handled poorly with it's appearance? Half the complaints about seem to come from it just being there always.
Could it have been phased in better with a Realms Shaking Event or is the change part of a plot hook that is waiting to be filled like Shade or the Seventh Sister?
I just want something that could avoid having the coversation going over the same topics. At least this answer might lead to a new arguement from time to time.
Thanks
HVulpes, going crazy.
For example, Thor wasn't in the Realms pantheon, and there really shouldn't be any Valhalla or Muspelheim or Rainbow Bridge. But if you read *core* planes material, you'd find out about all these things that presumably have no existence at all in the FR cosmology.
Hopefully I'm not stirring the waters too much in response to this...
But wasn't FR always designed with the idea in mind that it always been connected to all of these other planes? Hence its name - since it was a Realm forgotten by those in other worlds/planes of existence? And thus the presence of deities like Loviatar, Tyr, Set, Tyche, Gilgeam, Sune (who was effectively Aphrodite, originally, and later evolved), etc.; and that of cultures of Chessenta, Calimshan, Mulhorand, the Rauthymar, the Ffolk, and Unther?
Considering Tyr's hand was bit off by Fenr - I mean, Kozef, I really don't think that having a Vahalla or Muspelheim floating around, attached somewhere to the Realms, would be terribly out of theme. In fact, with the above deities always having clearly been described as interlopers from other pantheons (even before Ed tied it to the Wheel intrinsically), it almost makes no sense at all to NOT have Thor, Odin, Horus, and Zeus around in the Realms' cosmology. What pantheons did they interlope from, and if their power base was not multispheric, why would they have interloped at all, in general? (Excluding specific cases like the Mulhorandi and Untherite pantheons.)
Nearly everything about the Realms always screamed planar interconnectivity to me.
Markus, there is nothing at all to the idea that pre-2001 lore is invalid, that novels are non-canonical (or less canonical), or any of that.
It was stated by the FR designers before, that if it was in the Realms in 2E than it still exists in 3E.
The problem is with geographical locations. Since they changed the map horrendously (big mistake, I think) people tend to think a lot of places were "wiped" out.
Not necessarily. I remember reading that the original intent of the map changes was that Toril was too damn big. So, in other words, Erlkazar is still there, it's just a smaller realm than it was before. I've compared the 2E maps of Erlkazar and the 3E maps of the region. Some areas got twisted around and decreased in size, but I would have to say Erlkazar is definitely still there and can be fit in the area.
Then again, you do not have to use the 3E map at all. I use the 2E maps still (via Forgotten Realms Atlas) and it's a lot better really.
Erlkazar still exists in 3e. It was one of the "realms" to experience changes in location between editions. I'll let Steven explain -
"Re: places: a novel free zone erlkazar
No, it's still there, whether or not it gets acknowledged on the map or in the Lands of Intrigue listing in the FRCS.
At least it's still there in my mind. They just crunched it all into smaller space (and I wasn't around or paying attention when they did this with the main maps of Faerun, so I don't even know the logic or explanation behind the changes).
Just remember that world maps for our own world changed multitudinous times over the centuries, so I'd say use whatever maps make you happiest with the Realms and be done with the rest.
Steven It is never too late to be what you might have been. (George Elliot/Mary Ann Evans)"
When I do have to use 3e maps though... I always recall these words from Steven (again ) about their "poor" detailing -
"Chalk it up to Sembian mapmakers or something to overlook their existence, that's all."
Erlkazar is mentioned in Serpent Kingdoms, page 123, in relation to Surkh. So anyone who insists that it hasn't been mentioned in 3e hasn't been paying attention!
Erlkazar was also the recent focus of the FIGHTERS series novel Master of Chains by Jess Lebow -- specifically focusing on the Barony of Ahlarkhem.
And Steven's still got plenty to say about his creation if ever given the opportunity by WotC, or another FR designer uses some of Steven's lore.
So yes, Erlkazar is still part of 3e FR.
And, let's not forget, Sigil was mentioned a few times in the 3E FR books too.
The way I work it out in my games is this: When characters plane travel in the Realms, they will always be within FR cosmology unless they use the Shadow Plane to move to others or find a portal to Sigil. The FR Outer Planes would still be the "realms" as stated in Planescape material. Say a PC used plane shift and wanted to go to the Seven Heavens, he'd always end up in the House of the Triad. From that point, however, he could leave that "realm" and discover that there was more to the House of Triad than originally thought of back home. Or if they were to go to the Concordant Plane, they'd always end up in the House of Knowledge, but they could walk away from that and discover that the House of Knowledge was not a "plane" but a realm within one.
That's how I work it so I can keep things connected and not cause too much confusion with my players. We're Planescape veterans so the changes to the FR cosmology was something we hated but decided to see how to work with it.
I sure wish the FR designers would come out with a Forgotten Realms "Planar Handbook" product describing the new cosmology in full detail, extrapolating from what's written in the Player's Guide to Faerun.
But wasn't FR always designed with the idea in mind that it always been connected to all of these other planes?
I think the core concept was that the Forgotten Realms used to be connected with our Earth, but later the portals have been forgotten - and so the places on the other side, the "Forgotten Realms". That's why we have earth deities in the Realms - they moved here. Tyr, for example, is probably the very Tyr you know from what 3e D&D called the Asgardian Pantheon. But he doesn't dwell in Asgard any more, he lives in the House of the Triad now.
I heard you had commented on this, but after 45 minutes of scanning the threads I couldn't find anything. I sincerely apologize if this has been asked before.
Super Adventures are useful, but having a whole year of them is a bummer for Realms fans.
Thank you very much for your contribution to the Realms and the Game in General as I thoroughly enjoy your books!
And, let's not forget, Sigil was mentioned a few times in the 3E FR books too.
The Sigil of the Great Wheel in 3e is the same Sigil in the FR's Great Tree cosmology.
And one notable Sigil reference in 3e Realmslore occurs in Faiths & Pantheons -- namely, in the "Abbey of the Sword" reference on pg. 161 P3-Magic Portal.
The Sigil of the Great Wheel in 3e is the same Sigil in the FR's Great Tree cosmology.
And one notable Sigil reference in 3e Realmslore occurs in Faiths & Pantheons -- namely, in the "Abbey of the Sword" reference on pg. 161 P3-Magic Portal.
Yeah, I distinctly remember that one mentioned in that book. I remembr there being another one, too, not sure where though.
I agree, even in the 3E FR books they talk about the deities being interlopers or coming from other worlds. Even NPCs constantly were said to come from other worlds or planes of existence beyond the FR cosmology.
And, let's not forget, Sigil was mentioned a few times in the 3E FR books too.
The Sigil of the Great Wheel in 3e is the same Sigil in the FR's Great Tree cosmology.
The existance of Sigil (in both FRCS and Planescape) doesn't necessarily contridict with the idea that Toril has a different concept of the outer planes.
I think that certain people at TSR tried to combine Dragonlance Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft into some sort of mega-crossover campaign.
I actually liked this concept, especially when it gave us Spelljammer and Planescape. However I think that it was occasionally poorly implemented and that certain people thought that their beloved individual campaign settings would be destroyed by blandness if not cut off from spacefarers and planewalkers.
I'm a fan of both Spelljammer and Planescape, but do feel that the Forgotten Realms wouldn't be so special if there were coach parties of Celestian worshiping Kender wandering around Waterdeep in FR novels. However, if a DM wants to create an epic RPG campaign where inhabitants of one world travel to another they should be allowed to do so. The DM is allowed to do anything with the Forgotten Realms that he/she wants to.
The way I work it out in my games is this: When characters plane travel in the Realms, they will always be within FR cosmology unless they use the Shadow Plane to move to others or find a portal to Sigil. The FR Outer Planes would still be the "realms" as stated in Planescape material. Say a PC used plane shift and wanted to go to the Seven Heavens, he'd always end up in the House of the Triad. From that point, however, he could leave that "realm" and discover that there was more to the House of Triad than originally thought of back home. Or if they were to go to the Concordant Plane, they'd always end up in the House of Knowledge, but they could walk away from that and discover that the House of Knowledge was not a "plane" but a realm within one.
The Planescape Campaign pitched the idea that people who were not planewalkers used the wrong names for outer planes and didn't understand how they worked. A lot of the outer planes described in FRCS are pretty much identical to outer planes mentioned in Planescape and Manual of the Planes, and if you do a bit of research you can make most of them into region within the default outer planes of the MotP (or Planescape).
The way I see it the FRCS tells us how the sages of Toril see the outer planes. If Thor doesn't have a church on Toril then there is probably no divine connection from Toril to his realm that can be used to see the existence of that outer plane. It doesn't really make sense for people living in a "forgotten realm" to have an accurate picture of the outer planes, so from that point of view I think it makes sense to only show the parts of the outer planes known to connect to Toril.
I already came to similar conclusions to you on how the outer planes work and decided that each campaign setting has unique connections to the outer planes (and perhaps to the inner and transitive planes). So both the (3e) FRCS Tree and the MotP (Planescape) Great Wheel models can both be correct (depending on exactly where you are standing when you try to move through the planes). The new material from FRCS (and the 3e Dragonlance Campaign Setting if you use that) turn the planes into a maze where you need to go to specific parts of the planes in order to find your way onto a world like Toril (or Krynn). You could almost say that divine worship helps forge connections that allow outsiders to get summoned onto the surface of a world.
I sure wish the FR designers would come out with a Forgotten Realms "Planar Handbook" product describing the new cosmology in full detail, extrapolating from what's written in the Player's Guide to Faerun.
I hope that WotC know that their RPG customers can be divided into two groups:
1) GMs who don't want to use planar travel and
2) GMs who do want to use planar travel.
The GMs who don't want to use planar travel couldn't care less what model of outer planes is used as they are not going to use them. So including information about outer planes is a waste of paper, as far as these purists are concerned.
The GMs who do want to use planer travel need to have some background material for the places that they transport their players to. This is either going to have to be something like the MotP, the 2e Planescape Campaign Setting or another conventional campaign setting (like the Dragonlance Campaign Setting or Eberron Campaign Setting).
There will always be a group of GMs who want to run mega-crossover campaigns and I think that it doesn't make financial sense to make it to difficult for them to do this with 3.5e products. However, this sort of thing should either be a brief footnote (similar to the small nod to Spelljammer that FRCS had) or something that is put into a product specifically aimed at people running games in the planes.
I don't think that planar travel should be something pitched as a "Forgotten Realms" product. I'd prefer this to either be a FR friendly web enhancement for the "Manual of the Planes" or "Planar Handbook" or (and this is my prefered option) a FR chapter in a new Planescape Campaign Setting hardback.
WotC have created the SRD which has in turn caused other publishers to create a bunch of worlds that are 100 percent compatible with D&D, so if a Planescape or Spelljammer product was able to allow DMs to visit all fantasy d20 campaign settings it would be very helpful to fans of this mega-campagn idea.
Currently the names of planes in the Great Wheel are not part of the SRD, so everyone seems to be copying Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance and creating duplicate outer planes (that never get fully developed). Is there any chance that elements of Spelljammer or Planescape could be available to other publishers (either as part of the SRD or something requiring a PI licence)?
If something that was done their might be some more outer plane based adventures available to FR DMs.
1. The Great Wheel is the One True Cosmology, which include all classic planes, Sigil, the Outlands, etc.
2. Overpowers can create boundaries (i.e. Sub-Cosmologies) within the One True Cosmology to regulate travel for the inhabitants they oversee. For example, the Lady of Pain has dominion over Sigil and sets the rules for travel in and out of that plane; Ao has dominion over the Realms, and he has the shape of a gigantic tree surrounding the Prime Material Plane which contains the planet of Abeir-Toril, with his roots extending down into the Inner Planes and branches extending to the Outer Planes (sometimes two branches go to the same plane, such as the branch that goes to the Abyss and the branch that goes to the Demonweb Pit -- this create the illusion, relatively speaking, to all Faerunians that they are two separate planes, when in fact both branches go to the Abyss of the Great Wheel). Ao sets the rules for travel within his 'envelope', and creates demiplanes such as the Cynosure where gods can meet.
3. The number of Overpowers is as infinite as the number of Prime Material Planes out there. However, not each Prime Material Plane needs to have an Overpower; and some Primes can actually have multiple Overpowers, which would create multiple cosmologies for a given world, and even perhaps alternate paths for departing souls.
4. The Plane of Shadow is the only thing that can bypass an Overgod's strict boundaries, which allows travel between the Sub-Cosmologies, and therefore, within the good old Great Wheel, the One True Cosmology. The Abyss or Nine Hells that Faerunian go to is the same that is visited by the souls of Oerth (e.g. Greyhawk setting), but when Faerunians visit the place, they see different sections of those infinite planes, sections that can only visited by Faerunians. For example, if a Faerunian is in the second layer of Hell, the city of Dis, they see a different district than Oerthians; these districts could be separated by unpenetrable walls, etc. (the DM imagination can truly go wild here); in Avernus, impassable mountain ranges and chasms, or oceans of lava separate these Sub-Cosmologies. People who step out of Sigil into the same layers of Hell see something different altogether -- perhaps the 'free' or 'true' regions of Hell this time, as no Overpower controls the flow of the planes after they depart Sigil (so someone looking for Asmodeus or another of the Nine Lords of Hell might have a better chance finding it if he/she starts her journey in Sigil, as the Overpowers who have 'branches' into these planes would not want to disturb creatures that are inherent or responsible for the very natures of these planes, etc. (i.e. perhaps the reason why we rarely see these famous "D&D Core" big bosses appear in Realmslore)
A little complicated, but I had to say it! :P :D :P
Nice work, Purple Dragon Knight! :D
I was wondering if there was a template or statistics for the weredragon lyncanthrope. I have been trying to do a writeup on a NPC who is a weredragon, and am having a really difficult time with it.
Should not be too much hassle: Look how the lycanthrope template works, but instead of animal, the guy gets dragon.
Basically, be a dragon with one extra ability: Shapeshift (into human and half-dragon form). From there, give him class levels. No human HD would be necessary, since they got replaced by class levels, anyway). CR/LA should be from the dragon (the shapechanging probably won't figure largely into its power)
Thanks, I was trying to fit him into the half-dragon template cause I wasn't sure whether to use the lyncanthrope template.
And as insect-oriented lycanthropes are officially known as entomanthropes, for kicks, you might want to call it something like a dracanthrope. ;)
I was hoping to understand both the crunch and fluff reasons for why Duergar - in the Realms - are not proficient with Dwarven Waraxes and/or Dwarven Urgroshes.
As far as I can tell, these are my fluff theories.
1) Dwarven Waraxes and Urgroshes didn't come into prominence - if not into invention - until sometime after the Duergar sub-race came into existence. Therefor, as a general rule, this might explain why Duergar would teach such weapons as Exotic rather than Martial.
2) If they were existent back then, the Duergar associated said weapons with their Shield/Gold Dwarven kin and had forsaken them as a common weapon.
3) Seeing as Duergar are creatures more bent on toiling labor and less general input on damage-dealing, and despite their history of combat prowess, the duergar have found less association with weapons akin to other dwarves. Their patron, Laduger, ushers a need for Duergar to work constantly, mining, smithing, and overall crafting, as well as fighting against their neighbors in the Underdark.
4) Also, the Underdark is a very threatening place, so what's mentioned in idea 3 could also be necessary due to the necessity to survive overpowering the drive to devise or train with unique weaponry.
This is definite lore: pages 14, 16, and 20 of Races of Faerun mentions that Dwarven Waraxes and Urgroshes are mostly used by Gold Dwarves (and to almost equal extent by their northern kin, the Shield Dwarves) along with a bunch of more common types. As far as Duergar are concerned, they prefer weapons akin to their common labors, namely hammers and picks, as well as crossbows of sorts (likely hand crossbows).
While piercing and throwing weapons are ideal because they do not rely on their density and weight to do damage. As well duergar are not built to use heavy weapons. In contrast to their hill dwarf cousins they are of a weaker build and of a more dextrous nature. Or at least that's what I think
My theory is that the dwarven build gives them a natural talent for such weapons, not enough for an automatic stat boost, but enough to give them an easier time learning big axes like the waraxe and urgrosh. Duergar have a lighter build, and thus don't have the necessary stability, and so find it harder to learn such weapons.
So, where does one find a world map to forgotten realms?
There's a poster map of Faerûn (not the whole planet of Abeir-Toril, but the continent where the whole FR action takes place) in the FRCS, and it also has several smaller maps of the Realms (imports/exports, political borders, and so on), and also a map of the whole Planet (it look suspiciously like a certain other planet we know).
There's also the old FR atlas software I think.
Several other books have other maps (no posters, unfortunately, but usually double-sided affairs): Underdark has a map where the Underdark regions are superimposed on the surface regions, and Lost Empires of Faerûn has a map what the Realms were like something like 2000 years ago.
There's a poster map of Faerûn (not the whole planet of Abeir-Toril, but the continent where the whole FR action takes place) in the FRCS, and it also has several smaller maps of the Realms (imports/exports, political borders, and so on), and also a map of the whole Planet (it look suspiciously like a certain other planet we know).
Everytime I show my players, veteran and new players, that map of Abeir-Toril from the FRCS and from the FR Atlas, I get the same reaction!
"That looks too much like Earth. Let me guess...this spot here has cultures similar to Native Americans riiight?" And they point to Maztica! LOL
Everytime I show my players, veteran and new players, that map of Abeir-Toril from the FRCS and from the FR Atlas, I get the same reaction!
"That looks too much like Earth. Let me guess...this spot here has cultures similar to Native Americans riiight?" And they point to Maztica! LOL
Note that Maztica was there before 3e. Same with Kara-Tur. You can't really blame the 3e map for that.
Note that Maztica was there before 3e. Same with Kara-Tur. You can't really blame the 3e map for that.
That's true. I guess you mean the placement of the Terra Icognita Lands.
So, where does one find a world map to forgotten realms?
IIRC, there's one here on WotCs site. Sorry I don't have a link.
'Tis here:- http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20060607a
thats the map of the continent of farune, not the full world guy. Im asking about the world of Toril. where do I find that map??
A tactically moronic idea.
Seveer
thats the map of the continent of farune, not the full world guy. Im asking about the world of Toril. where do I find that map??
An entire world map of Toril does not exist.
That's mainly because not all of the other landmasses or continents -- besides those already detailed in the FRCS and additional supplements (or in 2e, campaign expansions) -- have been properly detailed or explored. There are 3 to 4 other continents that we know virtually nothing about.
An entire world map of Toril does not exist.
That's mainly because not all of the other landmasses or continents -- besides those already detailed in the FRCS and additional supplements (or in 2e, campaign expansions) -- have been properly detailed or explored. There are 3 to 4 other continents that we know virtually nothing about.
Well, the FRCS has a small one (not even one page, I think), but everything beyond Faerûn is labelled "Unknown Lands", only the continents being called by name (the Australian equivalent doesn't even have a name). It's just the shape of the land masses, nothing of any detail.
Well, the FRCS has a small one (not even one page, I think), but everything beyond Faerûn is labelled "Unknown Lands", only the continents being called by name (the Australian equivalent doesn't even have a name). It's just the shape of the land masses, nothing of any detail.
Apparently it does, it was mentioned in a FR novel, I think, as Ossa.
I always thought the actual name "Osse" was a bit of a joke as a matter of fact...
I guess it is ruled by "Ye Wizarde"
This might have been asked, but is there a chance for any products about Zakhara to be released? I was a big fan of Al Qadim, and it's a shame that there isn't anything about it in 3E.
Get in line with us, pal. There's a very long line of us requesting Forgotten Realms material on places other than Faerun. It's a fat chance, but one day our voices may be heard.
I doubt it, though, since money is more a priority than the game/setting itself.
This might have been asked, but is there a chance for any products about Zakhara to be released? I was a big fan of Al Qadim, and it's a shame that there isn't anything about it in 3E.
WotC seem to be concentrating on dropping tidbits about Kara-Tur and the Hordelands into the Realmslore for the moment.
And given the continuing Realms-centric focus of most of the 3e FR material, I think you'll find that most potential Zakharan references will likely only be made with respect to the Realms themselves.
What I would like to see is a Race Chronicles.
Articles writing about the new races published in other books and what their place is in the Realms. I'd like to see an article on Goliaths, Raptorans, and Illumians in the Realms and their roles and homelands. Spellscales is another one I'd like to see and I really would like to see all the Expanded Psionics Handbook races detailed about in the Realms.
One main reason is because one of my players wants to make a Xeph Factotum and...there's no information on Xeph's in Faerun.
The "race chronicles" have already occurred to some degree in Champions of Valor.....
Yeah but those were guidelines, nothing official really.
It was more of "you can put them here or here or here or do this with them" as opposed to "this is where they originate, when they originated, how they originated, this is their patron deities, this is what they've been doing in Faerun or other places, this is what others think of them".
I want information on the latter, not the former, which isn't information at all it's just "finger pointing".
I just have to say kudos on Class Chronicles. I love that installment and Eytan, you're doing a great job with them!
What I would like to see is a Race Chronicles.
Articles writing about the new races published in other books and what their place is in the Realms. I'd like to see an article on Goliaths, Raptorans, and Illumians in the Realms and their roles and homelands. Spellscales is another one I'd like to see and I really would like to see all the Expanded Psionics Handbook races detailed about in the Realms.
One main reason is because one of my players wants to make a Xeph Factotum and...there's no information on Xeph's in Faerun.
Thanks. I'm very much enjoying researching these articles. I would really like to do a Race Chronicles set. Perhaps once this series is over.
Thanks. I'm very much enjoying researching these articles. I would really like to do a Race Chronicles set. Perhaps once this series is over.
That's good news. Keep up the good work! I can't wait to see more. :D
Though something tells me you'll have your hands full with the classes in Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Battle
Simple question for anyone: Any info on Lantan any time soon?
Off the top of my head, I haven't mentioned Lantan as of yet, though it's certainly possible somewhere down the line.
That's good news. Keep up the good work! I can't wait to see more. :D
Though something tells me you'll have your hands full with the classes in Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Battle
Yes, these could prove difficult, but at the same time, I often find it easier to work with completely new subjects than ones with enormous amounts of existing lore.
Simple question for anyone: Any info on Lantan any time soon?
Surprisingly, I found some under the retired article Portals of Faerun, so if you look through there you'll find the "Welcome Gates" it's called and the "Lantan-Samarach" portal. They give some info on Lantan never before seen.
Surprisingly, I found some under the retired article Portals of Faerun, so if you look through there you'll find the "Welcome Gates" it's called and the "Lantan-Samarach" portal. They give some info on Lantan never before seen.
Yeah, found those to
There's also an excellent fan-based site that incorporates nearly everything known about Lantan, but it's still a single page of textI'm a long time reader, first time poster. My question pertains to the FR timeline and the release of a Grand History of the Realms. Do you know where the timeline will stop? Around 1374DR ~ 1375DR? And how detailed will it be for those years? Is it reasonable to expect something to what is in Power of Faerûn, with a breakdown into months?
Also, I noticed a few times in this forum suggestions for a short book summing up what happened in the Realms in sourcebooks and novels that made the timeline advance (I don't know if you are familiar with similar books published for Heavy Gear by dp9?). Is it a possibility in the near future? (It would really help my campaign building
)bel.
Is there material in the book BESIDES pages upon pages of Realms history? I know you guys got it from Candlekeep by the guy that wrote it as a free PDF download, so I really don't know who the heck is going to buy it now that most people have it. And those that don't can get it through those that do. I hear it's not even going to have histories of the Realms outside of Faerun!?
If so then it shouldn't even be called Grand History of the Realms, but Grand History of Faerun. But I don't know if it's true or not.
What I'd like to know really is what else is in there that'll ensure you guys make a profit off this and that a large number would even be interested? I just think a better book could've taken its place. Is there anything for players and DMs to use other than reading a timeline of events? I really can't see the justification of paying $30 + tax for this if that's all it has to offer. Sticklers for lore like that (which are really only the FR veterans and a few new fans) will be the only ones getting that.
And I would've, too, being a Realms fan...had I not already got it DLed before it was taken down ;)
1. Shadows get entropic scythes, begin hunting wizards across the World on behalf of a new God...
I hope this isn't a trend. I'd really like to see the regional books come back.
Which is correct?
Sorry, but we have no current plans for that "Realms Almanac" we've talked about for a while. I suspect the best format for that sort of thing would be a website article, but I am insanely swamped these days and sure ain't gonna try it myself.
Hi Rich,
I'm a long time reader, first time poster. My question pertains to the FR timeline and the release of a Grand History of the Realms. Do you know where the timeline will stop? Around 1374DR ~ 1375DR? And how detailed will it be for those years? Is it reasonable to expect something to what is in Power of Faerûn, with a breakdown into months?
Also, I noticed a few times in this forum suggestions for a short book summing up what happened in the Realms in sourcebooks and novels that made the timeline advance (I don't know if you are familiar with similar books published for Heavy Gear by dp9?). Is it a possibility in the near future? (It would really help my campaign building
bel.
I'd like to know why the book, Grand History of the Realms, is 160 pages and being sold as a $30 book as opposed to it being a PDF file on the website that can be sold for, I dunno, $10?
Is there material in the book BESIDES pages upon pages of Realms history? I know you guys got it from Candlekeep by the guy that wrote it as a free PDF download, so I really don't know who the heck is going to buy it now that most people have it. And those that don't can get it through those that do. I hear it's not even going to have histories of the Realms outside of Faerun!?
If so then it shouldn't even be called Grand History of the Realms, but Grand History of Faerun. But I don't know if it's true or not.
What I'd like to know really is what else is in there that'll ensure you guys make a profit off this and that a large number would even be interested? I just think a better book could've taken its place. Is there anything for players and DMs to use other than reading a timeline of events? I really can't see the justification of paying $30 + tax for this if that's all it has to offer. Sticklers for lore like that (which are really only the FR veterans and a few new fans) will be the only ones getting that.
And I would've, too, being a Realms fan...had I not already got it DLed before it was taken down ;)
Rich- I just wanted to say that I bought Mysteries of the Moonsea and I really like it alot. I know its been much maligned here, but it really fits my gaming style.
and this: Paizo no longer publishing Dungeon and Dragon
These people sound like they're suicidal or something.
WotC Baker, I am willing to try out the e-zine despite the strong and passionate reaction people are giving. I will miss Dragon and Dungeon, too, but I think you guys at WotC need to show the people something that'll make them feel better, even a little. Can you show whoever's in charge those threads? Are they already aware of the feedback?
I believe previews of what the e-zine has to offer and a set date of its release will calm things down, just a little.
I hear it's not even going to have histories of the Realms outside of Faerun!?
Fans of the Unknown Lands beyond Faerûn will be pleasantly surprised I suspect. That of course is in addition to the first reprinting of the known history of Kara-Tur in almost twenty years.
As far as what sort of information or previews we provide about our plans, well, that's sort of out of my bailiwick. I'm personally very excited by some of the things we're working on, but it's not for me to spill the beans.
Not to change the topic, but have you seen this: Dragon and Dungeon Magazine discontinued
and this: Paizo no longer publishing Dungeon and Dragon
These people sound like they're suicidal or something.
WotC Baker, I am willing to try out the e-zine despite the strong and passionate reaction people are giving. I will miss Dragon and Dungeon, too, but I think you guys at WotC need to show the people something that'll make them feel better, even a little. Can you show whoever's in charge those threads? Are they already aware of the feedback?
I believe previews of what the e-zine has to offer and a set date of its release will calm things down, just a little.
Fans of the Unknown Lands beyond Faerûn will be pleasantly surprised I suspect. That of course is in addition to the first reprinting of the known history of Kara-Tur in almost twenty years.
Hmm...in that case, I just may support that book then myself. You've definitely got me leaning towards buying it now with that news :D
Yeah, I was aware of it. I know a lot of people feel like the rug's been yanked out from under them, but I hope that with a little more time to digest the news they'll be willing to look at things more objectively. Trust me, our decision-makers are aware of the response and are keeping an eye on it (but sometimes the best thing to do is let folks get the emotional responses out of their systems before you try to say anything else).
As far as what sort of information or previews we provide about our plans, well, that's sort of out of my bailiwick. I'm personally very excited by some of the things we're working on, but it's not for me to spill the beans.
I agree, best to talk when all the steam is gone and they can see more clearly. And the NDA you're under is understood so I know you can't say anything about what's to come. I was wondering if you knew when the decision-makers planned on showing a preview, if there are to be any (and, with this news, it'd be the best decision).
Yeah, I was aware of it. I know a lot of people feel like the rug's been yanked out from under them, but I hope that with a little more time to digest the news they'll be willing to look at things more objectively.
Trust me, our decision-makers are aware of the response and are keeping an eye on it (but sometimes the best thing to do is let folks get the emotional responses out of their systems before you try to say anything else).
Rich, thanks a great deal for the response. But certainly you've got to reflect on your words and see exactly not why people are angry, but why they are SO angry:
One the one hand, you're saying that: Yes, you pulled the rug out from under people; and then, in that same sentence, you fault them for somehow not being objective.
And, for that matter, I'm not even sure that people are actually failing to be objective: They want a printed magazine, and you're telling them they can't have it. What's not objective about that?
If you do detect a lack of objectivity, however, it probably has more to do with the fact that in telling them they can't have it, you won't exactly explain why, or what they're going to get in its place.
Add to that the fact that the magazines have been selling decently, that the readership is devoted and loyal -- in other words, people have done everything that customers are supposed to do to get treated well -- and the company's decision becomes even less comprehensible.
You seem to denigrate the idea that people are having "emotional responses," rather than appreciate it. As a company, you want people to be emotional about your product. You want them to feel devoted.
That's what keeps them loyal, even when their head tells them that this issue wasn't so great, that hey that other company's magazine over there looks pretty good, and that maybe they need to cut back on their spending this month anyway.
And, then, after all of that, you utter those two deadly words: "Trust me." It's true, sometimes the best response is to not say anything. But sometimes the best response is to say the right thing.
I do appreciate the fact that you're legitimately excited about the new content you're hoping to produce; but none of that goes to any length to explain why you're also inexplicably discontinuing the magazines along with it. People aren't mad that you're adding new online content; they're mad that you're cancelling the conent that they've been devoted to all these years.
And while you accurately recognize that you've got an angry mob on your hands right now, what you're failing to recognize is that it's also a protest. The people you're hoping to sell this exciting new content to are precisely the same ones who are promising never to buy it.
And that ain't good.
Pax,
KRad
-- George Krashos
But on the other end of the ordeal, I do agree things were let out by WotC the wrong way. I don't think they should've announced this news without standing out in the open for questions right away at the moment the news was released and also offer tons of previews of what we should expect.
But then again, you can never 100% accurately figure out how people will react. Maybe in the long run it was best they handled it this way.
I think if they were to come out in the open after declaring the tragic news, these same people rioting on the Web right now would've reacted the same way and pounced on the staff like a vicious horde of Abyssal demons.
And if they were to offer previews right after the tragic news, no one would bother reading it objectively. They'd be too angry to bother and WotC wouldn't get proper feedback.
No, I think this was handled with a lot of foresight. Give the bad news and lock them in a padded room until they calm down. I've noticed the people are developing the very same stages that others feel when their mortality is about to end.
Shock, outrage, denial, depression...and eventually acceptance.
WotC will come out once the "acceptance" phase comes in. Wise move, I say. Never try to reason with anyone in the other stages.
The words used by Rich were "feel like the rug's been pulled out ...". He can't help how people feel. Why don't you wait and see what WotC are planning and then make a judgement on their actions?
-- George Krashos
First off, I didn't judge what they're planning. I judged what they're doing. As I said above -- which, apparently, you missed -- I believe that they're all legitimately excited about the new online content that they plan to produce.
But what they're doing -- cancelling both print magazines -- doesn't have anything to do with producing online content. The magazines aren't even published by the same company. People would be thrilled to get new online content from WOTC in addition to the magazines from Paizo. And yet, WOTC seemed to prefer making people feel the exact opposite.
As for not being able to "help how people feel" -- well, you didn't seem to read Richard's message either. He says that they knew they would be making people feel this way -- but then decided, for their own reasons, to do it anyway.
You're certainly entitled to defend that decision -- gods know, enough people are criticising it -- but you'd be wrong to keep suggesting that they didn't actually make it.
Pax,
KRad
My question is...Are people REALLY ever going to calm down on this? I'm not entirely sure that they will.
I think maybe someone needs to see who has a new Ferrari in his driveway.. and then find out which competing game company paid him off to systematically get D&D fans to HATE WotC.
It may not be what is really happening, but it sure as heck looks that way.
Paizo did an exemplary job on both magazines, and they seem to have been in the stronger position after the debacle, having already given fans a 'taste' of what's in store. WotC, seems left holding the bag... and nothing else.
Why is it that if Wizards was behind this move, Paizo seems to have been better prepared for it? When I worked for HD, if I upset even a single customer I could loose my job; why is it corporate muckity-mucks could do it to thousands and not get in trouble?
This whole thing smells funny to me....
I think maybe someone needs to see who has a new Ferrari in his driveway.. and then find out which competing game company paid him off to systematically get D&D fans to HATE WotC.
That seems a little extreme, but the basic point (that WotC is implementing a series of decisions which are outraging their most die-hard fans) is true.
I can think of only two other instances when an RPG company made such poor decisions when it came to customer relations:
1. Palladium trying to prosecute fans who posted fan materials online.
2. TSR trying to do the same thing.
White Wolf's decision to stop supporting the game universe responsible for their success is probably up in the same league, although White Wolf knew what they were getting into and handled the PR admirably. (I'm still not convinced that was a good decision for them, but they were prepared to mitigate what they knew would be a tough sell to their biggest fans -- fans who were emotionally invested in the old universe.)
WotC needs to understand that it's not only the cancellation of DRAGON and DUNGEON which is creating this sense of outrage: It's their complete lack of any kind of plan for the future.
And saying "we have a plan, but we're not going to tell you" doesn't make up for that lack -- it makes it worse. People feel as if they are being patronized. Why? Because they are being patronized.
Compare and contrast with Paizo's handling of this. Paizo was always going to have an easier time of it because WotC is (rightfully) identified as the one making the actual decision. But there were plenty of people spewing anger in Paizo's direction in the hours just after the announcement. But Paizo put people on PR duty, responded to people's concerns, and even had a full line of replacement products ready to be announced and sold.
The response? People who had been spewing the angry responses apologized and, in many cases, signed up for Paizo's new products.
Paizo emerged from what could have been a disaster smelling like roses.
WotC, on the other hand, is painting itself as cruel, unresponsive, and incompetent.
If this is actually supposed to be leading up to an announcement of an all-digital replacement for the magazines, then WotC's actions are even more incomprehensible to me: Their lack of response is most infuriating to the computer savvy and 'net active gamers who will inevitably be the core market for their all-digital replacements.
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
I have one question on this Dragon/Dungeon change-over. Previously, WotC said Dragon was the ideal place to present material for their discontinued campaign settings, including the other continents of Toril (Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Maztica) and other worlds/settings such as Planescape and Dark Sun. Will this hold true for the online replacements?
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Who ever said I needed to breathe? :D
Yeah, I was aware of it. I know a lot of people
feel like the rug's been yanked out from under them, but I hope that with a little more time
to digest the news they'll be willing to look at things more objectively. Trust me, our
decision-makers are aware of the response and are keeping an eye on it (but sometimes the
best thing to do is let folks get the emotional responses out of their systems before you try
to say anything else).
Why? Why should there be an open mind? You folks have taken something that has been
an institution for as long as anyone has played and decided to end it. For really, no good
reason. Its not like the magazine was say, losing money. If it were that case, I can see it.
But instean you want to move to online content, which for me, has NO interest.
Having something I can carry around and take with me is important, I have enough online
stuff without trying to read a magazine online.
*shrug*
As far as what sort of information or previews we provide about our plans, well, that's
sort of out of my bailiwick. I'm personally very excited by some of the things we're
working on, but it's not for me to spill the beans.
Thats too bad. Because right now what we see is your axing something enjoyable andgiving nothing back. Its nice to say your excited, but frankly, online content isnt. But I guess we'll see.
I can see several reasons why they might decide to go online, might be environmental issues, all that plastic wrapping, paper and such. I paid for a subscription personally and have had several issues over past two years delivered damaged, this may be an issue that many complain about. Online content obviously has it's demand as it seems the same diehard gamers who are complaining about E-zine are same ones asking for web updates and articles and such all the time, another reason to possibly go in that direction.
More importantly their current fan base is obviously younger and computer- raised to begin with and this is a press and click world whether we like it that way or not. All companies do what is in their best interest to do regardless of what they tell us consumers.
Again, I'm not happy with this either but I'll wait to see what happens and then decide if I'll continue to subscribe to both magazines at that point.
More importantly things change, plain and simple
THREE super-adventures and a coffee-table book? Can't really count Expedition to Undermountain since that doesn't even have the FR brand on it, it's just part of the Expedition series.
Is WotC trying to screw over the Realms while highlighting more Eberron books?
When is the earliest we will see a Realms regional book or something like "Psionics in the Realms", or "Giants of Faerun" or "Beyond the Realms", or "Faiths&Pantheons 2"?
There's plenty of material for the Realms that needs to be given the spotlight for once or redone from older editions.
There's also the old FR atlas software I think.
You can also find a JPG file of the Realms on the Wizards Website under Maps. They have three resolutions. I recently took the one with the highest resolution called a poster map and took it to Kinko's. I had it reproducedon banner plastic type paper and it is now a wall sized hanging with grommits that I can put up during gaming sessions. Four foot high and about five foot wide.
Hiya Rich,
If you could, could you help me answer a question?
In your adventure in Dungeon #101 you give a list of prisoners and five of them are from one caravan and three are from another.
Could you, if you remember, I know that this adventure came out 6 years ago, put who is in what caravan? Also, could you list their gender and race for each? The article just says they are male or female and human or dwarven but I don't like guessing on which is which.
I need the info for my NPC file.
The prisoners are:
Dreth
Edsard
Hela
Ilsa
Morrin
Staarvid
Thurgan
Welsil
Genders are also needed for:
Andremel
Belindara (I'm guessing this one is female
Jhovar
Rich, this question is from Kuje over at Candlekeep [he also posted the question in your scroll at Candlekeep, though since you frequent these boards more he felt this may be the more appropriate place to ask] -
Is there anything in the works about a Villians book or heros books with the updates to all of the new characters we been seeing in the novels and source books?
Reason for asking if my group were discussin the fact that artemis has to be epic by now. Fought over a 1/2 dozen 21 + cr fights solo or with little help and is still standing..fighting jarlaxle twice..and drizzt a couple of times, 2 dragons a dracoliche and 2 epic npc humans..and he is still alive to tell the tale. Same goes with many other chars like jarlaxle, chosens, and of course the shades any many other notables in the novels from the Spider Queen series..
Just more out of curiousity then anything else..but would be nice indeed to see them statted out properly without the npc wealth limits, and what they been doing in the last 20 something years.
Beebles.
Hmm, the one thing that always bugged me is no updates about the Good old Villains of FR.
Is there anything in the works about a Villians book or heros books with the updates to all of the new characters we been seeing in the novels and source books?
Reason for asking if my group were discussin the fact that artemis has to be epic by now. Fought over a 1/2 dozen 21 + cr fights solo or with little help and is still standing..fighting jarlaxle twice..and drizzt a couple of times, 2 dragons a dracoliche and 2 epic npc humans..and he is still alive to tell the tale. Same goes with many other chars like jarlaxle, chosens, and of course the shades any many other notables in the novels from the Spider Queen series..
Just more out of curiousity then anything else..but would be nice indeed to see them statted out properly without the npc wealth limits, and what they been doing in the last 20 something years.
Beebles.
I agree. The crap Wulfgar went through and he's only level 9? The man ended up tortured in the Abyss for years and came back from the dead along with a few dozen other things.
Spoilers warning!
I own a copy of this book, and on page 10 it details what Shan Thar would say if the PC's ask about Thendric's claims about prisoners. Only there are no details of the guard captains Thendric's chat. Has this been fixed somewhere? Because I can't find anything about it in the Errata section of Wizard's site.
Help! :D Please and thank you in advance.
Show
I'm rather upset at the death of Khelben. Why someone important like him and not someone else that doesn't have much spotlight in the Realms?
Can you Realms designers do us a favor and tell the authors to quit damaging the Realms with their stories? You're turning Forgotten Realms into another Dragonlance setting and ruining its value greatly.
Actually, the death of Khelben represents the main problem with many of the Forgotten Realms novels. Why does every novel have to be yet another huge catastrophic event over and over? Why, also, does it have to completely shake the foundations of the design the Realms underwent?
What's next? Killing Elminster? An all out war among Pantheons to see who rules Toril? I mean, come on, too many huge events are happening at once and us FR gamers either don't have time or even want to catch up.
Stuff like the appearance of Shade is cool or the elves coming back to Faerun from Evermeet, for example.
But stuff like describing villains and NPCs in a 3E FR product and then killing them off a few months later is rather lame. The Ice Queen is killed, Sammaster is killed, the Sibyl is killed, Khelben is killed, Vhaeraun and Selvetarm are killed, Myth Drannor is no longer the cool spot for adventurers to dungeon crawl in and is being "civilized"...what gives!?
Leave the major catastrophes to the game players of the Realms, not novel characters.
Can you Realms designers do us a favor and tell the authors to quit damaging the Realms with their stories? You're turning Forgotten Realms into another Dragonlance setting and ruining its value greatly.
Actually, the death of Khelben represents the main problem with many of the Forgotten Realms novels. Why does every novel have to be yet another huge catastrophic event over and over? Why, also, does it have to completely shake the foundations of the design the Realms underwent?
What's next? Killing Elminster? An all out war among Pantheons to see who rules Toril? I mean, come on, too many huge events are happening at once and us FR gamers either don't have time or even want to catch up.
Stuff like the appearance of Shade is cool or the elves coming back to Faerun from Evermeet, for example.
But stuff like describing villains and NPCs in a 3E FR product and then killing them off a few months later is rather lame. The Ice Queen is killed, Sammaster is killed, the Sibyl is killed, Khelben is killed, Vhaeraun and Selvetarm are killed, Myth Drannor is no longer the cool spot for adventurers to dungeon crawl in and is being "civilized"...what gives!?
Leave the major catastrophes to the game players of the Realms, not novel characters.
In fact IMHO most novel readers would say just the opposite of you as the Dragon Rage and Fey ri series went off with barely a whimper, where were the Chosen and other iconic characters during those events?
I'm extremely happy with how that particular plot ended. It was a good ending, without being all about huge fireballs being thrown about.
Sad, because he was my favorite Chosen...
That, I'd agree with. But I seriously doubt that it was up to Steven, there... Maybe the WotC novel people just didn't think Khelben was worth a trilogy?
Sad, because he was my favorite Chosen...
Indeed, I liked him the most out of the Chosen. Not that I have anything against Elminster, but he has a lot of books devoted to him. More books on other major characters would offer a wider, perhaps more balanced view of the Realms. The company should have long ago channeled more of Ed Greenwood's time and attention to stories about groups like the Knights of Myth Drannor rather than more Elminster novels. Certainly the trials of epic wizards are interesting, but just as interesting and probably more relevant to gaming in FR are lower level groups of regular adventurers. I'm glad this is starting to happen in the novels and the sourcebooks.
Please!!!!
That, I'd agree with. But I seriously doubt that it was up to Steven, there... Maybe the WotC novel people just didn't think Khelben was worth a trilogy?
Sad, because he was my favorite Chosen...
I haven't read it yet, but I take from this post that Khelben is a goner?
[sigh...]Oh well, if that's the case... geez, I agree with you guys that they should have *ended* him with at least a trilogy (considering the silence of Lolth took the spotlight for a full hexalogy).
Sorry about that.
*Flees to avoiid clogging up this thread more.*
Indeed, I liked him the most out of the Chosen. Not that I have anything against Elminster, but he has a lot of books devoted to him. More books on other major characters would offer a wider, perhaps more balanced view of the Realms. The company should have long ago channeled more of Ed Greenwood's time and attention to stories about groups like the Knights of Myth Drannor rather than more Elminster novels. Certainly the trials of epic wizards are interesting, but just as interesting and probably more relevant to gaming in FR are lower level groups of regular adventurers. I'm glad this is starting to happen in the novels and the sourcebooks.
The Sword Coast North, the Dalelands, Cormyr--this has all been done to death. Shining South and Unapproachable East were great, and a breath of fresh air.
How about another one? Lands of Intrigue (three excellent nations), or maybe the Chultan peninsula?
Way back in Dreams of the Red Wizards (1988), Szass Tam's birth is listed as 1104 DR. However, in "Red Ambition", Jean Rabe's short story in Realms of Magic (1995), we're told that Tam was born in Delhumide, meaning sometime before 922 DR (according to Unapproachable East). As far as I can tell, there is no other information about Tam's birth. Which source should be considered canon? Thanks.
(And as a side question, what's the correct pronounciation of "Szass Tam" anyway?)
Szass Tam was created by Ed Greenwood... I'm thinking he'd actually be the best to ask for info about him. Especially the pronounciation part.
It's just me, but I'd say it's pronounced "szass tam" ;)
And he's sure getting quite szassy recently.
Question about Szass Tam and conflicting canon:
Way back in Dreams of the Red Wizards (1988), Szass Tam's birth is listed as 1104 DR. However, in "Red Ambition", Jean Rabe's short story in Realms of Magic (1995), we're told that Tam was born in Delhumide, meaning sometime before 922 DR (according to Unapproachable East). As far as I can tell, there is no other information about Tam's birth. Which source should be considered canon? Thanks.
(And as a side question, what's the correct pronounciation of "Szass Tam" anyway?)
If you can wait until the release of Grand History, you're likely to learn more about Szass Tam's birth.
I'll note that the PDF of Grand History noted 1104 DR as Szass Tam's birth year -- using Running the Realms and Dreams of the Red Wizards as reference sources.
It's just me, but I'd say it's pronounced "szass tam" ;)
Right. Just say the letters: 's'+'z' (together) + 'a' (short) + 'ss' [pause] 't' + 'a' + 'm'. Equal stress on both names.
The Sword Coast North, the Dalelands, Cormyr--this has all been done to death.
Just not true. A small fraction of the total extant lore on these places has ever been published. We've been waiting over a decade (except for Silver Marches) to get much deeper than the traveller's overviews given in the Volo's Guides.
Just not true. A small fraction of the total extant lore on these places has ever been published. We've been waiting over a decade (except for Silver Marches) to get much deeper than the traveller's overviews given in the Volo's Guides.
Assuming there's a limit on the number of books that is financially sound for them to publish per unit time, do you think it would add to the total lore if they were to publish another book on the Dalelands or Waterdeep, or if the book were on, say, Chult? Or the Vilhon Reach?
Yet of the six or so 3E regional sourcebooks, none cover the Heartlands. The best publishing strategy would be a balance: I'd love to see a Vilhon book too.
Chult is a different situation, because The Ring of Winter and FRM1 Jungles of Chult (and Powers and Pantheons) contain most of what anyone knows about it. If someone had the passion to expand Chult, even a fraction of Ed's passion for the North and Inner Sea lands, it could be an interesting project. Its chances of artistic value as an assigment to a staff writer or freelancer are much lower. Commercially and in terms of use to DMs as a whole, there are many places ahead of it.
Right. Just say the letters: 's'+'z' (together) + 'a' (short) + 'ss' [pause] 't' + 'a' + 'm'. Equal stress on both names.
Out of pure curiosity...
Would you say that most/all languages in Faerun have phonetics similar to English? What about Romance phonetics, or variations thereof? Not to mention more exotic places such as Mulhorand and Unther.
For instance, how do we know that the 'a' is short as opposed to long? In English, that'd be tricky.
Out of pure curiosity...
Would you say that most/all languages in Faerun have phonetics similar to English? What about Romance phonetics, or variations thereof? Not to mention more exotic places such as Mulhorand and Unther.
For instance, how do we know that the 'a' is short as opposed to long? In English, that'd be tricky.
It's all a big Language Franchise.
Szass Tam was created by Ed Greenwood... I'm thinking he'd actually be the best to ask for info about him. Especially the pronounciation part.
Faerun has numerous names and words that look like they were influenced by the Hungarian language. Very few languages use the SZ combination that is so frequent in Hungarian.
Another example; Var means Castle.
"SZ" is pronounced as "S", "S" as "SH", and "SS" as a drawn out "SSH".
Without input from Ed Greenwood, draw your own conclusion.
Just not true. A small fraction of the total extant lore on these places has ever been published. We've been waiting over a decade (except for Silver Marches) to get much deeper than the traveller's overviews given in the Volo's Guides.
Indeed. One need only read through Ed's extensive comments at Candlekeep to realise this -- and Garen Thal's, especially in regard to the Forest Kingdom.
An effectively done new Dales sourcebook would contain substantial new information -- much like Silver Marches and City of Splendors -- in about the same ratio as one on the Vilhon, which is a large area with a lot of basic information to repeat from published sources such as Vilhon Reach, "Everwinking Eye", "An Overview of Chondath". But sheer new lore isn't the only factor: the Heartlands are the core of the Realms, both the most popular and with incomparably more unpublished information waiting in Ed's head and basement boxes than outlying Faerûn. (Though ESDs are available, most new Realms DMs don't buy them and, I suspect, aren't aware of them.)
Yet of the six or so 3E regional sourcebooks, none cover the Heartlands. The best publishing strategy would be a balance: I'd love to see a Vilhon book too.
You're mainly concerned about all canon, published material, including 2E stuff. Why not throw in novels then? Most players and DMs don't have access to 2E stuff. So they have NO idea what Amn/Tethyr/Calimshan are like, because they don't have Lands of Intrigue or Calimport. I say update Lands of Intrigue First, then maybe something like Western Heartlands or a more generic North.
Also, am I missing something, or has there never been a Thay book, even though it's the source of half the Realms' troubles?
And Richard Lee Byers is presenting a trilogy based on the realm of the Red Wizards, starting with the just recently released Unclean novel.
You're mainly concerned about all canon, published material, including 2E stuff. Why not throw in novels then? Most players and DMs don't have access to 2E stuff. So they have NO idea what Amn/Tethyr/Calimshan are like, because they don't have Lands of Intrigue or Calimport. I say update Lands of Intrigue First, then maybe something like Western Heartlands or a more generic North. Also, am I missing something, or has there never been a Thay book, even though it's the source of half the Realms' troubles?
What would be great is an on-line Wiki for Faerun, that takes all the history and development from all the books and presents it as a reference guide. Sort of like a CIA factbook for Faerun. Then make a map of the continent like Google Earth. I'd pay good money to subscribe to that. Perhaps $300 to sign up initially and a $50 annual user fee.
What would be great is an on-line Wiki for Faerun, that takes all the history and development from all the books and presents it as a reference guide.
(genie nods his head) http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
(genie nods his head) http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Except WotC doesn't make money from that, and thus it can't legally defend having copyright material available. What Leukrythus is suggesting is that WotC market a new product.
(genie nods his head) http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
I've seen that site, but it's only an anemic skeleton of what would be needed. What little is there parrots a small part of the FR Campaign Setting book.
Except WotC doesn't make money from that, and thus it can't legally defend having copyright material available. What Leukrythus is suggesting is that WotC market a new product.
Exactly... a detailed wiki with all the info from all the sanctioned books.
So they have NO idea what Amn/Tethyr/Calimshan are like, because they don't have Lands of Intrigue or Calimport. I say update Lands of Intrigue First, then maybe something like Western Heartlands or a more generic North.
I think the Dales and Cormyr are the priority, but I won't quibble the 'best' order.
Of course, for newer DMs and for a 'complete' product line, one or more new books on Amn, Tethyr and Calimshan would be good (though Lands of Intrigue, as a free download, is a step more accessible than the pay-ESDs). But from the point of view of covering the region, because, again, there isn't a big lode of queued material, it would have to be done extraordinarily well in 160 pages to improve on or add much to Steven and Ed's treatment in Lands of Intrigue, Empires of the Shining Sea, Calimport, Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate II and "Crimmor: City of Caravans".
In contrast, the Volo's Guides are tightly focused on places' appearance, inns and taverns and shops, and some adventurous areas; they omit history, life and society, politics, power groups and everything else below the surface. FRS1 The Dalelands and Cormyr only dealt with this superficially, which means that we've never had a thorough sourcebook on the Western Heartlands, Cormyr, or the Dales, and of course neither on Sembia or the Dragon Coast. It's as if we had Volo's Guide to Waterdeep but no FR1 or City of Splendors.
Would you say that most/all languages in Faerun have phonetics similar to English? What about Romance phonetics, or variations thereof? Not to mention more exotic places such as Mulhorand and Unther.
Most Faerûnian names are regular in pronunciation: similar to English but with specific values for single and double vowels, and different stress patterns. But, that's an abstraction that doesn't take into account regional accents, which aren't much detailed in the lore.
Yet another book that'd be awesome: Languages of Faerun. Right next to Laws of Faerun. ;)
That said, I would like to humbly request more information on the phaerimm. Their history, their heirarchy, culture, etc, be it sourcebook, novel, what have you. Additionally, I am curious if there are any plans to ever develop more of some of the individual 'evil powers that be' in the novels? It seems like with the novels, in most cases good triumphs and some of us would like to see a book or two where the Aumvors or the Daurgothoth's win, as well as more detailed character development.
Any thoughts? Thanks!
I was wondering if there are any hard and fast rules (such as a template or some such) on how to create a Chosen of one of the Faerunian gods?
Hi, first time on D&D forums!
I was wondering if there are any hard and fast rules (such as a template or some such) on how to create a Chosen of one of the Faerunian gods?
Not really. See, the FR designers did a bad thing and opened up a "can of worms" so to speak. They detailed a Chosen of Mystra and a Chosen of Bane...and now everyone wants a Chosen template for every deity in the Realms...and the designers really don't want that task.
Though, in all honesty, if they started working on Chosen templates when the public was crying out for it about 4 years ago, they would've probably had ALL the deities Chosen templates done by now, assuming they did one per week. (52 templates/year...about 208 Chosen templates? Probably would've been done)
It's pretty much up to you, the DM, to come up with your own Chosen template. There is a Chosen of Deneir on the website (do a search for it) and there's a Chosen of Malar in one of the Dungeon Magazine issues.
The Chosen of Mystra is located in the FRCS -- pg. 247. The Chosen of Bane is referenced in Faiths & Pantheons -- pg. 213. The Chosen of Malar appeared in DUNGEON #129 as I recall. And the Chosen of Deneir is detailed here at WotC, in the FR Novels archive.
How exactly does the regional feat Animal Friends work in 3.5, given the spell it's based on (Animal Friendship) was dropped? Was something similar meant to take its place but, for whatever reason, didn't get mentioned in the Player's Guide to Faerûn book nor the errata?
Thank you.
What is the LA for the Chosen of Mystra template, or for the other Chosen templates?
OK... I'm going to answer my own darn question.
This template is better than the Vampire template, so I would give it at least an LA of +10.
Sound about right?
Kinda like the half-dragon but with more options.
Bleh, forget them! I'll just do the work myself then!
Bleh, forget them! I'll just do the work myself then!
That's the most enjoyable part
It would seem that making one "general" template for the Chosen wouldn't be too terribly difficult for the designers, with different options depending on which deity you serve.
It would be completely artificial, as in the Realms "Chosen" is a term applied to a range of quite different things: to beings with a wide range of powers and relationships to their god.
I understand the Scarrans don’t like Darkhope, or the Sembians, attempt to control their ‘Dale. And that the Zhents and Sembians would come to blows over the place if either tried to take it.
Cormyr is not really in a position to intervene, currently at any rate. Neither are most of the Dalelands, for that matter. Some other regional powers have the economic and military strength to intervene, but may not want to do so.
But are things really still in that state of stand-off after two or three years? One factor to consider for example is the Zhent’s conquest of Shadowdale could hypothetically consume enough resources so they do not also attempt to take Scardale, which means Sembia would be take the opportunity to reach in to assume control.
So, what is the current situation in Scardale? Are there any plains for the place?
Why not kill every famous NPC in the Realms while you're at it? Heck, start it off with Drizz't Do'Urden!
REALMS DESIGNERS: In the Expedition to Undermountain book, did you guys really kill off Halaster Blackcloak, or is the material in that book non-FR canon since it's just an expedition book?
Why not kill every famous NPC in the Realms while you're at it? Heck, start it off with Drizz't Do'Urden!
**** SPOILER SPACE ****
Yes, Halaster is no more. You'll see an entry to that effect in the Grand History when it comes out.
As far as every famous NPC, ummm, no. Don't think we will.
Also, overall how have you all dealt with the fact that the realms as is has strong 'epic' elements from the NPCs to the power of magic being used, while clearly marketing wise the most popular levels to play are 5 (gotta love the first time you shoot off your first fireball) to 15th (Ack what no save again).
Are the plots being maneuvered around the intended strength of the PCs these modules are designed for, or is it the other way around, i.e. we want to do a module on subject X and then the levels are decided by something like: 'Well given previous lore, you would have to be like 20th level to pull that off'.
Anyways, just figured I'd ask what your alls MO is.
As for the second part of your question, I would say that "existing power content" in Realms definitely steers us to do certain titles or avoid others. For example, it might be interesting to do the Warlock's Crypt and highlight the "destroy Larloch" adventure. If we did, we'd make that an adventure 20th-level characters (or higher!). In the case of Undermountain, well, the first level or two were always places for low-level adventurers to explore. It worked out reasonably well.
However, there is an important caveat: If we haven't published on some topic in many years, I am much more interested in creating the best "current-game" product inspired by the old material than remaining slavishly loyal to what went before. Again, I understand that's a viewpoint that many of the folks here will take issue with. But I feel that it's important to keep Realms alive and vibrant with a constant influx of new fans who aren't burdened by the weight of twenty years of lore. We make decisions to keep the barrier of entry low and the playability to a non-FR fan high so that more core D&D players will be inclined to give Realms a try.
Rich- Did the level parameters of the Undermountain Module play into the decision to kill off Halaster, or was this how you and the other designers had always imagined Halasters demise.
Also, overall how have you all dealt with the fact that the realms as is has strong 'epic' elements from the NPCs to the power of magic being used, while clearly marketing wise the most popular levels to play are 5 (gotta love the first time you shoot off your first fireball) to 15th (Ack what no save again).
Are the plots being maneuvered around the intended strength of the PCs these modules are designed for, or is it the other way around, i.e. we want to do a module on subject X and then the levels are decided by something like: 'Well given previous lore, you would have to be like 20th level to pull that off'.
Anyways, just figured I'd ask what your alls MO is.
One more question: Is the new Shadowdale module going to explicitly use the new rules introduced in Power of Faerun, and Heros of Battle. Personally I would love that.
One more question: Is the new Shadowdale module going to explicitly use the new rules introduced in Power of Faerun, and Heros of Battle. Personally I would love that.
For the most part no, but the adventure does use the concept of victory points. That said, those rules are completely compatible with this adventure if you want to go that way. We tried to do some new things in this adventure that hopefully speak for themselves. It's probably best to let folks see the adventure and then answer questions about the tact we took.
--Eric
Death is little more than a temporary and minor inconvenience to an archmage of Halaster's caliber.
Not if a spell such as Soul Bind was used.
I would be asking my local gaming store, but it closed fairly recently.
Again, thanks.
Ah, thank you. I already knew about the core update but was wondering about FR specifically. It's good to know I didn't accidentally buy an out of date FRCS. :embarrass Also, what about the other books in general? For instance, I can only find old paperback editions of Monsters of Faerun online.
I would be asking my local gaming store, but it closed fairly recently.
Again, thanks.
IIRC, LEoF updates most of the MoF critters. I think there is also a WE.
Also, what about the other books in general?
As far as I know, the Player's Guide to Faerûn is meant as the general 3.5 update to the Realms, not just the FRCS.
Some stuff also got reused in newer books when it fit in, like said monsters in Lost Empires of Faerûn.
Why are you still keeping Greyhawk around? I mean, as an FR fan somewhere between casual and dedicated, it's a real pain in the butt when a new Complete X or Races of X book comes out, and a wonderful, powerful, flavorful prestige class comes out (let's say Ruby Knight Vindicator, or Temple Raider of Olidammara), except it's tied to Greyhawk, and I'm caught between wanting to play it and not wanting to go through the process of adapting it to an FR deity or organization or what have you, hoping I'm not unbalancing it by adapting it, etc.
I mean, FR was supposed to be the campaign setting where you could find anything. Now that role belongs to Greyhawk, with silly new races like the Raptoran or Illumian (which nobody I know puts into FR, despite that section in CoV). There isn't even a 3E world map for Greyhawk, as far as I know, whereas Forgotten Realms has a very well defined and finely detailed lore and geography that's actually updated. (Well, way less than I'd like, but it's getting there.)
Is Greyhawk simply just the polite word for "homebrew" now? New players and DMs inevitably start with Greyhawk, make up random towns in random places with random politics and random monsters and random lore--which is fun, don't get me wrong, but as a default setting for D&D, wouldn't it make more sense to base it in a richly detailed, stronger setting like FR, with its large fanbase who are tied to novels and other products?
I mean, there isn't a financial reason I can think of that prevents WotC from throwing their weight behind FR and Eberron, instead of dragging this corpse of a setting behind them endlessly. You released Dragonlance, but you're keeping Greyhawk? If DL had been the default setting instead of Greyhawk, I can't imagine Greyhawk not being discarded.
However, there is an important caveat: If we haven't published on some topic in many years, I am much more interested in creating the best "current-game" product inspired by the old material than remaining slavishly loyal to what went before. Again, I understand that's a viewpoint that many of the folks here will take issue with. But I feel that it's important to keep Realms alive and vibrant with a constant influx of new fans who aren't burdened by the weight of twenty years of lore. We make decisions to keep the barrier of entry low and the playability to a non-FR fan high so that more core D&D players will be inclined to give Realms a try.
It doesn't make sense. An adventure was already written with just Halaster being kidnapped and all Hell from Undermountain broke loose requiring the PCs to save Halaster so he can keep things stable again.
Now he's permanently gone with no replacement and all Hell should be breaking loose a 2nd time. It doesn't sound like something new at all to me. It couldn't just be a good ol' dungeon mashing adventure or something?
And the lore of the Realms is what made it so popular in the first place. Burdened? A Realms fan should be ecstatic to see so much precedent lore. Sure, no one minds changes to happen here and there, but considering you guys make the novels "canon", the Realms is turning upside-down all of a sudden. With several RSEs going on at once (Mulhorand and Unther, Sembia's civil war, Thay's civil war, Silver Marches at war, several key NPCs important to the Realms or newly introduced suddenly killed off, huge elven crusade knocking off one hell of an adventure site off the map, and even deicide within the drow pantheon) isn't it about time that the FR novels be taken off the "official canon" list unless specifically stated it's canon by the designers?
PCs and adventure modules should shape the world and what unfolds for the future of the Realms, not novels. That's a splitting of the fan base because not all FR players read FR novels. To pick up a sourcebook with official lore one minute and to buy the next sourcebook a year later that made several previous lore completely obsolete is frustrating. If you fall back on a few trilogies, you're behind everyone else on whatever the heck is going on.
Is there any reason ALL the FR novels HAVE to be canonized? Can't you go the route that Eberron went?
In any event, I think Realms purists would have been much more outraged by the way the world would have been handled if we had made Faerun the default. I don't think the Realms prospered when it was treated as the setting into which any designer could drop anything that crossed his mind. You wouldn't have had a distinct Realms product line, and probably nothing in the way of "geography" or "story" products such as Silver Marches, Lords of Darkness, or Serpent Kingdoms. Those would have been competing in the core D&D line against crunchier titles with broader appeal. Plus, the Realms story you would have seen emerging would have necessarily been the work of many people, most unconcerned with previous lore or world continuity issues.
Here's a question you probably won't want to answer, but I really want to know:
Why are you still keeping Greyhawk around? I mean, as an FR fan somewhere between casual and dedicated, it's a real pain in the butt when a new Complete X or Races of X book comes out, and a wonderful, powerful, flavorful prestige class comes out (let's say Ruby Knight Vindicator, or Temple Raider of Olidammara), except it's tied to Greyhawk, and I'm caught between wanting to play it and not wanting to go through the process of adapting it to an FR deity or organization or what have you, hoping I'm not unbalancing it by adapting it, etc.
I mean, FR was supposed to be the campaign setting where you could find anything. Now that role belongs to Greyhawk, with silly new races like the Raptoran or Illumian (which nobody I know puts into FR, despite that section in CoV). There isn't even a 3E world map for Greyhawk, as far as I know, whereas Forgotten Realms has a very well defined and finely detailed lore and geography that's actually updated. (Well, way less than I'd like, but it's getting there.)
Is Greyhawk simply just the polite word for "homebrew" now? New players and DMs inevitably start with Greyhawk, make up random towns in random places with random politics and random monsters and random lore--which is fun, don't get me wrong, but as a default setting for D&D, wouldn't it make more sense to base it in a richly detailed, stronger setting like FR, with its large fanbase who are tied to novels and other products?
I mean, there isn't a financial reason I can think of that prevents WotC from throwing their weight behind FR and Eberron, instead of dragging this corpse of a setting behind them endlessly. You released Dragonlance, but you're keeping Greyhawk? If DL had been the default setting instead of Greyhawk, I can't imagine Greyhawk not being discarded.
I think you're essentially correct: When we say "Greyhawk" we're really saying "homebrew." Basically, at the time we were laying out the strategy for 3rd Edition back in 1999 or so, we had several important decision-makers in the company who were big Greyhawk fans and felt strongly that we'd be better off to make Greyhawk the default setting. I didn't really agree with them at the time, but that's the way it goes sometimes. I just didn't think there was that much love for Greyhawk as a world-setting remaining out in the fan base. I would have preferred to make Realms the default, or create a new setting of limited scope as the default for the system.
In any event, I think Realms purists would have been much more outraged by the way the world would have been handled if we had made Faerun the default. I don't think the Realms prospered when it was treated as the setting into which any designer could drop anything that crossed his mind. You wouldn't have had a distinct Realms product line, and probably nothing in the way of "geography" or "story" products such as Silver Marches, Lords of Darkness, or Serpent Kingdoms. Those would have been competing in the core D&D line against crunchier titles with broader appeal. Plus, the Realms story you would have seen emerging would have necessarily been the work of many people, most unconcerned with previous lore or world continuity issues.
All I can say is thank god for those Greyhawk guys, as I know myself along with probably just about everyone on these boards and candlekeep would not have wanted to see that come to pass.
I guess I can understand the greyhawk=homebrew mentality but I would have thought in the mass of books that are realesed every year that somewhere in there they would have, for posterities sake, included a Greyhawk Campaign Setting book. Just so those people who want to use all the core products have a semi-detailed setting to use it in.
I know personally though, as a person who started playing in the latter 2ed days (mainly in FR), I know almost nothing about Greyhawk as a world, in fact I would say I probably know more Dark Sun lore (which isn't much) than Greyhawk lore. My point being that if those same movers and shakers are still around you would think that they would want some detailed coverage for their much beloved setting to educate the newer fans.
On a side note Rich, I have to say I am saddened by the decision to do away with the old mad mage, Halaster will be greatly missed.
All I can say is that I understand what you had to deal with... these Greyhawk clowns sure can throw a tantrum! :P
I guess I can understand the greyhawk=homebrew mentality but I would have thought in the mass of books that are realesed every year that somewhere in there they would have, for posterities sake, included a Greyhawk Campaign Setting book. Just so those people who want to use all the core products have a semi-detailed setting to use it in.
I know personally though, as a person who started playing in the latter 2ed days (mainly in FR), I know almost nothing about Greyhawk as a world, in fact I would say I probably know more Dark Sun lore (which isn't much) than Greyhawk lore. My point being that if those same movers and shakers are still around you would think that they would want some detailed coverage for their much beloved setting to educate the newer fans.
The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer was published in the early 3e days and gives a good overview of the setting, even if it was mainly for the purposes of advertising Living Greyhawk. Like you, I had little idea of what the setting entailed when 3e came out, but that book gave me a good grounding...
I don't know numerically how well loved the World of Greyhawk is, but while you can't tell much reliably from online discussion, it says something that Oerth is a popular setting almost everywhere D&D is discussed. Sales of the new Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk won't reliably gauge that popularity either.
The big Greyhawk supporters at Wizards have seemingly gone; though the fact that Steelwind and many others don't know of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer also says something for how it was promoted back then.
-- Faraer, Greyhawk clown
Is this an error in making this a multi-class option? I mean, pretty much any non-fallen paladin in the Realms, from what I hear, have a record for sticking towards their needed Lawful Good alignment.
Okay, Mr. Baker (or Mr. Boyd, if he's reading this), the "Deities Do's and Dont's" web enhancement for Faiths & Pantheons mentions that paladins of Kelemvor's Eternal Order can freely multiclass as Doomguides of Kelemvor. However, according to F&P, Doomguides can only be Lawful Neutral.
Is this an error in making this a multi-class option? I mean, pretty much any non-fallen paladin in the Realms, from what I hear, have a record for sticking towards their needed Lawful Good alignment.
I would say that the specific indulgence granted in the web enhancement overrides the normal alignment restriction. Let the multiclassed paladin play a Lawful Good doomguide, I think it would be fine.
Yeah, some players in a thread concerning this thought so.
In addition, somebody notified that one of the requirements that paladins normally cannot reach is that the PrC requires the ability to cast Speak With Dead, which is normally not on a paladin's spell list.
Diffan suggested making an Initiate feat or the like giving that spell. Do you?
On another note, a big request of mine would be to have something done with Manshoon. I mean come on, Fzoul tries to kill him and take over the organization he has spent hundreds of years building and rather than destroying the impudent Fzoul he just hands the Zhentarim over and says here you go, just let me use its resources every now and then. Please tell me this is some kind of diabolical plot of Manshoon's. Maybe he is using Fzoul as some kind of fall guy, something! Just don't have him lie down and take that from Fzoul. Don't get me wrong I really like Fzoul and the new direction the Zhentarim has taken by focusing more on conquest I just want to see something with Manshoon.
Rich Baker, I loved your Last Mythal books. After reading the trilogy I immediately looked for any other novels you had written so I could buy them. I love your writing style.
I would also like to commend all of the other people who work on D&D. I don't know how you can stand the level of criticism you guys get. I only recently have started looking on the message boards and already can hardly stand to read them any more. It seems almost every person out there does nothing but complain about how bad EVERYTHING is and how EVERYTHING is broken. I think you guys have done a tremendous job of trying to keep everything balanced and don't think people realize you can't possibly know every spell, every feat, every PrC out there and forsee all possible interactions that may occur. Keep up the good work and I hope you guys realize there are people who appreciate it.
-- Faraer, Greyhawk clown
He he he... I participated heavily in the Living Greyhawk campaign from 2001 to mid 2005 (i.e. until real life - read wife - put its foot down and put a stop to all these weekend-gaming-marathons...)
I'm sorry to say, but you'd have to have the stamina of a crack addict to survive the Living Greyhawk grind any longer, why with its 200-page campaign guidelines telling you which PrC is or isn't allowed, and the six binders of documentation one has to bring to the gaming table... heck, some of us, becoming very jaded along the way, had renamed the campaign "Living Accounting", but we *still* had to play, despite our growing hate.
Yes, I still thank my wife to this day. Otherwise I might have grown into an argumentative, no-talent dude who hangs out online to talk about D&D. Hey... wait a minute! ;)
I can understand if it's something like "leveling out the playing field" or "all good things must come to an end." I was just wondering if it was safe to comment on this and ease some of the tension brought on the community.
To answer your question of why so many high-level characters have shuffled off lately... I think it's a confluence of factors. First, FR is twenty years old, and the game timeline spans about the same amount of in-world history. That's sufficient time for some very significant people to shuffle off the mortal coil. Some amount of turnover is simply a matter of verisimilitude.
Second, I think the setting was frozen for a long time because we operated under the "television show" model--do anything you want in the story you're telling right now, but at the end of it, the signature characters need to be back where they belong. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy all get back on the Enterprise and zip off through space at the end of a Star Trek episode; it's the same thing. In shifting to 3rd Edition, we decided to downplay the role of signature NPCs in game product and put the spotlight much more strongly on *your* PCs. That freed up those characters for much more aggressive and less formulaic storytelling in our novels, since we were really trying to grow out of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy thing and let these characters grow, change, and sometimes die off.
Finally, back in the early days of the game it was absolutely true that wizards just owned high levels. The most powerful people in the world without exception were high-level wizards. Ed's original FR accepted this established game mechanic fact and followed it to its logical conclusion -- so Faerun was full of old, powerful archmages who could do anything they wanted. In more recent years the disparity between the classes has narrowed a great deal. Allowing characters of different classes to rise to prominence means a quiet retirement of at least some of those archmages. So part of what you're seeing is simply an effort to make use of more of the wonderful breadth of character concept the game now permits.
In any event, it's not a systematic or deliberate effort to kill off old characters--it's just a bit of evolution at work. And I wouldn't worry about Elminster.
I think a lot of people are worried that all of the high level famous characters are going to die off. Azoun, Khelben, Halaster, and now I'm worried your going to kill off Elminster. I guess what I want to ask is are these deaths for story reasons or are you going to kill off a lot of famous NPC's because of the many vocal people who complain about them. I just want to assure you that though we may not be as vocal there are a lot of FR fans out there who like the famous NPCs. A lot of the people who hate the chosen, etc. play Ebberon, which I guess is more to their liking, fine thats probably why WoTC came up with the setting, I just hope the Realms remain the Realms.
On another note, a big request of mine would be to have something done with Manshoon. I mean come on, Fzoul tries to kill him and take over the organization he has spent hundreds of years building and rather than destroying the impudent Fzoul he just hands the Zhentarim over and says here you go, just let me use its resources every now and then. Please tell me this is some kind of diabolical plot of Manshoon's. Maybe he is using Fzoul as some kind of fall guy, something! Just don't have him lie down and take that from Fzoul. Don't get me wrong I really like Fzoul and the new direction the Zhentarim has taken by focusing more on conquest I just want to see something with Manshoon.
Rich Baker, I loved your Last Mythal books. After reading the trilogy I immediately looked for any other novels you had written so I could buy them. I love your writing style.
I would also like to commend all of the other people who work on D&D. I don't know how you can stand the level of criticism you guys get. I only recently have started looking on the message boards and already can hardly stand to read them any more. It seems almost every person out there does nothing but complain about how bad EVERYTHING is and how EVERYTHING is broken. I think you guys have done a tremendous job of trying to keep everything balanced and don't think people realize you can't possibly know every spell, every feat, every PrC out there and forsee all possible interactions that may occur. Keep up the good work and I hope you guys realize there are people who appreciate it.
That's sufficient time for some very significant people to shuffle off the mortal coil. Some amount of turnover is simply a matter of verisimilitude.
Given the ongoing timeline, I prefer this to the alternative, but two caveats. Obviously, the deaths should be reasonable and organic, and seen to be, rather than arbitrary. Khelben's was, Halaster's as yet isn't. Second, if obsession with depicting the latest events isn't correspondingly loosened, characters will die before ever being justly dealt with in print.
So part of what you're seeing is simply an effort to make use of more of the wonderful breadth of character concept the game now permits.
This would be better done positively, by showing us the workings of the priesthoods, merchant and criminal groups, etc., than negatively, or by worrying about (thus further overforegrounding) a handful of high-level NPCs.
Allowing characters of different classes to rise to prominence means a quiet retirement of at least some of those archmages. So part of what you're seeing is simply an effort to make use of more of the wonderful breadth of character concept the game now permits.
That would be nice to see.
In the past, it seemed like Azoun and Piergeron were the only two non-'mages' of any political significance in the setting, and Azoun's already been bumped off.
Some focus on setting-significant warriors or rogues would be particularly welcome (Drizzt and Artemis Entreri are examples of high level fighters and rogues, but neither of them seems to be politically significant or important to the *setting* in the same sense that Azoun was, or the Simbul or Szass Tam currently are). Some sort of crime-lord, or secret society head who isn't a wizard would be pretty neat, as most of the secret societies of the Realms seem to be wizard-run.
Obviously, the deaths should be reasonable and organic, and seen to be, rather than arbitrary. Khelben's was, Halaster's as yet isn't.
You make a lot of very good points. I would quibble as to whether Halaster's death was organic or not.
Halaster has an existing history of conflict with the Twisted Rune. His death is a direct result of that ongoing feud. What hasn't been defined is the project that Halaster was working on that the Twisted Rune interfered with. But that doesn't mean that the cause of death wasn't tied into the ongoing history of the Realms.
Remember Ed's adage from many GenCons past to open as many (if not more) new doors as you close off.
--Eric
You make a lot of very good points. I would quibble as to whether Halaster's death was organic or not.
If you say it is, I believe you -- that's why I say 'as of yet', i.e. Expedition to Undermountain. Of course too many individually reasonable deaths of extremely long-lived beings would still be implausible.
When I was reading the new Ruins of Undermountain adventure I was reminded how old Durnan (90+ years old) is. If anything Durnan should die off soon simply from old age. Durnan is described as a strong about middle aged man but looking at the timeline he's quite old.
Like many rich adventurers and rulers, Durnan uses potions of longevity. If he or Mirt were to die, Wizards would have killed one of Ed Greenwood's preferred novel protagonists after 20 years of not letting him write a novel about him.
I don't think I ever remember an NPC simply dying from old age.
Rhauntides comes to mind; Shaunil Tharm's secret mission is a rather vague new door.
Do you know who did the "In Faerun" entries for Monster Manual V? and do you know who wrote the vampire section? (the Black Duke is kickass!) I have both Realms and vampire stat block questions for that book.
Cheers!
PS: the stat block question is quick --> "how come the atk and dmg bonus for the slam atk the same as the sword bonuses?"; as for the Realms questions, I'll put them on hold until I have them all in some intelligible order...
Can anyone confirm yet if there are any Forgotten Realms roleplaying products for 2008?
The product catalogs through 4/08 are out and there are no new Forgotten Realms products included. A few questions:
1) Are these lists complete? (as posted on the front page of http://www.enworld.org/)
2) If they are complete why are there no new Realms products?
3) Is this because there's something else big coming out that must come out first?
4) In any case, what are you guys planning on talking about at the Realms Gen Con Seminar (with no new product in pipeline)?
Thanks!
Well, just doing a quick comparison between the Jan-April 2007 product list and that one posted would seem to indicate that there's likely more products to be announced. There's only 16 fiction/accessory products listed there for Jan-April 2008, while there were 26 products of those types released during the same period earlier this year.
That provides some hope.
$#*#&$^*&!!!! What does it take to get a Dales or Cormyr regional sourcebook? $H#+!!! Any regional sourcebook would be a plus!
:headexplo :headexplo :headexplo
Just wanted to give a shout out of thanks for putting out the Shadowdale adventure.
Now I know you guys didn't write this with my campaign in mind, but I'll be damned if it doesn't fit in quite nicely with what my players are doing in Cormanthor, Myth Drannor and to a lesser degree the Dalelands.
I absolutely can't wait to see what's in store with Anourach. I hope you guys take the time to pull out all the stops. Please give us more good story and couple it with more really, really nastly NPCs and monsters so we can run some positively heroic, memorable battles.
Thank you sir!
Here is what I am thinking though, for the Web enhancement, can you guys flesh out some of the battles in the last chapter. I know you were trying to not get into that huge mechanical difficulty, but a time line of confrontations between the people of Shadowdale and the Zhents would have been great.
I know its a waste but I wanted more minions.....
I have some questions about possible future FR releases:
1) I know that Faiths and Pantheons (and before that, Faiths and Avatars) detailed (albeit shortly) many FR deities and their churches, but many FR fans have been asking for more religious lore and details, so are there any plans to release anything like Faiths of Eberron (“Faiths of Faerûn”?) which would concentrate on religious "fluff" and details - rituals, blessings/curses, terminology/vocabulary for each faith (i.e. fallen paladins or priests are known as 'Dark Watchers' within Helm's faith), daily chores, temple/shrine descriptions, cults/heresies ('Heretic of the Faith'-feat is a marvelous DM tool
and all that. No prestige classes, monsters or NPC statistics. Sort of using the lore presented in Faiths and Avatars and Faiths and Pantheons but taking it a bit further 2) Has there ever been plans to do a 'Ptolus'-style "citybook" for FR? I think it is a GREAT idea to publish a book with 600+ pages of very detailed official lore, handouts, maps, advice, campaign hooks etc. It would probably work even better if it detailed many cities (like Forgotten Realms Adventures did), for example 12 cities with 50 pages devoted to each. Many DMs would probably rather pay a steeper price to get all those pages within one covers, instead of paying for four books with 150 pages in each.
3) Now that Dungeon goes digital and covers only one adventure per month, I would guess that adventures and adventure collections would be in great demand. Has there ever been any plans to do a “Dungeons of the Realms” –type of accessory, which would simply detail (and update to 3.5 edition) different known dungeon complexes (small and medium-sized alike) such as the Haunted Halls, Irongard, Dungeon of the Sword, Dungeon of the Crypt, lich lairs, wizard towers etc.? You would think that Ed still has all his notes and maps stored somewhere
Are there any plans for releasing gaming material like the one from the new Drow of the Underdark, but for the Realms? (web enhancements... anything)
I know we have the Underdark supplement, but it is not very Drow specific...
The original Drow of the Underdark was a FR supplement, so c'mon, show the 3.5 Drow population of the Realms some love. :inlove:
Yes, the catalog's essentially complete. Sometimes we do add products that "sneak in" under the catalog but that's not what we currently have in mind here. There are no Realms products in the first trimester due to the particular quirks of our scheduling process--you will see several Realms products in 2008, just a little later in the year. (Wish it weren't that way, but sometimes the schedule is funny.) Don't read too much into it. We'll have plenty of great Realms stuff to talk about at the GenCon Realms seminar.
Eric or Rich:
The product catalogs through 4/08 are out and there are no new Forgotten Realms products included. A few questions:
1) Are these lists complete? (as posted on the front page of http://www.enworld.org/)
2) If they are complete why are there no new Realms products?
3) Is this because there's something else big coming out that must come out first?
4) In any case, what are you guys planning on talking about at the Realms Gen Con Seminar (with no new product in pipeline)?
Thanks!
No immediate plans on a "Faiths of Faerun," but the old Faiths & Avatars series was so thorough on that it's hard to see how we could top it.
We have that 600 page + product for FR, based on Waterdeep. The only problem is that it's scattered in half-a-dozen novels, a couple of Undermountain boxes and dungeon crawls, a big boxed set... not the most convenient packaging, I suppose.
I think you'll see more dungeons as Dungeon gets its electronic legs under it, but don't quote me on that. Oddly enough, I just finished working on a couple of web articles based on those dungeons, so you'll see more about the Purple Halls and the Cavern of Death in a couple of months.
Well met, Rich!
I have some questions about possible future FR releases:
1) I know that Faiths and Pantheons (and before that, Faiths and Avatars) detailed (albeit shortly) many FR deities and their churches, but many FR fans have been asking for more religious lore and details, so are there any plans to release anything like Faiths of Eberron (“Faiths of Faerûn”?) which would concentrate on religious "fluff" and details - rituals, blessings/curses, terminology/vocabulary for each faith (i.e. fallen paladins or priests are known as 'Dark Watchers' within Helm's faith), daily chores, temple/shrine descriptions, cults/heresies ('Heretic of the Faith'-feat is a marvelous DM tool
2) Has there ever been plans to do a 'Ptolus'-style "citybook" for FR? I think it is a GREAT idea to publish a book with 600+ pages of very detailed official lore, handouts, maps, advice, campaign hooks etc. It would probably work even better if it detailed many cities (like Forgotten Realms Adventures did), for example 12 cities with 50 pages devoted to each. Many DMs would probably rather pay a steeper price to get all those pages within one covers, instead of paying for four books with 150 pages in each.
3) Now that Dungeon goes digital and covers only one adventure per month, I would guess that adventures and adventure collections would be in great demand. Has there ever been any plans to do a “Dungeons of the Realms” –type of accessory, which would simply detail (and update to 3.5 edition) different known dungeon complexes (small and medium-sized alike) such as the Haunted Halls, Irongard, Dungeon of the Sword, Dungeon of the Crypt, lich lairs, wizard towers etc.? You would think that Ed still has all his notes and maps stored somewhere
No immediate plans on a "Faiths of Faerun," but the old Faiths & Avatars series was so thorough on that it's hard to see how we could top it.
The Faiths & Avatars books, for all their excellence and mouse type, don't cover the priesthoods at all thoroughly. They say little about their structure, with no more than brief mentions of rituals, almost nothing on holy books and, for the most part, brief allusions to myths at best. You might not want to publish it, but I think this material is an obvious and long-standing lack. Some of it, I believe, was submitted for Faiths & Avatars but cut for space. I would think these major Faerûnwide organizations warrant coverage at least equivalent to the abbreviated write-ups in Lords of Darkness.
Oddly enough, I just finished working on a couple of web articles based on those dungeons, so you'll see more about the Purple Halls and the Cavern of Death in a couple of months.
Great.
We have that 600 page + product for FR, based on Waterdeep. The only problem is that it's scattered in half-a-dozen novels, a couple of Undermountain boxes and dungeon crawls, a big boxed set... not the most convenient packaging, I suppose.
That's exactly the point some of us are putting forth. Waterdeep has a lot published on it but it's scattered over dozens of supplements, boxed sets, adventures and novels across almost twenty years of publication history; it's just not easy to gather all together. Meanwhile, Ptolus showed that such a hefty format is at least feasible and it was a new, untested material as well. Waterdeep on the other hand is the iconic city of one of the most popular fantasy game settings out there. This is a publication format someone should investigate, unless you already had someone look at it and ruled it out as inviable.
Also, a Cities of Faerun book might be worth looking into. So as to not shake up WotC's set up too much with talk of 600 page books, you can take the regular 160 page sourcebook and divide it between four cities, devoting 40 pages to each city. This is not unlike the format to Mysteries of the Moonsea, except leave out the focus on adventures. Don't go for the mixed format, have it contain what a regular regional sourcebook would, applied to a variety of cities. This will be useful to some people who don't use the Forgotten Realms either since they can easily plug in cities into their homebrew campaigns. If the book is well received you can release Cities of Faerun II and so on.
The Faiths & Avatars books, for all their excellence and mouse type, don't cover the priesthoods at all thoroughly. They say little about their structure, with no more than brief mentions of rituals, almost nothing on holy books and, for the most part, brief allusions to myths at best. You might not want to publish it, but I think this material is an obvious and long-standing lack. Some of it, I believe, was submitted for Faiths & Avatars but cut for space. I would think these major Faerûnwide organizations warrant coverage at least equivalent to the abbreviated write-ups in Lords of Darkness.Great.
Maybe mix that format with the Core Belief articles format in Dragon.
That's how Forgotten Realms books SHOULD be done. Why they aren't is beyond me. Money? I doubt it. Popularity? I am quite sure they would be very popular (why else are they releasing Grand History of the Realms?) Page count? Bah! They can't convince R&D to do something that spectacular? Decrease the font size, then, like they did with the FRCS and Faiths&Pantheons.
The only thing that sucked about those series was the authors should've done one more book: Monstrous Pantheons. It would've covered Orc, Goblinoid, Draconic, Giant, Seelie&Unseelie, and Miscellaneous monstrous deities ala Faiths&Avatars style.
I was quite surprised the entire Draconic Pantheon didn't get this treatment in the FR 2E Draconomicon since the author gave the dragon deity Null the full Faiths&Avatars treatment.
But, seriously WotC, look at the wide success of Faiths&Avatars, Powers and Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities and learn something from that.
Thanks,
El.
Any reason why Grand history of the realms isnt getting any coverage in Mat Smiths monthly previews?
I know Mr. Bernstein's working on adapting the classes from Tome of Battle to the Realms, for one thing. That should help really well.
Hey Rich
Any reason why Grand history of the realms isnt getting any coverage in Mat Smiths monthly previews?
The longer answer is that we deliberately do not make "flavor" elements like names, characters, backstories specifically compatible with FR. We keep them generic (well, "Greyhawk"-generic in some cases), and encourage the DM to adjust flavor as needed to fit cool stuff into his game. In Frostburn, for example, we created a group called the Knights of the Iron Glacier. There isn't any such organization in the Realms, nor is there an Iron Glacier--but there could be. Drop it in up north of the Spine of the World or in the mountains near the Great Glacier, and it would work just fine.
Mr. Baker, I realize you were the author for some Core D&D sourcebooks, notably Frostburn, Lords of Madness and Tome of Battle. On average, how much material in those books do you try to make Realms-compatible?
I know Mr. Bernstein's working on adapting the classes from Tome of Battle to the Realms, for one thing. That should help really well.
Couple of quick questions.
1) Is the Phlan webenhancement for Mysteries of the Moonsea going to be released? It seems to have fallen by the wayside a little.
2) Concerning the release schedule for early next year. There are a couple of FR novels that were already scheduled for that quarter, such as EC's Reclamation, which was scheduled for March 2008. Is there a chance that we might see those novels being released then?
Thanks for your time. (And for helping to develop the best setting out there!)
Hello Rich!
Couple of quick questions.
1) Is the Phlan webenhancement for Mysteries of the Moonsea going to be released? It seems to have fallen by the wayside a little.
I second this question. I totally forgot that this was supposed to be released, but hasn't at all. What's up with this?
RE: novels... Yes, we have a number of 1st trimester FR novels. When I posted about "no FR products in 1st trimester" I was speaking to the absence of FR game products. I think Reclamation is April instead of March, however. I'll talk about the upcoming schedule more at GenCon.
Hello Rich!
Couple of quick questions.
1) Is the Phlan webenhancement for Mysteries of the Moonsea going to be released? It seems to have fallen by the wayside a little.
2) Concerning the release schedule for early next year. There are a couple of FR novels that were already scheduled for that quarter, such as EC's Reclamation, which was scheduled for March 2008. Is there a chance that we might see those novels being released then?
Thanks for your time. (And for helping to develop the best setting out there!)
I read that it will be set in 1385 - 10 years after the current stuff.
There's also talk about a "Spell Plague".
What's with that? Is this the next Time of Troubles?
Also, what about all the current novel series? Will they be concluded before 4e time? Will the 4e FRCS contain the outcome of any novel series that isn't concluced by august next year? (I think The Haunted Land Trilogy will end only in 2009, for example.)
And will whatever changes are used to explain 4e in the Realms be novelised?
KaeYoss, take a look at this scroll at Candlekeep.
Thanks!
I am a bit worried. Last week they did not post the weekly "Class Chronicles" article right before the made the "Big Announcement" of Doom. Do you know if they are going to finish publishing the articles before the release of 4.0E? I was really looking forward to them.
Thanks,
Hawkins
Eytan,
I am a bit worried. Last week they did not post the weekly "Class Chronicles" article right before the made the "Big Announcement" of Doom. Do you know if they are going to finish publishing the articles before the release of 4.0E? I was really looking forward to them.
Thanks,
Hawkins
No need to be worried. Bart Carroll and Chris Tomasson had their hands full with the announcement. There should be 5 more entries (including the 2nd half of the incarnum article). They'll post the next one as soon as the post-Gen Con buzz winds down. The continuation of the articles will most definitely occur long before 4th edition - probably in the next week or two. (Along with numerous other articles). We want to make sure you guys get as much use as you can from them.
No need to be worried. Bart Carroll and Chris Tomasson had their hands full with the announcement. There should be 5 more entries (including the 2nd half of the incarnum article). They'll post the next one as soon as the post-Gen Con buzz winds down. The continuation of the articles will most definitely occur long before 4th edition - probably in the next week or two. (Along with numerous other articles). We want to make sure you guys get as much use as you can from them.
Thank you for reassuring me. :D
I really enjoyed the Secrets of the Realms Seminar at Gen Con. One question though: Is the plan to continue supporting the Realms with regular products (3-4/year) as was done in 3E or will the support be different?
I'm looking forward to the new Realms stuff in Aug-Sept '08!
Thanks!
Any chance the 4ed designers will dump the LG Paladin class and recreate it as something similar to the Divine Champion Prc (A 30 level Divine champion like CLASS would be much cooler than the old Paladin class that forces you to be LG )
4E will do away with alignment altogether... so if the paladin is carried over to 4E, you'll be able to do whatever you want with it. There might be some flavor text in the class to the effect that "a paladin is a virtuous knight, a shining beacon in a sea of darkness", but when the paladin is off-duty and not fighting evil, he'll be able to bed as many goth-looking chicks as he may, and steal candy from passing children... etc.
:P
Rich,
I really enjoyed the Secrets of the Realms Seminar at Gen Con. One question though: Is the plan to continue supporting the Realms with regular products (3-4/year) as was done in 3E or will the support be different?
I'm looking forward to the new Realms stuff in Aug-Sept '08!
Thanks!
1) Concerning Stormwrack, I could see Valkur being a likely candidate for the Legendary Captain PrC. Umberlee (and possibly Blibdoolpoolp) would probably be a likely candidate for the Sea Witch. The Captain of the Waves, in addition, would likely do well as a Swashbuckler (CW) for his main class levels.
2) Frostburn: Why does Auril SO scream Frost Mage to me?
3) Tome of Battle: Now, this is a real stretch, but I could possibly see Garagos with levels in Warblade, and Tempus with levels in Swordsage or Warblade in place of Cleric.
What do you think? Sounds reasonable?
*check failed*
Damn! Well, I'm not Mr. Backer - obviously - but let me give you my opinion (it's free of charge)
1) Concerning Stormwrack, I could see Valkur being a likely candidate for the Legendary Captain PrC.
Yeah, Valkur could be called a Legendary Captain. It's trading down for him because he's an Admiral as far as I know, but him being a god will likely allow him to call the PrC Legendary Admiral. I want to see whoever wants to tell him he can't.
Umberlee (and possibly Blibdoolpoolp) would probably be a likely candidate for the Sea Witch.
Sounds like her (and possible it as well)
The Captain of the Waves, in addition, would likely do well as a Swashbuckler (CW) for his main class levels.
Yeah. Maybe even some Levels in the Dashing Swordsman PrC ;)
2) Frostburn: Why does Auril SO scream Frost Mage to me?
Don't know. Ask her. She's probably stalking you. Have you ever been called "Cool" by people? She probably heard it and grew interested in you.
3) Tome of Battle: Now, this is a real stretch, but I could possibly see Garagos with levels in Warblade, and Tempus with levels in Swordsage or Warblade in place of Cleric.
What? Gods of Battle getting levels in melee combat focussed classes from a book that is called Tome of Battle? You're mad. Get help! :P
The real question is: What disciplines are they going to favour? Garagos is probably all over tiger claw. Tempus seems like the Diamond Mind and Iron Heart guy to me.
Red Knight is probably petitioning Rich to rename White Raven into Red Raven.
Oh, and something else: If any of those gods were to take Crusader Levels, would they still have to grant themselves manoeuvres randomly? Will they be mad at themselves if they grant themselves something they could not use at that moment?
The real question is: What disciplines are they going to favour? Garagos is probably all over tiger claw. Tempus seems like the Diamond Mind and Iron Heart guy to me.
Close, though, I thought Garagos was more the Iron Heart guy (along with Tiger Claw) and Tempus was more Stone Dragon than Iron Heart. Both the Foe Hammer and the Red Knight sound like they'd be candidates for White Raven (which yes, I could see as Red Raven myself).
Are Planetouched (in particular tieflings) with mulan ancestry accepted as Red Wizards in Thay and if yes is it mentioned in any of the books?
Sanelron
My group and I decided not to get 4e. We like 3.5e and have most of the core and Realms books for 3e. I want to keep getting Realms books for the Fluff. We are not going to do the time line jump so I'm worried that Grand History we be the last new D&D book I ever buy. After the Spell plague and time line jump will any 4e realms lore be useful for me? Could Wotc make sure that 4e lore will still be useful for people like me who don't do the time line jump?
Thank You
I think that *some* material in 4E will certainly be useful. For example, we'll produce new adventure material that will include plot ideas, maps, room descriptions, etc., that you could probably pillage for a 3E game. But I'd be lying if I told you that I think you'll be satisfied with that content. We intend to serve the 4E audience first and foremost, and if some 3E players find some amount of utility in our new Realms material, well, we're happy when they do.
Mr. Baker,
My group and I decided not to get 4e. We like 3.5e and have most of the core and Realms books for 3e. I want to keep getting Realms books for the Fluff. We are not going to do the time line jump so I'm worried that Grand History we be the last new D&D book I ever buy. After the Spell plague and time line jump will any 4e realms lore be useful for me? Could Wotc make sure that 4e lore will still be useful for people like me who don't do the time line jump?
Thank You
I don't want to ask questions that I know you can't answer, but let me try this: Will the Grand History of the Realms coming out next month make it clear what year the 4.0 Realms material will be set in (yes or no is perfectly adequate)? I'm just trying to start preliminary work on my 4.0 campaign. Y'all keep up the good work - I'm loving what I'm seeing!
From this remark many people have speculated about a timeline jump. More than that I am not at liberty to say right now, but I expect to be able to talk a little more about the "new" Realms in just a couple of weeks.
Would someone from the Realms authors/designers team confirm how many years the timeline jump will be? I keep hearing either 10 years or 100 years. Also, how will this affect the novel line? That is more of my worry than the D&D supplements. I just want something concrete so I can quote it for the people yelling in speculation.
All that we've said officially is this: The last entry in the Grand History is set in 1385, the Year of Blue Fire.
From this remark many people have speculated about a timeline jump. More than that I am not at liberty to say right now, but I expect to be able to talk a little more about the "new" Realms in just a couple of weeks.
Thanks Rich. I was just getting tired of all of the craziness, and I wanted an actual quote to give the to the peeps on the Doomsday thread. ;)
I'm really excited about this change over to 4th edition simply because I really like the star wars saga edition game. I like the revisions they made in star wars, and it seems like you guys are taking that same approach to d&d.
As you re examine characters from novels, what method do you use to translate that character into stats listed in some book? And are you excited about reexamining many characters to put them into 4E terms?
--Hawkins
I was just wondering, is there any particular reason Ed Greenwood stopped writing The Border Kingdoms articles? This exactly the sort of things that many of us Realms fans would like to see more of. I looks like he was giving descriptions of the various "Border Kingdoms" alphabetically, and then stopped shortly after arriving at the "I" section.
--Hawkins
As I recall, the Lady Hooded One at Candlekeep told us back in January that the delay was mostly Ed's fault. He's simply got too many projects going at once, and unfortunately there's a backlog of Realms Lore-related articles building up.
For what it's worth, "Power of Faerun" provides a substantial detailing of the Border Kingdoms that Ed's been updating for the WOTC website. Those entries build on earlier material presented in the old "Polyhedron" articles.
As I recall, the Lady Hooded One at Candlekeep told us back in January that the delay was mostly Ed's fault. He's simply got too many projects going at once, and unfortunately there's a backlog of Realms Lore-related articles building up.
Specifically:-
"Ed tells me the delay is his fault.
Wizards still have Waterdeep News items by him, but have run out of both Realmslore and Border Kingdoms entries (assuming we've had all three High Mukshar instalments; I've not checked)
- - and he's been too blamed busy with [NDA and NDA, so assume still-secret WotC projects, as well as helping XXX with NDA] to get any more ready, yet.
Ed says this past year has been scheduling hell for him; 4 novels, 3 game products and assists with others, about 30 webcolumns, a dozen or so short stories, and lots of "incidental writing, editing, and critiquing." (And, of course, he does have a day job, chairs a library board, helped get a local mayor elected, speaks to school classes, at cons, and seniors' and literary groups, yadda yadda heaping yadda . . .)
So please be patient; Ed will get new lore to Wizards as soon as he can!
love,
THO"
For what it's worth, "Power of Faerun" provides a substantial detailing of the Border Kingdoms that Ed's been updating for the WOTC website. Those entries build on earlier material presented in the old "Polyhedron" articles.
Ed's "Border Kingdoms" POLYHEDRON articles -- the entire series ran from issue #109 to issue #148. The POLYHEDRON issues with the Border Kingdom articles are 109–111, 115–121, 123–148. Unfortunately though... the alphabetical detailing of the cities and kingdoms finished at "O".
1) Is there a tentative list yet of individuals tasked with building the 4E FRCS?
2) Since 4E is expanding play to 30 levels, do you know/have you seen any work or planning being done to 'build-out' Realms-specific mechanics into the 10 levels of Epic play?
That is, in 3E we have extremely watered down versions of things like the Simbul's spells and Spellmantle (which, IIRC, is now a wimpy cleric-only spell) ....so are we likely to see these and other things like spell mantles and spell webs in 4E, but more closely matched up power-level wise with their lore-based couterparts (that is, matching the description of these effects found in the novels and certain 2E sourcebooks)?
If not....I hope you'll consider this a request to think about the idea. It almost sounds like Arcane casters will have mantles anyway, what with the mention of them being able to do certain spells/spell-like effects continuously, once per day, once per encounter, and so on.
Thank you in advance for any reply!
That is, in 3E we have extremely watered down versions of things like the Simbul's spells and Spellmantle (which, IIRC, is now a wimpy cleric-only spell) ....so are we likely to see these and other things like spell mantles and spell webs in 4E, but more closely matched up power-level wise with their lore-based couterparts (that is, matching the description of these effects found in the novels and certain 2E sourcebooks)?
And please, if you include Spellfire in 4e, please do not water it down as much as it was in the Magic of Faerun and the Player's Guide to Faerun. Please, oh please, oh please.
And please, if you include Spellfire in 4e, please do not water it down as much as it was in the Magic of Faerun and the Player's Guide to Faerun. Please, oh please, oh please.
From what I've been hearing of Immediate Actions, it'd be cool if the ability of the Spellfire Wielder to absorb incoming spells were treated as an Immediate Action. That'd be a whole lot better then having to Ready an action to absorb any spells.
I have question: Who'll get the XP for killing the Realms?
BRAVO! I also want to know the answer to that question!
I know you can't tell us much about the contents of the 4E Realms Campaign setting. What I'm curious about, though: Who will be working on this book? I think most of us would feel very comfortable if we knew that the names would include the likes of yourself, Ed Greenwood, Eric Boyd, Steven Schend or Jeff Grubb.
You guys (WotC) put a lot of work in to the FRCS 3.0 and the end product was GREAT. With the close release to the 4E core books, will there be time for a similar eye to detail this time?
Thanks!
I know you're busy with actually putting together the new edition and all. I like the hints given about the Swordmage, by the way, hope to see that class in print someday. While I know it is very early in terms of the 4E Realms release, I wanted to ask if you could reveal anything new about the Realms. By that I meant a lot of the changes to the Realms in preparation for 4E have been destructive. Several prominent characters and gods died or otherwise incapacitated. I'm wondering if you can share anything constructive about the changes? What new things will the Realms have? Are we getting new gods to replace the lost ones? Any new kingdoms or organizations? I think if we knew that some interesting new facets of the Realms will emerge from this transition, many can more readily hop on board for the new Realms.
Also, maybe it's just me, but I've noticed on at least two instances on the website (in a blog and an article) where designers or contributors repeated some of the old negative stereotypes about the Realms. It feels counter-productive to getting the new Realms off the ground given that these comments came in the same month as Grand History of the Realms and the Orc King which revealed some of the changes found in the new Realms. It could be construed that even with the changes, the old stereotypes still apply. If designers had to point out some perceived flaws with the old Realms, maybe they could point to how the new Realms addressed that. Not unlike how designers blog about how 4E smooths out the tedious parts of 3e. It would help get a lot of people behind the new edition. I know that when designers bring up the changes between 4E and 3e, I get interested in the new rules.
Our manpower schedule is currently a little bit in flux, so this is not an exhaustive list: Bruce Cordell and Rob Heinsoo will be doing some work on the FRCS, as well as relative newcomers Chris Simms and Logan Bonner. (We're gang-tackling projects much more than we used to.) I expect that we'll get some of the old outside-WotC hands involved too.
As it turns out, I'm actually hands-off on this one; I'm committed to work on other projects. But I'm one of the folks who worked on the initial revision guide, which we put together almost two years ago. (Bruce Cordell and book editor Phil Athans were the other two guys on that team.)
Rich,
I know you can't tell us much about the contents of the 4E Realms Campaign setting. What I'm curious about, though: Who will be working on this book? I think most of us would feel very comfortable if we knew that the names would include the likes of yourself, Ed Greenwood, Eric Boyd, Steven Schend or Jeff Grubb.
You guys (WotC) put a lot of work in to the FRCS 3.0 and the end product was GREAT. With the close release to the 4E core books, will there be time for a similar eye to detail this time?
Thanks!
Here's one little tidbit I'll offer: The Warlock Knights of Vaasa.
Rich,
I know you're busy with actually putting together the new edition and all. I like the hints given about the Swordmage, by the way, hope to see that class in print someday. While I know it is very early in terms of the 4E Realms release, I wanted to ask if you could reveal anything new about the Realms. By that I meant a lot of the changes to the Realms in preparation for 4E have been destructive. Several prominent characters and gods died or otherwise incapacitated. I'm wondering if you can share anything constructive about the changes? What new things will the Realms have? Are we getting new gods to replace the lost ones? Any new kingdoms or organizations? I think if we knew that some interesting new facets of the Realms will emerge from this transition, many can more readily hop on board for the new Realms.
Also, maybe it's just me, but I've noticed on at least two instances on the website (in a blog and an article) where designers or contributors repeated some of the old negative stereotypes about the Realms. It feels counter-productive to getting the new Realms off the ground given that these comments came in the same month as Grand History of the Realms and the Orc King which revealed some of the changes found in the new Realms. It could be construed that even with the changes, the old stereotypes still apply. If designers had to point out some perceived flaws with the old Realms, maybe they could point to how the new Realms addressed that. Not unlike how designers blog about how 4E smooths out the tedious parts of 3e. It would help get a lot of people behind the new edition. I know that when designers bring up the changes between 4E and 3e, I get interested in the new rules.
The rules I can get behind because they all sound like changes I have made or thought about, but I'm still iffy about the FRCS.
I'll give it a chance... but only ONE.
On a similar note, I would like to see some of the "Unknown Lands" shown on the map named "A Scholar's View of Abeir-Toril" in the 3e FRCS to be "known" or "discovered" or otherwise detailed in 4e FR materials. New FR materials for Kara-Tur, the Horse Plains, Zahkara, Anchorome (which I believe is one of those "Unknown Lands"), Maztica, and Katashaka (I think this is another one of those "Unknown Lands") would be nice. In fact, if stuff like this was included in articles on D&D Insider, I would be a lot more likely to subscribe to it.
And finally, many (I dare say most) of us Realms fans would greatly like to see 4e Realms materials that contain mostly lore (to some, read: fluff) and very, very tiny amounts of mechanics (to some, read: crunch). Please leave the crunch for the 4e Core materials.
I have question: Who'll get the XP for killing the Realms?
BRAVO! I also want to know the answer to that question!
Obviously not Ed Greenwood (Thanks to MarkusTay63 for the link).
So I’m going through this struggle, too. Lose Syluné? Hell, lose ALL the human NPCs I spent forty years bringing to life? This had BETTER be good!
Wizards of the Coast obviously believes it will be. I’m going to do my best to help them make it so.
All that we've said officially is this: The last entry in the Grand History is set in 1385, the Year of Blue Fire.
From this remark many people have speculated about a timeline jump. More than that I am not at liberty to say right now, but I expect to be able to talk a little more about the "new" Realms in just a couple of weeks.
Hi Rich!
Although we've barely had our first vague glimpses into the 4th Edition, I am already growing very worried about the future of D&D and the Realms. Let me address some 4E game mechanics first:
Magic. Warlocks are fine by me, but these 'organization-like' new 'traditions' are a bit too 'flavoured' and pompous in nature (their names sound like some Martial Arts moves from the 'Karate Kid' movies or some bad anime/manga series) -- not to mention that essentially they all seem to be only slightly varying types of Invokers (with very 'combat-focused' abilities and spell lists, I would guess). I don't like the idea about all wizards being 'specialists'. And did all the 'scholarly' or 'bookish' type of wizards just die on every Campaign World, or are all of them considered to be 'non-heroic' NPCs in 4E?
I also don't like the 'implements', except maybe for the Staff. In theory they could be made to work, but wizards waving wands while casting spells reminds me of Harry Potter too much -- and those 'orbs' are just screaming 'Palantir' to me. Wouldn't Tomes, Rings or Amulets have fit D&D wizards thematically better? Or weapons for more 'martially oriented' wizards and especially fighter/wizards? How about a 'familiar-like' unique item/focus/talisman for every wizard? And, besides, like someone already mentioned on these forums, it's very easy to identify to which 'tradition' every spellcaster belongs to by just taking a look at the 'implement' he/she is carrying!
As far the rest of the general mechanics go, I don't want my game to about "More fun", "More cool stuff to do each round", "Clearly Defined Strategic Roles" or even "More monsters". Neither do I wish my characters to become "more powerful" (e.g. Triple Hit Points at first level, 'Second Wind', Feats at every level, enhanced multi-classing, etc.) or capable of semi-mystic tricks that make the characters from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' (and other similar movies) pale in comparison. The way I see it -- after reading all those designer comments, blogs and development articles -- the focus of the game is clearly shifting more and more on combat and military tactics in these 'encounters', and the character creation options will apparently be mechanically limited to 'combat-focused' abilities, classes and Talents/Feats only. So, from my perspective, D&D is turning into a fast-paced strategy game of 'high-flying' heroic action with marginal role-playing qualities (and no 'in-built' mechanics to encourage it anymore). I suspect that all these changes are being made to appeal to WoW/MMORPG players, anime/manga fans and console game fans, rather than catering to the 'old' and loyal (older) fanbase.
However, I am even more concerned by all those potential changes taking place in my favourite Campaign Setting. After reading the excerpt from The Orc King, I felt *very* disappointed with the future of the Realms. First of all, if I've understood things correctly, this Spellplague is supposed to explain away all the mechanical changes in the new magic system and the core classes, right? And won't most of the spellcasters in the Realms succumb to this madness and die? Now that we know this RSE is going to last for a hundred years, I don't see how you even *could* play an arcane spellcaster before it has passed, which might lead to the conclusion that the campaign starting date might very well leap a hundred years forward.
Secondly, I have a hard picturing Ku Klux Klan ('Triple C'), with hoods and all, in *my* Realms. Neither do I understand this politically incorrect analogy between African slaves and *orcs* (who have traditionally been described as ugly, dumb and evil in fantasy fiction and RPGs alike). Did none of the designers realize that some people might find this comparison to be racist and highly insulting in nature?
Thirdly, all these references to a 'ravaged' world reminds me of the 'Points of Light' -theme -- no matter you or the others have told us about it not touching the established Campaigns Settings. While I actually like the concept in theory, I do not wish it apply to the Realms, because I don't want to 'start from a clean plate' -- I have too many 2E/3E FR books to even consider that.
Fourthly, why are so many gods being senselessly 'weeded out'? Most of these 'deicides' are not very logical or even consistent with previously published Realmslore (Tyr killing Helm?). Is that happening due to similarities in portfolior or some mechanical changes in 4E (e.g. Deep Duerra and Laduguer getting 'axed' because there won't be any rules for psionics)? I certainly hope that clerics won't have any 'flavour-heavy' traditions, too. Just keep the domains, because they worked brilliantly in 3E!
Maybe I am not part of 4E's 'target audience', because I think all of these changes we've heard about so far are alarming in nature, and I can't see myself or my friends playing this game or buying into the 'new' Realms. Still, I might in the minority, and many people might find the new rules and the 'shattered' Faerûn more to their liking. I know that it's far too early to decide on whether to 'support' 4E and FR products or not, but so far, I haven't seen anything to convince me to buy them. Still, I have been a loyal fan of D&D and FR for almost twenty years, and thus I'll wait and see how things turn out -- who knows, maybe I'll even end up being positively surprised next year.
Yours respectfully,
Asgetrion
1. The wizardly orders. They're not really specializations in the sense of 3rd Edition specialist wizards; choosing one doesn't make the spells belonging to another unavailable to you. Basically they're a mechanism by which we answer the question, "How did your wizard learn magic? Was he trained in a magical academy, tutored by a single mentor, etc., etc." So each order provides a subset a spells your character is *best* at, but doesn't replace the notion of spell school from previous editions.
2. Wizard implements now provide your character with a reason to care about a signature weapon in much the same way that the fighter cares about a signature sword. We think it's a good thing. Many other implements have been suggested, including things such as mask, dagger, and (of course) tome.
3. Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options.
4. You'll have to take up the CCC with Bob Salvatore. It's his book.
5. Yes, we'd like a smaller pantheon in FR. However, that doesn't mean that three-quarters of the deities will kick off. It does mean that we're looking at a lot of marginal deities and asking ourselves, "Could this deity be a demigod--a divine figure who doesn't really have a continent-wide church with dozens of temples devoted to him or her?" For example, we like a lot of the demihuman deities as demigods who hang around with/work for the real heavy hitters like Moradin or Corellon.
I know this probably isn't very reassuring, but we are keeping an eye on what you folks are saying, and we're committed to delivering the best product we can.
Hi Rich!
Although we've barely had our first vague glimpses into the 4th Edition, I am already growing very worried about the future of D&D and the Realms. Let me address some 4E game mechanics first:
Magic. Warlocks are fine by me, but these 'organization-like' new 'traditions' are a bit too 'flavoured' and pompous in nature (their names sound like some Martial Arts moves from the 'Karate Kid' movies or some bad anime/manga series) -- not to mention that essentially they all seem to be only slightly varying types of Invokers (with very 'combat-focused' abilities and spell lists, I would guess). I don't like the idea about all wizards being 'specialists'. And did all the 'scholarly' or 'bookish' type of wizards just die on every Campaign World, or are all of them considered to be 'non-heroic' NPCs in 4E?
I also don't like the 'implements', except maybe for the Staff. In theory they could be made to work, but wizards waving wands while casting spells reminds me of Harry Potter too much -- and those 'orbs' are just screaming 'Palantir' to me. Wouldn't Tomes, Rings or Amulets have fit D&D wizards thematically better? Or weapons for more 'martially oriented' wizards and especially fighter/wizards? How about a 'familiar-like' unique item/focus/talisman for every wizard? And, besides, like someone already mentioned on these forums, it's very easy to identify to which 'tradition' every spellcaster belongs to by just taking a look at the 'implement' he/she is carrying!
As far the rest of the general mechanics go, I don't want my game to about "More fun", "More cool stuff to do each round", "Clearly Defined Strategic Roles" or even "More monsters". Neither do I wish my characters to become "more powerful" (e.g. Triple Hit Points at first level, 'Second Wind', Feats at every level, enhanced multi-classing, etc.) or capable of semi-mystic tricks that make the characters from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' (and other similar movies) pale in comparison. The way I see it -- after reading all those designer comments, blogs and development articles -- the focus of the game is clearly shifting more and more on combat and military tactics in these 'encounters', and the character creation options will apparently be mechanically limited to 'combat-focused' abilities, classes and Talents/Feats only. So, from my perspective, D&D is turning into a fast-paced strategy game of 'high-flying' heroic action with marginal role-playing qualities (and no 'in-built' mechanics to encourage it anymore). I suspect that all these changes are being made to appeal to WoW/MMORPG players, anime/manga fans and console game fans, rather than catering to the 'old' and loyal (older) fanbase.
However, I am even more concerned by all those potential changes taking place in my favourite Campaign Setting. After reading the excerpt from The Orc King, I felt *very* disappointed with the future of the Realms. First of all, if I've understood things correctly, this Spellplague is supposed to explain away all the mechanical changes in the new magic system and the core classes, right? And won't most of the spellcasters in the Realms succumb to this madness and die? Now that we know this RSE is going to last for a hundred years, I don't see how you even *could* play an arcane spellcaster before it has passed, which might lead to the conclusion that the campaign starting date might very well leap a hundred years forward.
Secondly, I have a hard picturing Ku Klux Klan ('Triple C'), with hoods and all, in *my* Realms. Neither do I understand this politically incorrect analogy between African slaves and *orcs* (who have traditionally been described as ugly, dumb and evil in fantasy fiction and RPGs alike). Did none of the designers realize that some people might find this comparison to be racist and highly insulting in nature?
Thirdly, all these references to a 'ravaged' world reminds me of the 'Points of Light' -theme -- no matter you or the others have told us about it not touching the established Campaigns Settings. While I actually like the concept in theory, I do not wish it apply to the Realms, because I don't want to 'start from a clean plate' -- I have too many 2E/3E FR books to even consider that.
Fourthly, why are so many gods being senselessly 'weeded out'? Most of these 'deicides' are not very logical or even consistent with previously published Realmslore (Tyr killing Helm?). Is that happening due to similarities in portfolior or some mechanical changes in 4E (e.g. Deep Duerra and Laduguer getting 'axed' because there won't be any rules for psionics)? I certainly hope that clerics won't have any 'flavour-heavy' traditions, too. Just keep the domains, because they worked brilliantly in 3E!
Maybe I am not part of 4E's 'target audience', because I think all of these changes we've heard about so far are alarming in nature, and I can't see myself or my friends playing this game or buying into the 'new' Realms. Still, I might in the minority, and many people might find the new rules and the 'shattered' Faerûn more to their liking. I know that it's far too early to decide on whether to 'support' 4E and FR products or not, but so far, I haven't seen anything to convince me to buy them. Still, I have been a loyal fan of D&D and FR for almost twenty years, and thus I'll wait and see how things turn out -- who knows, maybe I'll even end up being positively surprised next year.
Yours respectfully,
Asgetrion
You'll see a fair amount of "crunch" in one of our FR releases covering character-building options (we need to create a number of FR-specific prestige classes, for example). Most of the other FR releases we have in mind are generally lighter on crunch and heavier on lore.
I would greatly appreciate if one of you author/designer types could tell me where the continent/subcontinent/land mass of Osse is. It's driving me crazy.
On a similar note, I would like to see some of the "Unknown Lands" shown on the map named "A Scholar's View of Abeir-Toril" in the 3e FRCS to be "known" or "discovered" or otherwise detailed in 4e FR materials. New FR materials for Kara-Tur, the Horse Plains, Zahkara, Anchorome (which I believe is one of those "Unknown Lands"), Maztica, and Katashaka (I think this is another one of those "Unknown Lands") would be nice. In fact, if stuff like this was included in articles on D&D Insider, I would be a lot more likely to subscribe to it.
And finally, many (I dare say most) of us Realms fans would greatly like to see 4e Realms materials that contain mostly lore (to some, read: fluff) and very, very tiny amounts of mechanics (to some, read: crunch). Please leave the crunch for the 4e Core materials.
I think if we knew that some interesting new facets of the Realms will emerge from this transition, many can more readily hop on board for the new Realms.
Hmm, apparently, you don't seem to understand.
There is no "new" Realms.
It's turning into a completely new campaign setting, with both the "D&D" label, "Forgotten Realms" label, and what little Realmslore has been left intact slapped on to it just to make it sell to the blind sheep consumers out there.
That's it. It's not the "Forgotten Realms" anymore, and no matter how anyone (even Ed Greenwood) spins it, it will NEVER be the "Forgotten Realms" anymore. It will simply be just a brand new campaign setting that stomped out the Forgotten Realms.
If characteristics of A include x, y, z, and o, by original definition, then when one creates object B, holding X, y, n, and m, it's easiest to call the two by different names, logically speaking (and linguistically), regardless of one's personal feelings about either one.
The world would be such a better place if people took more Logic and Discrete.
This is on topic. I swear.
After having had lots of lengthy discussions regarding the accuracy of diction, and how much better off people would be if they just decided to define words more narrowly, I have to agree with Razz's sentiment.
If characteristics of A include x, y, z, and o, by original definition, then when one creates object B, holding X, y, n, and m, it's easiest to call the two by different names, logically speaking (and linguistically), regardless of one's personal feelings about either one.
The world would be such a better place if people took more Logic and Discrete.
This is on topic. I swear.
Dude, it has been too long since I took Discrete for me to even follow you. ;)
You'll see a fair amount of "crunch" in one of our FR releases covering character-building options (we need to create a number of FR-specific prestige classes, for example). Most of the other FR releases we have in mind are generally lighter on crunch and heavier on lore.
Bring on the Crunch! Put the Fluff on DnD insider ;)
One of the things I liked about the realms PRcs is they often had an actual place in society. I often found the complete (XXX) a tich too generic. They were often very easy to incorporate, but didn't have the sense of history that "War-wizard of Cormyr" and the like.
(I wanted to say so earlier, but I had to wait and see if we could work out the scheduling questions. Ed's a busy guy and highly in demand for Forgotten Realms novels as well as game product.)
I don't know about you folks, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what Ed comes up with!
Destroying the setting is not in WotC's best interest. So much of D&D is based on social networks, ticking off a significant part of that network on purpose would be foolish. Plus we have very little to go on at this point. That's not to say you won't feel that the Realms you come to love won't be the same or even to your liking, but its not a personal attack on you or Ed or the Realms and it's simply not fair to accuse people you've probably never met of such behavior.
There is no cause for personal attacks suggesting that Hasbro or WotC employees are cowards or purposefully destroying the setting or personally hurting anyone. And it certainly doesn't belong on these or any other boards.
Destroying the setting is not in WotC's best interest. So much of D&D is based on social networks, ticking off a significant part of that network on purpose would be foolish. Plus we have very little to go on at this point. That's not to say you won't feel that the Realms you come to love won't be the same or even to your liking, but its not a personal attack on you or Ed or the Realms and it's simply not fair to accuse people you've probably never met of such behavior.
All hostility aside, I hope you guys really know what you are doing. I have not received my copy of the GHotR yet because I ordered it with the new RAS book and chose free shipping :raincloud, but from the tidbits I have seen on the GHotR and 4e Realms threads, you (plural) have made some interesting decisions about the happenings in the Realms. Now, I am willing to bet most of us are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and see what the 4e FRCS (or FRCG?) has in store for us, along with some of the novels coming out in the next year.
Other than the fact that Ed will be contributing appx. 50,000 words to the 4e FRCS, I have to agree that the list of names that Rich gave us of people who are working on it is not all the inspiring (Bruce Cordell, Rob Heinsoo, Chris Simms and Logan Bonner). Not because I have anything against them, but because they have not been as involved or steeped in the Realms lore as some of you other guys. I think, for me at least, it would be more confidence building to know that people such as Eric Boyd and Sean Reynolds were on the project. This is the debut 4e FR book. If you do not impress us with it, many (if not most) of us will likely pronounce the Realms dead (along with Dungeon and Dragon) and reminisce about the good old days of the Realms.
P.S. I think Brian James would be another good candidate to work on the 4e FRCS. ;)
EDIT: Another thought that I want to make sure you are thinking about it: You can kill the Realms by accident. I know you are not trying to kill it, but you might anyways if you are not careful and listen to the Realms fans.
There is no cause for personal attacks suggesting that Hasbro or WotC employees are cowards or purposefully destroying the setting or personally hurting anyone. And it certainly doesn't belong on these or any other boards.
SECONDED.
It's also very tiresome to see such baseless complaints and uneven criticism, particularly in light of Realms-constants like kindoms and regions throughout the Realms constantly suffering strife and near-destruction, for as far back as Realms history goes.
One must deliberatly turn a blind eye to the Realms' past in order to make such lore-ignorant complaints, which is a dishonest activity to say the least.
Further, Razz's description of Realms gamers as 'blind sheep' is also a form of harassment, that doesn't belong here either.
While others will surely say "We have a right to speak our minds!", it doesn't follow you have the right to do such a hugely poor job of it.
Think. Then type.
My gaming group and I have spent almost $3,000 on 3e and 3.5e books. If we start playing 4e all that stuff we bought will be worthless. When we first heard about 4e we decided we would keep playing 3.5e and would buy 4e Forgotten Realms books for new lore(fluff).
Then we found out about the Spellplague and the time jump. From what I have read on these boards, in GHotR, and in The Orc King the "New" Realms will not look anything like the "Old" Realms. I think it will be a whole new setting. I don't want to play in a new setting. I don't mind changes in the Realms. I don't even mind big changes, but it looks like you guys are wiping out almost all of the NPC's, a third of the Gods, and half of the Nations in one big RSE.
If this "New" Realms is that different from the "Old" Realms many of us "old" players who used to buy all of your Realms products won't buy any new books. Please keep that in mind when you write the FRCS4e.
Please write the new source books in a way that is still useful to players that don't use the Spellplague or the time jump. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Let's face it: It's like with comic books, television shows, or any piece of entertainment or hobbying: It's bound to change in one way or another, and things may not look good at first.
Me, I have a feeling there's at least going to be some good coming out of this. If the issues with 3.X rules (which I'm struggling to name) are dealt with, I wouldn't mind. I confess, I only really latched on to D&D around the time of 3.5 just coming out.
I've waded through years of change with The Transformers, Final Fantasy, Warcraft, and others I'm struggling to name. I've seen good times and bad times through my favorite entertainment pieces. If I'm not as bothered about that as with some reactions with some developments, why should I (at the least) worry about 4.0?
I work hard, and I (most often) deserve what I pay for. In the words of Stan Lee, " 'Nuff said."
Edit: Besides, if you captured people's hearts with the Last Mythal Trilogy, maybe lightning will strike twice when we get to see the real deal? ;)
Let's try to stay cool and polite. Designers and authors are people too
If you want to rant about why 4e is evil incarnate, please take it to Concerns and Criticisms thread on the 4th edition forums
http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=706
When I can say a little more, I will. I've already shot my mouth off a couple of times when I shouldn't have, so I'm going to sit on my typing hands for a bit.
Here's one little tidbit I'll offer: The Warlock Knights of Vaasa.
Rich,
The Warlock Knights, eh? Sound like the Witch Knights I have in my Realms campaign. I hope to hear more soon.
Thanks for chiming in when you can. Showing off more things the new Realms adds rather than focusing on the things it takes away could promote a more positive attitude about this change, from both the players and the designers.
In regards to slimming down the pantheon, it sounds like the new Realms pantheon set up could have come about simply as new edition rules changes without numerous deicides. Many of the prominent high level characters could also be brought back down to earth if given sensible stats in 4E (or they could go stat-less). Controlling and reversing the level creep can help a lot rather than massive numbers of character deaths all at once. Of course you've probably hear this all before, so best of luck in getting this together. Glad to hear Ed is involved in some capacity, hopefully a few more Realms regulars show up for the FRCS.
It's all those other words I'm worried about.
And I agree with Mr. Miscellany - people should THINK before they type. All of us.
What demographic were you guys targeting?
I'm old and gnarled, but my players range in age from 19 to 15. Last night I met with them for the first time in months (I moved so things became difficult) and was happy to learn that they have continued to play without me- WITHOUT RULES!!!
My son (19) has continued the group in my 'story-teller' style, but since all of the books moved with me they have been 'wingin' it'. It does me proud to know that they have continued on in a purely RP style - I must have done something right.
Anyhow, they want me to go back to running the group, and teach them the 'real' rules. I told them about the 4e rules, and tried to explain some of the differences between the two editions (what little is known), and they are excited about the new rules. However, I have taught them to love the Realms, and they don't understand why anyone would want to change them. In other words, they were not happy about the setting changes.
So my question, "what age-group are you shooting for", stands.
If it helps at all to get an honest answer, I told my players to wait a few months and I will teach them the 4e rules. I don't want them to invest tons of money right now in a defunct edition.
Good to hear about the 50,000 words Ed will contribute.
It's all those other words I'm worried about.
Seconded.
Although I think Bruce Cordell is up to the task (I'm impressed with his fresh take on many Realms characters and places in his novels), to be honest I've never even heard of those other guys. Not to say they aren't decent game designers or anything (I wouldn't know), but as an avid gamer since the early seventies (I used the chainmail rules!) I don't recall their names on any of the more memorable Realms products I own.
And I agree with Mr. Miscellany - people should THINK before they type. All of us.
Doody Head. :P
I just read your blog post for September 21st. I wanted to thank you for taking the time to share some of the company's plans for the Realms. It's good to see the designers acknowledging the opinions of the fans even if the course for the new Realms is set.
Maybe I'll be buying the 4E FRCS after all. (Provided I can afford, you know, food first once I'm in grad school.)
Besides, if it is borked, I'll approach it the same way I approach the movie "Heat", De Niro gets away.
But in all seriousness, this is just bad use of characters. GHotR eluding to deities going this far out of context is just unimaginitive. Unless this was all a marketing ploy to get people riled up and there is actually a light at the end of the tunnel that isn't an oncoming train. If that is the case, it has worked and you should now be flogged.
We know that the initial success of the new edition depends on 3E players adopting it in substantial numbers. If we do something that 3E players reject out of hand, that's bad. We know that the long-term success of the new edition depends on continuing to acquire new players. That's nothing but common sense, no insidious plots there.
Naturally we examine many proposed rules changes and setting changes through the lenses of "Will this make the existing audience happy?" and "Will this help to attract new players?" A lot of times you get different answers to the same question through those two lenses.
In any event... you should know Rob Heinsoo. His name is on the 3rd Edition FRCS. Chris and Logan are both new to FR, but they're talented guys and I'm confident they'll have a lot of great contributions ahead of them. Give 'em a chance to knock your socks off!
I have a question, but I doubt if it will be answered with anything but an evasion.
What demographic were you guys targeting?
I'm old and gnarled, but my players range in age from 19 to 15. Last night I met with them for the first time in months (I moved so things became difficult) and was happy to learn that they have continued to play without me- WITHOUT RULES!!!
My son (19) has continued the group in my 'story-teller' style, but since all of the books moved with me they have been 'wingin' it'. It does me proud to know that they have continued on in a purely RP style - I must have done something right.
Anyhow, they want me to go back to running the group, and teach them the 'real' rules. I told them about the 4e rules, and tried to explain some of the differences between the two editions (what little is known), and they are excited about the new rules. However, I have taught them to love the Realms, and they don't understand why anyone would want to change them. In other words, they were not happy about the setting changes.
So my question, "what age-group are you shooting for", stands.
If it helps at all to get an honest answer, I told my players to wait a few months and I will teach them the 4e rules. I don't want them to invest tons of money right now in a defunct edition.
Seconded.
Although I think Bruce Cordell is up to the task (I'm impressed with his fresh take on many Realms characters and places in his novels), to be honest I've never even heard of those other guys. Not to say they aren't decent game designers or anything (I wouldn't know), but as an avid gamer since the early seventies (I used the chainmail rules!) I don't recall their names on any of the more memorable Realms products I own.
Doody Head. :P
I will be an old-school gamer (started with 1st edition back in the mid 80's) who loves the Realms and will be buying as much as I can of the new edition materials. I love the realms, they have always been more detailed (especially the npcs) than any other setting. I would like to see psionics made more a part of it all. I am grateful to Ed, you and a host of others for giving me a rich playground in which to tell great stories. Keep it up and forget the whining of those who can't adapt to a new reality. Hopefully when the new rules come out and we see the Realms reemerge from the chaos of the Spellplague they will see the beauty of it and come home, if not, well that just leaves more dragon hordes for me to plunder.
P.s. give us more about Jhaamdath.
I'll try to touch on a couple of your concerns, Asgetrion.
1. The wizardly orders. They're not really specializations in the sense of 3rd Edition specialist wizards; choosing one doesn't make the spells belonging to another unavailable to you. Basically they're a mechanism by which we answer the question, "How did your wizard learn magic? Was he trained in a magical academy, tutored by a single mentor, etc., etc." So each order provides a subset a spells your character is *best* at, but doesn't replace the notion of spell school from previous editions.
2. Wizard implements now provide your character with a reason to care about a signature weapon in much the same way that the fighter cares about a signature sword. We think it's a good thing. Many other implements have been suggested, including things such as mask, dagger, and (of course) tome.
3. Every class gets cool "non-attack" power choices as well as attack power choices. Wizards will still be able to cast spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, or Levitate. It's true that we'd like to "narrow" wizards a bit, and save (for example) some illusion spells for an honest-to-gosh Illusionist class down the road, or necromancy spells for a Necromancer. But wizards will still "splash" at least a few of the iconic powers in these themes of magic. For example, wizards still have Invisibility available to them. But when the Illusionist class comes around, he'll have better Invisibility options.
4. You'll have to take up the CCC with Bob Salvatore. It's his book.
5. Yes, we'd like a smaller pantheon in FR. However, that doesn't mean that three-quarters of the deities will kick off. It does mean that we're looking at a lot of marginal deities and asking ourselves, "Could this deity be a demigod--a divine figure who doesn't really have a continent-wide church with dozens of temples devoted to him or her?" For example, we like a lot of the demihuman deities as demigods who hang around with/work for the real heavy hitters like Moradin or Corellon.
I know this probably isn't very reassuring, but we are keeping an eye on what you folks are saying, and we're committed to delivering the best product we can.
Hi Rich!
Thanks for your quick reply! Your announcement about Ed having a major role in the development process of the 4E Realms actually made me feel a lot better! I know that you, Ed, Eric, Steven, Tom, George and Eytan all *love* the Realms and wish to see this setting flourish. Yet not every designer (or author) feels this way, and that is why I felt so alarmed about the events described in 'The Orc King'.
1) I understand the reason why you guys wanted to give more 'background fluff' for the wizard class, yet I think these traditions are too 'Core-fluffy' to my taste (I have a hard time imagining someone playing 'a Warforged wizard of the Shadow Serpent -tradition' in the Realms). Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this Spellplague supposed to explain the changes in the magic system (i.e. how the "new" magic works) which is why there shouldn't even be any magical "traditions" left in the Realms (unless they all are Netherese in origin?). Besides, some DMs might have a lot of difficulties to make them work in their home-brew worlds.
2) I still argue that there should be more of these implements in the final product, and wands (at least) should be cut!
Otherwise it is a very good idea, and I also hope that you guys include some kind of "focus" material component system in the rules (there was one in UA, I think, which let you use any Metamagic Feat for free on a spell that you had one of the "special" and rare components for). 3) I think these "traditions" would work a lot better as Prestige Classes, because Illusionists, Necromancers, Abjurers and the other "specialists" have always been part of the "core" rules. I'd also like to have the mechanical option to create a more 'scholarly' type of a wizard without any offensive spells at all, if I feel like it. It may be that in terms of versatility in character creation (i.e. mechanical options to create any type of character) 3E will remain superior to 4E (which might give you more powers and feats/talents -- but that is a completely different matter altogether). It's good to know that wizards will still have access to all kinds of spells, but I'd hate to see every one of them mechanically forced to be "at their best" in Evocation-type (combat) spells only. You can create a mechanically and thematically 'simplified' or 'focused' system that yet enables you to build any type of character concept -- many trait-based "indie" RPGs (such as 'The Pool') serve as a good example of this.
4) Maybe you guys could make this CCC just vanish... or just ignore them completely in FRCS? ;)
5) This is funny, because ever since the "Gray Boxed Set", all the deities have been (slowly) *growing* in power. I guess this "fall-from-grace" will be done for some mechanical (i.e. features of the cleric class) reasons? Or is it because all their Godly Realms (except for those of the Greater Deities) were destroyed? I hope there will be some mechanical explanation if half of the Elven/Eladrin Pantheon will be "reduced" to demipowers. As for the individual deities, I always liked Helm over Tyr -- and not just because there are so few LN deities in FR ;). I was also sad to see Haela and Gorm die
. I have mixed feelings over this issue, because FR having a large pantheon with some occasional overlapping in the divine portfolios seemed always very consistent with the "feel" of the setting. It is good to know that you're listening, and really I appreciate the fact that you take the time to address our concerns and questions! :D
In any event... you should know Rob Heinsoo. His name is on the 3rd Edition FRCS. Chris and Logan are both new to FR, but they're talented guys and I'm confident they'll have a lot of great contributions ahead of them. Give 'em a chance to knock your socks off!
I stand corrected about Rob, I knew I recognized his name from somewhere (other than the R&D Staff Blogs), but I couldn't place it. I like Chris, he has been helpful on the Doomsday thread (but I have not seen him there lately). Anyways, I am giving them a (as in one, singular) chance. I still think you should get Brian James on the crew too. The man's dedication in compiling the original Grand History shows his love for the world. It also means that he is well acquainted with the its lore.
The thing that has me worried about 4e overall and the 4e Realms especially is what happened with the OWoD and NWoD. Everyone I know who loved the OWoD hates the NWoD, not just for its game mechanics, but for its story flavor as well. If you change the flavor of the Realms too much so the new 4e mechanics will fit in, you may lose most of the Realms fans. This is a very real threat to the Realms. Please, tread carefully.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
I stand corrected about Rob, I knew I recognized his name from somewhere (other than the R&D Staff Blogs), but I couldn't place it.
Seconded.
Although his name doesn't stand out like certain notables, the 3e FRCS was pretty darn good. :D
Thanks for the fast response, Rich, it's good to know that you care enough to be doing 'damage control' ATM. ;)
Bring on the Crunch! Put the Fluff on DnD insider ;)
One of the things I liked about the realms PRcs is they often had an actual place in society. I often found the complete (XXX) a tich too generic. They were often very easy to incorporate, but didn't have the sense of history that "War-wizard of Cormyr" and the like.
It's fairly ironic how you first advertise your interest in "crunch" and then talk about something as "fluffy" as the history of a prestige class.
And it can indeed be divided like that. By creating a generic prestige class, you leave possibilities for free adaptation open, including future homebrew campaigns as well as official products.
This means a range of generic prestige classes in various core products can be adapted in, say, Forgotten Realms products simply by listing the recommended changes for each of the prestige classes.
That way, a given prestige class can also be re-used in, say, an Eberron product and have an entirely different feel and flavor there by having different adaptation options.
That way an Assassin, for instance, would have a "generic" concept and mechanics, and could be adapted to specific settings, guilds, or cultures with simply a few lines of what to change about the generic standard to make it specific. It would be a way of keeping it simple (or as some like to call it, "elegant").
I'm probably right in the middle of the grognard demographic, and I'm really enthusiastic about the direction that D&D is taking. I'm very happy to hear that not all wizard variants will have access to all spells--it does make sense to me that certain "cutting edge" magic would only be available to those who have completely devoted themselves to studying that variety.
The 1e illusionist had a flavor all its own, and was great fun to play. Specialists in 2E and 3E are bland and flavorless.
Remember the original incantatrix class from Dragon? Now that's a specialist. I would be thrilled to see specialists with strong flavor and unique tricks of their own, and I'm certainly willing to wait.
So Kudos!
Ben
The thing that has me worried about 4e overall and the 4e Realms especially is what happened with the OWoD and NWoD. Everyone I know who loved the OWoD hates the NWoD, not just for its game mechanics, but for its story flavor as well. If you change the flavor of the Realms too much so the new 4e mechanics will fit in, you may lose most of the Realms fans. This is a very real threat to the Realms. Please, tread carefully.
A perfect example of why your concerns aren't necessarily reflective of reality: the reaction of old World of Darkness fans to the new World of Darkness which you describe is by no means universal.
Most fans I know prefer the new one, for instance.
A perfect example of why your concerns aren't necessarily reflective of reality: the reaction of old World of Darkness fans to the new World of Darkness which you describe is by no means universal.
Most fans I know prefer the new one, for instance.
If you change the flavor of the Realms too much so the new 4e mechanics will fit in, you may lose most of the Realms fans. This is a very real threat to the Realms. Please, tread carefully.
The word may does not imply that it is universal. However, it does imply that it is a distinct possibility. Especially if the reaction on the forums is a good sample of the Realms populace. And yes, I know that it may not be a good sample for statistical purposes, but it may be as well. All I am asking is that they be very, very careful in what they decide to do from this point. I am also asking other fans to wait and take a look at the new FRCS in a year before yanking out the pitchforks and torches.
Seconded.
Although his name doesn't stand out like certain notables, the 3e FRCS was pretty darn good. :D
Speak for yourself--a name like "Heinsoo" stands out to me.
Speaking of which... Want to know what some of the masterminds behind your favorite Realms products look like?
From left to right: Rich Baker, George Krashos, Eric Boyd, Me (Brian James), Ed Greenwood, Richard Byers.
Hmmm, only one of us isn't sporting a beard...
I like the realms a lot. I've read the books, four of the eight D&D campaigns we've done have taken place there in 3rd or 3.5. I'm a fan. I WANT TO SEE THE REALMS CHANGE.
I love new ideas and new ways of looking at things. I can't imagine telling Ed Greenwood to not change the realms. Or saying it's not the realms anymore because of a change I didn't agree with. If you don't like the changes don't use them. I really don't want to designers listening to people who have already hate a system they haven't seen. And frankly, I hope they don't listen to people who want everything to stay the same or are calling this a marketing ploy. Yes, your books will be obsolete. That's the point of a new edition. What really gets to me is people acting like this is going to ruin their D&D experience, no one is taking your books away and forcing you to play a new game. If you want to keep using the old stuff, please do so, I have on many occasions. And if you think WotC and the designers are a bunch of moneygrubbing *****s than a) you haven't played warhammer and b) take your business elsewhere, the rest of us are sick or hearing about it.
Very few are saying the new edition is a money grubbing ploy, in fact some of the people opposed to the changes in the Realms support WotC as a business and company and they support the new rules.
The people voicing their concern also want to see the 4E Realms succeed. That is why they're bringing up their concerns, they want to play in the 4E Realms as much as, or perhaps even more than, you do. Most of the fans of the Realms want to see the product line remain active and hope to see a setting that they can continue to support. That is why they're giving feedback.
One response to your statement about continuing to play in the old Realms is this: If you like changes to the Realms so much, what is stopping you from making your own?
No one is saying you don't have a say or that your opinion doesn't count. Although personally I don't see much of an opinion from what you said other than a general support of change for the sake of change with no regard to what it is. Then it's my turn to say I hope that the designers aren't listening to you or people like you because you're just as bad as the people who have vocal but nonsense-filled negative reactions to the new 4E Realms. You gave an "empty vote" of yes. Your reactions makes it seem like you're the type who buys products just because they have "Forgotten Realms" on them without consideration for what it is, whether it is good or bad. It's like voting for the popular candidate in a political election without considering the person had a previous charge of corruption, a few DWIs, and a platform full of slogans but no plans to back it up.
My comments weren't aimed at the people who have thoughtful concerns. The designers should listen and take notes in that case.
Though I'm pretty confident that who ever is handling the realms will do a good job. I seriously doubt that they'd hand the job over to people in which they didn't have the utmost confidence.
And I've made my own changes to realms plenty of times (including killing off all the major heroes) but I'm eager to see what other people do with it.
I think where we differ the most is that I find myself split between the whole 4E package. In my mind the treatment of the 4E rules has a very clear division from the handling of the 4E Realms. The former I think I will like, the latter it's still very hard to tell. As I've said before on this thread, the overwhelmingly negative, destructive focus of the changes are inherently hope-draining. I think WotC should throw us more bones on what the new things the changes bring to the Realms rather than what it takes away.
. I apologize as well for taking such a harsh tone and misunderstanding you.
I appreciate that, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
I think WotC should throw us more bones on what the new things the changes bring to the Realms rather than what it takes away.
And let me be the first to agree with you! Show us something great, so we, the ayesayers (If that's not the opposite of naysayers, it should be), have something to sink our teeth into, so we can really let you guys know if we can get behind the upgrades!
I got "Hin Fist" Heinsoo to sign my FRCS while at Gen Con this year. We only spoke briefly but seemed like a nice guy to me. On the other hand I spent tons of time with Rich Baker. Rich is real passionate about the Realms and obviously loves his job. The day 4E was announced he could barely contain the smile on his face.
Speaking of which... Want to know what some of the masterminds behind your favorite Realms products look like?
Hmmm, only one of us isn't sporting a beard...
Oh my God... so *that* is what George looks like! ;) :D
P.S. I find the death a Mystra (and Mystryl) a bit redundant and wish they could have been more creative there.
Oh my God... so *that* is what George looks like! ;) :D
I must say, his beardlessness seems to put him to shame.
EDIT: For you game designer-types, I have started this thread as a place for avid Realms fans to post what about the Realms makes them love it. I would appreciate if you would read it (once it takes off) and consider what is said. I also would love to hear from you as to what makes you love the Realms.
Thanks,
Hawkins
Will the Realms be converting to this new cosmology?
It is interesting, but it does not feel like it belongs in the Realms to me. Of course, the players from 2e and before probably found the cosmology found in The 3e FRCS and PGtF pretty strange as well.
Oh my God... so *that* is what George looks like! ;) :D
Indeed. Scary isn't it. Eric Boyd did ask me if everyone was "like" I expected. In a strange way they were - I of course knew what Ed, Eric and Steven looked like - as in my expectations morphed into the reality of their voices and mannerisms until to me they were "always like that".
Had a great time at GEN-CON. Will hopefully do it again in the not too distant future.
Rich, any chance you'll be coming down for GEN-CON Australia next year?
-- George Krashos
[sigh] How I would love to have a fantasy-related job like the bearded five on that picture though...
Of course, the players from 2e and before probably found the cosmology found in The 3e FRCS and PGtF pretty strange as well.
I've been playing since 1E and I found the 3E Cosmology to be more fitting to the Realms than anything that came before.
I hope the latest incarnation of the FRCS design team keeps The Realms in mind if/when they make changes to the campaign setting.
I hope the latest incarnation of the FRCS design team keeps The Realms in mind if/when they make changes to the campaign setting.
We all want this.
The fact of the matter is that what The Realms is varies immensely from one group of fans to the next.
We all want this.
The fact of the matter is that what The Realms is varies immensely from one group of fans to the next.
There are some things that I am sure are universal (or close to it) that people consider The Realms. These are the things that Mr_Miscellany (and most everyone) wants the design team to keep in mind while designing the new FRCS.
PS: Brian looks like a halfling in that picture.
I would say he looks more like an underfed dwarf.
There are some things that I am sure are universal (or close to it) that people consider The Realms. These are the things that Mr_Miscellany (and most everyone) wants the design team to keep in mind while designing the new FRCS.
I beg to differ.
Mr. Miscellany's specific reference to what's in question (cosmology) is certainly not a universally accepted matter of opinion. I'm sure there's many, many other things that aren't, as well.I beg to differ.
Lol. I am not saying that there are not many different things that many different people consider The Realms. I am saying that I am sure that there are also many different things that many different people agree on that make it The Realms. If there were not some parts of the Realms that everyone (or most everyone) loved about it there would not be such a large fan base. Just like with Star Wars. Everyone (or most everyone) agrees that Star Wars would not be Star Wars without Jedi. They are a defining facet of it. How would you feel if there was a "Force Plague" and all of the Jedi died out and the Force was completely obliterated? I can tell you, Skywalker Ranch is not a place I would want to be if that happened.
I would say he looks more like an underfed dwarf.
That would be a Gnome. ;)
Which means Brian will NOT be a playable race when the new edition is released. :P
Everyone looked very different then I expected them too, except for Ed.
I'm completely with Dark Wizard on this one, so I need not type one of my usual over-long posts. I'd just like to reiterate one of the most important points he makes -
4e rules and 4e Realms are two seperate animals.
The rules sound fun and I eagerly await them. The changes to the Realms, on the other hand, sound ill-thought out for the most part, and that is why these changes are being met with so much derision. Change IS good, but changes that don't make any sense detract from a person's immersion into the setting.
The word 'Creativity' derives from 'creation', not 'destruction'. Their is NOTHING creative about destroying things, and thats exactly what the Spellplague is all about.
Oh yeah, Erik pronounces his last name as de-Bee, not de-Bye like I thought.
Indeed. Scary isn't it. Eric Boyd did ask me if everyone was "like" I expected. In a strange way they were - I of course knew what Ed, Eric and Steven looked like - as in my expectations morphed into the reality of their voices and mannerisms until to me they were "always like that".
Had a great time at GEN-CON. Will hopefully do it again in the not too distant future.
Rich, any chance you'll be coming down for GEN-CON Australia next year?
-- George Krashos
Of course, the particular astral dominions that will exist in Faerun's cosmology will correspond to the Realms pantheon. So you'll see Arvandor, House of the Triad, Warrior's Rest, etc., as shaken up by events of the Spellplague (no more Dweomerheart, for example).
Faerie's been touched on several times in Realmslore (for example, Elaine's novels). The Shadowfell and Plane of Shadow are pretty much the same thing. The Inner Planes are getting resorted to the Elemental Chaos, but no one ever went there before anyway, so it should be fine. We've got some details to work out on the interaction of the Fugue Plane with all this, but other than that, the new cosmology is going to be Faerun's cosmology.
Now, and actual question for the designers:
Will the Realms be converting to this new cosmology?
It is interesting, but it does not feel like it belongs in the Realms to me. Of course, the players from 2e and before probably found the cosmology found in The 3e FRCS and PGtF pretty strange as well.
I'm sure this is probably more than I ought to say right now, but yes.
. . .
We've got some details to work out on the interaction of the Fugue Plane with all this, but other than that, the new cosmology is going to be Faerun's cosmology.
What happened to the Realms being a distinctly different setting from the other settings? I can only guess that the Eberron cosmology will stay the same. So why is so much of the Realms being conformed to the new rule set? So far the motivation for the changes you designer-types are working on the "new" Realms seems extremely murky. I keep trying to trust you guys, but you are making it very difficult. It seems to me like how Eberron was tailored to 3.5e, you are now trying to tailor the "new" Realms to 4e. That is messed up. Eberron was new IP, the Realms is an IP with over 20 years of history and fans. If you want a setting tailored to the new rule set, have a contest and make a new setting. Don't
-up a time-honored and loved setting. All that does is generate more hate for WotC and how they are handling the new edition. I hope that Ed's help on the new FRCS will help fix the many things you have broken (and are breaking).Disclaimer: this is not directed at Rich Baker specifically, but at the FR Design team in general
What happened to the Realms being a distinctly different setting from the other settings?
That got canned. The Realms were brainwashed, got a grey suit, a standard haircut, and are now being taught how to be a productive drone.
I'm going to have to find the picture of myself standing with Realms authors Erik Scott de Bie and Ed Gentry. Those two guys are tall! Well, that and I'm just short.
Oh yeah, Erik pronounces his last name as de-Bee, not de-Bye like I thought.
Eric (or Erik) and Ed seem to the two most prominent Realms designer/writer first names.
That's a much clearer response. I think the main thing is to not let a few vocal posters get to you. I don't blame you, I've probably done the same myself a few times and I'll admit your previous post set me off somewhat, though I do mean what I said in a general sense to those who decry or support anything for the sake of doing so, not necessarily you specifically now that you said what you were referring to. I apologize as well for taking such a harsh tone and misunderstanding you.
I think where we differ the most is that I find myself split between the whole 4E package. In my mind the treatment of the 4E rules has a very clear division from the handling of the 4E Realms. The former I think I will like, the latter it's still very hard to tell. As I've said before on this thread, the overwhelmingly negative, destructive focus of the changes are inherently hope-draining. I think WotC should throw us more bones on what the new things the changes bring to the Realms rather than what it takes away.
I'm (just about) completely with you here, Dark Wizard. For one thing, I say whoever, especially the authors, should ignore the gnats that the naysayers are becoming and keep on with what they're doing. I mean, look at how split fans of the Transformers genre were over the Michael Bay film AND the upcoming Transformers Animated. Still, enough people seemed to like it.
In addition, I'd love to also see more of the additions to the Realms and a bit less of the subtractions. Maybe that may turn more heads towards the authors in applause? ;)
It's the THEME that's changing in the new FR, which is why some people are so upset by it.
In addition, I'd love to also see more of the additions to the Realms and a bit less of the subtractions. Maybe that may turn more heads towards the authors in applause?
I think that would make many Realms fan feel better indeed.
I would also like to bring this thread to the attention of the designers. I believe that their answer to the question asked over there could appease many minds.
It's the THEME that's changing in the new FR, which is why some people are so upset by it.
I totally agree. At least, that's what it seems like.
For the record, I found the recent Transformers movie to be surprisingly dull and boring considering the subject, as well as overlong (2 and a half hours!).
Anyway, that's my last comment here on TS, to avoid clogging things up.
Well, if you're asking me whether new players or old players are more important to us, then I *am* going to duck that answer. They're *all* important to us.
We know that the initial success of the new edition depends on 3E players adopting it in substantial numbers. If we do something that 3E players reject out of hand, that's bad. We know that the long-term success of the new edition depends on continuing to acquire new players. That's nothing but common sense, no insidious plots there.
Naturally we examine many proposed rules changes and setting changes through the lenses of "Will this make the existing audience happy?" and "Will this help to attract new players?" A lot of times you get different answers to the same question through those two lenses.
In any event... you should know Rob Heinsoo. His name is on the 3rd Edition FRCS. Chris and Logan are both new to FR, but they're talented guys and I'm confident they'll have a lot of great contributions ahead of them. Give 'em a chance to knock your socks off!
As a old time player I will admitt that the changes the design team are doing don't fill me with joy. Sure I know we have only got small peaks at what 4th edition and the new Realms will look like. The changes to the elves, cosomolgy, demons and devils, the PoL idea, the magic traditions, alignment, classes, are not just 'sacred cows' that can be gleefuly slaughtered, but have been the common staple of the D&D for over 30 years.
I have played in groups that have had a age range of 17 to 56. Everybody knowing what is up...now all the changes that the design team are doing is making the game have a pronouced generation gap.
The RSE detract from a setting because with each one you remove somebodys game from the base setting. Which futher divides players so you get the gamer arguments at the local gaming store, or bookstore, or on the forums...these can't be attracting new players to the game.
I know this will most likely fall on deaf ears and get replied by a canned response of "We are listening to your concerns and will take then intro account" or, "We aren't destroying the Realms but making them better." Which is fine I am just one person, but I figure I'll give it a try anyway.
I will try 4th edition, but I have little confidence in it. And the new FR...well with what I have read in the GhotR and the first chapter in the Orc King I have no confidence in the changes you are making.
I wish you luck in your new game, but I am quickly feeling that it is not for me and will propably be sticking with 3.x and completely separating my Realms game from the official Realms line. Which by the way means my group will not be generating any new players for you.
P.S: I know you propably have very little say about this but if you want to attract new players WotC should start better supporting the local gaming stores by not dealing with Amazon, Borders, B&N, etc. They just undercut the local gaming stores in price and they release every book before the release date(atleast in my area).
Granted, I'd only expect as much of an answer as you can divulge at this time, nothing more.
I'm just short.You and me both. Standing next to Erik makes me feel like a gnome.
Well, that and I'm just short.
At least the loremaster from the cover of the original PDF for Grand History can be considered in a more relevant context now. ;)
We've got some details to work out on the interaction of the Fugue Plane with all this, but other than that, the new cosmology is going to be Faerun's cosmology.
...and I'm sold.
It's the THEME that's changing in the new FR, which is why some people are so upset by it.
For my illumination, what is the THEME of the "old" FR?
-- George Krashos
For my illumination, what is the THEME of the "old" FR?
-- George Krashos
That's a good question, and a hard one to answer, but I will say that I didn't think the theme of the world was "a land fallen into darkness and despair", which is the impression I got from the new Orc King novel. I've never agreed with those who've complained that there is "too much good" in the Realms, that evil is weak and imcompetent, and therefore the forces of good have to be knocked down a peg or five.
The changes to the elves, cosomolgy, demons and devils, the PoL idea, the magic traditions, alignment, classes, are not just 'sacred cows' that can be gleefuly slaughtered, but have been the common staple of the D&D for over 30 years
I'd just like to point out that the underlined text above basically defines the bold-faced term above. You may wish to reconsider your wording
The THEME of the Forgotten Realms (prior editions), btw, is two-fold:
1. Everything. Whatever theme you want, there's a nation that has it.
2. Everyone else is better than you. NPCs that run mid-sized cities are epic. If you are not, then simply do what they tell you to do.
I'll bet #1 sticks around and #2 gets the assault treatment.
I'd just like to point out that the underlined text above basically defines the bold-faced term above. You may wish to reconsider your wording
Mmmm.... perhaps a better way to say it is those things are what have defined D&D for over 30 years?
Also it maybe we have different definations of the term of sacred cows? To me a sacred cow is something that is held on to even though it doesn't function anymore and should be let go...unlike the things I mentioned before because they do serve a function of giving everyone a common ground.
Does that make my point clearer to you?
All "sacred cows" serve the function of "giving everyone a common ground" by nature of having been around for so long.
That's precisely why they're hard to kill.
Sacred cows wouldn't stick around as they tend to do unless their removal would be likely to make a lot of traditionalists very upset. Each of them have their own reasons for being attached to said cows, of course. Some believe they work great as they are. Others simply have nostalgia. Some provide "common ground" or "defining element" arguments, as you are.
The things you are talking about are sacred cows, plain and simple. However, you feel that they should remain sacred rather than just becoming a regular cow and sent off to become beef.
There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I'm really just arguing semantics for no good reason. Eh, sorry :p
No.
All "sacred cows" serve the function of "giving everyone a common ground" by nature of having been around for so long.
That's precisely why they're hard to kill.
Sacred cows wouldn't stick around as they tend to do unless their removal would be likely to make a lot of traditionalists very upset. Each of them have their own reasons for being attached to said cows, of course. Some believe they work great as they are. Others simply have nostalgia. Some provide "common ground" or "defining element" arguments, as you are.
The things you are talking about are sacred cows, plain and simple. However, you feel that they should remain sacred rather than just becoming a regular cow and sent off to become beef.
There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I'm really just arguing semantics for no good reason. Eh, sorry :p
Then by your definition anything and everything in a pre-existing system is a sacred cow.
No.
All "sacred cows" serve the function of "giving everyone a common ground" by nature of having been around for so long.
That's precisely why they're hard to kill.
Sacred cows wouldn't stick around as they tend to do unless their removal would be likely to make a lot of traditionalists very upset. Each of them have their own reasons for being attached to said cows, of course. Some believe they work great as they are. Others simply have nostalgia. Some provide "common ground" or "defining element" arguments, as you are.
The things you are talking about are sacred cows, plain and simple. However, you feel that they should remain sacred rather than just becoming a regular cow and sent off to become beef.
There's nothing wrong with that, of course. I'm really just arguing semantics for no good reason. Eh, sorry :p
I can accpet that defination...it really doesn't change my thoughts on it though.
Double Post.
:whatsthis 
:heeheeFor my illumination, what is the THEME of the "old" FR?
-- George Krashos
The rise of humanity despite the mistakes of the past. FR is a world of mysterious ruins and legends, and adventure can be had just around the corner.
That is what it has always been for ME. Someone else might have their own ideas. Thats the point - it was all things to everyone, and everyone could find something they liked.
By giving the entire setting a theme (post-holocaust), the designers are force-feeding a concept on us - one that USED TO BE ours to make.
FR didn't need a theme - That's what made it so real for so many of us.
Does Earth have a 'theme'?
Yet we enjoy it anyway.... ;)
Just posting my thoughts on the Realms changes as presented so far; I also note this is mainly gleamed from what's been posted on the board as I have yet to make it to my FLGS to pick up my GHotR.
First, I'm actually excited about the mechincal changes to 4e, probably more so then any other member of my gaming group, who have adopted a much more wait and see attitude towards 4E. Once Bo9S came out, it signified the death of the traditional fighter class in my eyes. Why be a fighter when you can be so much more as a Warblade? If mage/cleric/rogue/whatever are updated in this style, I see this as a major step forward in allowing all classes to have interesting roles to fill at any particular time. I've played since AD&D and I was 11 years old, and believe that every edition has seen an upgrade in game mechanics, and I have faith that this edition will also improve upon the core mechanics.
That said, I am a little worried about the timeline and comments made about the Realms itself, specifically the intent to eliminate or demote many of the lesser gods, as in my eyes, the very "real" way that religion was handled in the realms was one of the settings greatest strengths, along with wiping out many of the established kingdoms and personalities therein. Of course, there is also the whole "Weave" issue which is one of the key concepts in the setting.
I will buy the FRCS, but if it's as much of a drastic change and becomes as "post-apocolyptic" as what is being discussed, I'm not sure I will continue buying the setting. I'm trying to not make this into a "threat" or rant post, just a simple statement that if the changes go too far for my tastes, and we get a brand new setting masquerading as the Realms, I have no interests in that kind of change. The perfect analogy was previoulsy brought up as OWoD vs. NWoD. Please don't make the same mistake.
Indeed. Scary isn't it. Eric Boyd did ask me if everyone was "like" I expected. In a strange way they were - I of course knew what Ed, Eric and Steven looked like - as in my expectations morphed into the reality of their voices and mannerisms until to me they were "always like that".
Hmmm... you *did* look a bit weird in that company, but I guess that was due to being beardless ;) Okay, just kidding... you looked very "normal" (in a positive sense) as I (for some unfathomable reason) expected to see a wild-haired "mad genius" type of older guy from the Outback. :D
My question is: will we still see distinct differences like realms specific prestige classes, magic-types, ect? and To what extent? Or is the realms going to be made extremely similar to standardized D&D?
Long Question:
Okay, I am normally extremely pro-WotC, as I really preferred the work done under 3/3.5 to most of the stuff done before. I am looking forward to 4e for its own sake, as I like (so far) the ideas I am hearing, minus a very few.
However, I am concerned about the "standardization" of the realms; all sub-races treated as fluff, less prestige classes, loss of "unique magic" rules (One of the things I loved about both FR and Eberron is unique magic/species, ect.)
I understand that "fluff" can be different between settings, but if it is based on air, based on no crunch at all, it feels stale to a certain degree. Real underlying differences lead to fluff differences imo; and it is more fun to play something with a different feel that is more than "my sword fighter dresses like a European Knight" and "My sword fighter
dresses like a Samurai", again imo.
So, my concern is the homoganization (sp?) of the realms, making it like "baseline" D&D.
My question is, is this how it is, in fact, going to be done, or will we still see distinct differences like realms specific prestige classes, magic-types, ect? To waht extent?
If your wondering were the question is, im getting to that. Keeping on with my point, ive read and seen the realms evolve through alot of different things, and many of them, while odd, didnt change the overall setting in a way which would make FR something that is not FR.
However looking at the current way things are going i feel that many of the changes you, and the subsequant staff are making, are hurting that lore and feel, making all of it obsolete and telling all people who have grown up with these sort of things, what you know doesnt matter because i say so.
So, to my question.
Could you please explain all of these changes your making to FR in a way that makes sense in the actual story, and not in a "its just a mechanics change, dont worry about". I ask simply because the feeling i get from all the things i am reading is not a pleasent one. and yes i am aware you will more then likely ignore this post along with all the other posts out there. I am also more then aware that this will do little good. I do feel this will help lighten the dread i feel as i see something truly unique and wonderful become like many other things in this age, which is to say, Flashy and Impressive, but containing no real substance.
so to put it simply "Why are you changing the realms for changes sake? if something isnt trully broken why fix it?"
From a concerned consumer and player of the realms.
(Oh and yes im only 21 years old.)
Short Question:
My question is: will we still see distinct differences like realms specific prestige classes, magic-types, ect? and To what extent? Or is the realms going to be made extremely similar to standardized D&D?
First, some rules changes deserve story explanations, and some don't. The addition of fighter and rogue powers to those classes don't demand explanation, to my mind--the new rules set simply shows what those guys have been doing all along, simply in better and more exciting fashion. Changes to the way wizard powers work *do* require story explanation, because the rules of magic in the setting are well-known and can't be changed on a whim.
Second, we're not changing for the sake of change. That implies that we're simply not interested in the repercussions of the changes we're making, and that just ain't true. We're changing things because we have good reasons to do so. We want to be able to tell new stories, we want to be able to keep up with the new D&D rules, and we want to let bad ideas from the past be forgotten. There's very little that we've done out of "designer hubris." I don't doubt that different people will draw the line of "you've hit hubris" in different spots, but that's the nature of the beast.
Third, I wouldn't necessarily agree that Realms "ain't broke." We've got concerns about the accessibility of the Realms to new players and new readers (and new writers and game designers, too). The Realms *will* be broken if it becomes an ossified setting played and read only by a slowly diminishing audience of old-timers. We need to reach out to new players and provide an opportunity for them to buy one game product or one book and feel just as invested in the Realms as someone who's been following us for ten years.
Mr. Baker, having played
so to put it simply "Why are you changing the realms for changes sake? if something isnt trully broken why fix it?"
From a concerned consumer and player of the realms.
(Oh and yes im only 21 years old.)
Yes, you'll still have wizardly magic in 4e Realms. It may work a little differently than it did before, but the Spellplague's to blame for that.
Once again, Mr. Baker, I don't mind the entirety of what's going on, but I've got one concerned question: Is there still going to be arcane magic or any type of magic at all?
Granted, I'd only expect as much of an answer as you can divulge at this time, nothing more.
The rise of humanity despite the mistakes of the past. FR is a world of mysterious ruins and legends, and adventure can be had just around the corner.
That is what it has always been for ME. Someone else might have their own ideas. Thats the point - it was all things to everyone, and everyone could find something they liked.
By giving the entire setting a theme (post-holocaust), the designers are force-feeding a concept on us - one that USED TO BE ours to make.
FR didn't need a theme - That's what made it so real for so many of us.
Does Earth have a 'theme'?
Yet we enjoy it anyway.... ;)
That 'theme' is a bit cliché, ya know... Not that I don't like, but...
Now, Earth... Sure. Hum...
-The rise of humans and the fight against the Unknown.
The problem that most of us have is that these changes seem totally and completely illogical. There's no justification for them and they're out of character for the beings that are taking the actions.
I'm going to make a list of my ten "Favorites" now.
1) Sune is a goddess of romantic love, yet she suggests an arranged political marriage between Tyr and Tymora, who would rather spit on each other's portraits than bump uglies? It's not that its out of alignment. It's that it's out of character.
2) The Moradinsamman go to war and eliminate...the Duergar deities? Who the HECK are they going to worship now? Asmodeus? While that's a cool idea, it also means that Duergar society will have devil allies, which may be too much for PC's, even those who do think things through. While this change made sense philosophically, the results will likely make NO sense in terms of adventure design.
3) Cyric and Shar are somehow capable of killing Mystra on her HOME PLANE? I don't believe that this is possible in theme, and you shouldn't either.
4) Orc Philosophers? Come on, guys. Let's be realistic here. No one believes this. No one. Even R.A. Salvatore, arguably Wizard's best writer, cannot convince me that the orcs can write convincing works of literary philosophy to rival Plato and Aristotle.
5) It is the WILL OF MORADIN that an Orc Kingdom exist? When did Moradin lose his senses and stop granting +1 to hit all of these types of creatures due to racial hatred? Will there be a difference between old dwarves, who still have it, and new ones, who don't? I think the Moradinsamman have been asking their clerics to sacrifice the wrong kinds of mushrooms. Either that, or we've all been roleplaying dwarves incorrectly for 30 years. My problem here is not so much the orc kingdom as the idea that you folks have done a really LOUSY job with the Moradinsamman. (Can you tell I like dwarves yet?) Despite my agreement with Moradin gets fed up and beats down Ladguer and Duerra, I really believe that you guys just never read Dwarves Deep or any of the stuff about dwarf culture contained therein.
6) Obox Ob in the middle of the Sothelissan Empire? Was this development REALLY necessary? So now, we have this Ogre Empire (Which is why the orc kingdom in the marches isn't necessary) with powerful allies because these lawful countries fear Obox Ob. Only this doesn't happen until 1375. Yet, the Orc Kingdom in the North is formed in 1372, which isn't listed in Grand History of the Realms at all. I'll be the first to admit, I love Obox Ob. But this isn't the place for it.
7) Who do the Orcs of Many Arrows worship now? The tooth fairy? They can't seriously worship Gruumsh, unless they really want to anger the Marches Council. And furthermore, assuming the Orc God wasn't always chaotic evil, what is the REAL story of Gruumsh's rise to power? And how did he BECOME chaotic evil? This isn't explained, makes no sense, and defies 30 years of D+D logic.
8) Elminster's tower explodes. I may not always like the guy, but come on, people. He's a thousand year old archmage. He should be prepared for every single contingency that a group of PC's or NPCs throw at him. The only way to overcome an opponent like this is by brute force or raw stealth. He's got an INT score higher than most of the population of Faerun. He has whatever magic items the DM of the game decides to give him because he's a thousand year old archmage. This doesn't make any sense either.
9) The spellplague doesn't make any sense. So mystra dies, and there's a big explosion, and wizards on Faerun are affected but no one else is? This not only seems forced, it feels forced and seems cheap and chiselly. Also, there are no 3.5 mechanics for Spellplague victims, which you should have released as soon as you told us you were going to do this. If my PC's in my D+D game are going to die, I would at least like to let them know how and why it works. Plus, killing Mystra twice in 30 years? I'm sorry, but this doesn't feel like the Realms. It feels like Knights of the Dinner Table.
Villain: And now...I shall become a GOD...HAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
PC's: Well, to heck with you then. We're retiring. We'll witness your depredations and then in 30 years, you'll be gone. That's about the lifespan of your average deity. Then we'll all kick back at the Old Skull and have a nice drink.
DM: I won't award you any XP.
PC's: So what?
10) This is my pitch to freeze the timeline and never advance it again.
There are so many things I could have saved for this slot, but I had to put it up for the sake of my sanity.
Here's the best reason ever why you need to do this:
Calimshan.
Of all the places that got no treatment in 3.0-3.5, this was probably the biggest jerkaround. At least you simply did nothing with it instead of doing what you guys did with Mysteries of the Moonsea or these Cormyr, Shadowdale, Anauroch books.
In a way, I'm almost relieved. I'm still working with a Calimport supplement that's somewhere around 10 years old. Do I have any idea what really goes on there anymore? And more importantly, does it matter?
But to me, it does matter. Now you guys have to do double work, and it's going to do, in the time honored manner of critical hits, double damage. Because the longer you do something without touching it, the more DM's improvise.
The more DMs improvise with no lore, the more useless that lore becomes when you do release it, and working it into backstory becomes twice as hard.
It's things like this that made Dan curse you out, though they included asterisks for the sake of politeness, and quite frankly, considering that I'm one of Mr. Baker's biggest detractors, the fact that under these circumstances, Dan being willing to curse you out before me says a whole lot more about the problems with the timeline and the way that the designers choose to handle things than I ever could.
I'm a bad man. I have a bad temper. I acknowledge that. I have Aspergers Syndrome, and am highly obsessive compulsive. I acknowledge that, too. But it's not just me that won't forgive something like this. It's my twenty players and my need to purchase new sourcebooks.
Which is why I have to end this post, despite the fact that it will torque people off, and possibly get me banned, with these words that I will type until either Mr. Baker changes his mind, leaves the Realms behind, or somehow tries to understand the point of view of the furious people he has so agitated.
Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!
First, some rules changes deserve story explanations, and some don't. The addition of fighter and rogue powers to those classes don't demand explanation, to my mind--the new rules set simply shows what those guys have been doing all along, simply in better and more exciting fashion. Changes to the way wizard powers work *do* require story explanation, because the rules of magic in the setting are well-known and can't be changed on a whim.
You see this what concerns me...the old D&D magic system I could fit in the Realms or any different numbers of world and get it to work....so why does the new one needs to have settings so heavily refavored that you have to rip the world apart?
Second, we're not changing for the sake of change. That implies that we're simply not interested in the repercussions of the changes we're making, and that just ain't true. We're changing things because we have good reasons to do so. We want to be able to tell new stories, we want to be able to keep up with the new D&D rules, and we want to let bad ideas from the past be forgotten. There's very little that we've done out of "designer hubris." I don't doubt that different people will draw the line of "you've hit hubris" in different spots, but that's the nature of the beast.
I have been running the game for twenty years now...and have been playing it for propably about 27 years and never have ran out of ideas...as a matter of fact it is not even close to that point. Because each new group of PCs are a fresh story...before we had a good base to grow many ideas, now we have a new game...that doesn't seem as open to different types of playing D&D. Also what exactly are these 'bad ideas' that you feel need to be changed? Also why do they need to be changed that they are no longer even recognizable?
Third, I wouldn't necessarily agree that Realms "ain't broke." We've got concerns about the accessibility of the Realms to new players and new readers (and new writers and game designers, too). The Realms *will* be broken if it becomes an ossified setting played and read only by a slowly diminishing audience of old-timers. We need to reach out to new players and provide an opportunity for them to buy one game product or one book and feel just as invested in the Realms as someone who's been following us for ten years.
I disagree with you on what a new player need to play in the FR. Personaly I feel that it is better for new players not to know the 20+ years of history of the Realms and can discover it in game. It increases the wonder factor.
Also you are right that a setting does need to grow...but how about gradual changes that the PCs can get involved in and the DM can incoporate into their Realms.
Also I find the change very unfriendly to ongoing campaigns. Which I just don't get why WotC seem to have no desire to support people who have ongoing campaigns.
Also it is impossible to make everyone happy with a setting...so instead of driving people away from the Realms with the changes why don't you come up with a setting that those people who don't like the Realms will enjoy? I mean all the changes that have been hinted at or revealed I am seeing nothing of the Realms that I liked. Can you give me any hope for the future of the Realms?
Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!
I will not quote all your text. Just several words - you are right. I'm with you.
I can't believe that you just called Forgotten Realms an, "ossified setting played and read only by a slowly diminishing audience of old-timers." Maybe you should be a designer for another setting if you don't like the Realms or Realms fans. The Realms never felt ossified to me. Forgotten Realms is flexible and dynamic. The High Forest, Calimshan, Waterdeep, Cormyr, Thay, Kar-tur, Maztica...etc. A DM can run almost any kind of game he or she wants to in the Realms. The Realms are always changing. Shade returned, Myth Drannor was rebuilt, Thay is entering a period of civil war. The Realms are not ossified! I am astonished that I have to write a post to defend the Realms from a Realms designer!
You also just called the Forgotten Realms customer base a, "slowly diminishing audience of old-timers." Insulting the people that buy your products is not a good idea. It is an even worse idea when you know that many of those "old-timers" are mad about the changes.
I now know you don't give a
about us "old-timers", but I have a question. Did you guys think about the negative word of mouth that the Realms are getting in the gaming community? In gaming stores across the country angry Realms fans are complaining to their friends. Why would a new player want to start a game in a setting that old players are ****** off about? If I go to a fast-food-joint and the people walking out are screaming about roaches in the tacos, I leave. Forgotten Realms could turn into a setting played and read only by a quickly diminishing audience of old-timers.I do not like the changes made to the realms as far as I know about them until now. But it is not as if so much has been revealed.
I think it would be good to get some kind of "Design&Dev" collumn for the 4th ed. realms (like there were in Dragon pre 3e) going. I think information might really help.
Remember the end of Dragon/Dungeon uproar? To me, this feels just like that.
But, I must say, while I myself love the realms and love to DM in the realms and my gaming group nearly exclusively uses them, a friend of mine only DMs there, because most of us prefere them as players.
I allways help him out with converting adventures and picking appropriate regions etc. There is just too much setting for a newcommer to quickly get into it. And the multitude of gods and the defference in cosmology are allways his major concerns.
Well, if you're asking me whether new players or old players are more important to us, then I *am* going to duck that answer. They're *all* important to us.
Your words suggest that, but from what I read about the changes, I can't believe it.
All of the changes suggest, to me and to many others, that those who know and like the old Realms, are of no concern to you. I'm not the first to say this, and yet I haven't read any assurances that it isn't so bad or that the Realms will be their old self.
Everything, besides your verbal assurances, suggest that the old Realms fans are not at all important to you. It's all about getting new people into the Realms, and the old people who are already there be damned.
I think there's a risk of that now. In fact there's been a risk of that for some years now, and we've seen evidence that not as many new D&D players make the jump into Realms as we'd like. From the point of view of longtime Realms players, of course FR ain't broke. From the point of view of new players who might be interested in Realms but aren't coming on over, well, I'm not so sure. Which is why I don't know that I would agree with the sentiment "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Mr. Baker
I can't believe that you just called Forgotten Realms an, "ossified setting played and read only by a slowly diminishing audience of old-timers." Maybe you should be a designer for another setting if you don't like the Realms or Realms fans. The Realms never felt ossified to me. Forgotten Realms is flexible and dynamic. The High Forest, Calimshan, Waterdeep, Cormyr, Thay, Kar-tur, Maztica...etc. A DM can run almost any kind of game he or she wants to in the Realms. The Realms are always changing. Shade returned, Myth Drannor was rebuilt, Thay is entering a period of civil war. The Realms are not ossified! I am astonished that I have to write a post to defend the Realms from a Realms designer!
You also just called the Forgotten Realms customer base a, "slowly diminishing audience of old-timers." Insulting the people that buy your products is not a good idea. It is an even worse idea when you know that many of those "old-timers" are mad about the changes.
I now know you don't give a
I see how the Realms can seem intimidating to new D&D players. However, you have done nothing to reassure us that you are not using a bulldozer when a scalpel would be a much better instrument. I think that all the worries that 4e is a "dumbed down" version of D&D is amplified in the Realms. It feels as if the Realms is being "dumbed down" and all of the longtime lovers are being ignored in favor of new players. It also feels as if the "new" Realms is being tailored to D&D 4e like Eberron was tailored to D&D 3.5e. So far, you have told us all of the bad things that are happening to the Realms, and none of the good things. Also, I have to agree with msatran that the actions of several of the characters (gods and NPCs alike) seem out of character for them. Please, show us some positive things that have happened, rather than just the negative.
Sincerely,
Hawkins
P.S. I still think that many of us would be more reassured if you (Mr. Baker, and the other Realms team designers/authors) told us on this thread why you love the Realms. Right now, you are not showing us in any way that you do love the Realms. This is why we are concerned.
I really suggest you change the name of the campaign setting, in fact, from Forgotten Realms to the Sundered Realms, cause that's basically what you did.
Please don't misquote me. You need to read my post more carefully: I said that FR *would* be broken *if* it became an ossified setting played only by a diminishing audience of old-timers.
I think there's a risk of that now. In fact there's been a risk of that for some years now, and we've seen evidence that not as many new D&D players make the jump into Realms as we'd like. From the point of view of longtime Realms players, of course FR ain't broke. From the point of view of new players who might be interested in Realms but aren't coming on over, well, I'm not so sure. Which is why I don't know that I would agree with the sentiment "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
So you are just guessing that new players aren't coming over to the Realms and are making the changes based on guesses( or maybe from a few people who post on the boards)?
The thing is I don't understand this is that you already have a good solid world to pick up those who don't like the Realms...Eberron...so why are you going to try to steel people from that setting?
I mean I like both worlds because they are different...with the changes all I see is them becoming the same and that is true stagnation.
Also when I was a new player I came over to the Realms for exactly the reasons you see has what is hurting the setting. The rich and varied pantheon of gods, the rich history that those powerful NPCs brought to the world, the balance of civilization vs wilderness, that the forces of evil vs good were actualy in balance, that it felt real and growing world and not just some story or novel...
What is driving me away from buying anymore FR products are the things the design team has done and the novels over the last few years. When will the Realms will stop being the designs teams and the authors of novels and revert back to the players?
The thing is I want to like the FR and 4th edition but all you have shown us is the very things I have disliked. I am just asking for some hope here...I realize maybe there isn't any for people who like to play D&D the way I do.
Anyway as this is the third time I posted with no answear I doubt I'll get one on this one.
As consumers, we vote with our dollars. If Future Realms 1485 is as great as THEY think it is, people will buy it and that will be that.
If it is as big a stink-fest as WE feel it will be, no one will buy it and life will still go on... for us.
I'm glad I'm not betting on this with MY paycheck, though. ;)
This crotchety 'old timer' has everything he will ever need to continue to have fun in the one and only Forgotten Realms.
BTW: I cursed out all of WotC. I think that Mr. Baker is just one cog in the machine. ;)
Not sure if you can answer these at this time but I'm going to ask.
Are the novels going to remain canon? If so, what's to prevent the novels from introducing "broken" things like they have in the past? Let's face it, a lot of the gripes about the Realms are based on changes from the novels.
My two cents.
I hope you keep the subraces and a goodly number of high level NPCs around.
Based on what we've seen of the supposed changes, I think I'd be more accepting of a 100 TLA than a 10 year one (I know nothing is confirmed) as it seems like there's too much going on to be settled in 10.
Thanks.
Originally Posted by MarkusTay63
The rise of humanity despite the mistakes of the past. FR is a world of mysterious ruins and legends, and adventure can be had just around the corner.
That sound very "point of light-ish" to me
You see this what concerns me...the old D&D magic system I could fit in the Realms or any different numbers of world and get it to work....so why does the new one needs to have settings so heavily refavored that you have to rip the world apart?
Becouse some specific spells of FR, such as Spellmantle, probably will dissapear in 4.0 (as they are bringing spellcasters back to planet earth).
There must be an explanation to why those, and other "signature spells" shown in the novels, no longer work.
One of the things mentioned on the boards is the difficulty for new people to get on board with the realms, not really surprising considering the 20+ years it has been a published world, the amount of detail written about this wonderful, vibrant world is out there but can be daunting to someone just getting into it...will changing the idea, the concept of this world really bring in more players, more fans, yes it may, but it may also lose some by doing it, Is FR really selling poorly are sales going down for the FR products and if so why...is it the poor quality of some of the books, ( NOTE: that I have said some ) from the editing to the very idea of the book itself. Is it that the world is stagnating this I do not believe to be the case...maybe marketing is the problem, coming from the UK I see little to no advertising for D&D, FR or any other D&D setting. I admit I do not see the state of advertising or the profile of D&D outwith the UK, but if it is the same most of it seems to be word of mouth relying on the fans of the game to get the message out, to start up games, to buy the product, to make money for WoTC.
One thing that has brought new players and fans to FR is the games the various Baldurs gate and Neverwinter Nights computer games have brought new fans to the realms and will probably continue to bring new fans to the game and setting, maybe it is time to branch out, talk of a TV series died down a good few years ago ( No!!! Don't go there again I hear some cry) after it was shelved, maybe starting something like this back up even animated would bring in new blood.
From what I have read on these forums the vast majority of people are not happy with the proposals for where the Realms are heading, for the most part I am also not entirely chuffed with it but will await the FRCS in August next year and see what kind of weird World of Forgotten Realms they will give us.
Maybe in a few years time El will come out of the shower and say what a weird dream I just had and we can start afresh in the year of Shadows ( Just a thought)
Also when I was a new player I came over to the Realms for exactly the reasons you see has what is hurting the setting. The rich and varied pantheon of gods, the rich history that those powerful NPCs brought to the world, the balance of civilization vs wilderness, that the forces of evil vs good were actualy in balance, that it felt real and growing world and not just some story or novel...
I know this isn't a thread for debate, or even really discussion, but I would like to concur with the above statement. Once I learned about the Realms, I "fell in love" with it, and set out to discover as much of the setting's lore as I could. For me, it was a fun thing, because I was interested in the setting.
I am very sad that the setting I love the most is being so drastically changed (and indeed, reduced, it seems).
Becouse some specific spells of FR, such as Spellmantle, probably will dissapear in 4.0 (as they are bringing spellcasters back to planet earth).
There must be an explanation to why those, and other "signature spells" shown in the novels, no longer work.
Are you going to tell me they won't be any FR only spells?
As for bringing the wizard back to a planet Earth...I will say this thread is a wrong place to have this discussion as it is meant to talk about the changes to the FR. Besides I am not talking to you...my question was for Mr. Baker. Check out the title of the thread.
For whatever reason, WotC is unable to provide third-party publishers with a working draft of the rules until, say, January or so. Our print schedules are so far out these days that that simply won't allow us time to measure the new game's impact on our planned storylines for the third Pathfinder Adventure Path. Even under this scenario, we'd likely publish some 4e-compatible GameMastery Modules, but Pathfinder is the flagship of our RPG efforts. I'm NOT switching systems mid-way through an Adventure Path. That would be far too disruptive to our business and our customers are practically begging us not to do so already. So it's not happening.
So if the very first installment of the third Adventure Path is not compatible with 4.0, NONE of the third Adventure Path will be compatible with 4.0. That'll bring us to February 2009 without serious 4.0 support in Pathfinder.
I don't think that would be the end of the world, as a lot of people will be acclimating themselves to the new system in those six months. The question is whether or not the D&D audience "buys" fourth edition as a reasonable evolution of "their" game. And we should have a much better idea of whether or not that's going to happen six months _after_ fourth edition comes out than we will six months before.
Especially if we haven't seen the rules.
Given that WotC currently prioritizes getting the rules to randomly selected D&D Insider subscribers and RPGA groups higher than they do getting the rules to significant third-party companies that can help transition their audience, I am starting to get a little worried.
WotC has been very cool about telling us that we will get the rules before they come out, but I am not certain their timetables will line up with ours in a way that allows us to have Pathfinder ready for 4.0 players at next year's Gen Con.
Let's take this a few more yards down the football field, shall we?
Let's say we don't get the rules in time to make an informed decision before we need to start work in earnest on the third Pathfinder Adventure Path, and we're committed to supporting 3.5 in Pathfinder through February of 2009. Let's also say that we continue to sell enough Pathfinders to make it a worthwhile exercise, and let's also say that the reaction on behalf of the existing audience to 4.0 is underwhelming. I don't EXPECT that this will be the case, but it certainly is possible.
Despite the flaws of 3.5 (now often trumped up by the very designers responsible for them as part of the 4.0 marketing push), there does not seem to be the same system malaise that existed in the waning days of second edition. Plus, lots of players have a much more significant investment in 3.0 and 3.5 than they did in the earlier editions, mostly due to the overwhelming flow of $34.95 monthly hardcovers coming from Renton over the last few years. The PR and marketing challenge of selling 4.0 to the customer base is far more significant, in my view, than the PR and marketing challenge of selling 3.0 to lapsed 1.0 and 2.0 customers.
I have a lot of faith in the design abilities of the Wizards of the Coast staff. As a former PR professional I have some concerns about their ability to lead the audience where they want them to march. We'll see.
So, here we are in the early months of 2009 with our flagship product still supporting 3.5. If the audience does not seem thrilled with the changes instilled by 4.0 at this stage, I can see a reasonable argument for continuing with 3.5 for even longer.
Now, 3.5 is not a perfect system. There are plenty of flaws, particularly in high-level play, and sooner or later someone needs to get in there and "perfect" the system.
Wizards of the Coast seems to be taking a "from the ground up" approach to fixing the rules, in many ways starting from scratch and tossing concepts that have been with the game since the 1970s. Further, they are attempting to monetize various elements of the game with "micro-purchases" and online subscriptions to bring the game closer to what they see as their most significant competition: MMORPGs.
I've never played an MMORPG, I have no interest in playing an MMORPG, and elements that move the game further from its traditional roots as a social tabletop game give me the heebie jeebies. I am at least a little bit concerned that, while the decisions Wizards of the Coast will make to ensure their game is a success for a wholly owned subsidiary of a major international publicly held corporation, those same decisions might not result in changes that are in the best interest of the game or its existing audience.
Back at Wizards of the Coast in 1999 there was a lot of talk about "firing the existing audience" of D&D with the third edition launch. The logic went like this: "Even if we have to fire all of our existing customers, so long as we replace those old customers with more new ones, the result will have been worth it."
Of course, 3.0 did nothing of the kind. Instead, largely by harkening back to the "good old days" of first edition ("Back to the Dungeon," Greyhawk as core, half-orcs, monks, and assassins back in the game, etc.) they managed to revitalize the community of "lapsed" D&D players, bringing them back into the fold.
I have to wonder how prevalent that "fire the customer" mindset is this time around.
So, if 4.0 is not immediately embraced by the majority of Paizo's existing audience and we're still committed to 3.5 Pathfinder into 2009, we'll have to look very seriously at sticking with the system for a year or two.
Thereafter, we might release a "3.75" that smooths out some of the system's kinks and addresses some of the common complaints about it in a way that is respectful of the game's 30-year tradition.
The upside then is that Pathfinder would be fueled by a system whose design is more or less fully controlled by Paizo, and we won't have to worry about what the folks at WotC are doing with D&D, because Pathfinder will no longer be slaved to the official D&D system.
The downside, of course, is that Pathfinder would cease to be a D&D-compatible product, or at least a product compatible with the version of D&D commonly available to new players. That's a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage and one I'd like to avoid if possible.
But if the end result is something that is comfortable and fun and in the grand tradition of our favorite hobby, it might actually work.
If 4.0, on the other hand, is robust enough to emulate the kind of play we're all used to I'd much rather go with the "sure thing" and publish Pathfinder in a way that fully supports 4.0. I honestly trust and expect that 4.0 will allow us to do that, so my default assumption, to be frank, is that we'll convert whole hog to 4.0 at some point or another.
But I haven't seen the rules and I haven't seen the new OGL, and until I do I've got to keep our options open.
--Erik Mona
I wanted to say I appreciate you posting on this forum. I know it might not seem like the most appealing place to read comments from, but I do hope that you can read as many posts here as you have time to. Hopefully you have a good understanding of how many of us feel and why.
I wanted to start off with a regular question: How is the Realms product schedule looking from now until August 2008 when the new FRCS comes out? I know there is the Anauroch adventure, is there anything else that might give us a hint at what is to come?
----------
I'm going to address the following to all of the designers, no one in particular because I can't tell who does what.
I believe there can be a middle ground between acceptable changes and a renewed freshness about the setting. I feel that lies mostly in presentation of the setting.
Now concerning the changes to the upcoming new Realms, I think a lot of fans are asking why these new changes are such an all-or-nothing deal. All the reasons for change you (and interestingly, many typical anti-Realms player) state could be accomplished without using any of the specific changes outlined in GHotR. So what about these changes makes them inherently 4E-based or appealing to new players?
You said the Realms could become an ossified setting, but it hasn't arrived to that point yet. Then why the need for such a drastic change? Wouldn't a more gradual process be a wiser approach, something to bridge the old and new players?
It seems a lot of the things people criticize the Realms for stem from events like the ToT where gods meddled and their favored mortals interacted with them and each other. Essentially RSEs caused much of this negative stigma against the Realms. Does another RSE, the Spellplague with a seemingly even wider-scale and impact, really help to remove that perception of the Realms? If you want people to forget about the not so good parts of the Realms does dredging them up in the 4E transition really help that cause?
I've noticed several comments by WotC designers or website contributors promote the negative stigma against the Realms. I recently read a discussion at Candlekeep where another posted said he observed this negative connotation of the Realms is very widespread amongst the company designers, particular during the podcasts. It seems this negative perception of the Realms is partly designer induced. Has the FR design team considered that maybe just various WotC designers saying the Realms are hopelessly bloated by high-level NPCs and soap opera pantheons on official articles, blogs, and podcasts that the setting does gradually shift towards that because the designers think so. If the designers think so, what are the players and consumers supposed to think? Do you think that it may be how the Realms were presented in the last few years that new players find it less appealing? The setting was popular at one point, it had lots of fans at one point, so is it a built-in fault of the setting that it is losing players or is it the designers who make the setting what it is?
Have the Realms team considered instead of changing the Realms' flavor and deciding its future history it should change the Realms' production model. It seems Eberron is getting a lot of praise for a few key design decisions: non-canon novels, not advancing the time line (thus no new setting shaking events), leaving certain setting mysteries unrevealed, and use of more NPC Classes for NPCs. Recently, the Eberron design team revealed that they decided to not advance the time line at all, not even the two years discussed. It might be a bit early to tell, but so far the reception has been overwhelmingly positive, even those who prepared for the two year advancement expressed happiness. Are Realms fans so different from Eberron fans that similar design decisions for the Realms would be detrimental to the setting? Aren't some of the new players the Realms hopes to gain similar to Eberron fans? If these design decisions helped make Eberron a good game-oriented setting, can't some of them be use to return the Realms to the hands of the gamers?
When reading the designer blogs, I see several mentions of Eberron games played by designers, but I can't seem to find any mention of Realms games. I'm not sure what that says about the Realms and the designers.
These are some of the questions I pondered over as more and more news of the changes revealed over the last few weeks. It seems all I have left are questions now. A lot of the changes seem senseless, requiring a reader to make too many jumps, precisely the sort of thing you think prevents the Realms' wider appeal. From a design standpoint, a lot of the changes also seem counter-intuitive and counter-productive to your stated goals with FR 4E (as much as I can understand of game design it since I'm not a game designer).
A lot of the actions and answers from the designers also seem blatantly abrasive to the old fans. I'm getting a mixed message from the designers, they say they like the Realms but their off-hand comments and actions don't show it. The designers don't seem confident about the Realms and their potential work on it. I may be wrong, but if I'm right, perhaps the designers should re-examine their involvement in the Realms and get to the root of the problem instead of blaming the basics of the setting or the wishes of the old players for the Realms' recent troubles.
I apologize if I have been rude. This is how I feel due to what I think is inconsistent treatment of the Realms by the designers. One minute it is this, another minute it's that. I've heard designers wonder if the setting is stale. I can only answer that it is the designers who decided to kill Mystra twice in as many decades of publication. Honestly, I think many soap opera characters fair better. I have read some Mystra III jokes on these forums in years past, it was not funny (or much of anything) when it actually happened. I apologize again, I can see my tone shifting and I know that is not fair to you. I hope this better shows you how at least one fan of the Realms feels and that it is not all gut-feelings and blind hate of change. I believe many of us have very valid reasons for disliking the changes.
Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!
Guys, guys... this is no place for an argument, and we're just wasting our breath.
As consumers, we vote with our dollars.
I know. I just thought I'd give them a chance to tell me something about the new Realms I like. They seem hell-bent on not doing that.
Well, I'll be voting with my Euros sure enough. Unless things change trastically, It will be no 4e FR material for me, and generally only the most basic WotC 4e stuff in general (if at all - should Paizo decide not to change over, I won't either. Varisia is my new home, where they don't ignore questions they don't like).
Well, I'll be voting with my Euros sure enough. Unless things change trastically, It will be no 4e FR material for me, and generally only the most basic WotC 4e stuff in general (if at all - should Paizo decide not to change over, I won't either. Varisia is my new home, where they don't ignore questions they don't like).
I find it ironically humorous. Since I will not be buying the 4e core books for at least 2-4 years (to leave room for 4.5 or its equivalent despite their claims), 4e FR products was WotC's only hopes for for continuing to receive my $$. Now, with the 4e Realms being all negative changes and no positive changes (that they have shown us at least), it is not likely that they will even get that. I was going to buy the 4e FRCS without a question and then make my mind up about 4e Realms products. But now I realize that they might consider that support for their "new" Realms, and just continue on blindly thinking I like it. I guess I will have to wait for the 4e FRCS to come to my FLGS and check it out there before buying it...if I decide to buy it that is.
Please don't misquote me. You need to read my post more carefully: I said that FR *would* be broken *if* it became an ossified setting played only by a diminishing audience of old-timers.
I think there's a risk of that now. In fact there's been a risk of that for some years now, and we've seen evidence that not as many new D&D players make the jump into Realms as we'd like. From the point of view of longtime Realms players, of course FR ain't broke. From the point of view of new players who might be interested in Realms but aren't coming on over, well, I'm not so sure. Which is why I don't know that I would agree with the sentiment "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I appreciate you writing on a *possibly* hostile environment, but I am also going to have to disagree with you on this.
I joined FR back in 2003, right around the switch to 3.5. The group I was with had a game set in Cormyr, so I purchased the FRCS, Magic of Faerun, and Faiths of Faerun. I haven't looked back. I found it easy to start with those three books. I did have the old grey box and a few box sets from before I stopped gaming when 2e came out.
Since it was in Cormyr, I did find a lack of support, so I read the Cormyr novels, and bought the old Cormyr accessory and Volo's guide. The old 2e products support lots of fluff, but it is my opinion that that could have been avoided with current 3e support. A sourcebook on Cormyr and Dalelands would have been the perfect fit, especially with the changes in Cormyr to 3e. Since WotC stopped doing sourcebooks, the old 2e stuff is what gamers needed to support their campaigns. It just seems that WotC has themselves to blame for this problem.
I still found it easy to get into FR with the first three books. I just don't understand the comments that were made.
Do you have someone working on the Spellplague novels yet? And if so, can you give us their name? I think that if you get the correct writer to do this, you may still be able to come out ahead. Oh, and how about a couple happy things that are happening to the Realms? So far all you have given is the doom and gloom of the current state of the Realms, and none of the cool happy things. That is part of what is keeping us all in an uproar. All negative content is never a good way to market change.
Hawkins
Slightly longer answer: We recognize that several of the stories we've told lately in the novels have been pretty major Realms-Shaking-Events, and I think it's our intent to slow down just a little on that. I can't completely speak for our Books team, but I believe that we're going to take our time and show off/explore our new "snapshot" of the Realms a bit. I know my own new novel series (Blades of the Moonsea, plug, plug) is a much more localized, character-driven story than Last Mythal was.
Any mechanical elements suggested or introduced by our novelists are going to go through our normal design and development process before they become part of the game. If someone writes a book about frost giant heroes, well, you won't have to worry about broken frost giants stomping all over your game. Our developers wouldn't stand for it.
Hi Rich,
Not sure if you can answer these at this time but I'm going to ask.
Are the novels going to remain canon? If so, what's to prevent the novels from introducing "broken" things like they have in the past? Let's face it, a lot of the gripes about the Realms are based on changes from the novels.
My two cents.
I hope you keep the subraces and a goodly number of high level NPCs around.
Based on what we've seen of the supposed changes, I think I'd be more accepting of a 100 TLA than a 10 year one (I know nothing is confirmed) as it seems like there's too much going on to be settled in 10.
Thanks.
Rich,
Do you have someone working on the Spellplague novels yet? And if so, can you give us their name? I think that if you get the correct writer to do this, you may still be able to come out ahead. Oh, and how about a couple happy things that are happening to the Realms? So far all you have given is the doom and gloom of the current state of the Realms, and none of the cool happy things. That is part of what is keeping us all in an uproar. All negative content is never a good way to market change.
Hawkins
If I say yes, you'll say "AHA! I KNEW IT!"
If I say no, you'll say, "All right then, so exactly what IS the 4e WotC way of saying You're fired!?"
It's the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" saw.
Come on, guys! I'm trying to be a stand-up guy here and give you the most honest and direct answers I can to your questions and concerns. This kind of stuff doesn't help.
And, for the record: I've been with TSR/WotC since 1991. My first Realms product was Dalelands, published back in 1993. I had my hand in every FR product from 2000 until 2005, and the odd one or two since then. And I've written 7 Realms novels (heck, 8 counting the one I just finished that isn't published yet). I think I've established some "cred" with the Realms. Sorry to sound defensive, but sheesh!
Hey Rich is 4E WotC way of saying your fired to those of us that has helped make the Realms so GREAT? Eric Mona said that WotC was thinking about firing there customers in 1999, but did not go through with it. I know you probably didnt work for WotC then. So is THE 4E FORGOTTEN REALMS WOTC WAY OF SAYING YOUR FIRED? Here is a link http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13938423&postcount=4066 Follow the link to page 9, in the middle of the page. I will probably copy what was said in the post anyway, I just want people to know where it is. Sorry if I am a little grumpy. I mean no offense. OK.;)
Now, how the heck am I supposed to answer that?
If I say yes, you'll say "AHA! I KNEW IT!"
If I say no, you'll say, "All right then, so exactly what IS the 4e WotC way of saying You're fired!?"
It's the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" saw.
Come on, guys! I'm trying to be a stand-up guy here and give you the most honest and direct answers I can to your questions and concerns. This kind of stuff doesn't help.
And, for the record: I've been with TSR/WotC since 1991. My first Realms product was Dalelands, published back in 1993. I had my hand in every FR product from 2000 until 2005, and the odd one or two since then. And I've written 7 Realms novels (heck, 8 counting the one I just finished that isn't published yet). I think I've established some "cred" with the Realms. Sorry to sound defensive, but sheesh!
Thank you Richard for your honest reply. I ment nothing personal. I really enjoyed The Last Mythal Trilogy. Was the Realms that cluttered after 20 years of game play? I look forward to 4E really I do. I just dont know if I can game in the realms anymore, with what is happening, and going to happen to a wonderful setting.
I feel its DEAD REALMS WALKING. Again I thank you for your candid reply.Q.. Why does the world have to be reworked to match the new magic rules?
As I said... the workings of magic in the Realms are *thoroughly* described in hundreds of books and game products. If magic changes, we can either RetCon it or we can posit a world event to explain it. Magic *will* change because FR 4e is going to use the D&D 4th Edition rules, and there are changes in the way D&D handles magic. If nothing else, wizards now have access to renewable (or per-encounter) and at-will spells. Now, for all purposes, wizards *already had this* in Realms fiction for years. When a wizard character needed a fireball, like as not the author would have him throw a fireball. So I view this as a change that actually "squares" the game rules better with the Realms fiction we've seen for years. But it is different, and it deserves a better explanation than "it was always this way."
Q. What were the old bad ideas?
I'm not eager to answer this question, because I can't do it without bashing the work of other designers and authors. I'll pick on one of my own: the Shadow Weave. It's fiddly, it's complex, and it's really intended to provide DMs with a fig leaf of explanation for a check on Mystra's otherwise absolute power in the setting. With a different take on magic and the goddess of magic in the setting, the necessity of a Shadow Weave diminishes drastically. It's something we can live without. There are several other glaring examples (at least to me) but I'm not picking on any others in this forum.
3. Can I give you any hope?
I don't know --what would give you hope? I can't take away the Spellplague and I can't promise not to inflict 4e rules on the Realms. They're kinda done deals at this point, for good reason. But I can promise you that we're working hard to present a really riveting, exciting, and innovative vision of the Forgotten Realms, one that grows as organically as possible from all the work we've done before but shows old-timers scads of new vistas to explore. And I'm going to tell you everything I can about what we're up to as soon as I'm allowed to, but I can't give away the whole movie in our preview, or else I won't have anything left to knock your socks off with.
[
]You see this what concerns me...the old D&D magic system I could fit in the Realms or any different numbers of world and get it to work....so why does the new one needs to have settings so heavily refavored that you have to rip the world apart?
I have been running the game for twenty years now...and have been playing it for propably about 27 years and never have ran out of ideas...as a matter of fact it is not even close to that point. Because each new group of PCs are a fresh story...before we had a good base to grow many ideas, now we have a new game...that doesn't seem as open to different types of playing D&D. Also what exactly are these 'bad ideas' that you feel need to be changed? Also why do they need to be changed that they are no longer even recognizable?
I disagree with you on what a new player need to play in the FR. Personaly I feel that it is better for new players not to know the 20+ years of history of the Realms and can discover it in game. It increases the wonder factor.
Also you are right that a setting does need to grow...but how about gradual changes that the PCs can get involved in and the DM can incoporate into their Realms.
Also I find the change very unfriendly to ongoing campaigns. Which I just don't get why WotC seem to have no desire to support people who have ongoing campaigns.
Also it is impossible to make everyone happy with a setting...so instead of driving people away from the Realms with the changes why don't you come up with a setting that those people who don't like the Realms will enjoy? I mean all the changes that have been hinted at or revealed I am seeing nothing of the Realms that I liked. Can you give me any hope for the future of the Realms?
Now then, I fully understand the need to keep the storyline of the Realms moving forward, and I accept that it will be better, overall, to offer some sort of explanation as to why matters change, rather than to simply ignore it such a drastic change in the rules (one that I gather will be a far greater change to the magic system than between previous editions, for instance).
However, a lot of the players are reasonably concerned that the scope of the changes, and their severity, will alter the Realms to a point beyond which we feel a sense of connection to the setting. I do not intend this to be an attack on you, or any other designers. Much of the panic and hysteria that has ensued regarding these upcoming changes may simply derive from what little we do know of the details, combined with the rumors that circulate of what will change - drastic changes to the timeline (10 years, or 100?), of favorite deities and major npcs that are slated to die, and so forth. Many of these may come from one player making a speculative post, and others reading it as being a verified truth, then repeating it... which only feeds the fires.
My questions, then, are these:
1) Is there anything you can do, at the present time, to dispel some of the rumors, or at least to clarify on some of the points with respect to the plans?
2) I realize that change is inevitable, and necessary. I am quite happy with many of the changes made in the recent sourcebooks, and that have occured in recent trilogies. I also realize that despite the feelings many on these boards have expressed in objection to changes due to occur concurrent with the 4th Edition Realms, those changes will occur. Is there , however, any room for adjustment in terms of specific details, that some of the sentiments and suggestions proposed here might be taken into account where applicable? For instance, a proposal to retire (a la Vangerdahast) rather than kill outright, and achieve a similar end, but without such a drastic measure?
Oooh, sorry I missed this one, it's been a couple of days.
Yes, you'll still have wizardly magic in 4e Realms. It may work a little differently than it did before, but the Spellplague's to blame for that.
Apology graciously accepted, Mr. Baker. I have a feeling I've got backlogs or something like that of my own, somewhere. :embarrass
Good to know we'll still be seeing arcane stuff, at least. :D
Oh, and I'm not sure if you saw this, but here are some corellations (sp?) I found between your Core D&D works and the Realms.
1) Concerning Stormwrack, I could see Valkur being a likely candidate for the Legendary Captain PrC. Umberlee (and possibly Blibdoolpoolp) would probably be a likely candidate for the Sea Witch. The Captain of the Waves, in addition, would likely do well as a Swashbuckler (CW) for his main class levels.
2) Frostburn: Why does Auril SO scream Frost Mage to me?
3) Tome of Battle: Now, this is a real stretch, but I could possibly see Garagos with levels in Warblade, and Tempus with levels in Swordsage or Warblade in place of Cleric.
What do you think? Sounds reasonable?
Magical Disease.
Well, if it's a magical disease, why can't clerics cure it?
And why are there no mechanics (3.5 mechanics) released now, and I mean right now, so that you can determine which PC's will live and which will die?
OK, let me take another shot at answering some of John's concerns...
And I do appreicate it. I know how busy you are with the edition changes.
Q.. Why does the world have to be reworked to match the new magic rules?
As I said... the workings of magic in the Realms are *thoroughly* described in hundreds of books and game products. If magic changes, we can either RetCon it or we can posit a world event to explain it. Magic *will* change because FR 4e is going to use the D&D 4th Edition rules, and there are changes in the way D&D handles magic. If nothing else, wizards now have access to renewable (or per-encounter) and at-will spells. Now, for all purposes, wizards *already had this* in Realms fiction for years. When a wizard character needed a fireball, like as not the author would have him throw a fireball. So I view this as a change that actually "squares" the game rules better with the Realms fiction we've seen for years. But it is different, and it deserves a better explanation than "it was always this way."
I can completely understand this. And do in fact agree as wizard's magic( and maybe all casters) magic are going though drastic changes( I might not agree with this as I didn't have issues w/ the old system and most issues people I have know was mostly flavor wise and not the actualy system) but why the destruction of the Weave? And Mystra? I know people think she was too powerful, but really I can't think of anything that has ever happened where she stopped evil villians plan by not granting him spells. Both of them can remain intact and have what you want to happen. I don't see the need for just destruction of things that are inherant to the Realms.
Q. What were the old bad ideas?
I'm not eager to answer this question, because I can't do it without bashing the work of other designers and authors. I'll pick on one of my own: the Shadow Weave. It's fiddly, it's complex, and it's really intended to provide DMs with a fig leaf of explanation for a check on Mystra's otherwise absolute power in the setting. With a different take on magic and the goddess of magic in the setting, the necessity of a Shadow Weave diminishes drastically. It's something we can live without. There are several other glaring examples (at least to me) but I'm not picking on any others in this forum.
First I would like to apologize for somethings I have said about you on these boards that were insultive and the above statement proves untrue. You can recognize a mistake and change it. This has given me some hope in that I misjudge you atleast in part.
The thing is I and many others never recognized a problem with Mystra, the Weave, or the 7 Sisters. So I really didn't like the Shadow Weave because I never saw it as a neccessity to counter Mystra's power. But I can see a need to diminish them in power, but without throwing them out with the bath water. The Weave and the 7 sisters are important to the games I run and play in, so I am having a hard time dealing with this change. To me they are integral to Realms as Elminster and more so the Drizzt.
Also just a minor point for you to think about is that alot of the misperception with these characters happened because of the novels.
3. Can I give you any hope?
I don't know --what would give you hope? I can't take away the Spellplague and I can't promise not to inflict 4e rules on the Realms. They're kinda done deals at this point, for good reason. But I can promise you that we're working hard to present a really riveting, exciting, and innovative vision of the Forgotten Realms, one that grows as organically as possible from all the work we've done before but shows old-timers scads of new vistas to explore. And I'm going to tell you everything I can about what we're up to as soon as I'm allowed to, but I can't give away the whole movie in our preview, or else I won't have anything left to knock your socks off with.
What would give me hope, call this a wishlist or suggestions.
1) Save Eilistraee...I don't think she should become darker or the conflict between her and Lolth should end. Can you give me some reassurences?
2) Save the 7 sisters, Mystra( doesn't even have to be this one it could be a new one...or a old one brought back), and the Weave.
3) Keep the number of gods nostly intact and don't fold lesser deities into greater ones...I understand people have complained about the number of gods...but to me( and others I believe) they are a important part of setting. And in my opinion it is more important to give people who play the game option the and have them decide on limitations.
4) This goes against number three in a way, but kill Cyric off...anytime he gets involved with anything it just get worst( not in a interesting way but in a bad way) for the Realms...and with the stuff he pulled with the murdering of Mystrara which resulted in the Spellplague and such the other gods have the right to just kill him.
5) While new enemies are great and interesting leave the old ones intact also because even after 20+ years they are still interesting and great.
6) This is a long shot and really a personal request, but one of the mistakes I think was made in the past was the killing of Liera at the hands of Mask and Cyric...please reverse this...you don't even have to do a major recon to do so as she could just have decieved them into believing so. Shrug I understand this is a longshot.
7) You have said the Realms need to change to stay viberant. I agree and I think many people who are against these changes will also agree. But I think we would perfer to see more graduel changes that aren't resolved in novels. This has a more organic feel and also allows player to be a greater part of the changes and allow DMs to incorporate them better. I also think you guys can aviod alot of those mistakes you mentioned earlier if you do it slower. Also personaly I have never found the growth in novels to be organic at all. They always seemed forced.
8) Keeping the Realms friendlier to ongoing games.
Again I would like to thank you for your time in reading this. I hope it gives some insight to how this old timer feels about the changes and you can answear some of my hopes and take these into consideration. Also my sig I think expresses my feeling quite well.
I may severely disagree with you on several things, but it's good to see your candor.
Just thought I'd toss that out there. One doesn't have to agree with another's gaming methodologies to respect another, after all.
I noticed that you've got the image of Araevin from "Forsaken House" as your lil' picture...
Rich,
I may severely disagree with you on several things, but it's good to see your candor.
Just thought I'd toss that out there. One doesn't have to agree with another's gaming methodologies to respect another, after all.
Anyway, why is Mystra dead? OK, several reasons, some in-world, some meta-management...
1. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Cyric's betrayal begun in the Time of Troubles series. Time to move on and tell new stories about Cyric.
2. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Shar's jealousy and desire to seize the portfolio of magic. Time to move on and tell new stories about Shar.
3. We know magic's changing anyway, and it seems like a stretch to say that Mystra would make that change herself. This way we don't have to explain why she would do such a thing. The answer's logical: She wouldn't, but if she's dead then it's completely out of her hands.
4. Many people--players as well as game designers and authors--perceived that Mystra (and her Chosen) were simply too strong. She's seen as far and away the most powerful deity, and her Chosen are clearly the most powerful heroes. Authors actually have to deliberately account for each of the Chosen when they're telling big stories and explain what they're doing or what they're not doing and why.
5. Some Chosen will still be around post-Spellplague, but we really do want to get them out of the spotlight and get your PCs (on the game side) or less superheroic characters (on the novel side) into the picture.
Obviously, you don't share these perceptions; I'm sorry we're not moving in the direction you'd like to see us go, but we're pretty sure that it'll be a better setting when magic isn't the purview of one deity and her Chosen aren't the toughest mortals on the planet. We do have our reasons, even if you don't agree with them.
[Quote snipped for length]
And I do appreicate it. I know how busy you are with the edition changes.
I can completely understand this. And do in fact agree as wizard's magic( and maybe all casters) magic are going though drastic changes( I might not agree with this as I didn't have issues w/ the old system and most issues people I have know was mostly flavor wise and not the actualy system) but why the destruction of the Weave? And Mystra? I know people think she was too powerful, but really I can't think of anything that has ever happened where she stopped evil villians plan by not granting him spells. Both of them can remain intact and have what you want to happen. I don't see the need for just destruction of things that are inherant to the Realms.
I DO own that novel. I haven't read much of it, but that's neither here nor there.
Basically - I think the picture is aweosme. I love Sun Elves and Wizards. I label him as "Raafaernir (roughly 'Lion of the Art') Durothil," an old online character of mine, who was aspiring to become a High Mage, but was denied for his age... Much like Araevin. Of course, he took the Council's words to heart, and has started focusing and meditating on their meaning, philosophically, intellectually, historically, and psychologically - no amount of magic can make up for the experience of living life.
Boy, did you find my irony.
Thanks, Gothic, I appreciate that.
I noticed that you've got the image of Araevin from "Forsaken House" as your lil' picture...
Now, how the heck am I supposed to answer that?
If I say yes, you'll say "AHA! I KNEW IT!"
If I say no, you'll say, "All right then, so exactly what IS the 4e WotC way of saying You're fired!?"
It's the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" saw.
Come on, guys! I'm trying to be a stand-up guy here and give you the most honest and direct answers I can to your questions and concerns. This kind of stuff doesn't help.
And, for the record: I've been with TSR/WotC since 1991. My first Realms product was Dalelands, published back in 1993. I had my hand in every FR product from 2000 until 2005, and the odd one or two since then. And I've written 7 Realms novels (heck, 8 counting the one I just finished that isn't published yet). I think I've established some "cred" with the Realms. Sorry to sound defensive, but sheesh!
Not that Rich can't stand up for himself, but I should point out that the existence of this longtime and ongoing thread that gives us direct access to the designers of the Realms should not be taken for granted. I'm sure that Rich is a pretty busy guy, even when he's not in the middle of an edition change. It should not be forgotten that it is a pretty nifty benefit to get access to the inner thinkings behind Realms decisions, even if they are ones that you don't agree with. It's good that we have strong feelings about the Realms, but personal attacks on Rich aren't going to help them, and will probably only serve to alienate someone who's been pretty helpful over the years.
[Snip]
Anyway, why is Mystra dead? OK, several reasons, some in-world, some meta-management...
1. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Cyric's betrayal begun in the Time of Troubles series. Time to move on and tell new stories about Cyric.
2. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Shar's jealousy and desire to seize the portfolio of magic. Time to move on and tell new stories about Shar.
3. We know magic's changing anyway, and it seems like a stretch to say that Mystra would make that change herself. This way we don't have to explain why she would do such a thing. The answer's logical: She wouldn't, but if she's dead then it's completely out of her hands.
4. Many people--players as well as game designers and authors--perceived that Mystra (and her Chosen) were simply too strong. She's seen as far and away the most powerful deity, and her Chosen are clearly the most powerful heroes. Authors actually have to deliberately account for each of the Chosen when they're telling big stories and explain what they're doing or what they're not doing and why.
[Snip]
It just seems that we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. I'm not averse to an RSE every so often (In fact, I loved The Last Mythal trilogy and have planned out a campaign that runs in parallel with Araevin's story), but we really seemed to be ripping out a large part of what is core to the setting (Mystra, the weave, the chosen) just to explain away mechanical changes in the rules. It seems like changes in the mechanics of magic and planes (I do like the new planar scheme, btw) could have been retconned or at least explained away in a less invasive manner. What if Mystra, after a desperate battle with her rivals, knew that she was about to be defeated and came up with a plan to use the energy from the collapse of the weave and the shadow weave to rebirth herself, for example?
It seems like changes in the mechanics of magic and planes (I do like the new planar scheme, btw)
I also like it. It's very Elric, and pretty much accommodates the Wheel philosophy with no changes needed, except maybe some light tweaking for the Elemental Tempest.
I prefer it about 20,000 times over the Tree.
The realms as they are now seem to be a sprinkling of kingdoms of light, darkness and neutrality with dangerous areas for all power within those realms. Whether it be orcs within Cormyr or Harper agents hidden in Zhentil Keep.
Orc King itself seems to say that all of them realms has been blasted back beyond the dark ages. Now the questions are:
Is Drizzt just not been out in the world enough to see the areas of good's strength, as he tends to stick to the north which has been a dangerous area for all of history?
Or has the realms been shattered into small pieces?
Now for something completely different....
Will the Empire of Netheril be changed by the Spellplague or the alliance with that piece of Sembia in a way in which it opens up other gods then Shar into the main population? If there is a new god of Magic, would they welcome that deity or still stick to Shar only?
Just curious...
PS: It might also be possible with the new deity of magic that the powers of the choosen are reduced in some why for a new reason? Perhaps for the Choosen's health or the extra power the choosen have been holding is needed to re-enforce the raw magic without the weave. Perhaps causing choosen of Mystra as we know them to be unavailable for the next few thousand years.
What if Mystra, after a desperate battle with her rivals, knew that she was about to be defeated and came up with a plan to use the energy from the collapse of the weave and the shadow weave to rebirth herself, for example?
I at least applaud the design team for not employing that redundancy. Since she is dead, leave her that way. We have already had 2 (3 if you include Mystryl) Mystras, yet another one would be ridiculous.
I at least applaud the design team for not employing that redundancy. Since she is dead, leave her that way. We have already had 2 (3 if you include Mystryl) Mystras, yet another one would be ridiculous.
Not necessarily a new one. Think of it as a contingency. Or maybe she stashed away a part of her lifeforce and survived somehow.
Or...
Or...
The point isn't that you didn't like the 1st example I threw out there- the point is that it seemed like there were other ways of doing it (if you didn't simply retcon it) beyond just blowing everything up.
It's the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" saw.
Recent posts by Wizards designers frequently use exactly the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" presupposition, Rich. Some of you seem to have so internalized this rhetoric that you're doing it partly unconsciously.
Q.. Why does the world have to be reworked to match the new magic rules?
You didn't answer the substance of this question. Why are you changing the setting to fit the rules?
. . . the Shadow Weave. It's fiddly, it's complex, and it's really intended to provide DMs with a fig leaf of explanation for a check on Mystra's otherwise absolute power in the setting. With a different take on magic and the goddess of magic in the setting, the necessity of a Shadow Weave diminishes drastically. It's something we can live without.
Thinking that Mystra has absolute power seriously undercuts your otherwise considerable claim to Realms cred, as well as my previous assumption that the Shadow Weave was cynical pandering, for which I apologize.
The Shadow Weave was not necessary for Ed Greenwood, and campaigns happily lived without it before and after you introduced it. It's an idea of yours that you liked; projecting that as a necessity for the setting looks a lot like designer hubris to me.
Authors actually have to deliberately account for each of the Chosen when they're telling big stories and explain what they're doing or what they're not doing and why.
I discussed this in my comments on Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land, which I posted at Candlekeep.com.
Some Chosen will still be around post-Spellplague, but we really do want to get them out of the spotlight and get your PCs (on the game side) or less superheroic characters (on the novel side) into the picture.
Am I naive to think you can move them out of the spotlight by moving the spotlight off them, rather than continuing to fixate on them?
. . . we're pretty sure that it'll be a better setting when magic isn't the purview of one deity and her Chosen aren't the toughest mortals on the planet.
It will be a better setting, probably, for your (plural) purposes and design principles, which evidently differ in important regards from Ed's. From his as-if-real illusionistic worldbuilding, where the rules serve the setting and not vice versa; in his thinking about Mystra, and the importance of having a large world going on around the PCs, who aren't the only adventurers on the planet; his preference for human stories over ever-escalating Threats To All; in the central importance of lore and memory in human beings and their right action, so eloquently expressed in Elminster in Hell and in the metaphor of the Weave, in contrast to your destruction of the Weave and James Wyatt's recent post that frames 'worrying about what used to be' as a burden.
Your new Realms is not going to serve your design preferences and Ed's as well.
Great, I'm of the firm belief that a Cyric who can kill off a higher ranked divinity on their home plane is far too powerful for anyone's good. Can you kill him in an equally idiotic fashion? Shar too, just so I'm completely disillusioned.
EDIT ADD ON:
On general principal, when I use "you" I'm referring to any and all designers that agree with this little dose insanity. I do not place any more specific blame on Rich at this moment than any of the rest.
Plus, the situation seems contrived and without basis. If I were Tyr, I'd have hacked Cyric into a million pieces and killed him. He's a NORSE god. Imprisonment is too good for your enemies. As cool as it is to send a group of PC's to the Planar Towers of Cyric's Prison to stop his worshippers from freeing him, this is one small adventure among many that are better.
Plus, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but...Cyric was the stupidest deity ever generated by the Realms. I loathed him for his Banejacking, I loathed him for his lack of consistency, and I loathed him for his portfolio, which rightfully, of course, belongs to Obox-Ob.
Plus, it allows you to play up the Obox Ob silliness, no matter how silly it is. (And it is really silly. An entire race of creatures that wield large spiked chains and have improved trip? You've GOT to be kidding me.)
The fact that you like Cyric and Shar more than Mystra doesn't exactly win you friends, and all it really does is serve the imbecilic (and I don't use that word lightly) idea that evil is cool.
When I play a game, I play it to keep playing it. I think "What is this going to look like ten years from now?" I realize that you're only worried about the "now" but edition creep is now faster than my ability to finish good stories.
So the question is, how can I stop thinking that you need to be stopped from doing this stuff when the tools that players say that they need you are unwilling to entertain?
The primary purpose of the Realms is now apparently to make money. But that's never what the true fans of the Realms have been interested in. Every time we look at these events, the thing that people like Markus, Dan, and Mr. Kretzer, and I see is this:
It could have been literature. Great literature. But it isn't, because you force things. If you want those fans to come back, you have to play fair with everyone. And right now, I'm not seeing it.
This is why I keep ending messages with that stupid "Richard Baker Must Be Stopped," because I can't seem to get you to understand the jug of wine/drop of **** analogy.
I can't answer all your questions or respond to each remark, simply because my bosses want me to keep some of this stuff under my hat for now. I'll tell you more when I'm allowed to say more (and if nothing else, the conversations of the last couple of days have convinced me that it's time to reexamine our schedule of releasing peeks and previews for FR).
Anyway, why is Mystra dead? OK, several reasons, some in-world, some meta-management...
1. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Cyric's betrayal begun in the Time of Troubles series. Time to move on and tell new stories about Cyric.
2. It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Shar's jealousy and desire to seize the portfolio of magic. Time to move on and tell new stories about Shar.
3. We know magic's changing anyway, and it seems like a stretch to say that Mystra would make that change herself. This way we don't have to explain why she would do such a thing. The answer's logical: She wouldn't, but if she's dead then it's completely out of her hands.
4. Many people--players as well as game designers and authors--perceived that Mystra (and her Chosen) were simply too strong. She's seen as far and away the most powerful deity, and her Chosen are clearly the most powerful heroes. Authors actually have to deliberately account for each of the Chosen when they're telling big stories and explain what they're doing or what they're not doing and why.
5. Some Chosen will still be around post-Spellplague, but we really do want to get them out of the spotlight and get your PCs (on the game side) or less superheroic characters (on the novel side) into the picture.
Obviously, you don't share these perceptions; I'm sorry we're not moving in the direction you'd like to see us go, but we're pretty sure that it'll be a better setting when magic isn't the purview of one deity and her Chosen aren't the toughest mortals on the planet. We do have our reasons, even if you don't agree with them.
Again I do appreciate it your time in answearing the question, but even the reasons I don't like it and hope we don't mind some debate on them.
1) Yet it it is bad ending for Midnight who I always like more as a character. Cyric to me is like the one really bad player who likes to play evil characters to screw over the rest of the PCs. That fact that he wins in the end is a bad ending as I don't want new stories about him.
2) As I have read Shar doesn't just control of magic she wants everything to be destroyed. Now personaly this invalidates any and all actions of PCs who have spent their adventuring careers fighting against this. In other words it allows new stories by you but ends all the continueing stories of many campaigns.
3) Again I disagree and have to question the validily of this reason. I hate it when flavor is killed by mechanics. I don't get how this can be good thing
4) Again I veiw this as a change for the sake of the authors. But this problem exists because of the authors in the first place. It shouldn't matter that Mystrara is the most powerful god because the gods should be acting though their worshippers. And the chosen aren't omnipotent as you make them out to be. To me this just fills me with dread for the other changes because of how you can misconstrue elements of the Realms like this. Also every player who complains about these things have bad DMs...or are not good DMs themselves. I dislike it when I handle things right and are told that I can't do that anymore because of somebody elses incompetence.
5) The role of powerful NPCs are not to be in the spotlight, if you use them so then you don't get D&D. But they do make the world realistic...and just add so much.
Yes I see that we have different prespective on the Realms and I think D&D in genral. The great thing about the Realms and D&D has always been that it has something to offer everyone. But with these changes that is no longer true. This does sadden me as it seems to me you just divided your customer base. And well it is nice if you attract new players I think you'll lose alot of new players, because I don't think alot of people will convert because it is no longer their game and most new players start playing by joing a older group. But I wish you luck. I happy that people can enjoy the game, I just wish I also could be happy with the changes...but I think I saw the death toll to D&D when you guys started making money from novels and the game became a less open ended and well more final. It is like you guys had a meeting and didn't invite me or players like me to the table.
So let me get this straight, you are executing Mystra for delusions? 3.X has repeatedly demonstrated that there are bypasses to Mystra.
And long before that, in Crucible, it was made clear that she can't go and withhold magic from everyone she doesn't like. Even most Sharrans were supposed to use "her" magic (since the Shadow Weave was supposed to be the big secret), even when they were busy killing Mystrans.
The entire concept of raw magic means that new bypasses can be created, you already countered Mystra's monopoly on magical power (which I applauded in 3.X) without killing or severely weakening her. Now you're executing her in an idiotic fashion to remove the illusion that she has a monopoly on magic.
Plus, it gets rid of another thing that the Realms had, but few other settings: A deity of magic that wasn't neutral.Great, I'm of the firm belief that a Cyric who can kill off a higher ranked divinity on their home plane is far too powerful for anyone's good. Can you kill him in an equally idiotic fashion? Shar too, just so I'm completely disillusioned.
There seems to be some sort of competition: Most awful arbitrary killing of a deity. The deity of magic is murdered. On her own home plane. By one of her greatest foes, one she probably never would turn her back on.
Another is killed by erasing her name from everyone's mind with magic. Talk about being gunned down by the Deus Ex Machinegun. It also raises the question of why it wasn't done sooner. Or more often. No deity that has competent arcanists as foe should still be there.
And then there's that deity that is killed because of some romantic disputes that were probably a big misunderstanding. Something a mortal with a modicum of common sense could have avoided works on deities!
I'm sure there could have been better ways to handle it all. We're being sold dirt cheap.
The flaw in your logic, Richard, is that at least Cyric OR Shar should be dead. There has to be quid pro quo. Mystra should have more contingencies than any other deity, and he who kills Mystra should probably suffer the backlash of kicking the bucket themselves.
And if not, it would should mean that Shar, with the only reliable source of magic, could make her move and plunge the Multiverse into oblivion. If Mystra being too strong is bad, then Shar being around when Mystra's gone is worse.
And if not, it would should mean that Shar, with the only reliable source of magic, could make her move and plunge the Multiverse into oblivion. If Mystra being too strong is bad, then Shar being around when Mystra's gone is worse.
It's probably safe to infer that the Shadow Weave is going bye bye too, given Rich's comments about it in this thread and several hints from Ed Greenwod that it is tied to the weave and can't coexist without it.
It's probably safe to infer that the Shadow Weave is going bye bye too, given Rich's comments about it in this thread and several hints from Ed Greenwod that it is tied to the weave and can't coexist without it.
And Shar just shrugs it off?
"And next episode, on "Los Dioses deben ser LOCOS!", Tyr and Helm get into a mortal spat, while a doped-up on love potions ( provided by evil sex-mistress Sune ) Tymora watches horrified from the sidelines. Don´t miss this episode!"
It's probably safe to infer that the Shadow Weave is going bye bye too, given Rich's comments about it in this thread and several hints from Ed Greenwod that it is tied to the weave and can't coexist without it.
Actualy it looks like Shar will be the new goddess of magic since as Richard said in this thread that it ends her battle into gaining the magic portfolio. Which seems to me to be a clear indication she just got it and is not using the Weave or Shadow Weave. Oh I am sure they are going to ignore the old lore about her and make her less evil and not as nihlistic which will just make her unintertesting as a goddess.
Actualy it looks like Shar will be the new goddess of magic
What a great idea.
Wizards just can't White Wolf have something they don't: WW let their old WoD have its apocalypse, and Wizards has to follow suit. They just walked up to the fox and gave him the key to the big hen house: "The chick who had the job before you was biased, but I'm sure we can trust you to be completely fair, so here you go."
Rich, can I ask who overdosed on acid while watching telenovelas and came up with that story with Tymora, Tyr and Helm? That has to be the worst thought out plot development since She-Hulk slept with the Juggernaut...
"And next episode, on "Los Dioses deben ser LOCOS!", Tyr and Helm get into a mortal spat, while a doped-up on love potions ( provided by evil sex-mistress Sune ) Tymora watches horrified from the sidelines. Don´t miss this episode!"
Dude or dudette I reallyneeded that!
:P ;) So Rich let me get this straight. Shar is going to have the MAGIC portfolio? If so why!?!?;)
It's an appropriate (if grim) finish to the story of Shar's jealousy and desire to seize the portfolio of magic. Time to move on and tell new stories about Shar.
So is their going to be the Seven Shade Sisters of Shar? All keeping their petty little secrets from one another? I might just use that in a game one day. Reguardless of what I think about what WotC is doing to the Realms. I am going to make this as painless as possible for me and my future FR game. Even if I have to restat Mystra and the seven sisters I will.
This is...
"Binevenidos a Sabado Gigante, con Don Francisco. Ahora, Don Francisco se ha substituya de Ao, el gran dios de los Forgotten Realms!...."
The flaw in your logic, Richard, is that at least Cyric OR Shar should be dead. There has to be quid pro quo. Mystra should have more contingencies than any other deity, and he who kills Mystra should probably suffer the backlash of kicking the bucket themselves.
And if not, it would should mean that Shar, with the only reliable source of magic, could make her move and plunge the Multiverse into oblivion. If Mystra being too strong is bad, then Shar being around when Mystra's gone is worse.
Why is there no fall-out when a deity is killed in their own planar domain (against the diety's murder(s) that is)? I have to agree that this is probably the most ridiculous concept of the whole time-jump thingy. Followed closely by the Sune/Helm/Tyr/Tymora thing. At least the murder of Mystra is in character for Shar and Cyric.
Why is there no fall-out when a deity is killed in their own planar domain (against the diety's murder(s) that is)? I have to agree that this is probably the most ridiculous concept of the whole time-jump thingy. Followed closely by the Sune/Helm/Tyr/Tymora thing. At least the murder of Mystra is in character for Shar and Cyric.
Nah, sorry. That whole set-up is just too stupid to be anything else than the king of moronic plot developments.
Tymora assents to being in a loveless marriage to Tyr, the god of justice and general lack of humor? Tyr and Helm get fooled by Cyric into killing each other? Tymora afterwards meekly goes with Tyr? Really? I mean, really? We are supposed to take this as a serious plot development? That´s the kind of writing normally found on Fanfiction.net.
Killing Mystra, probably a good lot of the seven sisters and likely Cattie-Brie, Bruenor and Artemis Entreri just stomped on my heart a good bit. I´ve gotten used to that over the last few years, as company after company who write about characters I love have gotten through a string of inexplicably bad storyline choices ( Anakin Solos death over in Star Wars the most egregious example to date ).
But this bit just left me shaking my head in an astonished "What the hell were they drinking when they wrote that?" moment. And still does.
Plus, it gets rid of another thing that the Realms had, but few other settings: A deity of magic that wasn't neutral.
That is one thing I liked about Mystra. She wasn't the usual archetypal N deity of magic. I can handle the new one being LN but I liked the current one being NG. She was the perfect foil for (gasp!) Shar.
Maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrite for asking this, since I probably stated some of my post as strongly, but could we lower the heat in this thread a bit. Whatever we may disagree with Rich Baker about on the Realms, he did try to come into this deadly fray to answer some of our questions and concerns as fully as he is allowed or able to at this point. I hope we keep it at least minimally courteous here.
Second.
(Why on earth would we go to the trouble of addressing the problems we perceive with Mystra, only to put another goddess in her place? I'd ask 'How dumb do you think we are?' except I've got a fair idea what the answer would be.)
Actualy it looks like Shar will be the new goddess of magic since as Richard said in this thread that it ends her battle into gaining the magic portfolio. Which seems to me to be a clear indication she just got it and is not using the Weave or Shadow Weave. Oh I am sure they are going to ignore the old lore about her and make her less evil and not as nihlistic which will just make her unintertesting as a goddess.
Actualy it looks like Shar will be the new goddess of magic since as Richard said in this thread that it ends her battle into gaining the magic portfolio. Which seems to me to be a clear indication she just got it and is not using the Weave or Shadow Weave. Oh I am sure they are going to ignore the old lore about her and make her less evil and not as nihlistic which will just make her unintertesting as a goddess.
Wow, sounds like I can wait on buying the 4e FRCS instead of pre-ordering. I can probably get it second-hand for $15 off of eBay or Amazon.
I promise I'll tell you as soon as I can.
Is there any chance at all that we could get an answer to how far into the future the realms is being moved. Are we talking 10 years, 100 years, or somewhere in between?
Nope, that ain't what I said. I said the story of her effort to claim the portfolio of magic was wrapped up; I didn't say Shar won. Of course, it may suit Shar's purposes to have no one in charge of the Weave, even if she didn't grab hold of it herself.
(Why on earth would we go to the trouble of addressing the problems we perceive with Mystra, only to put another goddess in her place? I'd ask 'How dumb do you think we are?' except I've got a fair idea what the answer would be.)
True I did jump to a conclusion there. But I don't think you are dumb. You have made a career out of something I would love to do but never got a chance too. So no I don't think you are dumb. But I think we(meaning you and all the current game designers and I) disagree to a large extent on what a Role-Playing game is about. Maybe I am wrong... heck I hope I am wrong. But I don't see anything as of yet that would contradict that.
But let me ask you this...in my Realms many PCs have fought long and hard to prevent the followers of Cyric and Shar from doing what just happened( and other things that seem to be happening). It has been a great game so far...and going on since 2nd edition. Now you guys did exactly what you think Mystra and the 7 sister do to my game( but never really had), so what do these new Realms offer to me as a gamer? How are the PCs suppose to be in the spotlight if you continue to treat the adventure hooks in souce books as plots for novels?
What happened to compromise?
Personaly I don't think you guys have killed the Realms because people will continue to play in the setting. What you have done is kill my(and some others) desire to buy anything put out for the New Realms, because it wouldn't be fair to our players or the history of the Realms.
And one last question...I know the company line has said converting characters to 4th edition is impossible because there isn't enough of the options out there(though I think you guys should try to put out a imperfect conversion guide instead of telling us to suck it up and start a new game). But lets say for the sake of arguement my players will just convert their characters to 4th edition and keep the concept atleast intact. So I continue my Fr campaign in the year of 1479 in 4th edition. Will even buying the books be at useful to me? Would you reccommand that I just end the game ongoing campaign and start a new even though conversion is not a problem?
Since it looks like the die is cast as far as the events at the end of GHotR, here's a question- Are there any plans to do a novel detailing the dealings with the gods leading up to the events of the Spellplague?
I converted an illumian warblade/warmage to a human warlord multiclassed into wizard in Dave Noonan's ongoing game when we switched from 3 to 4. I like my character better now. Most people should be able to come up with a conversion that carries over the intent pretty well.
And one last question...I know the company line has said converting characters to 4th edition is impossible because there isn't enough of the options out there(though I think you guys should try to put out a imperfect conversion guide instead of telling us to suck it up and start a new game). But lets say for the sake of arguement my players will just convert their characters to 4th edition and keep the concept atleast intact. So I continue my Fr campaign in the year of 1479 in 4th edition. Will even buying the books be at useful to me? Would you reccommand that I just end the game ongoing campaign and start a new even though conversion is not a problem?
Rich,
Since it looks like the die is cast as far as the events at the end of GHotR, here's a question- Are there any plans to do a novel detailing the dealings with the gods leading up to the events of the Spellplague?
Hey Rich after the 4E Forgotten Realms Campain Setting or is it Guide, will their be a 4E Forgotten Realms Players Guide? If so when will it be released? Thats if you can tell us?:D
Hints were dropped at the FR seminar at GenCon this year, but I can't confirm anything yet.
Thank you.
Is that a possible explanation of what magic will be like in 4E? The Weave or something similar still existing, but no longer controlled by a mind with its own agendas?
Mystra being in a coma that she's not likely to wake from, might not be a bad idea... leaves options open at least
Or, separating Mystra - The Weave, from Mystra - The Goddess, might be something that might amuse Shar(with the Weave and Shadow-weave combined). Plus it might later give Mystra(revealed to still be alive) a chance to work her way up as a goddess gaining respect and worship, instead of having just gained power the way she did.
Actually, I think your idea for conversion is really the best approach there is. Just tell your players to rebuild their existing characters using the new rules set. If you were a dwarf fighter with a spiked chain before, see how far in that direction you can go with the new rules. Dwarves, fighters, and spiked chains will all be in the 4e Player's Handbook.
I converted an illumian warblade/warmage to a human warlord multiclassed into wizard in Dave Noonan's ongoing game when we switched from 3 to 4. I like my character better now. Most people should be able to come up with a conversion that carries over the intent pretty well.
Actualy thanks, I like that answear better then the "Oh just don't bother"...personaly I think some of the heat would be lessen if you guys answears weren't so close minded. What would you say the equivelant level would be? Though I hoped you guys fixed spiked chains....
Now to relate this question to FR should I continue in the Realms in the same game...or in your opinion would it just be better not. My game isn't going to follow the Spell plague concept much to explain the new rules of magic...though there will be a event in which it happens it just going to more consistent with the my veiws of the Realms. (Please note I am not saying my way is better and your way sucks...it just works better for how I and my players veiw the Realms, and the Realms have always been what you made it.) Which means alot of gods won't die. So the question is well there be support for what I'll refer to as Classic Realms in 4th editon. I am asking because ,though I realize I don't know what 4th edition cleric will look like I do hope they retain the flavor of their deity and have class abilities and options for that reflect this. So will there be any mechanical support for those gods that have been killed of? Like Helm? Or gods that you are changing in way I don't agree with like Eilistraee? I know I can create this on my own but would perfer to recieve support from WotC. I don't have the time to create the mechanics.
If it was my goal to avoid criticism, here's what I would do: I'd tell you that I've decided to adopt every suggestion offered by folks currently expressing their dissatisfaction. I'd say that it's going to take a couple of months for me to go back and scrap existingRealms 4e work, so I won't be able to divulge details for quite a while while I try to atone for my stupidity. Then I'd do nothing at all and see how long it takes before people started asking me how it's going. It would buy me several months of no criticism, wouldn't it?
But it's not my goal to avoid criticism. I believe that the right thing to do is tell the truth, or say nothing at all. So that means that sometimes I'll say things that folks don't want to hear. When someone says "Don't drop 4e rules into the Realms, you'll screw up my campaign!" I'm only being honest when I say that it's just not an option to not bring Realms in line with the new D&D rules. I can't imagine what could possibly make us revisit that decision, so I'm just going to tell people what to expect instead of ducking the question or fibbing about what we're up to.
Just to address these points from your blog... if you´d really go through with lying to your costumers to get some calm, you´d lose them in droves when the truth would come out. I think anyone would know that. We are not exactly authoritarian value voters, who will swallow any line given by our "leaders". Most gamers I know are individualists.
So that wasn´t really a valid point to make.
Secondly, who exactly is saying we don´t want 4E rules in the Realms? You are propping up a strawman here, because our complaints so far have been overwhelmingly about how the storyline was (mis)handled and you are trying to sidestep that issue.
So far I am ambiguous about the new edition, mostly because I don´t exactly have the money to buy all those products again. But I am cautiously optimistic they may turn out okay.
My dismay with the news from the Realms only springs forth because of what has been revealed for the storyline. Like the mayority of people I have seen, the news about Mystra, Helm, Tymora, the Spellplague, etc. has made me wonder "What are the designers smoking, and isn´t that illegal?".
I am not hoping that you rethink introducing 4E into the Realms. That is a fait accompli. I am hoping that we collectively can make you rethink the storyline decisions. So far what I have seen is 60% people who say "WTF are you people doing? This is madness!" ; 35% who say "Good, I hated Mystra/Elminster/The seven sisters anyway. Nah, I still won´t buy the Realms, but I like nihilism, mwahahaha!" and about 5% who want to check out the Realms now with the changes.
The reaction to the storyline in any case has been very negative across every board I had access to. That may not be representative, but as long as you are not doing any polls, it is the best feedback you can get. And I´d take a good hard look at what is staring you into the face if I were in your position.
Seriously, when would it be enough that you would turn around and say "Maybe that wasn´t such a good idea"? When the setting has tanked already? Or maybe it could be a worthwhile to look at the reception of the changes and think over the whole concept. The books are not at the printers yet, as far as I know.
Then by your definition anything and everything in a pre-existing system is a sacred cow.
Probably not the grapple rules. :D
That's one of the things I can't talk about yet, sorry. It's not for me to reveal. You know what year the Grand History ends; beyond that, I can't really say much at all.
I promise I'll tell you as soon as I can.
Thanks for the answer - At least this lets us know where the line between confirmed changes and the rumors and conjecture starts.
That's one of the things I can't talk about yet, sorry. It's not for me to reveal. You know what year the Grand History ends; beyond that, I can't really say much at all.
I promise I'll tell you as soon as I can.
Alright then, thank you for the answer. Hopefully you can tell us soon.
Right now (and it's early in the poll's existence) the noes are greater than the yeses and don't cares combined.
I know this does not represent a large portion of the D&Ders out there or even of the Realms enthusiasts, but in view of the current situation the Realms are in, maybe less outside input (FR novels) would be 'a good idea'.
I have made up my mind to work with the changes being made to the Realms because they have been home to my games since the original boxed set and I feel strange in other campaigns. Doesn't mean I don't play in them, I just keep returning to the Realms afterward.
Now if you could knock Cyric back to a demipower
, demote Shar to an Intermediate power;) , strip the Chosen to raise Azuth to an Intermediate Diety of Magic and promote the Sage of Shadowdale to demi-power, I'll be happy.:D Bel
But seriously...*stops, thinks about it, runs Bel through again just in case*
Anyhow, as I was saying.
What's done is done. As to how it really happens is another matter. Something more elegant and rationale, otherwise you may as well have Elminster choke to death on a handful of pistaccios while Drizzt trips, falls into a pit, and breaks his legs while tying his shoe laces.
If a collective "Oops!" does indeed dawn on those in charge, no worries. Just expect a few more products describing FR's slow collective step back from the edge of the Abyss.
In any case it's good to hear about previews and snippets. The actual implementation is where something is...eh.
(Probably incorrect terminology but people should get the point of it.)
Promote the Sage of Shadowdale to a demipower? *pulls out the rod with the sharp tip and runs Bel through with it*
But seriously...*stops, thinks about it, runs Bel through again just in case*
Okaaay, how about an Intermediate Power?
*sidesteps Selvarin's rod with the sharp tip*
Kidding! Kidding!;)
I just thought he would be a good balance to Azuth's LN stance. Kind of a reverse to the Mystra/Azuth roles.
How about the Simbul?
*backs quickly away*
Bel
At this point we really don't know what the scope will be for magic deities, or if Azuth and Velsharoon will even make it. (Cyric could easily take Velsharoon's portfolio, or turn him into a servant-deity to do his bidding.) As for Azuth, he's an overlap deity of sorts: He supports wizards as Mystra supports the Weave but how big of a difference is there? One thing I don't see is a little cadre of demipowers handling every specific 'school', do we know if they'll be more or less the same in 4e? There may be certain deities preferred by some kinds of specialists but...not necessarily the same.
That gives me so much confidence in your design work, it really does.
But thats just it. They are going through with these changes no matter what. We cant beg, plead, and bribe them out of this. The only thing we can do is not buy the 4E FR products,or go along like good little boys and girls, or is it men and women? Or we could just restat or recreate whats be removed to 4E standards. Or continue to play the Realms in whatever edition you prefer. Our protests are falling on deaf ears so to speak. Just get in some acceptance, the die is cast. ;)
They didn't exactly ask us, true, what they did was to watchwhat was on the boards when we thought no one was looking. And yes it sucks but what they're doing is double-edged. They go on their merry way in one direction and we tweak what they put on the shelves till there's a point when we aren't buying anymore because the two don't bear much resemblance past the name. And by then there will be another 'new' campaign for others to swarm over and buy up. And the Realms will turn into a line of novels just as DL did for a time.
Sucks, eh?
At the same time I can understand a bit. How much do one listen, how much does a designer/writer decide to toss and try to take the lead?
And perhaps I'm just one of those nhillist Sharrans, eh? Perhaps I want everyone to get depressed till people give up and you're all mine...and the Weave.
Right now I want to kill something but it isn't a board member or a writer. Replaced the hard drive in my laptop but the recovery manager won't use the back-up I created. Bah, have to reimage yet again. :raincloud
OK, back to the Realms. *gets a magic umbrella and flies*
if the grand history of the realms sells very well, are some extra maps going to be made as a web enhancement perhaps?
By the way, how well is it selling?
Aside from the forgotten realms campaign 4th edition itself, are any other titles planned for the realms 4th already?
I think personal growth is a completely worthwhile objective. I've always been a bit annoyed with Elminster for staying a regular human in service to a god for so long without trying to surpass that station... So if he ascends to godhood at least I'd be a little pleased(though I'd prefer that he reach a greater level with his own work instead of being accidentally granted power)
Elminster serves his purpose in the setting quite well, making Elminster a god would only be confirmation of the munchkin mini-god status decried by that character's (not inconsequential number of) detractors. WotC is already steering 4e FR away from such perceptions, it would be less than helpful. He apparently survives the Spellplague and more than a few of his colleagues, why should godhood be considered the next 'logical' step? However you can go right ahead by making him your homebrew Demipower of Archwizards, Lechers, and Pipesmoke. :P
I'm not really allowed to disclose sales info, and to be honest I haven't really heard much about the Grand History numbers anyway. (It's really the business team's gig, and I try to focus on R&D stuff first and foremost.)
Regarding a map for a web enhancement, I haven't heard of any such plans. Is there a particular map you folks are dying to get your hands on? I'll certainly suggest to our web team that it might be a great article. No reason it has to be tied to the Grand History.
And yes, we have a couple more Realms 4e titles (other than the 4th Edition Campaign Guide) in the planning stages. We haven't revealed the titles yet, but I can tell you that one is an adventure. In fact, I've got an outlining meeting on Monday morning to talk about the other one.
Rich,
if the grand history of the realms sells very well, are some extra maps going to be made as a web enhancement perhaps?
By the way, how well is it selling?
Aside from the forgotten realms campaign 4th edition itself, are any other titles planned for the realms 4th already?
... Plus I kinda feel that he has no drive of his own and only became what he became because of Mystra and his dedication to her...
If I met a supposedly great scientist and I found out that he'd done it all purely to please his mommy, I don't think I'd like the guy.
But that's just me
Why? Because our goal from the start has been to create the best Forgotten Realms campaign guide we could—the best setting for your game. It's a setting that new players can approach with wonder, enjoying what's there without worrying about what used to be. And it's a setting that you established fans can approach with a renewed sense of wonder, recognizing the Realms that you love so much in its newest incarnation.
I can totally understand that they don´t want to publish what has already been published, that we know a good amount of the Realms´ geography as it was... But a good part of what makes the Realms what they are is precisely its history and established places and people. It is a good business move to get new people interested in the setting, I have little doubt about it, but certainly a problem to keep those that love the status quo, more so if the changes happening seem as drastic as we´ve seen. Above all, the reason why this worries me so much is that I can tell that they do believe these changes are good... and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I may be mistaken, and for all we know, the 4th ed. Forgotten Realms may rock on toast, or be a product that won´t grab new followers, and lose many of the old ones. We cannot tell yet, but the more I read... The more worried I am. I won´t judge till I see the finished product, but I cannot help but having a very bad vibe about it all.
@Selvarin: Oh I agree that Elminster serves his purpose fine. But his lack of action, especially in the face of his deteriorating mental faculties annoys me.
... Plus I kinda feel that he has no drive of his own and only became what he became because of Mystra and his dedication to her...
If I met a supposedly great scientist and I found out that he'd done it all purely to please his mommy, I don't think I'd like the guy.
But that's just me
Yes but most old coots like Elminster retire somewhere, such as to a retirement home or Barbados. For the warm weather, ye know. ;)
Elminster's role (in my version of the Realms) is merely as a storyteller of sorts. He does nothing else other than historical footnotes. The other Chosen are a different story, although still they're in the background.
Although I, too, have felt *very* disappointed, upset and angry about revealed changes in 4E FR, I am also very disappointed in many FR fans who single-handledly blame Rich for everything. After all, everything is more or less planned in *design team* meetings, and I'm certain that Rich has had to make a lot of compromises (because every member of the team should have at least some input into the setting). For example, many people have attacked Rich for this CCC thing, although it was Salvatore's idea. And whatever you may think of Rich's abilities as a designer, this is the guy who has made sure that we've seen surprisingly many FR books published from respected FR designers during the last years (e.g. 'City of Splendors', 'Power of Faerûn', 'Dragons of Faerûn etc.). Besides, I happen to think that even though the 'Last Mythal' series introduced another RSE I could have lived without, it's one of the best-written FR series ever, and it's quite easy to convert into a campaign if you want to run it for your own PCs.
Also note that some changes may be due to *mechanical* changes in 4E. For example, we all know that the Spellplague is used to explain the profoundly different 4E magic system, and I strongly suspect that these recent "divine deaths" and "shifting" in ranks are due to changes in the cleric class (i.e. clerical traditions that specialize in some sort of 'Divine Courts' ruled by a Greater God and his/her Demipower servants).
Then there are the marketing executives and lead designers (“bosses”) that might have simply told him to “get rid of all those high-level NPCs because they’re annoying and steal the spotlight from PCs” -- or maybe they told him that FR needs to start from a “clean plate”, because 4E will be targeted at a completely new consumer base (i.e. "Make a hundred year leap in the timeline so that we will be able to hook more newbie DMs and FR-haters!"). Would *you* argue with your bosses and/or your co-designers, if they already had made up their minds? Or would you stick to the official plan, and try to make small changes and “course correction” here and there? In any case I doubt it was Rich who came up with the “new game plan” for 4E.
Rest assured that at least of some of the designers *ARE* listening to us and changing what they only can -- the "groundwork" for the future of the Realms was laid down *years* ago in secret design meetings, so they simply *cannot* change everything. For example: Salvatore, Rich and others have already written novels that are based on those decisions made years ago -- it is just not possible to completely change the course and *rewrite* it all (would you, if you were one of these authors?).
It may very well be that WoTC's vision and ideas for the future of the Realms differ a lot from yours or mine – yet I still have no doubt that Rich *loves* the Realms and is dedicated to them. And I *do* know he is committed to bring us the "best" 4E FR as only *possible* -- please remember that there are other factors (that we may even not know of) and WoTC executives and designers involved in the process. I am certain that he has had to make compromises, and Rich might even privately dislike some of the changes, but understandably he cannot publicly admit it (for marketing reasons and out of loyalty to the other designers). It remains to be seen whether we “old” fans will want to have anything to do with 4E FR, but Rich has been very straight-forward and honest in dealing with us, so please treat him with respect -- it is one thing to pose "tough" questions or give constructive criticism/feedback and completely another to attack a designer with "OMIGOD! I'll stop buying this **** and kill you if you don't change all that!"-type of "blackmailing" comments and blatant threats.
Then there are the marketing executives and lead designers (“bosses”) that might have simply told him to “get rid of all those high-level NPCs because they’re annoying and steal the spotlight from PCs” -- or maybe they told him that FR needs to start from a “clean plate”, because 4E will be targeted at a completely new consumer base (i.e. "Make a hundred year leap in the timeline so that we will be able to hook more newbie DMs and FR-haters!"). Would *you* argue with your bosses and/or your co-designers, if they already had made up their minds? Or would you stick to the official plan, and try to make small changes and “course correction” here and there? In any case I doubt it was Rich who came up with the “new game plan” for 4E.
Actualy if I was asked to make these changes and was not giving the creative freedom to do so then yes I would quit. Unfortunaly for people like me they are so far removing the Realms from the base that we love they are making it hard for us to like it.
Rest assured that at least of some of the designers *ARE* listening to us and changing what they only can -- the "groundwork" for the future of the Realms was laid down *years* ago in secret design meetings, so they simply *cannot* change everything. For example: Salvatore, Rich and others have already written novels that are based on those decisions made years ago -- it is just not possible to completely change the course and *rewrite* it all (would you, if you were one of these authors?).
Actualy author (atleast the goods one) will throw out their previous work if it isn't good. Also I just don't get the sercetivity to it all. I mean this isn't a movie or a novel or anything it is a RPG setting.
But I agree with you I think they love their version of the Realms very much...I just can't get behind it with what they have revealed as of yet. And the fact that I am still posting on the boards even though everything I have seen so far hasn't filled me with hope for them to knock my socks off....
And whatever you may think of Rich's abilities as a designer, this is the guy who has made sure that we've seen surprisingly many FR books published from respected FR designers during the last years (e.g. 'City of Splendors', 'Power of Faerûn', 'Dragons of Faerûn etc.). Besides, I happen to think that even though the 'Last Mythal' series introduced another RSE I could have lived without, it's one of the best-written FR series ever, and it's quite easy to convert into a campaign if you want to run it for your own PCs.
...of which a quite some left a lot to be desired. I don´t know whose brilliant idea it was to replace the location books with adventures, but it sure turned *me* off from buying them. If I want a book about the Moonsea, I´d like it in the format used for Silver Marches, Unapproachable East, etc.
Then there are the marketing executives and lead designers (“bosses”) that might have simply told him to “get rid of all those high-level NPCs because they’re annoying and steal the spotlight from PCs” -- or maybe they told him that FR needs to start from a “clean plate”, because 4E will be targeted at a completely new consumer base (i.e. "Make a hundred year leap in the timeline so that we will be able to hook more newbie DMs and FR-haters!"). Would *you* argue with your bosses and/or your co-designers, if they already had made up their minds? Or would you stick to the official plan, and try to make small changes and “course correction” here and there? In any case I doubt it was Rich who came up with the “new game plan” for 4E.
You are aware that Rich *is* the lead designer for the Realms? Right?
It may very well be that WoTC's vision and ideas for the future of the Realms differ a lot from yours or mine – yet I still have no doubt that Rich *loves* the Realms and is dedicated to them. And I *do* know he is committed to bring us the "best" 4E FR as only *possible* -- please remember that there are other factors (that we may even not know of) and WoTC executives and designers involved in the process. I am certain that he has had to make compromises, and Rich might even privately dislike some of the changes, but understandably he cannot publicly admit it (for marketing reasons and out of loyalty to the other designers). It remains to be seen whether we “old” fans will want to have anything to do with 4E FR, but Rich has been very straight-forward and honest in dealing with us, so please treat him with respect -- it is one thing to pose "tough" questions or give constructive criticism/feedback and completely another to attack a designer with "OMIGOD! I'll stop buying this **** and kill you if you don't change all that!"-type of "blackmailing" comments and blatant threats.
Yeah, I guess Brent Ratner also loved the X-Men. Or Brian Singer really loved Superman. Or the guys at Del Rey really love Star Wars. But you know what, that didn´t prevent them from getting out a sub-par product.
And really, now. Who´s ridiculously exaggerating that people are making death threats?
Yeah, I´m saying that I´ll stop buying if the changes are as radical as they are announcing right now. It´s the right way to vote, with my pocket. If enough people stop buying, they´ll put other people in charge who´ll hopefully do a better job. That´s how it always works. But I´d never stoop so low as to make idiotic things like a death threat over a fictional work.
Actualy if I was asked to make these changes and was not giving the creative freedom to do so then yes I would quit. Unfortunaly for people like me they are so far removing the Realms from the base that we love they are making it hard for us to like it.
That's very easy to say. Would you *really* quit your current job over not having creative freedom enough? I wouldn't -- even if I worked at WoTC. I might try to persuade my bosses to reconsider their decisions. Even if I quitted, would it result in anything positive -- they might just pick a more ruthless or uncaring guy to fill my shoes, and in any case I would be out of job.
Actualy author (atleast the goods one) will throw out their previous work if it isn't good. Also I just don't get the sercetivity to it all. I mean this isn't a movie or a novel or anything it is a RPG setting.
But I agree with you I think they love their version of the Realms very much...I just can't get behind it with what they have revealed as of yet. And the fact that I am still posting on the boards even though everything I have seen so far hasn't filled me with hope for them to knock my socks off....
Well, the secrecy is due to some issues still being "in the works". And they certainly want to keep us "in the dark", and begging for more scraps of knowledge -- that way we remain "hooked" and largely undecided over whether we like the new setting or not (i.e. we can always be told that "wait until you've seen the whole package until you make up your mind").
Let's assume that you had been one of these authors, writing a whole FR novel based on the design decisions made two years ago. Then, one day, Rich would come over and say: "Look, we've changed everything because the fans didn't like our ideas -- I know that your novel is off to print in a month, but you need to rewrite it all." How would you feel about it? Do you really think it'd be even realistic to write 10+ pages of ready-for-print material every day? What if you had other 4E FR projects to do also?
I'm not saying that we don't have the right to express our feelings and disappointment -- let's just do it in a polite fashion and through constructive criticism. That way we will be heard, at least eventually. Because if 4E FR sells really well, it really doesn't matter what you or I think -- we either buy those products or not. On the other hand, if it doesn't sell as expected, they just *have* to listen to us, don't they?
You are aware that Rich *is* the lead designer for the Realms? Right?
Yeah, I guess Brent Ratner also loved the X-Men. Or Brian Singer really loved Superman. Or the guys at Del Rey really love Star Wars. But you know what, that didn´t prevent them from getting out a sub-par product.
Yep, but he's not the only lead designer involved in 4E, is he? They have some authority over the Realms, too, because (as I pointed out) there may be changes needed in those issues that are part of their job (such as the game mechanics).
As for Rich being the "head honcho" in the FR Design Team... you can't really compare their work to any "corporate" business team meetings -- there are artists, authors and established game designers sitting at the table, and everyone's input -- whether it is good or bad -- should end up being in the end product (the "New Realms"). Of course, Rich could just say "You know, Bob, that is pure *** and I won't let if fly! Here's what we'll do..." but very soon he'd probably notice that nobody is contributing anymore out of fear that their ideas will be outright rejected. Or because he has hurt their feelings. He may be able to "filter" or polish some ideas, but in the end he just *HAS* to compromise in some matters. It is more delicate running a creative design team than a team of engineers, for example.
And really, now. Who´s ridiculously exaggerating that people are making death threats?
Yeah, I´m saying that I´ll stop buying if the changes are as radical as they are announcing right now. It´s the right way to vote, with my pocket. If enough people stop buying, they´ll put other people in charge who´ll hopefully do a better job. That´s how it always works. But I´d never stoop so low as to make idiotic things like a death threat over a fictional work.
I may be exaggerating somewhat, but I've seen comments like "Rich should be hung from his toes" and "Rich must be fired" -- even if these were intended as "funny" or humorous remarks, I'd personally find them insulting. Wouldn't you, if you were Rich's shoes? You know, Mike Mearls is turning the game mechanics (and thematic aspects) of D&D upside down, and I haven't seen anyone wanting to crucify *him* (and they shouldn't, because I don't think even he is responsible for all the changes).
That's very easy to say. Would you *really* quit your current job over not having creative freedom enough? I wouldn't -- even if I worked at WoTC. I might try to persuade my bosses to reconsider their decisions. Even if I quitted, would it result in anything positive -- they might just pick a more ruthless or uncaring guy to fill my shoes, and in any case I would be out of job.
Sure but i don't think that is what happened. I think they had creative freedom and this what we got.
Well, the secrecy is due to some issues still being "in the works". And they certainly want to keep us "in the dark", and begging for more scraps of knowledge -- that way we remain "hooked" and largely undecided over whether we like the new setting or not (i.e. we can always be told that "wait until you've seen the whole package until you make up your mind").
In other words they don't want us to know before it is too late....ok that might be a little parniod, but if two years ago they told us about the rough ideas for these changes...I think we would see something different. Also as DM I don't buy the books to be surprised I buy them so I can plan out my campaigns.
Let's assume that you had been one of these authors, writing a whole FR novel based on the design decisions made two years ago. Then, one day, Rich would come over and say: "Look, we've changed everything because the fans didn't like our ideas -- I know that your novel is off to print in a month, but you need to rewrite it all." How would you feel about it? Do you really think it'd be even realistic to write 10+ pages of ready-for-print material every day? What if you had other 4E FR projects to do also?
Hey for the novels is really simple. They are no longer Canon. That has been the biggest problem with the Realms in the first place anyway. I personaly refuse to buy Realms novels bewcause they are canon. I buy Eberron though.
Personaly I rather see a delay to 4th edition Realms and get a product that helps my and others campaign then what we are getting. Also just a point the longer the 4th edition soucebooks have to get going the easier it will be to make FR translation anway
I'm not saying that we don't have the right to express our feelings and disappointment -- let's just do it in a polite fashion and through constructive criticism. That way we will be heard, at least eventually. Because if 4E FR sells really well, it really doesn't matter what you or I think -- we either buy those products or not. On the other hand, if it doesn't sell as expected, they just *have* to listen to us, don't they?
Again I agree we should remain civil. Just because we disagree we all still fellow sentinent beings and gamers. It doesn't even matter if they take us seriously it just the way people should act.
As for Rich being the "head honcho" in the FR Design Team... you can't really compare their work to any "corporate" business team meetings -- there are artists, authors and established game designers sitting at the table, and everyone's input -- whether it is good or bad -- should end up being in the end product (the "New Realms"). Of course, Rich could just say "You know, Bob, that is pure *** and I won't let if fly! Here's what we'll do..." but very soon he'd probably notice that nobody is contributing anymore out of fear that their ideas will be outright rejected. Or because he has hurt their feelings. He may be able to "filter" or polish some ideas, but in the end he just *HAS* to compromise in some matters. It is more delicate running a creative design team than a team of engineers, for example.
Sorry, but his job is just *that*. He needs to hack off any too stupid ideas at the knees. Diplomatically, I guess, but if I would have the honor of being lead designer for the FR, and somebody would have come up with this horror of a storyline ( the Tymora / Tyr / Helm thingy ), I sure as hell would have stopped that right there. Completely. Because it is a really, really bad story.
That he is lead designer and this still got passed doesn´t speak to his storyline skills.
I may be exaggerating somewhat, but I've seen comments like "Rich should be hung from his toes" and "Rich must be fired" -- even if these were intended as "funny" or humorous remarks, I'd personally find them insulting. Wouldn't you, if you were Rich's shoes? You know, Mike Mearls is turning the game mechanics (and thematic aspects) of D&D upside down, and I haven't seen anyone wanting to crucify *him* (and they shouldn't, because I don't think even he is responsible for all the changes).
Yeah, I saw that quote, too. Thought it was too harsh.
If I´d get these remarks as a game designer, I´d think long and hard *why* I am getting them.
Actually, you just said it best yourself. Why isn´t Mike Mearls getting them? Hmmmm.... could it actually be that it is because nobody really dislikes him for cleaning up the game system? Because what we heard so far sounds at least competently done?
That´s a pretty big contrast to what we hear from the Realms, where it is all "We just destroyed the Realms, and we like it!". If there are good things coming for the Realms, out with them. Stop treating them as state secrets, it´s a RPG, for Gods sake. If it is a good product, I will buy it anyway, spoilers be damned. If it is not, and it certainly seems that way at the moment, then I´ll vote with my money.
I understand that the changes to the Realms have not been lightly wrought, and there are many considerations that require you move ahead with the changes, despite the vehement negative feedback many of these decisions have seen. However, as I'm sure you have seen, the complaints are numerous, and there are many valid ones that deal with specifics of situations as well as the larger scope of the situations as well.
I was wondering to what degree the minutia of these RSEs were written in stone? Could specific complaints, or more importantly constructive ideas possibly change some of the events in a manner that, while they will still be around and have the same effect, might help dampen the response they illicit? The first event that comes to mind, is the soap opera-esque display of deicide involving Tyr, Helm, and Tymora. If we could somehow come up with some idea that would not change the effects of the event, but possibly make this bitter pill slightly easier to swallow, would there still be enough room for changes to be implemented?
I realize that we are not going to be able to bring Helm or Mystra back, or halt the oncoming Spellplague, but many are hoping that when the aforementioned events are expounded upon, there will be more information that will make it not quite as bad as it currently seems. Is this false hope, or is there still room for some manipulation, just no changes in the grand design? I guess I'm just wondering how much your observation of our reactions actually matters, except in relation to the information and answers we are supplied. I would like to thank you for the time you have devoted to communication with us, and I hope for all our sakes that the 4ed Realms is everything that you seem to believe it will be.
Yeah, I saw that quote, too. Thought it was too harsh.
If I´d get these remarks as a game designer, I´d think long and hard *why* I am getting them.
Actually, you just said it best yourself. Why isn´t Mike Mearls getting them? Hmmmm.... could it actually be that it is because nobody really dislikes him for cleaning up the game system? Because what we heard so far sounds at least competently done?
That´s a pretty big contrast to what we hear from the Realms, where it is all "We just destroyed the Realms, and we like it!". If there are good things coming for the Realms, out with them. Stop treating them as state secrets, it´s a RPG, for Gods sake. If it is a good product, I will buy it anyway, spoilers be damned. If it is not, and it certainly seems that way at the moment, then I´ll vote with my money.
I like to think that Ed Greenwood contributing to 4E FRCS counts as a "good thing"! ;)
As for Mike Mearls and the game mechanics in 4E -- it is a matter of individual taste, I guess. So far all I have seen has really made me feel that 4E is not for me and my friends -- either mechanically or thematically. And there are *plenty* of people who feel the same way as I do -- many of them even as strongly as the FR fans about their favourite setting (just take a look at the 'Doomsday'-thread). Although they have expressed their disappointment and displeasure at these changes, and have already decided not to buy any 4E products, *none* of them have threatened Mike with anything. What does this tell you?
I think we're way off-topic now, because this thread should be reserved for FR-related questions and polite discussion with the designers. Let's try to keep it that way, hey?
I can live with the changes to the Realms. I do not like them necessarily, but I can live with them. All I ask is that they be described in a manner that makes more sense then the synopsis that is given in the Grand History of the Realms. Is there a product/novel trilogy/et cetera planned to do this? Right now, two things stick out to me like sore thumbs: 1) why the destruction of Dweomerheart changes the cosmology, but Shar and Cyric, who are responsible for the murder of the deity of magic on her home plane are unscathed (there was quite a bit of fallout with the death of a deity during the Time of Troubles, why not now); and 2) what perpetuated the Sune/Tyr/Tymora/Helm story plot thing, currently, most of it seems out of character (and alignment) for the respective deities. Please just explain these things in a way that make sense. It does not have to be logical, since not all of the gods do things in a manner that is logical (at least as we see it), but just has to make sense. My preferred medium for this is via a novel or three per confusing point. ;)
Thanks,
Hawkins
P.S. I wouldn't at all be opposed to the announcement of some of the positive changes to the Realms either. I think such an announcement would really help the fan base warm up to the "New" Realms.
Rich, can you tell us who designed the maps for Castle Krag in the 'Shadowdale' adventure -- you, Eric or Thomas? I want to know, because they were of exceptional quality and I cannot even recall the last time I was so excited about maps in a published adventure!
I won't be doing that work myself, since I'm not actually scheduled to write the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. My time's assigned to other projects. I do intend to pass along to the fellows doing the writing work that there are a couple of points of, shall we say, intense concern that they might want to take a close look at.
Rich-
I understand that the changes to the Realms have not been lightly wrought, and there are many considerations that require you move ahead with the changes, despite the vehement negative feedback many of these decisions have seen. However, as I'm sure you have seen, the complaints are numerous, and there are many valid ones that deal with specifics of situations as well as the larger scope of the situations as well.
I was wondering to what degree the minutia of these RSEs were written in stone? Could specific complaints, or more importantly constructive ideas possibly change some of the events in a manner that, while they will still be around and have the same effect, might help dampen the response they illicit? The first event that comes to mind, is the soap opera-esque display of deicide involving Tyr, Helm, and Tymora. If we could somehow come up with some idea that would not change the effects of the event, but possibly make this bitter pill slightly easier to swallow, would there still be enough room for changes to be implemented?
I realize that we are not going to be able to bring Helm or Mystra back, or halt the oncoming Spellplague, but many are hoping that when the aforementioned events are expounded upon, there will be more information that will make it not quite as bad as it currently seems. Is this false hope, or is there still room for some manipulation, just no changes in the grand design? I guess I'm just wondering how much your observation of our reactions actually matters, except in relation to the information and answers we are supplied. I would like to thank you for the time you have devoted to communication with us, and I hope for all our sakes that the 4ed Realms is everything that you seem to believe it will be.
The details are still mutable. We have a strong preference for not contradicting anything we just printed at the end of the Grand History (as you might imagine), but explaining things at more length or recasting the descriptions of these events a bit is possible.
I won't be doing that work myself, since I'm not actually scheduled to write the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. My time's assigned to other projects. I do intend to pass along to the fellows doing the writing work that there are a couple of points of, shall we say, intense concern that they might want to take a close look at.
Rich,
Are we going to have to wait until the 4e FRCS to get this "revisions" of the details of the extremely controversial events that are just kind of glossed over in the Grand History? The longer you allow the fans to live with discontent, the more and more they are going to work themselves into a frothing frenzy. Why not have the extremely controversial parts explained soon in a way that makes sense in Realms Lore articles? It would be a better way to curb all of the bad publicity the Realms is receiving right now, and it would help hype the release of the 4e FRCS (would you please confirm whether you are calling it the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting or the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide? I have not gotten a strait answer and you have used both in your posts over the past several weeks).
Thanks,
Hawkins
I'm pretty sure that Castle Krag was Thomas's part of the adventure (I know it wasn't mine). I think Eric actually pointed him to some old maps Ed had created a while back, and Thomas relied on those for the new maps of the castle. Eric may be able to shed some more light on it.
Yes, Thomas wrote that chapter. Ed's original map of Castle Krag was used for Wolfwatch Manor in Power of Faerûn, while another map was used for Castle Krag in Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land, rerendered by Kyle Hunter. Quite how the mix-up happened I don't know.
The proper name of the book is: Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. (If I used FRCS before, it's just force of habit, my bad.)
Rich,
Are we going to have to wait until the 4e FRCS to get this "revisions" of the details of the extremely controversial events that are just kind of glossed over in the Grand History? The longer you allow the fans to live with discontent, the more and more they are going to work themselves into a frothing frenzy. Why not have the extremely controversial parts explained soon in a way that makes sense in Realms Lore articles? It would be a better way to curb all of the bad publicity the Realms is receiving right now, and it would help hype the release of the 4e FRCS (would you please confirm whether you are calling it the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting or the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide? I have not gotten a strait answer and you have used both in your posts over the past several weeks).
Thanks,
Hawkins
Hmmm, the frenzy looks pretty frothy already from where I'm sitting. I doubt that explanations I offer at this point will really help. I'll ask about it, though.
Some premature emotional reactions, which I imagine you expected and can understand, don't mean we aren't interested in your explanations and ready to consider their merits as best we can. We won't all agree with all of them, but they'll help.
First and foremost I am a fan of the Realms novel line, and then a fan of the Realms roleplaying line. The reason I have bought most of the 3.x Realms roleplaying line is because I fell in love with the world via the novels, and the roleplaying line was the next logical step to gain more and more knowledge of the world I love.
One of the biggest problems (as I see it) with the current RSEs is the manner in which we were introduced to them. Before with the Time of Troubles, Return of the Archwizards, the Last Mythal, et cetera we have had novels to read and involve us in the event and make us feel as if we are a part of it. This time, you (plural) decided the tact the new RSEs on to the end of the Grand History of the Realms in an extremely abbreviated format as a "preview" of the "new" 4e Realms. I think this has left the opportunity for us to feel divorced from the events and therefore divorced from the "new" 4e Realms. Finally, I think that what you need to do is get us involved in the new RSEs so we understand what is going on and feel like we are a part of it.
--Hawkins
The details are still mutable. We have a strong preference for not contradicting anything we just printed at the end of the Grand History (as you might imagine), but explaining things at more length or recasting the descriptions of these events a bit is possible.
While I can understand the designs team preference for not contradicting the end of GHotR. I personaly think they should heavily consider doing it. As I atleast see a dozen ways to handle the changes that is more inclusive for people and still acomplish your goals. Though I have been thinking about alot as I can't lets the changes happen the way the design team have dicated them. Surely you guys who do this for a living can do it it too. Hey I'll even give you guys the outline of what I have come up with for free as I would rather see everybody(will alot more people then now) enjoy the Realms then the ones who all the changes are cartered to. Just treat the revision as errata.
Also as I see it the root of the problems that entail these changes are the novels being canon. While I understand that the novels make the company alot of money they are causing problems with the RPG side of things. I personaly stopped buying the novels because they are canon. But how do we as fans know that in 10 years you won't just say oops we have to go do it again. I mean have you ever thought that the novels don't have to be canon to sell well? This will also give the writers freedom to do what they want and DMs and Players can choose which novel is canon and which is not. In my personal opinion it was the novels that stole the FR from the players and the DMs in the first place.
And lastly it is hard to see that you do care about our concerns. When you say things like
Hmmm, the frenzy looks pretty frothy already from where I'm sitting.
This atleast doesn't fill me with confidence that you are taking me or any other person seriously. While you have taken some abuse at the hands of some posters(including some from me I admitt but I did say I was sorry for misjudging you). You should also be more understanding that while you might veiw this as a bussiness, we the fans don't.
Some premature emotional reactions, which I imagine you expected and can understand, don't mean we aren't interested in your explanations and ready to consider their merits as best we can. We won't all agree with all of them, but they'll help.
Ditto. I´m not closed minded. Au contraire, I *want* to like the changes. They just don´t make any storyline sense to me, though. Speaking of the Date **** Marriage Debacle, of course. Yeah, yeah, harsh words, but I just don´t see how the patron goddess of pretty much all my characters just went along meekly with this whole thing. I say, if somebody could put some lipstick on this pig, it won´t hurt my opinion of the new FR.
Killing Mystra just broke my heart, but I see why it was done. And I kinda have gotten used to writers making those kind of decisions with my favorite characters. I can just hope that the seven sisters won´t be done for, at least. Well, mostly the Simbul, Alustriel and Quilue, the rest kinda were a bit "meh" most of the time for me, to be honest. ^^
You should also be more understanding that while you might veiw this as a bussiness, we the fans don't.
I´d say that viewing it as a business, he should be even *more* cautious that he doesn´t drive the costumer base away. I frankly don´t think that making the Realms into a quasi-Eberron will get WotC many new costumers. People who already dislike the Realms may be attracted shortly to see if Elminsters is dead, but if he doesn´t die ( which he probably won´t. I hope ), they will just continue to play their Neutral Evil Assassin-Mages in other campaign settings.
The only way where I can see how this change could attract new costumers is that they were made because the Realms will become the new RPGA main setting. That way loads of players will by default come to buy the new books. Hence the new title for the FRCS, too. In that context, some of the changes make a degree of sense. They still suck, as far as I am concerned, but I could see the reasons.
I´d say that viewing it as a business, he should be even *more* cautious that he doesn´t drive the costumer base away. I frankly don´t think that making the Realms into a quasi-Eberron will get WotC many new costumers. People who already dislike the Realms may be attracted shortly to see if Elminsters is dead, but if he doesn´t die ( which he probably won´t. I hope ), they will just continue to play their Neutral Evil Assassin-Mages in other campaign settings.
Agreed but a good bussiness is built on good customer realtions...calling your customer base names is not a good bussiness. Well atleast to their faces.
The only way where I can see how this change could attract new costumers is that they were made because the Realms will become the new RPGA main setting. That way loads of players will by default come to buy the new books. Hence the new title for the FRCS, too. In that context, some of the changes make a degree of sense. They still suck, as far as I am concerned, but I could see the reasons.
Actualy I don't know how true this is. I mean talking to some RPGA members on these boards they do have a choice to play in any setting they desire...I mean there is RPGA support for Eberron, FR, and Greyhawk before...and they should be continue to be unless if they are going to limit RPGA to the FR..which will be a bad move I think.
The thing about the Realms was that the sourcebooks used to always be of Quality. And now, when we open some of these things, we look at them and say "WTF is this? How could this happen? This isn't consistent."
My real concern here is that Richard Baker is the Dan Didio of the Forgotten Realms, and I'm not sure that such a concern is entirely unjustified given the evidence we've already seen.
Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!
Also as I see it the root of the problems that entail these changes are the novels being canon. While I understand that the novels make the company alot of money they are causing problems with the RPG side of things. I personaly stopped buying the novels because they are canon. But how do we as fans know that in 10 years you won't just say oops we have to go do it again. I mean have you ever thought that the novels don't have to be canon to sell well? This will also give the writers freedom to do what they want and DMs and Players can choose which novel is canon and which is not. In my personal opinion it was the novels that stole the FR from the players and the DMs in the first place.
And lastly it is hard to see that you do care about our concerns. When you say things like
Regarding the novels being canon, to a large degree they are working towards fixing this already. While the novels will still be canon, the scope of the novels is being greatly reduced. I believe this has been brought up by both Rich and Ed, as they move to small scale adventurer level stories rather than large scale RSEs. I know this isn't the answer that you want, but it is something of an answer to the specific issue you address.
As far as his reply is concerned, in his defense many of the complainers are rather frothy appearing. This isn't name calling, or personal insults, rather he is merely stating that from where he is standing, it appears that many of the detractors of the information they have received thus far, are working themselves into a fervor. Him making note of this should not reflect poorly on him.
Finally, as far as changing what has happened in the GHotR is concerned, you are lucky that only a few sentences have really been devoted to the occurrences. This means that it is quite possible to partially salvage some of what I'm sure you would refer to as idiocies, by merely expounding upon the situations. As it is often said, the devil is in the details. I think it would be best suited to try to turn our efforts to making the most positive impact we can, through the specifics, and the light cast upon what has already been decided.
The details are still mutable. We have a strong preference for not contradicting anything we just printed at the end of the Grand History (as you might imagine), but explaining things at more length or recasting the descriptions of these events a bit is possible.
I won't be doing that work myself, since I'm not actually scheduled to write the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. My time's assigned to other projects. I do intend to pass along to the fellows doing the writing work that there are a couple of points of, shall we say, intense concern that they might want to take a close look at.
Hmmm, the frenzy looks pretty frothy already from where I'm sitting. I doubt that explanations I offer at this point will really help. I'll ask about it, though.
Yet you remain a perfect gentleman despite the storm.
RESPECT. ;)
Some premature emotional reactions, which I imagine you expected and can understand, don't mean we aren't interested in your explanations and ready to consider their merits as best we can. We won't all agree with all of them, but they'll help.
I would have to agree here. The little we have seen has driven us to despair (over somthing we all love). Think of it as a good thing - if we didn't care at all then you KNOW FR was dead in the water.
At least throw us a bone; give us some small hope that it will still look and feel like the Realms.
Hello Rich!
Have you gotten any hints that Wizarding Implements will make their way into the Realms as yet?
And if so, can you give us a clue on what other objects that are Realmslore related might be used as implements?
Scepters, maybe?
Or perhaps Longswords for Bladesingers?
TY in advance!
:D
The Spellplague drives many magic users insane. Are there going to be many of these magic users around after the time jump? Are we going to commonly have adventures where we happen to come along a tower in disrepair, that houses a powerful archmage long lost to the iron grip of insanity? Is this even something that you would be allowed to tell us at this juncture? Thanks for communicating with us.
I'm pretty sure that Castle Krag was Thomas's part of the adventure (I know it wasn't mine). I think Eric actually pointed him to some old maps Ed had created a while back, and Thomas relied on those for the new maps of the castle. Eric may be able to shed some more light on it.
Thanks, Rich! It was a *great* adventure in overall quality, especially if you "tailor" it to fit your PCs even better (actually, IMHO the best D&D adventure since... can't remember -- I am excluding 'Cormyr', because they are part of the same series
). I really loved how you guys "revisited" so many previously detailed PCs and places (such as the 'Grinding Gulf'). The only thing I didn't like was the rather clumsy removal of Elminster, but I understand *why* it was done.I am not a total fan of the new stuff either, I see the good and bad in it. I am just an average fan though, not really a drama queen. Most of my friends are what I would call average fans. Some dislike some of the ideas of the new FR but will pick it up redardless.
I think that very large parts of the setting will still have a strong "old school" Realms feel to them. For example, my upcoming novel "Swordmage" is set in Hulburg (a few years have passed by, so it's a young and bustling frontier town, not a virtually abandoned ruin as it was in 1369). There's actually very little in my story that couldn't have happened if I'd set the story in 1374 or 1375, other than the fact that I probably would have had to choose a different town. In terms of mood, feel, character capabilities, it's still a Realms story and would have fit just fine in the 3e Realms setting. I do make use of a couple of the new features (sorry, can't say much about them yet) but if I'd stripped them out Swordmage would really have been the same story.
(That might beg the question of why go to all the trouble, if a story like Swordmage doesn't "need" a major reboot in the setting. The simple answer is this: I wanted to tell a "smaller", less-epic story this time around than I did in Last Mythal. So Swordmage is no RSE, and the heroes aren't epic-level elves. Some authors and game designers will be making more use of the new elements we're introducing, and others will be playing in areas that are a little more familiar... like the north side of the Moonsea, in my case. Swordmage doesn't make much use of the new stuff, but other stories will.)
Yet you remain a perfect gentleman despite the storm.
RESPECT. ;)
I would have to agree here. The little we have seen has driven us to despair (over somthing we all love). Think of it as a good thing - if we didn't care at all then you KNOW FR was dead in the water.
At least throw us a bone; give us some small hope that it will still look and feel like the Realms.
@RICH:
Hello Rich!
Have you gotten any hints that Wizarding Implements will make their way into the Realms as yet?
And if so, can you give us a clue on what other objects that are Realmslore related might be used as implements?
Scepters, maybe?
Or perhaps Longswords for Bladesingers?
TY in advance!
:D
Hey Rich, what was the purpose for the whole Tyr/Helm/Sune/Tymora/etc. thing in the second to the last year of the GHotR? I mean this is propably one of the most confusing things that happened. I mean reading it it was, "what the heck?!?" Ok are they going to run a plot where the gods have been replaced by pod people? I mean I have said I don't consider you or the design teams stupid, but this well hit me right out of left field.
Rich,
The Spellplague drives many magic users insane. Are there going to be many of these magic users around after the time jump? Are we going to commonly have adventures where we happen to come along a tower in disrepair, that houses a powerful archmage long lost to the iron grip of insanity? Is this even something that you would be allowed to tell us at this juncture? Thanks for communicating with us.
But deliberately choosing not to do that is a blatant kick in the pants that really insults old-school gamers.
PC: "What do you mean Meldrus goes insane? I've been playing this character for fifteen years!!!!"
DM: Sorry, says here you're a gibbering, drooling madman. Oh, and you can't cast spells.
PC: I can't cast SPELLS? WTF kind of Wizard am I??
DM: A helpless one, I guess. Want to go out for beer and pretzels while the rest of the party fights the monster I don't need to be here to run?
PC: Sure...
The time of troubles left a really bad taste in my mouth...cyric going from a ftr/th to the holder of 4 gods portfolios, and then grabbing one from a fifth left my players accusing me of making a pet npc...I let them read the modules to clear my good name.
I'll let you have the same chance...
Why were the good gods played as so stupid in the GHoTR?
Mystra, in the heart of her own domain, bumped off by one of the most Mary Sues in existence...
The whole soap opera between Helm and Tyr...
I am getting a new sense of the MMorpg "OMG EVIL IS SO KEWL!1!1!" from what I am reading from the whole 4ED hints and teasers...
Please give me a reason to buy the 4ED campaign book...I would still have to monkeywrench it back to 1ED for my players...most of the modules I get have to be totally rebuilt anyway
So noted. I'll pass word to the guys working on the Campaign Guide that this event can use some more explanation.
It would definitely help to flesh out the deific events that lead up to the spellplague, whether in the FRCG, a novel, or both. At first blush, it seems like some of the gods are acting very out of character, and Mystra's death is an issue unto itself. It should at least be covered in such a way to make it seem:
a. believable- The teaser left me rather incredulous
b. Epic in nature- The aftermath certainly is epic. We might as well give the old gal a good sendoff if we have to "off" her. The teaser is so glib (as teasers are wont to be) that a good explanation might get rid of some of the "Mystra killed again by 3 yr old child with sharp stick." feeling that GHotR left with so many.
When the FR gods were placed in the novels after the Avatar trilogy I think that was the worst thing that could happen to FR. It made them look too mortal.
Hopefully the gods of the new FR have a more detached way about them.
Hopefully the gods of the new FR have a more detached way about them.
You do realize that part of the reason that a god's power is measured by his/her followers in the Realms to make sure that they do not become to detached from their followers?
When the FR gods were placed in the novels after the Avatar trilogy I think that was the worst thing that could happen to FR. It made them look too mortal.
Hopefully the gods of the new FR have a more detached way about them.
It sure is not what the last lines of the Grand History seem to indicate. I would think that the strange/out-of-character story with Tyr/Helm/Tymora/Sune make them look awfully mortal (and a bit dumb too). Who's the mischevious little gnome who replaced the real design notes for 4th Edition Realms with this poor TV soap episode project?
More seriously, I also believe that the fact that deities intervene in their followers' life more directly is a stample of the Forgotten Realms (it's part of the Realms feel), and I hope that this will continue in the next edition. There isn't any project to make the FR deities more distant in 4th edition, is there?
Maybe in 4E the gods can just stay away from he Novels please?
And thanks Rich, for making sure that muddle is cleared up. It´ll need a real good explanation, though, what drugs exactly they were using on Tymora to make her go along with the whole deal. And I´d be interested to know how long it takes for her to come to her senses and get the hell out of there. ^^
And just to be not too nice all of a sudden... Rich, have you seen *anybody* yet say something positive about the whole Tymore / Tyr / Helm story? I haven´t, only befuddlement at best, outrage at the worst. It really needs to be explained or revised.
I think you should do a poll. The question should be something about how do people feel about the changes that have made the "new" Realms. Possible answers should be something along the following:
- I hate the changes! What the hell were they thinking?
- I dislike the changes. The manner in which they were introduced is confusing and does not make any sense. I could probably live with them if the details were laid out in a manner that makes more sense.
- I like the changes, but have some reservations about what they entail.
- I love you changes! The designers can do no wrong.
I think most people would choose Option 2, followed by Option 3, and somewhere around a tie for Options 1 & 4. I would create a poll thread if I could, but for some reason the keepers of the keys of the forums will not allow us normal users do that.
--Hawkins
Hi, Yaeri --
I'm not really allowed to disclose sales info, and to be honest I haven't really heard much about the Grand History numbers anyway. (It's really the business team's gig, and I try to focus on R&D stuff first and foremost.)
Regarding a map for a web enhancement, I haven't heard of any such plans. Is there a particular map you folks are dying to get your hands on? I'll certainly suggest to our web team that it might be a great article. No reason it has to be tied to the Grand History.
And yes, we have a couple more Realms 4e titles (other than the 4th Edition Campaign Guide) in the planning stages. We haven't revealed the titles yet, but I can tell you that one is an adventure. In fact, I've got an outlining meeting on Monday morning to talk about the other one.
Thanks for the reply. I've just started a thread asking others for which Grand-history-of-the-realmsian map(s) they would prefer in a web enhancement. When we all reach a consensus on a top 5 list or something, I'll post it here.
On that other book. I can understand you cannot give us titles yet, but I was more wondering what sort of books they were going to be. For example, is WotC planning to approach the 4th edition realms mainly through regional sourcebooks, thematic books (like magic of-, dragons of-,...), regional adventures, etc
I'm pretty curious about that, but I understand if it's too early for that.
The Realms line already went through the "Crunch or Fluff?" test a few years ago, and crunch largely won out. Writers have since had to be inventive in detailing a geographic region and yet make it playable(ala the Moonsea sourcebook). Some plot hooks (like the glorified Red Wizard concession stands known as 'enclaves') didn't altogether pan out so a fair number of changes and updates are welcomed in FR 4e. At the same time some of these changes sound better for the writers than for the gamers. Didn't think so much streamlining (via elimination) was necessary.
Oh well, hope the FRCG is extra fluffy as well as crunchy, in order to capture the (remaining) essence of the Realms.
:invasion: :pile: I appreciate you writing on a *possibly* hostile environment, but I am also going to have to disagree with you on this.
I joined FR back in 2003, right around the switch to 3.5. The group I was with had a game set in Cormyr, so I purchased the FRCS, Magic of Faerun, and Faiths of Faerun. I haven't looked back. I found it easy to start with those three books. I did have the old grey box and a few box sets from before I stopped gaming when 2e came out.
Since it was in Cormyr, I did find a lack of support, so I read the Cormyr novels, and bought the old Cormyr accessory and Volo's guide. The old 2e products support lots of fluff, but it is my opinion that that could have been avoided with current 3e support. A sourcebook on Cormyr and Dalelands would have been the perfect fit, especially with the changes in Cormyr to 3e. Since WotC stopped doing sourcebooks, the old 2e stuff is what gamers needed to support their campaigns. It just seems that WotC has themselves to blame for this problem.
I still found it easy to get into FR with the first three books. I just don't understand the comments that were made.
So noted. I'll pass word to the guys working on the Campaign Guide that this event can use some more explanation.
I don't want a novel or even a souce book. But the way you listed the reasons why you guys decided to destroyed the Weave. Mystra, and some of the 7 sisters. While I disagree with everyone of them I did find it helpful for what I have to do which is write a alternative history of it of these events. Since I run a ongoing game it is important to get new blood so I propably have to convert to 4th edition and include as much of the New FR as possible so new players will have that common starting point. So I am most interesting in why the designers feel the need to do these changes. Though I do plan on putting it on the boards this weekend and would be happy to hear your opinion on it if you have the time. I know I might be asking for a bit much here. You and all the design team are very busy.
Also I am happy that the novels are going to take a less epic route...well atleast your first one will. I think personaly what sells the Realms is the feel of the world and not books about epic NPCs and gods.
I would love the books coming out to be less epic.
I agree, Lost Library of Cormanthor was a great read, like The Nether Scroll.
However, one epic book every two or three years wouldn't be so bad.
As for the epic thing....does one mean less epic storyline or less epic characters? I don't mind stories about epic characters, I can take 'em or leave 'em unless the story ends up wiping out a major part of the setting.
Here is my list:
Elminster: The early version, i.e. the eccentric mage who can destroy the world by accident if he has a bad day. The later skirt chasing everyman you can do what you will with.
Khelben Blackstaff: The dead version. If the spellplague resurrects people, I will be angry. Most of the posters are not worried about this but I believe there is a conspiracy to bring back all of the long dead FR characters. Of these Rhuantides must absolutely remain dead.
Seven Sisters: of these My favorite is Storm. She has been naked in more novels than any other character (except the old tawdry Elminster, which you may do away with). As such she must remain alive. If somehow you can squeeze in alot of nudity within the next few pre 4ed novels using others of the seven sisters, I may change my mind.
I can think of more but don't have time right now. I will get back later with more.
Forgotten Realms
Yesterday I sat in on a meeting about the FR RPG books. It was mostly nailing down the outline for the DM's book, but they also talked some about the story. I've never really gotten into FR, but the story they were talking about set up some pretty interesting conflicts and incorporated some of the more prominent elements of 4E (races that got promoted, for example) in cool ways. I'm really looking forward to FR now. I don't know that much about FR in general, but the story team will tell me what mechanics they need, so it's not a big deal.
We also talked about who would be writing different parts of the book. Interesting...
This does little to reassure me about his contribution to the FRCG. If he has had no previous interest in the Realms, why is he one of the designers of the FRCG? Somebody might want to have a little sit down with him and discuss ways to use his blog to bring hope to the Realms community, not more despair.
1st: WIth the news of 4th edition will Forgotten Realms Basic premises stay the same. It appears to me that Forgotten Realms has evolved, but stayed rather well together through 3.0 and 3.5 and while my friends may be frothing at the bits against 4.0, as long as Forgotten Realms evolves well into it, I really won't mind.
2. When will 2.0's Forgotten Realms series start coming out? To be honest I am looking for the updates to the colonies of Maztica and New Waterdeep as well as some of the other areas that could be expanded on. I remember a Baldur's Gate book for 2.0, but while Waterdeep has it's 3.5 version, Baldur's Gate does not.
3. If someone... Ehh I'll be straight up. I'm writing a book that fits into a FOrgotten Realms theme, what's a good way to at least get it read with a "Thanks, but no thanks" letter from Wizard? I know it probably wont' get published, but ehh I need to at least try.
Those are my questions, I apologize for my lack of proper etiquite knowledge at the moment. Uhh thank you for your time and... good day.
This is from Logan Bonner's blog post for today:
This does little to reassure me about his contribution to the FRCG. If he has had no previous interest in the Realms, why is he one of the designers of the FRCG? Somebody might want to have a little sit down with him and discuss ways to use his blog to bring hope to the Realms community, not more despair.
Agreed 100%... Reading that made me go "WTF?". I mean... Promoted races? What are they talking about? Don´t tell me I´ll be seeing warforged in Forgotten Realms, because then I will be certain that I will NOT be buying any 4th ed. FR products...
The fact that someone that was not really interested in FR before is now working on FR doesn´t make me any more calm or comfortable, but quite the opposite...
*Grumbles much about this, and even more about stupid Gleemax not allowing his account to convert properly... And about the stupid stupid name for the site...*
As for 'races that got promoted', I'm willing to bet he's refering to the duergar and orcs. The orcs are getting their own kingdom, and with the battle between dwarves and duergar largely over they will probably be more viable as PC's (hence the 'promotion'). Really, what is 'promotion' but to promote or push for something?
It could also be about surface drow, with or without Qilue and/or Eilistraee. I don't trust GHotR to be the final word on Eilistraee or Mystra's fate.
Ohhhh...what a thought. Make Eilistraee the new goddess of magic. :D *gets rotten tomatoes and sour beer tossed at him*
This is from Logan Bonner's blog post for today:
This does little to reassure me about his contribution to the FRCG. If he has had no previous interest in the Realms, why is he one of the designers of the FRCG? Somebody might want to have a little sit down with him and discuss ways to use his blog to bring hope to the Realms community, not more despair.
How interesting? Ehmm, while I don't necessarily object to new blood working on FR products or at least I don't object enough that I'm going to spend time complaining when I could make more numerous and less polite complaints about offing Mystra for reasoning that in large part is catering to illusions, people are cranky enough that discretion can be a perk. Publicly stating that one has never been interested in a storyline that they're about to be working on when WotC has just created and followed a textbook plan to annoy the hell out of people could be considered poor form.
A Lawful Evil drow society would be the biggest threat in my eyes. But, they remain chaotic evil. That's why I got so disappointed when Vhaerun was killed (And the less said about the suicidal way it happened the better) because that possiblity became less. Neither Lolth or Eelistrae have the ability to truly unite the drow.
And Orcs need to be properly updated, if they actually up the Orc importance I might think about 4.0 purchases.
Also I hope to the lords of fate that they don't start wasting cities and other areas. I don't want my Cormyr, Waterdeep, and soon to purchase Aunorach books to be completely worthless. I don't mind modifications to them, but I want the meat of those books to still be worth something in 4.0. That is my greatest fear.
Dear Ask Wizards, why did you decide to sell out to Hasbro with the Forgotten Realms, and your authors who lack even a 12th grade education (and more like an 8th grade imagination) who need a homoginized setting to write your $8.00 less than 300 page novels over an extended weekend. I understand that your "new" audience consists of likewise 8th graders, but understand that most of your core following are +25 year olds like me, my friends, and every other person that has supported "Tactical Studies Rules" during its completely incompetent fiscal years. Thank you so much for making us pay 20 years later for your horrible marketing department (which you have obviously replaced with smarter monkeys from around the 3rd world).
Thank you for recreating dnd for the 6th time just so you and your senior 15 year old executive can make $1.5 Million this year.
ps. I plan on copying this email to every gaming website I know of...including "MTG the Money Maker on some dumb kids Parents.com".
Sincerely yours,
Was a loyal Gamer.
@Keahi19 - Give it some time, Rich has a lot of posts to go through on top of his regular work writing up important sections of publications such as the PHB. He's here somewhere working through all of this stuff.
Post deleted because my response is no longer needed. I was suprised at how fast the Wizo got to it. Thank you sir!
That my friend is why there is an ignore feature!;)
Anyway are the Harpers going to be reorganized Rich? Now that a certain someone is gone are the Moonstars just going to go back with the Harpers?
I had no problem with an offshoot of the Harpers that did things (assassinations, mind control) that the Harpers really couldn't do even if it was for the common good.
Plus fluff is good. I never really palyed in 2E, i just read the novels. I did pick up almost every sourcebook I could though because it had lore in it and I thought most of it was good stuff.
I would like more Fluff in 4E please.
How interesting? Ehmm, while I don't necessarily object to new blood working on FR products or at least I don't object enough that I'm going to spend time complaining when I could make more numerous and less polite complaints about offing Mystra for reasoning that in large part is catering to illusions, people are cranky enough that discretion can be a perk. Publicly stating that one has never been interested in a storyline that they're about to be working on when WotC has just created and followed a textbook plan to annoy the hell out of people could be considered poor form.
Yes, I feel the same, this only proves how much the designers "love the realms".
I think I'll go vomit in the FRCG when it comes out.
1. Oh another question, is there ever EVER going to be a Lantan sourcebook? Cause I am biting at the bit for it. I want it.
2. Is the new setting going to keep what made FR great, ergo the diversity? And by diversity I don't mean every area turns into an individual feudal state that is diverse. I don't mean that, I mean that the coping mechanisms for the Spellplague are as different and varied as the wonderful cultures that make FR up. Cause I think that's what's on everyone's mind.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906394
I think you should do a poll. The question should be something about how do people feel about the changes that have made the "new" Realms. Possible answers should be something along the following:
- I hate the changes! What the hell were they thinking?
- I dislike the changes. The manner in which they were introduced is confusing and does not make any sense. I could probably live with them if the details were laid out in a manner that makes more sense.
- I like the changes, but have some reservations about what they entail.
- I love you changes! The designers can do no wrong.
I went and put this poll up on the Candelkeep forums. I know that it is filled with a large variety of Realms fans, and so I think we should be able to get a good feel for what the Realms community actual does feel about the proposed changes. Also, I did not vote myself since I am the one conducting the study. Please, create an account at Candlekeep and place your vote. I really want to know so we can give the designers some constructive feedback. I also would like it if each and everyone one of you (designers/writers/players/DMs/et cetera) told us why you love the Realms. I really want to provide as much constructive feedback to the designers so they get it right the first time with the 4e FRCG. I know that the 4e FRCG will be the maker or breaker of the "new" Realms, and since I love the Realms, I really want it to work. Since I realize that by buying the 4e FRCG I will be "casting my vote" for the "new" Realms, I no longer will just be buying it blindly like my original plan was though.
No warforged in FR, I promise.
By "promoted races" I think he was referring to drow and genasi PC options (in the core Monster Manual drow are really only presented as monsters, so it's a "promotion" to think of them as a valid player character choicse).
Agreed 100%... Reading that made me go "WTF?". I mean... Promoted races? What are they talking about? Don´t tell me I´ll be seeing warforged in Forgotten Realms, because then I will be certain that I will NOT be buying any 4th ed. FR products...
The fact that someone that was not really interested in FR before is now working on FR doesn´t make me any more calm or comfortable, but quite the opposite...
*Grumbles much about this, and even more about stupid Gleemax not allowing his account to convert properly... And about the stupid stupid name for the site...*
To answer your questions:
1. Yes, the basic premises of Forgotten Realms are staying more or less the same in 4th Edition. It's still a world of high fantasy, wondrous magic, terrible monsters, and colorful, evocative locales and characters.
2. If we didn't touch on something in 3e, we're not likely to get to it quickly in 4e... although we have a lot more room for Realms support on D&D Insider, so something that might have been a corner-case printed sourcebook (say, the Moonshaes) could make a fine Dragon article or DDi series.
3. We generally don't accept unsolicited manuscripts. We do have some submission guidelines laid out in the D&D Insider home page (I'm pretty sure they're there), so take a look at 'em. If you're trying to break in for the first time, your best shot is to write for DRAGON or DUNGEON first.
Hi, I am a first time poster here and have three questions that I am interesting in, in relation to Forgotten Realms. Well one is sorta personal, but anyways. If any have already been asked, then I apologize, I went about as far as I could without my computer seizing up.
1st: WIth the news of 4th edition will Forgotten Realms Basic premises stay the same. It appears to me that Forgotten Realms has evolved, but stayed rather well together through 3.0 and 3.5 and while my friends may be frothing at the bits against 4.0, as long as Forgotten Realms evolves well into it, I really won't mind.
2. When will 2.0's Forgotten Realms series start coming out? To be honest I am looking for the updates to the colonies of Maztica and New Waterdeep as well as some of the other areas that could be expanded on. I remember a Baldur's Gate book for 2.0, but while Waterdeep has it's 3.5 version, Baldur's Gate does not.
3. If someone... Ehh I'll be straight up. I'm writing a book that fits into a FOrgotten Realms theme, what's a good way to at least get it read with a "Thanks, but no thanks" letter from Wizard? I know it probably wont' get published, but ehh I need to at least try.
Those are my questions, I apologize for my lack of proper etiquite knowledge at the moment. Uhh thank you for your time and... good day.
I sort of feel that the Harpers got a little off-course at the end of 2nd Edition and haven't really lived up to what we would want out of them in quite some time. The easy answer would be to throw 'em over the transom, but I'd like to see us take another shot at getting them right first. Patching up the Moonstars-Harpers schism seems like a good place to start.
I know but when I ignore the problem poster it seems like ...well I'm ignoring the problem. I shouldn't have to change or do anything different, the problem poster should. I hate looking the other way. Let them just obey the rules. ;)
Anyway are the Harpers going to be reorganized Rich? Now that a certain someone is gone are the Moonstars just going to go back with the Harpers?
I had no problem with an offshoot of the Harpers that did things (assassinations, mind control) that the Harpers really couldn't do even if it was for the common good.
Plus fluff is good. I never really palyed in 2E, i just read the novels. I did pick up almost every sourcebook I could though because it had lore in it and I thought most of it was good stuff.
I would like more Fluff in 4E please.
My own included. ;)
So, just too make you smile -
"Chris Perkins must be stopped!" :D
Sooo.... I was wrong and we won't be getting Warforged? Gee.... it was one of the few things I was looking forward too.
Now, to make this On-topic:
I doubt you can answer this, but I'll try - "Will the Anauroch Desert be receeding in 4e?"
I personally made mine more like the Mournlands, so I was just wondering which way Wizards might be going with this.
No warforged in FR, I promise.
Thank you, Rich. While I think they're fascinating in Eberron, I don't think they fit in as well in FR as a standard race option.
Rich, will my question be answered...or was it skipped?
Have some patience -- the man is quite busy! ;)
Logan's assigned for mechanical work, not story work. For example, he'll be working on stuff like our background/regional feat system, monster mechanics, advanced character options, race mechanics--all in partnership with story designers who are more familiar with the setting.
No warforged in FR, I promise.
By "promoted races" I think he was referring to drow and genasi PC options (in the core Monster Manual drow are really only presented as monsters, so it's a "promotion" to think of them as a valid player character choicse).
The first paragraph reassures me, the second one makes me love you, and the third makes me sigh in relief... Thanks, Rich.
As for Chris Perkins´ blog... There are a few things I still don´t agree with, namely the fact that one didn´t need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the realms to run a realms game before, so it´s not like the change is gonna do that, and the fact that overlapping gods and goddesses, the fact that there were so many was part of the interest in the FR for me, and the fact that it used to be the PC´s making the difference back in the earlier editions too, because, usually, the big NPC´s had other fish to fry. Superman can´t be everywhere at all times, he´s usually busy with Lex Luthor, so that´s why Batman and co. step in. In conclusion... I really feel that either the designers have revealed too little of what´s to come, or we aren´t quite on the same page than they are, sadly...
One last question... Why didn´t they kill Drizzt? Of all the NPC´s in FR, he´s the one I´d like to see dead the most. :D
One last question... Why didn´t they kill Drizzt? Of all the NPC´s in FR, he´s the one I´d like to see dead the most. :D
Because sales of RAS novels say that you are in the minority. :D
One last question... Why didn´t they kill Drizzt? Of all the NPC´s in FR, he´s the one I´d like to see dead the most. :D
May I take this one, WotC guys? :D
'Cause only an idiot would kill their bestest cash-cow. ;)
See? I can be productive at times...
May I take this one, WotC guys? :D
'Cause only an idiot would kill their bestest cash-cow. ;)
See? I can be productive at times...
Lol, you guys rule... Yeah, I know I´m in the minority in the hatred for Drizzt, but... I really can´t stand him. Salvatore´s novels, I tend to like... Not that particular character, though.
May I take this one, WotC guys? :D
'Cause only an idiot would kill their bestest cash-cow. ;)
See? I can be productive at times...
But MarkusTay63, I thought we all thought that the WotC guys were idiots? Or is that only on days ending in y. :P Just kidding.;)
No Warforged. Thank GOD...
!!!! WotC can do no wrong. I now know what my first 4E character is going to be.:D "msatran must be stopped"
;)There are a few things I still don´t agree with, namely the fact that one didn´t need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the realms
But it was a pain for the writers...and perhaps some players felt a need to catch up on the depth of Realms history in order for it to be more 'authentic' as well.
You know, I don't know off the top of my head. It's not something we talked about much in our early story planning, and I'm not actually "on" the new Campaign Guide.
I sort of feel that the Harpers got a little off-course at the end of 2nd Edition and haven't really lived up to what we would want out of them in quite some time. The easy answer would be to throw 'em over the transom, but I'd like to see us take another shot at getting them right first. Patching up the Moonstars-Harpers schism seems like a good place to start.
If the Harpers can be done up more in 4E that would be good. Maybe show the division of people who are pure dogooders and the one who believe that the ends justify the means.
Plus we need a full Cormyr Sourcebook. Please.
I tend to do a bit of planning long before running a campaign, usually it is just about themes, locales etc.
My next campaign will be focusing on Bard's Gate and City of Brass (Both Necro Games), but I want to run them in the Realms, because I love to run my games there.
I will have to change some locales, anyways (Bard's Gate will be a trade hub in the Dales, between Cormyr, Sembia and the Monsea Region) ... but... which gods will be available?
Currently I'm torn between doing my own version of Grey Box (and eliminate half of the gods as well as introducing most of the new 4e fluff... yep, I really like what they did so fare) or waiting for the 4e FR stuff... I would prefere to use the new setting, but when will we have enough information to plan a campaign that might use the new CS once it is available?
I guess thats my actuall question
As some designers said, now is a good time to begin thinking about a new campaign, my current one will be finished just in time for 4e... but staying with the realms makes that pretty hard, as it feels like they would change so much, I really do not have a clue what to do...
1. HMMMMMMMMM I guess my diversity question would be added into this one. As in are you keeping the diversity of cultures, which is what I truly enjoyed the most about Forgotten Realms.
2. Hmmm I guess I have to look for Dragon Insider then, at least the site. Anyone got a link?
3. We generally don't accept unsolicited manuscripts. We do have some submission guidelines laid out in the D&D Insider home page (I'm pretty sure they're there), so take a look at 'em. If you're trying to break in for the first time, your best shot is to write for DRAGON or DUNGEON first.
Ehhh I leave this one up for me so I can go back to it. Lets see so I have to find D&D Insider Home Page, and look at writing guidelines. OOH see getting into wait.... what's dragon or duneon? Is that a typo? Mostly my problem is that my storyline is steeped into cultural mores and shifting them would be difficult, though I guess I can try something else. HMMMMM
Also will there be a count down to FRCG, with spoilers for the next edition? If so when does that begin or is that a secret?
Thanks,
HVulpes
PS: Also does the point of light idea mean you will be stocking the Undermountain and the woods of Cormyr and Silverymoon with higher grades in death and destruction? While keeping Waterdeep and the other cities alive?
There ya go, instead of whining about a potential problem I am trying to offer a solution. Hope it all works out in the end. ;)
I boldly suggest that you should make sure that Thomas (Reid) is hired as an official "map designer" for as many FR projects as possible -- as I already said before, his maps in 'Shadowdale' were "architecturally aesthetic" and probably the best I've seen in years! (No, Thomas didn't pay me for saying this ;))
Ummm that's what I thought they were planning on---making several deities into demipowers, reducing overlap, etc...
Really? I thought they were jsut going to kill them. Ok then, I am happy. :D
I was going to do that in my campaign one way or the other.
That does not seem to be what the last lines of the Great History mean though (many dwarven gods are dead, Helm is dead, Mystra is dead, several drow gods are dead). If those are instead "just" reduced in power, that's the better of two worlds: those who like to have complex pantheons can still use them as before; those who prefer simple pantheons can just ignore them.
I would be fine with that option too.
That does not seem to be what the last lines of the Great History mean though (many dwarven gods are dead, Helm is dead, Mystra is dead, several drow gods are dead). If those are instead "just" reduced in power, that's the better of two worlds: those who like to have complex pantheons can still use them as before; those who prefer simple pantheons can just ignore them.
Why not just ignore them before? That is my problem people who like the complex pantheon needs the details. Those who don't just not buiy the book or a thousand other options. It is easier to ignore something then to add it.
Why not just ignore them before? That is my problem people who like the complex pantheon needs the details. Those who don't just not buiy the book or a thousand other options. It is easier to ignore something then to add it.
I wholeheartedly agree with you ("it's easier to ignore than to add" is actually an argument that I have used on other forums too). I'm one of those who like to have lore-rich and complex pantheons (because they offer more options and feel more realistic/natural).
I was just pointing out the inconsistency between C. Perkins's last post (where he says that gods are not removed but re-organized) and the last lines of the Great History of the Realms (a great book btw, where it says that many gods are being killed).
Since it's an "Ask the Realms authors" thread, I would like to ask whether C. Perkins's last post should be read as "We might reconsider the many deaths amongst the gods presented at the end of the Great History and instead keep those gods as weaker/inferior deities."
I wholeheartedly agree with you ("it's easier to ignore than to add" is actually an argument that I have used on other forums too). I'm one of those who like to have lore-rich and complex pantheons (because they offer more options and feel more realistic/natural).
I was just pointing out the inconsistency between C. Perkins's last post (where he says that gods are not removed but re-organized) and the last lines of the Great History of the Realms (a great book btw, where it says that many gods are being killed).
Since it's an "Ask the Realms authors" thread, I would like to ask whether C. Perkins's last post should be read as "We might reconsider the many deaths amongst the gods presented at the end of the Great History and instead keep those gods as weaker/inferior deities."
I know I guess what I am asking the design team is this:
It seems that the 4th edition and the changes to the Realms are to make things simple.
So what does the the New FR and 4th edition has to offer us who like more complexity in their games? I mean the main reasons I play the Realms seem counter to what you guys feel is 'wrong' with the Realms.
I like the complexity of the pantheon where two gods on the surface might seem alike but if you really think about it they are not. Where the high level NPCs add not detract from the PCs because of complex relationships. Where there are conflicts that never end( like those between Eilistraee and Lloth or Shar and Cyric and Mystra/Midnight). Where there are high levels magic...that only a few can attain leaving the rest behind.
So I guess what I am asking with all your reasons why do you think I'll enjoy the New Realms or even 4th edition with the dumbing down of the Demon and Devils? Sure I don't mind new conflicts but I also like the old ones?
So is there a place for us who like complex issues in 4th edition without us re-writing 90% of the lore and new mechanics to represent that lore( and don't say the new mechanics can fit any lore because if that is the case why do you need to destroy the Weave?).
I know you have this 'schedule' on releasing infomation so I don't expect a answear right away or maybe ever, but I would like to know what 4th edition and the New FR have to offer us that didn't have problems with the complexity before.
By my count, 10 deities across the pantheons have been (or will be) slain this time around...not counting Eilistraee. Yet. I can imagine a few lesser deities being demoted to demipower status in 4e FR, such as Deneir and/or Eldath. But this can't be done too often, as there are already a few demipowers to choose from.
And with regard to Demons and Devils, I think Fiendish Codexes I & II were pretty well done. To toss the loose heirarchies of the Abyss (as an example) would be a shame, I plan on keeping much of that for a while.
Some criticism about your recent post about 'Dragon's Tail Cut' -- I think it feels way too much "oriental" or even "anime-themed" in flavour. Why not use 'Leg Sweep' or 'Knockdown' or 'Trip'? I shudder at the thought that *every* power or feature would be named in this way, because I wouldn't want my fighter to employ 'Emerald Wing Strikes', 'Crouching Tiger Leaps' or 'Jade Emperor's Attacks'. 3E was either very practical or "lightly" fluffy in naming Feats and Class Features (e.g. 'Weapon Focus', 'Crudest Cut', 'Supreme Cleave' etc.) in the core books and most of the splat books, too. Besides, I think this would work better as a Feat (as it was in 3E) or Talent or Weapon Trick -- why make it a Class Feature for all fighters?
Assuming that I'll ever play 4E, I probably can't resist the urge to yell "RAIN OF BLOWS -- KIAI!" (declaring/announcing my "special moves" as they do it in all those anime/manga series ;)) each time my fighter executes some weapon maneuver or uses his "martial" powers... ;)
Seriously, I've seen even some 4E *enthusiasts* becoming very worried about this "oriental" flavour -- enough is enough, and many D&D fans have already a lot to stomach with those 'traditions' (e.g. 'Golden Wyvern' and 'Hidden Flame' sound suspiciously oriental to me).
Where do i begin? Ever since the announcement of 4e my respect for you and other game designers have spiraled down farther and farther. Your attempt to convert a wonderfully indepth, magically lush setting, FR ,into a bland, dumbed down hack and slash is just plain vile. If Wotc feels it is losing profit and/or players sell D&D to a true gaming company. Could it be your jealous of Greenwood for creating an entire setting that so many people enjoy? You've complained about having to write around high level npcs. I know in our campaign it's quite easy to play around npcs. No, however you sir don't seem to be that type of person. You are one to wine and complain of how much work it is to write around the seven sisters and other powerful characters and how much time it takes you to research passed history in the realms. I'm sure your not the only crying imp of an author. I was looking forward to reading more of your novels about the elven return, but I can't now can I? Well maybe I can read more about Evermeet, no I can't do that either. It's all gone. Thanks!!
Wotc has destroyed my Saturday nights away from my girlfriend.
Suffice it to say, I've seen enough comments about Dragon's Tail Cut here and there that I'll be trying something different in a day or two. Consider me talked out of it.
Rich,
Some criticism about your recent post about 'Dragon's Tail Cut' -- I think it feels way too much "oriental" or even "anime-themed" in flavour. Why not use 'Leg Sweep' or 'Knockdown' or 'Trip'? I shudder at the thought that *every* power or feature would be named in this way, because I wouldn't want my fighter to employ 'Emerald Wing Strikes', 'Crouching Tiger Leaps' or 'Jade Emperor's Attacks'. 3E was either very practical or "lightly" fluffy in naming Feats and Class Features (e.g. 'Weapon Focus', 'Crudest Cut', 'Supreme Cleave' etc.) in the core books and most of the splat books, too. Besides, I think this would work better as a Feat (as it was in 3E) or Talent or Weapon Trick -- why make it a Class Feature for all fighters?
Assuming that I'll ever play 4E, I probably can't resist the urge to yell "RAIN OF BLOWS -- KIAI!" (declaring/announcing my "special moves" as they do it in all those anime/manga series ;)) each time my fighter executes some weapon maneuver or uses his "martial" powers... ;)
Seriously, I've seen even some 4E *enthusiasts* becoming very worried about this "oriental" flavour -- enough is enough, and many D&D fans have already a lot to stomach with those 'traditions' (e.g. 'Golden Wyvern' and 'Hidden Flame' sound suspiciously oriental to me).
We have an idea that we'd like the pantheon to get smaller, in that the number of deities heading up continent-spanning faiths probably ought to be more like 20 or 30 instead of 150-ish. The process of "tidying up" is going to include some steps that are "in-story" and some steps that are "out-story." And we decided that several different mechanisms would be at work, just so that it wouldn't seem quite so heavy-handed. Deities like Mystra, Helm, and Laduguer actually get killed (as you've seen in the Grand History); later on we'll simply present other deities as minor gods, demigods, or divine figures associated with the greater deities who still head up major faiths. Siamorphe, for example, can just be part of Tyr's celestial court. Clangeddin Silverbeard can be Moradin's two-fisted champion brawler who goes off and thumps on whatever Moradin wants thumped on. That's where we're heading with most of the existing deities... unless some happen to get killed outright.
I know you guys know what you are going to be doing with the gods but I would suggest not killing off the lesser deities, just make many of them demigods that are representitives of one Greater god. The Red Knight and Gargoros would represent Tempus, Torm would work for Tyr, and so on. The greater gods could be the real power players and the ones who call the shots. The demigods could be used for regions that might not recognize the power and authority of their greater god/master, so they worship the demigod and the greater god gets most of that divine "juice" that he/she needs. In the end you do not need to use all of the gods in the first campaign book, just the greater gods. Then in a game supplement or online you could place the demigods and name their purpose and duties.
There ya go, instead of whining about a potential problem I am trying to offer a solution. Hope it all works out in the end. ;)
Yes, we expect to have a countdown of preview articles. I'll say more on that later when I can.
Quick one: Is there anyway you can tell me if there is a way I can play a cleric of Finder Wyvernpsur in 4ed? Even if it appears at a later date or comes to me privately. I just really, really want to know.
Also will there be a count down to FRCG, with spoilers for the next edition? If so when does that begin or is that a secret?
Thanks,
HVulpes
PS: Also does the point of light idea mean you will be stocking the Undermountain and the woods of Cormyr and Silverymoon with higher grades in death and destruction? While keeping Waterdeep and the other cities alive?
I currently have single problem with the 4e FR changes: I do not know enough to plan my next campaign.
I tend to do a bit of planning long before running a campaign, usually it is just about themes, locales etc.
My next campaign will be focusing on Bard's Gate and City of Brass (Both Necro Games), but I want to run them in the Realms, because I love to run my games there.
I will have to change some locales, anyways (Bard's Gate will be a trade hub in the Dales, between Cormyr, Sembia and the Monsea Region) ... but... which gods will be available?
Currently I'm torn between doing my own version of Grey Box (and eliminate half of the gods as well as introducing most of the new 4e fluff... yep, I really like what they did so fare) or waiting for the 4e FR stuff... I would prefere to use the new setting, but when will we have enough information to plan a campaign that might use the new CS once it is available?
I guess thats my actuall question
As some designers said, now is a good time to begin thinking about a new campaign, my current one will be finished just in time for 4e... but staying with the realms makes that pretty hard, as it feels like they would change so much, I really do not have a clue what to do...
I don't have the pantheon plans right in front of me, but I'm guessing that it's more likely that you would play a cleric of Oghma or Tymora instead... who personally reveres Finder Wyvernspur as the demipower who really speaks to what he thinks is important. (Or whatever greater power is most closely affiliated with Finder, I don't know off the top of my head.)
Yes, we expect to have a countdown of preview articles. I'll say more on that later when I can.
I really like this idea and have been using something similar in both my Realms and Greyhawk campaigns. You can worship a divine being, demigod, or divine servant as an aspect, servant, or manifestation of a larger deity. Not speculating here as I'm not involved, but as an example, Savras could be a oracle/divination aspect of Oghma. You could worship Sharess as the "lust" servant of Sune. This opens up all sorts of possibilities for interesting schisms, church hierarchies, and other conflicts and developments.
Actually, that's what we're doing with most of the deities.
We have an idea that we'd like the pantheon to get smaller, in that the number of deities heading up continent-spanning faiths probably ought to be more like 20 or 30 instead of 150-ish. The process of "tidying up" is going to include some steps that are "in-story" and some steps that are "out-story." And we decided that several different mechanisms would be at work, just so that it wouldn't seem quite so heavy-handed. Deities like Mystra, Helm, and Laduguer actually get killed (as you've seen in the Grand History); later on we'll simply present other deities as minor gods, demigods, or divine figures associated with the greater deities who still head up major faiths. Siamorphe, for example, can just be part of Tyr's celestial court. Clangeddin Silverbeard can be Moradin's two-fisted champion brawler who goes off and thumps on whatever Moradin wants thumped on. That's where we're heading with most of the existing deities... unless some happen to get killed outright.
I don't get it...wasn't it like this before? I mean few are the deities are worshipped across the Realms...did you guys read even the stuff from 3.x? I mean this is what makes me nervous it seems that you guys are saying we are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe it should be said you are just highlighting facts that seem to be overlooked.
Though my question lies in the mechanics....lets say that a cleric of Lliira( who preisthood is very different from Sune's) becomes a servant of Sune. Do they mechanical work the same? Or will Clerics of Lliira have slightly different options from the typical Sune cleric to refect the vast difference between the two? I mean if you are going to give the fighter little treats with the weapon he uses I hope the cleric get things related to the deity they follow. And would like to see that reflect in the Realms panthron. So can you give me some hope here?
One last thing...you have already partialy destroyed my interest in the metaplot of the Realms by having Cyric kill Mtsra and the Weave. If you go on ahead and end the battle between Lolth and Eilistraee I don't know what will be familar about it to me anymore. I won't tell you what other metaplot conflicts I am interested in...since you guys seem to target them (
that was just a joke by the way).Also it seems to me that the changes Realms are very unfriendly( and with the changes to some basic concept in D&D) to the ongoing games...is there anything you can tell me that you guys still care about people who run ongoing games... though I was very happy to see that upon 4th edition release that cetain 3.5 books will recieve updates...please tell me the Druid is something that will be given a immediate patch... is there anything else at all?
Seems to me that someone just touched the 'Third Rail' of the Realms.
Mr. Baker, will the 4E clerics / divine casters still have to follow the one-step rule or could we possibly revert back to a alignment-per-deity rule as given in the well worked Faiths & Avatars series (essentially, a straight Copy & Paste for the clergy and the worshippers)? So that we may indeed have e.g. blackguards of a chaotic evil deity who e.g. still follow a strict code of conduct etc. and are Lawful Evil?
Show
the ritual Araevin used to transform (or whatever term is more appropriate) into a half-celestial (eladrin)
That's a tricky one, and I don't know what the right answer is. We can't systematically describe to you our plans for each corner of Faerun, because it would be pretty impractical. We're going to run a number of preview articles, but I don't think we can give out much more than you'll see in those.
Yep, I thought the answer would be something like that
Of course, I did not expect you to give out a detailed describtion of the whole realms, but as the CS will be out 3? month after the release of 4e, a short update and reference might be handy. Something like:
Gods and Domains: Sune (Everbright: Sharess...)
Regions: Cormyr - mostly unchanged, but... 1-3 sentences
Chessenta - is no more, because...
Thus we could start our campaigns once 4e is out, and only have to include minor change once the CS is out. Otherwise one would have to decide to restart a "true" 4e Realms Campaign after only 3-4 month or stay with a hybrid.
I don't have the pantheon plans right in front of me, but I'm guessing that it's more likely that you would play a cleric of Oghma or Tymora instead... who personally reveres Finder Wyvernspur as the demipower who really speaks to what he thinks is important.
This is one aspect of 4E FR I will most likely not adopt. I'll still keep dead the deities that kick the proverbial bucket, but there will still be clerics of all the now "helper" deities.
I think TSR got it dead right with Faiths & Avatars, Powers & Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities, probably my 3 favorite 2nd ed books. I still convert specialty priest classes into prestige classes for my current games, and will probably do the same in 4E.
I don't have the pantheon plans right in front of me, but I'm guessing that it's more likely that you would play a cleric of Oghma or Tymora instead... who personally reveres Finder Wyvernspur as the demipower who really speaks to what he thinks is important. (Or whatever greater power is most closely affiliated with Finder, I don't know off the top of my head.)
Yes, we expect to have a countdown of preview articles. I'll say more on that later when I can.
So it would be something like patron saints like in Catholism or Buddhism (which have different name but similar idealogy) where the source of power comes from a main deity, but this sub-deity has a specialty which might carry specific powers of their own?
Like the christian god having the power, but when needing a specific prayer for a lost cause (like Terminal Cancer) you might pray to St. Jude or a prayer for mercy you might pray to Guan Yin in the east.
With feats and powers to go with it. Right.
Actually, most of the power names for the fighter are pretty straightforward. I only fiddled with the 5% of the blandest-named powers and tried a different spin on the names.
Suffice it to say, I've seen enough comments about Dragon's Tail Cut here and there that I'll be trying something different in a day or two. Consider me talked out of it.
Thanks for proving that the designers (or, at least some of you
) are listening to your fans! I understand that 'Wallop' sounds pretty bland, and I understand your reason for trying to come up with something more creative. 'Sweeping Strike' or 'Toppling Strike' might work, too?Orcish pantheon: Bahgtru--demipower; Ilneval--dead; Shargaas and Yutrus--merge (or Yutrus's portfolio is taken by Shargaas). 1 demotion, 2 deaths.
Mulhorandi pantheon: Nephtys and Waukeen merge; Geb leaves the Realms (for his wife 'Nut'), his followers turning to Dumathoin for support. 1 merge, 1 vacancy/death.
Halfling pantheon: Cyrrollalee becomes a 'saint' within Yondalla's church. In halfling mythology Urogalan becomes a castellan of sorts for Kelemvor, serving alongside Jergal (remaining a demipower). 1 vacancy/death.
Gnome pantheon: Flandal and Gaerdal become demipowers. Baravar and Gaerdal battle (and slay) Urdlen, whose name becomes yet another cover for Cyric. 1 death, 2 demotions.
Elven pantheon: Angharradh ceases to be considered a separate goddess. Fenmarel becomes a servitor-saint for Solonar, as does Shevarash. 1 vacancy/death, 2 demotions. (Hanali could technically merge or become another name for Sune but really, her being pretty than Hanali? C'mon!
) Dwarven pantheon: Already a few cleaned out (4 that I count). But...Dugmaren becomes a scholar-saint in the church of Moradin, or another alias for Oghma (perish the thought!); Sharindlar becomes an alias for Sune (which means her priests shave their legs more often, at least once a year); 2 vacancies (although really I'd prefer to keep Dugmaren as-is).
Drow pantheon--already axed. Eilsitraee, Ghaunadaur, Lolth. (3 dead already, enough.)
Faerunian pantheon--Let Akadi's place be taken by Aedrie; Waukeen can disappear, let Tymora take her portfolio over again (that was such a yawn); Loviatar can kill Lliira, Milil becomes more tightly bound under Oghma's banner, Finder becomes a bard-saint; Eldath becomes a demipower and is slain during a moment of opportunity, thereafter becoming a sister-saint sect within Silvanus's church; Grumbar's place is supplanted by Dumathoin in the Realms; Gwaeron becomes a tracker-saint for Mielikki; Hoar is slain by Shar but his main portfolio is taken by an angry Kelemvor, who vows to oppose her for her acts against Mystra; Sharess becomes a pleasure-saint in Sune's court, and Talona becomes a demipower. 6 vacancy/deaths, 3 demotions (on top of the other three deaths in GHotR).
Total: 21 vacancy/deaths, 8 demotions, 1 merge (+/-2 approx.--too early for me to count well)
I'd have trouble seeing the pantheon go below 100 active deities. Even 120 is pushing it.
Faerunian pantheon--Let Akadi's place be taken by Aedrie; Waukeen can disappear, let Tymora take her portfolio over again (that was such a yawn); Loviatar can kill Lliira, Milil becomes more tightly bound under Oghma's banner, Finder becomes a bard-saint; Eldath becomes a demipower and is slain during a moment of opportunity, thereafter becoming a sister-saint sect within Silvanus's church; Grumbar's place is supplanted by Dumathoin in the Realms; Gwaeron becomes a tracker-saint for Mielikki; Hoar is slain by Shar but his main portfolio is taken by an angry Kelemvor, who vows to oppose her for her acts against Mystra; Sharess becomes a pleasure-saint in Sune's court, and Talona becomes a demipower. 6 vacancy/deaths, 3 demotions (on top of the other three deaths in GHotR).
um...Tymora never had Waukeen's portfolio...that was Lliira.
Also Lliira dying? And Eldath Dying? I guess there is no room in the Realms for gods who promote something other and viloence....beside I love Lliira and Eldath they are my number one favorite deities...yes I like Lliira better then Sharess because there are large differences. One is about happiness in everyone...one is alot more self-centered.
I swear when people say x god is pretty much y god I got to wonder if they just looked at the deity stat block and skipped the rest.
Well, I tried to glean a bit of info on the 4E clerics over at the relevant boards or sites, but that's much like finding your way through a swamp on the Plane of Shadow. Thus, I try my luck with the FR designer in-chief
Mr. Baker, will the 4E clerics / divine casters still have to follow the one-step rule or could we possibly revert back to a alignment-per-deity rule as given in the well worked Faiths & Avatars series (essentially, a straight Copy & Paste for the clergy and the worshippers)? So that we may indeed have e.g. blackguards of a chaotic evil deity who e.g. still follow a strict code of conduct etc. and are Lawful Evil?
I've sometimes thought that if you gain a big template in play, you ought to get its benefits immediately but also reset your xp goal accordingly. For example, if you were a 4th-level fighter who picked up some type of lycanthrope with a +4 LA, maybe you shouldn't gain another fighter level until you reached the xp total needed to be 9th level. But that's just my own crazy speculation.
Getting away from all the 4th Edition questions for a moment, I have one regarding an event from the Last Mythal trilogy. Specifically, I'm curious aboutShowthe ritual Araevin used to transform (or whatever term is more appropriate) into a half-celestial (eladrin)
I've sometimes thought that if you gain a big template in play, you ought to get its benefits immediately but also reset your xp goal accordingly. For example, if you were a 4th-level fighter who picked up some type of lycanthrope with a +4 LA, maybe you shouldn't gain another fighter level until you reached the xp total needed to be 9th level. But that's just my own crazy speculation.
Umm....that is exactly what the rules say happens. I guess you have been really absorbed in 4th edition for the last two years.
In relation to your comment of the way the gods are to become...
With the major deities with minor demi-powers linked to them, would those who have a strong link to the demi-powers might have special powers or feats related to those demi-powers?
I'm not sure this would be in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, but it would be a good question to ask for the faith book for Fourth Edition. To expand the abilities and rolls of Cleric of the Realms. Just like I expect there to be a magic book to expand the roles of Wizards and update more spells.
One thought would be some like having the choice of choosing one or more domains from the leader deity and/or the demi-power, if domains were to remain.
Also would this be linked with the new order of the planes with Major deities creating the planes and lesser powers making their home in these planes?
Thanks and have a nice day...
A few opinions about the deities; first of all, although I have always seen the variety and great number of deities in FR as a positive aspect (and consequently feel a bit leery of this "downsizing" of the Pantheon), I agree with Eytan that these "Celestial Courts" offer a myriad of possibilities for DMs and players alike. We've had (in my gaming group) clerics -- both PCs and NPCs -- that have worshipped various "aspects" of deities (e.g. a more "warlike" aspect of Lathander with appropriate Domains) and belonged to all sorts of "cults". This actually prompts me to ask: will the 'Heretic of the Faith' feat still be available in 4E FR? I hope so, because I've even (recently) written a whole campaign around it, and I think it presents DMs with wonderful story element opportunities.
um...Tymora never had Waukeen's portfolio...that was Lliira.
Also Lliira dying? And Eldath Dying? I guess there is no room in the Realms for gods who promote something other and viloence....beside I love Lliira and Eldath they are my number one favorite deities...yes I like Lliira better then Sharess because there are large differences. One is about happiness in everyone...one is alot more self-centered.
I swear when people say x god is pretty much y god I got to wonder if they just looked at the deity stat block and skipped the rest.
My bad about mentioning Tymora without pointing out I think Tymora would be a better deity for most merchants if Waukeen were to, oh, trip and disappear. As for Liira and Eldath, they don't have to die but if their faiths get folded in/enshrined within a larger church (Sylvanus for Eldath, whoever for Lliira) then it serves the same purposes. I'm looking for ways to reduce the number at-large, but even so the 20-30ish number is way too low without 'Dragonlancing' the bunch.
My bad about mentioning Tymora without pointing out I think Tymora would be a better deity for most merchants if Waukeen were to, oh, trip and disappear. As for Liira and Eldath, they don't have to die but if their faiths get folded in/enshrined within a larger church (Sylvanus for Eldath, whoever for Lliira) then it serves the same purposes. I'm looking for ways to reduce the number at-large, but even so the 20-30ish number is way too low without 'Dragonlancing' the bunch.
That is OK ;) Though I like Waukeen has head of trade. I mean really have the ficle goddes of luck in charge???? You never were much into trade were you?
I think it would be more interesting if Eldath is offered protection by Tempus though considering Tempu's veiws on Eldath( read the Faiths and Pantheon description)
Also Lliira is already servering Sune...though she could go over to the artist gods.
Also if let say Lliira is killed by Lovaitor...who balances out her? Sharess? Yeah when she is not asking to be whipped and dominated for fun. Sharess is a much darker goddess then Lliira is.
(If you've noticed I've suggested some non-human deities taking over certain roles for existing Faerunian deities specifically because it irritates me how WotC designers [for an example] swapped the gnome god Nebelun in 3e with Gond, without thinking of doing it the other way around. Too humanocentric and one-sided! A little fairness is in order here.)
OK, if Liira serves Sune then she and Sharess could be seen as Sune's handmaidens. Both would be represented within Sune's temples and they can be taken as patrons. If Lliira did die, Loviatar's main opponent would be Ilmater. Sune isn't the sort who likes pain, so killing Lliira would definitely get her attention and ire. It looks to me more and more about cutting down the page-count and not just eliminating overlap.
One more edit: I forgot to notice the entry for Auril in F&P, how she's draining power from Ulitui (sp?). Supposedly he'd be dead in a few years--and with his death some of that glacier will be melting back. Hmm. Perhaps he's gone now. *adds 1 to the vacant/dead list*
And...both Garagos and Uthgar can become 'battle saints' in local churches of Tempus. Gargauth can go back to being an outcast archdevil, or slain outright, with his management of the Knights of the Shield passed on to one of Asmodeus's leuitenants. *crosses three more off*
Also... This speculation should probably go into a newer thread, so as not to clutter the sticky more than it already is cluttered, and leave the thread for questions to the authors and devs
.I run a first edition campaign, and have since 1980, I moved to the realms when the realms came out...
The time of troubles left a really bad taste in my mouth...cyric going from a ftr/th to the holder of 4 gods portfolios, and then grabbing one from a fifth left my players accusing me of making a pet npc...I let them read the modules to clear my good name.
I'll let you have the same chance...
Why were the good gods played as so stupid in the GHoTR?
Mystra, in the heart of her own domain, bumped off by one of the most Mary Sues in existence...
The whole soap opera between Helm and Tyr...
I am getting a new sense of the MMorpg "OMG EVIL IS SO KEWL!1!1!" from what I am reading from the whole 4ED hints and teasers...
Please give me a reason to buy the 4ED campaign book...I would still have to monkeywrench it back to 1ED for my players...most of the modules I get have to be totally rebuilt anyway
Hmmm, lets try this again...
If I recall correctly, Waukeen was a creation of Jeff Grubb.
Indeed. Waukeen was created by one of Jeff's players in his scratchbuilt home campaign.
As for a separate thread, of course: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14078761#post14078761
And since we need questions...
Mr. Baker/WotC/FR design team---How can anyone justify cutting pantheons whose total number exceeds 150ish down to 20% or less of the original number?????? Past a certain point a trim/downsize/reorganization becomes an outright massacre, as demoting most to aliases and demipowers still won't handle all of that reduction.
Granted, you used the word ought instead of will, so there is a bit of an 'out' there. ;)
And.........In the course of such cuts/rolling lay-offs/reorganizations, will we actually see some nonhuman deities take over roles within the (human) Faerunian pantheon, as opposed to it solely going in the other direction?
(And in all fairness I tried doing just that with the 'main' 119 deities of the FRCS and could only get as far as 85---beyond that it becomes an ugly mix of every pantheon with no real flavor or character left to it. Utterly 'Dragonlanced'.)
What Garagos--a demipower--wishes and what he gets is a different story. After all he still serves Tempus despite the mutual emnity. He could just as easily get axed, I'm starting from a conservative estimate/ reorganization and shaking it down from there.
As for a separate thread, of course: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14078761#post14078761
And since we need questions...
Mr. Baker/WotC/FR design team---How can anyone justify cutting pantheons whose total number exceeds 150ish down to 20% or less of the original number?????? Past a certain point a trim/downsize/reorganization becomes an outright massacre, as demoting most to aliases and demipowers still won't handle all of that reduction.
Granted, you used the word ought instead of will, so there is a bit of an 'out' there. ;)
And.........In the course of such cuts/rolling lay-offs/reorganizations, will we actually see some nonhuman deities take over roles within the (human) Faerunian pantheon, as opposed to it solely going in the other direction?
I probaly will be unhappy with most of their decsions because to me they are changing the Realms to suit other people's taste. Which is fine. I would have made changes that would make more people happy but I am not in charge. So I am trying to see what is salvagable.
So my question is that how easy it is to make deities in 4th edition?
Is the Choosen(Not Mystra's but others) going to survive into 4th?
Actually, most of the power names for the fighter are pretty straightforward. I only fiddled with the 5% of the blandest-named powers and tried a different spin on the names.
Suffice it to say, I've seen enough comments about Dragon's Tail Cut here and there that I'll be trying something different in a day or two. Consider me talked out of it.
That's good to hear. I'm all for the occasional non-Western influence working its way into D&D prominence but this seemed the wrong way to go about it and it didn't even seem like the intention of the designers either.
Very specific sounding feat/talent tree/maneuver names really only sound cool if they have a good history behind it perhaps with a theme already. That's usually in the area of specific settings and not so much generic or core material, where it holds little meaning and seems jarring. The names is where a lot of complaints about Tome of Battle seemed to arise from. There we go with that perception thing again.
Dark Wizard, Faerun (and D&D) is not Europe, can we remember it? Maybe we should remember that quote on FF11 and that fantasy should not be steerotyped as europeanesque only and that foreign influences should not be restrained in the 'exotic settings' boxes.
Salunatic, I wonde rif you are a lost case. Even if it was except, you'd give it a chance really?
Why don't you give her Realms a chance? How that is right any Realms that part from what is printed isn't the Realms. Everytime you open you mouth you prove how much a Gygaxian you are.
Dark Wizard, Faerun (and D&D) is not Europe, can we remember it? Maybe we should remember that quote on FF11 and that fantasy should not be steerotyped as europeanesque only and that foreign influences should not be restrained in the 'exotic settings' boxes.
Actualy D&D is hevily been influenced by European and arabic fantasy...there really has never been much oriental influence on the game that wasn't published separely.
Though the best reason not to name attacks like they were doing is pretty much make it look like a cheap copy of Exalted.
Me and my fellow gamers wish to thank the FR team for their efforts so far and the continued support of the game world that has provided a lot of entertainment throughout the years.
I am afraid that this reverse Arcane Age FR setting due to come out next year has not managed to capture our interest from what has been revealed so far. Too many novels and efforts to outdo one another in terms of epic events, attempting to move away from Sword & Sorcery and inspire a feel of exclusively High Fantasy resulting in a greater mess, thematically and lore wise. We cannot follow unfortunately.
Best wishes for the new edition and setting,
Athyton
I've sometimes thought that if you gain a big template in play, you ought to get its benefits immediately but also reset your xp goal accordingly. For example, if you were a 4th-level fighter who picked up some type of lycanthrope with a +4 LA, maybe you shouldn't gain another fighter level until you reached the xp total needed to be 9th level. But that's just my own crazy speculation.
Just as a note Rich, this is a mechanic that really should be looked at for 4e. I always wanted my players to be able to undergo the process of becoming a lich (or archlich or baelorn), or being bitten by a vampire or lycanthrope, but there are no simple mechanics to support this in 3e. I know this is the Realms ask the designers thread, but since you are overall a WotC developer, I thought maybe you could bring it up to the design teams somewhere.
2. So far, I haven't liked anything I've read of the changes in FR due to 4e, though I am still cautiously optimistic about the mechanics changes in 4e itself. I will say, however, that despite the already too big (IMO) scope of the prior changes (time of troubles, shadow weave), this one makes those others pale in comparison. This rash of changes has, unfortunately, taken the Realms from a land in which Gods have influence through their followers and clergy to a land in which, on a whim, Gods get together and flip that social structure upside down. Kinda makes it discouraging to be a PC when you know that you can effect no lasting change in the world that won't likely get undone by some capricious, too active, diety.
Also this one got missed, is there going to be a Lantan Sourcebook?
That's my current only question.
Oh and also when you said to start writing in Dragons or Dungeons, was that a typo or an actual place?
Dark Wizard, Faerun (and D&D) is not Europe, can we remember it? Maybe we should remember that quote on FF11 and that fantasy should not be steerotyped as europeanesque only and that foreign influences should not be restrained in the 'exotic settings' boxes.
If you read my post more carefully you would see I never said non-European influences should be limited to exotic side products. I said names like Dragon Tail Cut were not good ways to integrate non-European ideas into the game, it did not even seem like the designers intended the names as such, but many will misconstrued them as an attempt to "animetize" D&D. There are few posters here who will advocate a larger role for non-European material than me. Do not mistake my wish for quality in non-European material as an attitude against that material.
Show
Scoop - Diamond & Alliance Retailer Summit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just got back from Alliance's Ft. Wayne retailers summit and it was a heck of a good show. The big thing though is that during dinner WOTC's Sara Girard (who had quite the fan club) gave a great talk on 4e D&D. First the big news...
All three core rulebooks will be out in June!
They showed a list of all the products coming out for 08. A few caught my eye. Apparently the Realms are going to be 2 books, a Campaign Guide and then 2 months later a Player's Guide. I can't remember the names of all the books but the Manual of the Planes was on the list and some Dungeon Tiles.
In Miniature news the D&D minis sets are all going to be updated to 4e via a pdf download. They are starting with some of the more recent sets but will get to all of them. Sara said it was like designing an all new set and will take some time but eventually everything will be updated.
She re-emphasized several key points. Faster to play, easier to play and teach, and easier for the DM to run. She also mentioned that yes, the DM can run encounters etc. on the fly.
Regarding writing, I said to look into writing for DRAGON magazine or DUNGEON magazine (in their current online incarnation). You can find submission guidelines on our website -- check the D&D Insider home page.
Also this one got missed, is there going to be a Lantan Sourcebook?
That's my current only question.
Oh and also when you said to start writing in Dragons or Dungeons, was that a typo or an actual place?
You would be one of the few people buying said book. Lantan exists primarily for people like YOU to flesh out if they want more tech in their games. Stuff like that is better left ambiguous.
@Rich Baker - I'm not sure how much about 4e you can reveal, but since this isn't edition-specific mechanics-wise, hopefully you can provide some sort of answer -
"Will the gods be fully fleshed-out stat blocks in 4e? Most folks took exception to that"
The biggest problem in FR, as far as I can see, is the fact that mortals know TOO MUCH about their gods. Deities need to remain somewhat enigmatic, and giving them stat-blocks, or silly cameo appearances in novels just turns them into 'uber-monsters' IMHO.
Please, PLEASE... we have enough about the gods themselves (too much, really). Give us a book on RELIGIONS of the Realms in 4e!!! We all know who they are - that sort of thing belongs in the FRCG. With this 'downsizing' of the pantheons in 4e, I hope the reasoning behind it was to create lots of 'mini pantheons' (like the Triad), that logically thought-out religions can be shaped around. I figure their will be about 10-15 of these little groups in FR by the time your done with the SP, so it IS doable in a single book this time (if you leave out stat blocks!!!). Lists of known churches is good, and maybe the stats on the single high priest of each religion. Also, pantheon* specific priests of each group; either PrCs or replacement levels. Something along the lines of 2e's sources, but combined into one tome - which should be no problem with the way the cosmology is being set-up around Greater Gods and their domains.
* We need some sort of term for these mini-pantheons, like the Triad.
I'd rather see a book on the island kingdoms as a whole (Moonshae, Lantan, Nimbral, Ruathym) than just one. That's 1e FR thinking, when hardcovers weren't the norm.
I think that a book on the island kingdoms would be very good. It could also include Evermeet. The combination of all five of those would easily fill a 160 page book.
What I really want is a series of books that gives an updated history/lore of each of the areas of the Realms. I really hope they do not just reprint all of the 3.x Realms materials with "Updated to 4th Edition" stickered on the front cover. Show us the Lands of Intrigue, the Heartlands, the Hordelands, the Utter East, Zahkara, Kara-Tur, Osse, et cetera. I understand each needs a certain amount of crunch, but what I really want is lore, lore, and more lore. I heard that the Serpent Kingdoms had a good balance of rules to lore. I do not know this for a fact though as I have not gotten my hands on a copy yet, and I am sure that the preferred ratio varies from person to person. That would be one of the best things that the designers could do for the new Realms accessories: discover the best ratio of lore to crunch.
I think that a book on the island kingdoms would be very good. It could also include Evermeet. The combination of all five of those would easily fill a 160 page book.
That assumes Evermeet will still be around. If it is, then that would be welcome.
I think the old way of doing things is done and gone. Even the 3/3.5 way of covering certain areas has changed. There's a marked difference between Serpent Kingdoms and, for example, Mysteries of the Moonsea. Neither are bad, just different. Perhaps we'll see gameooks like "Intrigues of the Inner Sea", which will be a way to touch on a few nooks not covered by other products while handling the main subject (seafaring, lost islands, the shalarn, and the like).
(Speaking in an O' Reilly overtone): So what say you, Mr. Baker?
I am having a very difficult time seeing any way I will ever buy another FR product after GHotR (which I greatly enjoyed overall) .
I hope I'm being civil and well reasoned, but the new storyline and 4E in general not only fail to capture my imagination, but they repel and disturb me. I hope I'm being premature, but my experience suggests otherwise.
They are not going to change what they have done folks. Why? Because even the people on these boards that saythey will not pick up the new products will probably pick up the new products. Most gamers do that. Even if it takes two years to pick it up. WOTC probably realizesthis. They probably are hoping they can get some fans BACK that they lost to other Campaign Settings. To me it seems that this is being done to try and keep FR alive and kicking. We shal see in a few years at what will be the final result.
I am not a total fan of the new stuff either, I see the good and bad in it. I am just an average fan though, not really a drama queen. Most of my friends are what I would call average fans. Some dislike some of the ideas of the new FR but will pick it up redardless.
I'm wondering if 4E will have a set of NPC Classes like 3e had the Adept, Warrior, Aristocrat, Expert, Commoner? If so, how do you see the Realms making use of them? Wide use through out the setting closer to Eberron's NPC implementation? Or something else entirely? If not will there be some system to replace them in 4E?
Thanks for your answers.
Not saying one way or another. Buy if you like, wait if you want.
A lot of folks will buy because Ed gets to write 50,000 words for it. Good, I say. And unless they pull the chainsaws out then at the beginning (as opposed to trimming a bit here and there), there's a real chance it'll sell well. Balancing possible new FR converts vs. those thinking of taking a pass, hmm, it's all numbers.
If we go by the RotA trilogy, his Heart bleeding original Weave magic, had something to do with Shar and the Shadow-weave.
(... also wonder how archmages like Ioulaum and Aumvor, or Sarrukh like the Terraseer figure into a future where Netheril is alive again)
@Rich Baker: Are we going to be getting more material on Karsus? Is his heart or the rest of him expected to appear again in the story any time soon?
If we go by the RotA trilogy, his Heart bleeding original Weave magic, had something to do with Shar and the Shadow-weave.
(... also wonder how archmages like Ioulaum and Aumvor, or Sarrukh like the Terraseer figure into a future where Netheril is alive again)
I know that "Lord Karsus" posts in these forums like...everyday! ;) :P :D
Now onto some questions of my own:
With regards to the 'promotion of races' to player races in the Forgotten Realms, I like it, after all FR has a tradition of including the planetouched races, especially Tieflings (already in the PHB and thus with no need of promotion), Genasi (being promoted) and Aasimar. Unfortunately, I see no mention of my favorite planetouched race, the Aasimar, being promoted in the Realms. Is this just a meaningless lack of a mention, or does it mean that Aasimar are not being promoted to a full-blown player race in FR, although they were a FR race in 3/3.5 Edition? I enjoy playing the Aasimar and it would be a pity not to have them fully included, particularly when all the other planetouched races seem to be making the cut.
Has it been considered to integrate the plots of some CRPGs set in the Forgotten Realms into the events that are remaking the Realms at the dusk of 3.XE? I am particularly thinking of Neverwinter Nights 2, where if there is another expansion (as seems likely) you could have the player participate in remaking the Realms (perhaps slaying some deity or something else). This would still advance the story of the realms yet give the players a feeling that they were the movers and shakers. I would love to see something like that and thus be given the chance to be able to participate in shaping the Realms. Furthermore, it also fits with the tighter digital/PnP integration WotC has planned for the 4th edition.
Rich,
I'm wondering if 4E will have a set of NPC Classes like 3e had the Adept, Warrior, Aristocrat, Expert, Commoner? If so, how do you see the Realms making use of them? Wide use through out the setting closer to Eberron's NPC implementation? Or something else entirely? If not will there be some system to replace them in 4E?
Thanks for your answers.
We have some ideas about the aasimar, but they're a little behind the other planetouched right now. I don't really have much I can reveal about 'em yet, sorry.
I'll have to check on the CRPG angle. I don't directly interact with our license partners--all I do is occasionally read over a story treatment or document. So I'm actually not very well informed about what's coming down the pike next. I'll make a point of educating myself a bit before answering.
First of all kudos on this thread. I am impressed by the number of designer (read Rich Baker) comments and the amount of interaction with the community.
Now onto some questions of my own:
With regards to the 'promotion of races' to player races in the Forgotten Realms, I like it, after all FR has a tradition of including the planetouched races, especially Tieflings (already in the PHB and thus with no need of promotion), Genasi (being promoted) and Aasimar. Unfortunately, I see no mention of my favorite planetouched race, the Aasimar, being promoted in the Realms. Is this just a meaningless lack of a mention, or does it mean that Aasimar are not being promoted to a full-blown player race in FR, although they were a FR race in 3/3.5 Edition? I enjoy playing the Aasimar and it would be a pity not to have them fully included, particularly when all the other planetouched races seem to be making the cut.
Has it been considered to integrate the plots of some CRPGs set in the Forgotten Realms into the events that are remaking the Realms at the dusk of 3.XE? I am particularly thinking of Neverwinter Nights 2, where if there is another expansion (as seems likely) you could have the player participate in remaking the Realms (perhaps slaying some deity or something else). This would still advance the story of the realms yet give the players a feeling that they were the movers and shakers. I would love to see something like that and thus be given the chance to be able to participate in shaping the Realms. Furthermore, it also fits with the tighter digital/PnP integration WotC has planned for the 4th edition.
I have an interesting (as I see it) question. It begins with a little of history though. With 3e, we saw a whole bunch of stuff in the original core books that got expanded on and improved in the 3e Realms books. Then the 3.5e core books came out and outright took things from the Realms books to supplement the core books. With the whole "hack to pieces and put it back together" approach to the 4e Realms, does that mean that the 4e core books and 4e Realms books being built to complement each other this time?
Sorry, Rich, but you still need to be stopped.
We're carefully coordinating the mechanical content of the FR books and the core books for 2008. A place for everything, and everything in its place. Broadly speaking, generic D&D spells or items or character options won't appear in FR sourcebooks -- if a spell or item appears in FR, it's because it really belongs to the setting.
What about things getting stolen from FR and placed in the core?
Although that's very competent of you, I still believe in the drop of **** in the jug of wine argument.
Sorry, Rich, but you still need to be stopped.
Duuude...I'm a bit ornery and disgruntled as well but c'mon...
I'd like to point out that they have given us no information on how life on Toril will survive physically once the weave is destroyed. Literally, everyone on Toril should drop dead the moment the spellplague hits like puppets with their strings cut.
In order to learn more you're supposed to purchase the FRCS. Explaining everything beforehand would make little sense, business-wise, wouldn't it?
DB
In order to learn more you're supposed to purchase the FRCS. Explaining everything beforehand would make little sense, business-wise, wouldn't it?
DB
If they think that I am going to buy the FRCG to find out, then they should think again. I refuse to buy any 4e Realms products until they explain the happenings at the end of the GHotR in greater detail, in a way that makes sense, and that is in character for the deities and NPCs involved.
Will it be possible to run FR in 4th edition rules without the changes to the FR?
This is one aspect of 4E FR I will most likely not adopt. I'll still keep dead the deities that kick the proverbial bucket, but there will still be clerics of all the now "helper" deities.
I think TSR got it dead right with Faiths & Avatars, Powers & Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities, probably my 3 favorite 2nd ed books. I still convert specialty priest classes into prestige classes for my current games, and will probably do the same in 4E.
The two books in our 2E FR campaign that wore thru were Faiths & Avatars and All Things Magical.
Although that's very competent of you, I still believe in the drop of **** in the jug of wine argument.
Sorry, Rich, but you still need to be stopped.
I don't think you're being fair now -- as Chris Perkins has stated, all these changes have been planned years ago by the FR Design Team consisting of many authors and designers. And don't forget that many others have since participated in planning more changes (e.g. those that are required by the chainges in the game mechanics). As far as I'm concerned -- I'm mad as hell at these changes, but still I don't point my finger at one man, who loves the Realms and in my opinion has done his job pretty well.
If they think that I am going to buy the FRCG to find out, then they should think again. I refuse to buy any 4e Realms products until they explain the happenings at the end of the GHotR in greater detail, in a way that makes sense, and that is in character for the deities and NPCs involved.
I guess you can forget about "in character" since Tyr slew Helm over Tymora ;)
DB
You are catching a lot of flack on various threads for, “....giving us the ------- Shadow Weave.” (expletive deleted) on these forums.
I know you posted a bit about the history behind the topic of the Shadow Weave and Shade on the Realms-L mailing list (and at least one list member dredged up an earlier quote of yours from the List archives on that topic), but would you be willing to take a moment to summarize for the rest of us your recollections of what ‘went down’ RE: the Shadow Weave and Shade?
I recall you mentioned that back in 1999 you, the 3E FRCS Design Team and Julia Martin met with Ed Greenwood in Toronto to discuss the (then) coming changes to the Realms.
Thank you in advance!
As for the whole god subject, I'm not going to rake you over the coals on this one, I believe you trying to make the best game you can so I'm not going to pass judgment. But I will agree, with alot of the people on the forum, that some of the things Like Tyr Killing Helm over Tymora is hilarious and out of character.
But for some odd reason I Believe you have some thing up your sleeve on that one. Could Cyric, Mask, or Shar be involved? I might not get a answer but I had to try.
The one thing I can tell you, is all the back and forth in the debate is not new, I've seen it several time before, in comics, look at D.C. Infinite crisis, or Marvels Secret war. Every body was in uproar, before hand, but once things happened everything settled down.
So stick to your guns, even if we don't like what your putting out in the final product, as one creator to another, you can only do the best you can.
You earned my patience and respect.
By the way I have a few ideas about the whys and what happens after the spell plague that I will be posting in the general section its more for entertainment sake than anything, but I thought everyone might like to see the Ideas that have blossomed from the Spell Plague seed that has been thrown out there.
What would have happened if there was no 4E coming out and the Spell Plague was just a event? I wonder what would people say to that?
What would have happened if there was no 4E coming out and the Spell Plague was just a event? I wonder what would people say to that?
Well speaking for myself propably exactly the same....I think most others would be saying the same thing to.
Well speaking for myself propably exactly the same....I think most others would be saying the same thing to.
Magnuskn here...the stupid new account system won´t let me in with my old name, so here I go with something more RP-like. :D
Yeah, the *storyline* foolishness is what turns me off the 4E Realms, not the new rules system. I mean, Tyr and Tymora? Really? No, really?
Well speaking for myself propably exactly the same....I think most others would be saying the same thing to.
QFT!:D
Please WotC think of the kittens!!!
Question: How do you feel about the changes mentioned at the end of the Grand History of the Realms?
- I hate the changes! What the hell were they thinking? [41%] 39 votes
- I dislike them, but I could live with them if they are presented in a manner that makes sense. [28%] 27 votes
- I like the changes, but have some reservations about what they entail. [13%] 12 votes
- I like the changes and I feel very positive about the direction being taken with the update. [13%] 12 votes
- I don''t care either way. (Please mention reason in a post.) [6%] 6 votes
A) Realms Theme: The weave runs through every person, animal, object, and drop of air on Toril. It is the force that through the green fuse drives the flower.
B) Every animal, person, and object on Toril is subject to a spellplague, where people go mad, completely insane, or drop dead.
Therefore...
C) No one gets out alive.
This is ridiculous. It doesn't fit the realms, there should have been a better way to do it, and quite frankly, no matter what Dove Falconhand did, this is the most stupid unheroic heroic fantasy story ever told.
Anything that involves a big disease is always dumb.
Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!
DB
While I agree that most of what we heard so far sounds extremely lame, you might want to consider refraining from using, uh... dubious slogans. If I were Mr. Baker, having to read this nonsense in every one of your posts would make me much less inclined to read what else you have to say. Just my two cents.
DB
QFT!!!:D
DB
A) Realms Theme: The weave runs through every person, animal, object, and drop of air on Toril. It is the force that through the green fuse drives the flower.
....and you're overstating things, as usual.
Twice before the goddess of magic has been destroyed, and twice before there was no uber-death of all things.
The Weave doesn't sustain creation in Realmspace. It never did.
msatran's unimaginative, tunnel-vision rules for the Realms must be stopped!
I'd like to point out that they have given us no information on how life on Toril will survive physically once the weave is destroyed. Literally, everyone on Toril should drop dead the moment the spellplague hits like puppets with their strings cut.
You must be the worst DM evah! You cannot come up with a reason people survive? ;) You are one of the most prolific whiners on the these boards.;)
See, everytime I do ;) after I say something sarcastic I can get away with it.;)
Just joking. I really like you and your repetitive post MS. ;) You really are imaginaitive and a wonderful forum personality.;)
I'd like to point out that they have given us no information on how life on Toril will survive physically once the weave is destroyed. Literally, everyone on Toril should drop dead the moment the spellplague hits like puppets with their strings cut.
You mean like when Karsus cast his Avatar spell and magic stopped working long enough for the enclaves to fall? And how people drop dead in antimagic fields?
....and you're overstating things, as usual.
Twice before the goddess of magic has been destroyed, and twice before there was no uber-death of all things.
The Weave doesn't sustain creation in Realmspace. It never did.
msatran's unimaginative, tunnel-vision rules for the Realms must be stopped!
Actualy it isn't a quick death...never has been descibed it would be. It takes years maybe even decades. Both times the weave been disrupted have been very short periods of time.
Wow talk about unimaginative and tunnel-vision veiws of the Realms.
Or possibly not, as KtM's post seems to have blasted that idea out of the water... damned Archmages. :P
Actualy it isn't a quick death...never has been descibed it would be. It takes years maybe even decades. Both times the weave been disrupted have been very short periods of time.
Wow talk about unimaginative and tunnel-vision veiws of the Realms.
I doubt it's a slow death as well. There's numerous things that can certainly be interpreted as such, but I don't think it's ever been set in stone fact.
September 27, 2005: Hello again, all. Ed replies to Kuje's plea for a debate-ending response to this: "What would happen to Realmspace/Toril/Faerun if the Weave was completely destroyed or Mystra was and no deity replaced the Weave or her? You've hinted in the past but some posters need more then hints to get the clear picture. And is Chauntea more powerful then Mystra because Chauntea has a higher divine rank according to Faiths & Pantheons even though you've repeatedly said Mystra is more powerful."
Ed speaks:
First and foremost, all gamers should remember that none of the information about the gods of the Realms can truly be trusted: it's a collection of what mortals imperfectly understand and can visualize (muddied by the 'pet theories' of many sages and priests, both current and down the centuries) about divine beings who may or may not impart accurate information to their worshippers (as the power of deities is related to the number and strength of their worshippers, it's best to think of deities as somewhat akin to used-car salesmen in the real world, presenting everything to make themselves look good or at least vitally necessary and as important as possible). So arguments about specifics of the gods (as opposed to their mortal churches and faithful) are essentially futile, because none of the data those arguing use can be trusted.
With that said, the Weave can most precisely be defined as a system of "seeing" (identifying, understanding, and influencing or "calling on") the natural flows of energy in Realmspace/Toril/Faerûn.
Some folk say the Weave IS magic, and that magic is natural energy harnessed. Priests of Mystra often say that "Mystra IS the Weave."
The priests are correct: Mystra is the Weave, and if there was another deity controlling magic, whatever precise system of harnessing natural energies (whether it was called the Weave or not) would be (at the least) subtly different from the Weave as Faerûnians know it today.
The "some folk" in my sentence above are for all practical daily purposes correct, but not precisely accurate: the Weave is the predominant and "most correct" (and thus, most powerful) means of harnessing natural energies: in other words, it is magic but it's not the ONLY magic (as evidenced by the Shadow Weave and other, less-powerful alternatives to the Weave: table magic, pluma magic, etc.).
It seems likely that to destroy Mystra would be to destroy the Weave, and vice versa (I say likely because a lot would depend on the deeds and dispositions of other "deities of magic" like Azuth, Savras, Velsharoon, and the nonhuman deities concerned with governance over magic, at the time of the fall of Mystra and/or the Weave). This would NOT mean that Realmspace/Toril/Faerûn would necessarily be destroyed, nor that magic would 'go away.' It probably would mean a lot of widespread magical chaos, and magic that thereafter 'worked differently' (either wholly or subtly) from the system of spells described in the current game rulebooks - - because they deal with magic in Faerûn "under the Weave." So a DM who wants to change magic in his or her Realms campaign to a spell-points system, or back to the spell levels and descriptions of earlier D&D editions, or substitute magic systems from other games, or just "tinker" with the published spells, could readily use a "destruction of the Weave" catacalysm as an in-game reason for such alterations.
As for the differing ranks of Chauntea and Mystra: two factors apply here. The first is that divine "rankings" are part of the game rules, a way of expressing relative power relationships AS MORTALS SEE THEM. In other words, Lolth doesn't turn to Malar and say, "Nyah nyah! I'm an Intermediate Deity and you're only a Lesser Deity!" (Why? Because neither of them even knows the terms, let alone clearly understands or accepts the power differences between them.)
The gods carry on endless struggles for supremacy and influence, tempered by their natures (which are in large part governed by their portfolios: in other words, Tempus is a warlike, competitive god, but Eldath isn't, and never will be; Tempus may do aggressive things but any violence Eldath engages in will essentially be defensive or retributive), but they don't get little gold stars or anything else that tells them their divine rank today.
They can often sense their relative level of power versus another deity, but may well be wrong: Realms fiction is full of scenes wherein gods obviously have different views over who's most powerful, and who should prevail.
Moreover, the importance of a deity in the eyes of mortals has to do with how important they are, and how liked (or rather welcomed) they are, versus how feared they may be.
Humans have to eat, so agriculture and the bounty of nature are more important than magic (remember, game adventures and fiction tend to concentrate on power, and therefore on magic and its users and on adventurers and royalty more than the majority of "folk really living in the Realms" would) and fear abundantly-growing vegetables (remember, blights, diseases, poisonings, and natural crop-destroying disasters like storms, early winter weather, mudslides, and volcanic eruptions are all blamed on other deities) a lot less than they do magic (which is important, but not quite as important as food). Advantage Chauntea.
The second factor is the deliberate distribution of Mystra's power amongst other deities (Azuth, et al) and among mortals (her Chosen), lessening her "true total" of power. Again, advantage Chauntea.
So Chauntea is more essential to the lives of more humans in Faerûn, and thus more powerful - - but by her natural-cycles, nuturing nature a lot more passive and slow-moving. Chauntea can't and doesn't lash out with her power. Mystra can, and (sometimes, especially in Realms-shaking times or when her portfolio is held by a green recent-mortal who's still "learning the ropes") does. Mystra can call up and wield far more power than Chauntea (so is "more powerful" by THAT measure) and is more important among the gods, because all gods use (and dispense to mortals) magic, and Mystra has successfully gained control over magic through the Weave (gods can bypass her to call on natural forces directly only in limited ways, simulated in 2nd Edition by the ability of priests to gain 1st and 2nd level spells without contact with the gods). So Mystra can influence the relative powers of gods in their struggles with each other, by how she limits or augments the specific amount of natural energies specific gods can source, and precisely how they can do so (magic).
It's like the difference between a jackhammer and a tree: if you're defending a perfectly flat, flawless asphalt surface, a man with a jackhammer is an immediate threat whom you'll run to prevent first - - even though the roots of the tree, if not severed and the tree prevented from vigorously replacing them, will destroy the asphalt just as thoroughly.
I've blathered long enough; I hope this helps.
(Saith Ed, creator of Mystra, most of the other deities of Faerûn, Faerûn itself, and divine portfolios.)
Kuje, I added that last line in parentheses to Ed's words, but I suggest you include it when reposting to the Boards That Are Not Named, just to underscore the expertise Ed's arguing from, especially for younger gamers who tend to mentally separate "old gaming farts" from any understanding of game concepts and details they may currently be arguing about. :}
Ah, well. Back to true Realmslore next time.
love to all,
THO
Cyric is Pronounced "Seer-Ick". Cyric's followers are referred to as Cyricist's. However I have often called them --pronunciation wise-- "Seer-Ih-sist". Then I got to pondering, that it might just be "Seer-ick-ist".
So my question is, which pronunciation is the correct one. I have my suspicions, but I'll let it stand at this for now.
Ok, maybe this was asked before, but it's nothing big, so if it was it should procure me a quick answer.
Cyric is Pronounced "Seer-Ick". Cyric's followers are referred to as Cyricist's. However I have often called them --pronunciation wise-- "Seer-Ih-sist". Then I got to pondering, that it might just be "Seer-ick-ist".
So my question is, which pronunciation is the correct one. I have my suspicions, but I'll let it stand at this for now.
My question is why not "Sigh-Rick"? That's how I always pronounced it, and when I saw the official version I was
."Sigh-Ri-Cist" sounds better for the followers too.
That said, I can imagine a topped-out party (30th level) finishing off a campaign by fighting and killing Bane or Cyric. After, mortal Bane and his pals showed up in Jergal's court with exactly that plan one fine morning a long time ago. But I don't think we'd feel that we had to fully "stat out" every deity in the pantheon if we decided to write an adventure where the epic-level PCs wound up taking on one deity.
Good Mr. Baker, while we're at it a couple of doors down the board: Since you're mucking out the pantheon anyway - hopefully in a manner that makes a modicum of sense, demotes a plethora of gods to mere messenger / saint status and gives the remaining gods a more believable profile and reason for their existence -, are there any plans to give us detailed info on the various religions (maybe even different rites because of different interpretations of the respective deity) instead of updated stat-blocks for the whole bunch? A logical and well fleshed out religious system forms the heart and soul of a setting like the Realms - I should hope that you use this chance to go the whole hog and improve it in this regard instead of just reducing the number of gods.
DB
I doubt it's a slow death as well. There's numerous things that can certainly be interpreted as such, but I don't think it's ever been set in stone fact.
I'll say this they were alot of coulds, maybes, and other open statements.
Also note the date...it was pretty much after the meeting that outlined the changes.
Myself, I've always said it "See-rick" but then called his minions "See-rih-sists." I know it doesn't make much sense, but there it is.
Ok, maybe this was asked before, but it's nothing big, so if it was it should procure me a quick answer.
Cyric is Pronounced "Seer-Ick". Cyric's followers are referred to as Cyricist's. However I have often called them --pronunciation wise-- "Seer-Ih-sist". Then I got to pondering, that it might just be "Seer-ick-ist".
So my question is, which pronunciation is the correct one. I have my suspicions, but I'll let it stand at this for now.
Regarding the Spellplague and the Chosen of Mystra (and other deities), I'm afraid that's one of the things we know but just can't reveal yet. I've got to keep it under my hat for a few months still.
Hello Mr. Baker. Since every one is chiming on the big forgotten realms debate, my question is this. Mr Baker, how will the spell plague affect the chosen of Mystra, as well as the various other chosen of the the gods such as Bane?
As for the whole god subject, I'm not going to rake you over the coals on this one, I believe you trying to make the best game you can so I'm not going to pass judgment. But I will agree, with alot of the people on the forum, that some of the things Like Tyr Killing Helm over Tymora is hilarious and out of character.
But for some odd reason I Believe you have some thing up your sleeve on that one. Could Cyric, Mask, or Shar be involved? I might not get a answer but I had to try.
The one thing I can tell you, is all the back and forth in the debate is not new, I've seen it several time before, in comics, look at D.C. Infinite crisis, or Marvels Secret war. Every body was in uproar, before hand, but once things happened everything settled down.
So stick to your guns, even if we don't like what your putting out in the final product, as one creator to another, you can only do the best you can.
You earned my patience and respect.
By the way I have a few ideas about the whys and what happens after the spell plague that I will be posting in the general section its more for entertainment sake than anything, but I thought everyone might like to see the Ideas that have blossomed from the Spell Plague seed that has been thrown out there.
What would have happened if there was no 4E coming out and the Spell Plague was just a event? I wonder what would people say to that?
Mr. Baker,
Will it be possible to run FR in 4th edition rules without the changes to the FR?
I'll ask this question again.
I'm not sure I understand it, but I'll take a shot at rephrasing: Could I use the 4th Edition rules to run a Realms campaign set in 1372 DR?
(I picked 1372 because it's the year set in the 3rd Ed book.)
The answer is yes. You could run a fine 1372 FR game with the 4th Edition rules and the "world content" of a previous edition. The only hang-up I see is this: Would you be willing to pretend "of course magic was always this way"? And even then, it's not all that different in story terms. In other words, if I were writing a novel that contained a wizard duel from 3e and a wizard duel from 4e, I don't know that I would write those scenes differently. They'd look and feel very similar.
Most of the mechanical stuff will be out of date. The Purple Dragon Knight prestige class is going to function differently in 4e. But the idea behind the PDK prestige class is still fine, and you could use it as an inspiration for working out the 4e equivalent if you were so inclined.
I'll ask this question again.
Originally Posted by johnkretzer
Mr. Baker,
Will it be possible to run FR in 4th edition rules without the changes to the FR?
I am curious though, are there any discussions as to whether something like the FR Interactive Atlas might be a possibility for 4e? From what I gather a lot of the maps will be even more dated and obsolete than they already are.
Sorry, missed the question.
Not a problem. Things get lost.
I'm not sure I understand it, but I'll take a shot at rephrasing: Could I use the 4th Edition rules to run a Realms campaign set in 1372 DR?
(I picked 1372 because it's the year set in the 3rd Ed book.)
I actualy meant continue running the game without the changes that the design team feels are neccessary. I.E. the Spellplague, the Sune/Helm/Tyr/Tymora thing, and the mass slaughtering(or the reducing) of the pantheon.
The answer is yes. You could run a fine 1372 FR game with the 4th Edition rules and the "world content" of a previous edition. The only hang-up I see is this: Would you be willing to pretend "of course magic was always this way"? And even then, it's not all that different in story terms. In other words, if I were writing a novel that contained a wizard duel from 3e and a wizard duel from 4e, I don't know that I would write those scenes differently. They'd look and feel very similar.
Actualy they will be probably a big event to change it in my game. Though instead of taking the design teams idea of just destroying it...I am going to use it. Like I have said I can understand the reasons for the changes I just don't like the changes as they could have been done with a much more moderate approach.
Most of the mechanical stuff will be out of date. The Purple Dragon Knight prestige class is going to function differently in 4e. But the idea behind the PDK prestige class is still fine, and you could use it as an inspiration for working out the 4e equivalent if you were so inclined.
As long as the Purple Dragon Knights are there to protect Cormyr and serves the Crown mechanics mean little to me, as long as they continue to support the flavor.
But how much rewriting of it I am going have to do?
Meaning I already know if I convert to 4th I am going to have put Demons and Devils back the way they were. Also propably going to have heavily alter the elves and maybe dump the Eldarin. Also I like the battle of philosphies of the old cosomology so I got go back and fix that. I see alot of changes to flavor as unneccessary, my hope is that these flavor changes aren't too tied to the mechanics. But have yet to see anything that suggests otherwise.
Thank you again for replying to my questions. It means alot to me. Even if I disagree with the way the design teams is taking the game I do hope it works out for you guys.
I run a first edition campaign, and have since 1980, I moved to the realms when the realms came out...
The time of troubles left a really bad taste in my mouth...cyric going from a ftr/th to the holder of 4 gods portfolios, and then grabbing one from a fifth left my players accusing me of making a pet npc...I let them read the modules to clear my good name.
I'll let you have the same chance...
Why were the good gods played as so stupid in the GHoTR?
Mystra, in the heart of her own domain, bumped off by one of the most Mary Sues in existence...
The whole soap opera between Helm and Tyr...
I am getting a new sense of the MMorpg "OMG EVIL IS SO KEWL!1!1!" from what I am reading from the whole 4ED hints and teasers...
Please give me a reason to buy the 4ED campaign book...I would still have to monkeywrench it back to 1ED for my players...most of the modules I get have to be totally rebuilt anyway
Hi Rich...I am trying one last time since one of my players asked me nicely [and bribed me with a bacon double cheeseburger :D ].
So, for the sake of some of the last first edition AD&D players out there...may I get an answer for my questions?
I have to admit that I am beginning to lose hope
DB
Dear Mr. Baker, thanks for your reply. Doesn't look like I'll get my religions. So far I doubt that I'll like whatever you're cooking up in secret - although I'd be happy to be pleasantly surprised -, but in any case I wish you all the luck in the world for managing the less friendly hissy-fit-prone prophets of doom.
DB
I have a question for you and would perfer if you replied via PM but I have always to flesh these details out for my self. Or when I DM let the players do it for themselves. I generaly keep this stuff documented so it remain consistents but I also allow new players to add aspects to it.
Is there a reason you can't let the players in your game develope parts of the world themselves? I mean I don't mean any offense by this and hope you don't take any it just seems alien to me when the player's input isn't welcomed in a RPG.
A long time ago, you guys said "We will never touch Sembia. Develop it any way you like."
Now, it's developed. We lost that, too.
Veronica Mars bit the dust a while back, it won't be getting a revival.
(a fellow fan of the show)
I can't tell you which is "official." I mean, we still argue about Si-gill or Si-jill, and dr-ow or dr-owe.
Myself, I've always said it "See-rick" but then called his minions "See-rih-sists." I know it doesn't make much sense, but there it is.
Interesting. Thanks for the response.
Mr. Baker, that's no difference than saying those who have degrees in physics (hard 'k' sound) work as physicists (soft 's' sound). You're just following standard accepted pronunciation within the English language---even if you don't know the 'why'. ;)
Are perchance any cyricians around? :D
DB
Bad thing to say. I'm bad.
But I think due to my classical bent, I'll call myself a "Physikist" when I get my degree next year.
That being said, I pronounced it "SIGH-rick" for a few months, until I actually noticed in F&A the pronunciation was given as "SEER-ick." That may have been due to how much I consciously disliked the characters, or because I was unaware of any other similar word structures ("Cy"-..) to take cues from.
Now, if I saw it for the first time, too many years of Latin would make me pronounce it "Kigh-rick," which would just be a terrible collision of all sorts of phonetics.
Of course, this idea derives partly from my opinion that Mystra cannot develop new spells that aren't almost directly based on mortal work(otherwise, she'd know all possible spells and be far too great a god for any other to contend with)
Are there plans to make adventures where a party can play through the cataclysmic events leading up to 4e FR, like the old avatar trilogy adventures in 2nd ed?
Or is the Tearing of the Weave series the closest thing to that? I'm currently running that (and enjoying it), but I of course haven't seen the Anauroch book yet, and so don't know how deeply things progress towards the Spellplague.
I am curious though, are there any discussions as to whether something like the FR Interactive Atlas might be a possibility for 4e? From what I gather a lot of the maps will be even more dated and obsolete than they already are.
We're not planning on publishing any other stand-alone adventures until after the 4e Campaign Guide. But DUNGEON magazine might have something up its electronic sleeve.
Mr. Baker -
Are there plans to make adventures where a party can play through the cataclysmic events leading up to 4e FR, like the old avatar trilogy adventures in 2nd ed?
Or is the Tearing of the Weave series the closest thing to that? I'm currently running that (and enjoying it), but I of course haven't seen the Anauroch book yet, and so don't know how deeply things progress towards the Spellplague.
Chris P said that you guys have a schedule of when you can tell us what. Can you give some definite dates that we will be hearing concrete stuff about the "new" Realms?
--Hawkins
Hi, Roman, thanks for stopping by...
The pleasure is all mine.
We have some ideas about the aasimar, but they're a little behind the other planetouched right now. I don't really have much I can reveal about 'em yet, sorry.
That's OK. I am a patient man - as long as I can know that I will be able to play one eventually, I am fine with that. It is a bit of a pity that this won't be entirely feasible from the outset to the same extent as the other planetouched, but patience is a virtue and doubtlessly one of Aasimar virtues too. ;)
I'll have to check on the CRPG angle. I don't directly interact with our license partners--all I do is occasionally read over a story treatment or document. So I'm actually not very well informed about what's coming down the pike next. I'll make a point of educating myself a bit before answering.
Ok, I will wait patiently what you can find out about the matter.
And no Lanten book? Nuts and double nuts. I really wanted one. I've always been a gnome fan.
Rich,
Chris P said that you guys have a schedule of when you can tell us what. Can you give some definite dates that we will be hearing concrete stuff about the "new" Realms?
--Hawkins
I think you'll see something pretty substantial on D&D Insider in December (and they might have something for you in November, too). After that, you'll see some sort of preview article every month until the Campaign Guide comes out. I'm afraid I can't be any more specific than that.
It's better than nothing!
We're going to handle NPCs in a new way. More than that, I can't say right now (don't want to scoop the core rules team on something they're working up).
Thanks for the reply Rich. I'm curious on this new way to handle NPC stats.
On to another question, I read what you were allowed to say on Mystra's replacement (or lack thereof), I wonder if there will be a replacement for Helm? I'd appreciate any answer you can give on this, even if it's necessarily vague. Thanks.
Well it be possible to run the Realms on a divulgent timeline(without the spellplague, and other events etc.) in 4th edition? I plan on having a event happen that will alter magic, though actualy using the Weave and Mystra to do so instead of destroying them.
Let me try to clear up a question I asked befor by be more distinct in the question...
Well it be possible to run the Realms on a divulgent timeline(without the spellplague, and other events etc.) in 4th edition? I plan on having a event happen that will alter magic, though actualy using the Weave and Mystra to do so instead of destroying them.
I'm probably not who you want to hear from... but the answer is -of course- yes, you can make FR whatever you want in your home game. Rich Baker is NOT going to show up and tell you that you are playing "wrong".
DB
The 3e map still feels kind of Cramped to me. At the time I enjoyed the shrinkage, but everytime I try to drop something in to my version of the realms I run into history.
Anyways, making the world/map the original size again seems like an easy way to make the FR more Core.
Rich- Are you guys going to go back to the 1e-2e map size? Its funny because the new 'Core' idea of a thousand points of light, blah blah blah, actually is the 'Core' idea of the original Realms.
The 3e map still feels kind of Cramped to me. At the time I enjoyed the shrinkage, but everytime I try to drop something in to my version of the realms I run into history.
Anyways, making the world/map the original size again seems like an easy way to make the FR more Core.
What exactly are you talking about here? I personally loved the big fold-out map included with the 3e FRCS, and wished that more the of the 3e supplements had had fold-out maps. I also only have 3e Realms supplements, so I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "the original size."
I'm probably not who you want to hear from... but the answer is -of course- yes, you can make FR whatever you want in your home game. Rich Baker is NOT going to show up and tell you that you are playing "wrong".
You never know he could be the head of the Realmsstapo!;) :P
I'm probably not who you want to hear from... but the answer is -of course- yes, you can make FR whatever you want in your home game. Rich Baker is NOT going to show up and tell you that you are playing "wrong".
I have not seen anything that indicates that you can without alot of reworking. I want to get a idea about the kind of work involved in the process.
I didn't understand the question either. "Is it possible to run the Realms on a divergent timeline?" Why, of course it is - that's what I've been doing for twenty years, and I guess there are a couple of thousands of other GMs who have done so, too.
DB
I have not seen anything that indicates that you can without alot of reworking. I want to get a idea about the kind of work involved in the process.
DB
What exactly are you talking about here? I personally loved the big fold-out map included with the 3e FRCS, and wished that more the of the 3e supplements had had fold-out maps. I also only have 3e Realms supplements, so I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "the original size."
The original FR map, covered about twice as much area there were two main differences: 1, it contained alot more areas that were uninhabited by humans, for instance the region between say Yartar and Silverymoon, was huge and uninhabited, and 2, The scale was bigger, i.e. where now Silverymoon and Waterdeep are about 600 miles away, then they were like 1200 (this is an approximation I don't remember the realnumber).
Anyways, that map certainly explained how a Horde of orcs could boil up out of nowhere, and every city of the north was somewhat isolated from every other city.
(For the record I ignored most of the shrinking landmass. Whatever. Most of the Realms has been fly-over space for the purposes of my own adventures.)
So thumbs-up if that's what they revert to, thumbs-down if they also eliminate Evermeet via the Sundering (as opposed to just tweaking the consequences of the Sundering).
With regard to upcoming material, if we stick to what we've got now then (for the most part) we'll end up treating future FR supplements as splatbooks. Just cherry-picking.
When something that appears in an FR sourcebook is reprinted with changes in a non-FR sourcebook, even when both are 3.5 material, which version are we expected to use? Ie. which is considered up-to-date, which is official, and which is a non-FR variant? And there's no Errata or patches to go by?
Some random examples:
* Bladesinger: Races Of Faerun 3rd, or Complete Warrior 3.5?
* Domains: Player's Guide To Faerun 3.5 or Spell Compendium 3.5? For example, Metal, which lost the possibility of exotic hammers.
* Half-Drow: Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd or Drow Of The Underdark 3.5? A half-elf with darkvision or 1st level feat?
And so on. There's probaby many more cases of this.
And I can't houserule it, I have up to 300 players.
***
And the obligatory 4e question:
Can we have our Realms back? Please?
Guess all the drow parents of the half-drow were really polymorphed surface elves, eh?
But anyhow...
A completely non-4e question:
When something that appears in an FR sourcebook is reprinted with changes in a non-FR sourcebook, even when both are 3.5 material, which version are we expected to use? Ie. which is considered up-to-date, which is official, and which is a non-FR variant? And there's no Errata or patches to go by?
Some random examples:
* Bladesinger: Races Of Faerun 3rd, or Complete Warrior 3.5?
* Domains: Player's Guide To Faerun 3.5 or Spell Compendium 3.5? For example, Metal, which lost the possibility of exotic hammers.
* Half-Drow: Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd or Drow Of The Underdark 3.5? A half-elf with darkvision or 1st level feat?
And so on. There's probaby many more cases of this.
And I can't houserule it, I have up to 300 players.
***
And the obligatory 4e question:
Can we have our Realms back? Please?
The newest version of a PrC/spell/feat/et cetera always trumps the older version. It says that in most of the books. I didn't know that they nerfed the half-drow, that is silly. Darkvision is what made it a half-drow and not a half-elf.
There appears to have been an observed precedent in numerous 3.5 FR products that if a cross-referenced game feature from another product exists in both a FR accessory and in a Generic D&D accessory, that they more often than not will reference the FR version, even if that version is older.
One such example is in City of Splendors: Waterdeep. The leader of clergy of Talos, Sumer of Calimport, has levels in the Stormlord prestige class. The prestige class originally appeared the FR accessory Faiths and Pantheons, but was later given a generic revision in Complete Divine.
City of Splendors: Waterdeep cites both of those accessories among many D&D books referenced within its pages, and the generic D&D accessory (Complete Divine) does contain the newest version of the Stormlord prestige class. Yet, despite this, City of Splendors: Waterdeep still references the older version of the prestige class, citing its original Forgotten Realms source in the statistics line for the cleric of Talos.
The same has occurred in other instances in other books as well, and would seem to indicate that the FR version is the preferred one.
Beyond that, the vast majority of 3E FR content that actually needed to be revised in light of the edition change was largely taken care of in the 3.5 Core Rulebooks and in the Player's Guide to Faerûn. Everything else is essentially fine as is, and that was more or less noted in the aforementioned edition-shift guide. Beyond that, the majority of revisions of FR content that have subsequently occurred in generic products have either been arguably pointless alterations unrelated to game balance, or they have been makeovers of names and historical lore to remove all traces of the realms from them, in order to make them more palatable to Faerûn-a-phobic gamers from other campaign settings. Examples of the both can be found in the revisions of Elminster's evasion and Alamanther's return in the Spell Compendium. Both spells had their names transformed into uninspiring generic titles that anyone mildly proficient in the English language could have performed on their own, without the need to spend 39.95 USD. Both also had their effects significantly reduced, but simultaneously also had their costs in casting reduced or removed as well. Thus, both spells were altered mechanically, but clearly not due to any imbalance in the power of the spells themselves, but rather to accede to the playing preferences of those tasked with revising them.
In my humble opinion, if one is playing a FR campaign, then generally speaking the FR source should take precedent over a generic source, especially if the newer version is little more than a pointlessly revised or lore-stripped version tossed to fans of other settings.
Rich,
Will Star Elves be the new Eladrins in the FR?
Thanks.
"Silence is golden, but my eyes still see..."
Selunatic2397, probably one of the last 1ED DMs still gaming
Actually, I expect that sun elves, moon elves, and star elves would all fall into the description of "eladrin" for game stats, while wood elves and green elves would be "elves." But we're still going to call them sun elves, star elves, etc., for the most part. Nobody in Faerun would call those folks eladrins, they'd call them ar-tel-quessir, sun elves, or gold elves.
That's good to know. The realms where always very different when it came to elven sub-races. Will the Moon Elves and Sun Elves have small differences with the racial features? For example in 2ed Sun Elves had good skill for mounting and some Moon Elves could choose to have less wisdom instead of constitution.
Actually, I expect that sun elves, moon elves, and star elves would all fall into the description of "eladrin" for game stats, while wood elves and green elves would be "elves." But we're still going to call them sun elves, star elves, etc., for the most part. Nobody in Faerun would call those folks eladrins, they'd call them ar-tel-quessir, sun elves, or gold elves.
Reading the "for game stats" part makes me think that there won´t be Eladrin with that name in Faerûn (as in the new core Eladrin), and they´ll all be called elves, but they´ll use the Eladrin´s mechanics in some cases, and the Elves mechanics in other cases. Talk about a mess...
Should we take this as an assumption that not all the core races will be available in the FRCG as choices (which wouldn´t bother me much, to be honest, since what we´ve seen for core so far seems to deviate from what already existed for the FR enough that it doesn´t work 100% properly)?
Also what about the Avariel, the Lythari and the sea elves?
Also what about the Avariel, the Lythari and the sea elves?
I am especially interested in the Lythari. The way they were represented in Races of Faerun made them seem little different from other lycanthropes.
The Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (4e) may be more useful to you, since it will have lots of good character generation info and material such as an updated region approach, new FR races and classes, etc.
If you're adopting neither the "Post-Spellplague" Realms nor the 4th Edition D&D rules, well, then in all honesty neither book would be worth much to you.
I am wondering if I choose to ignore the Spellplague and other nonsense seen in the changes in the previews, will there be any point in buying a 4e FRCS? The changes appear to be so drastic that the 'old' Realms and 'new' Realms seem to be incompatable. So if I take the 'its always been this way' approach to themechanics changes and ignore the fluff changes will I find anything at all of use in the new books?
All core D&D races will be represented in FR. Realms includes everything in core D&D.
Reading the "for game stats" part makes me think that there won´t be Eladrin with that name in Faerûn (as in the new core Eladrin), and they´ll all be called elves, but they´ll use the Eladrin´s mechanics in some cases, and the Elves mechanics in other cases. Talk about a mess...
Should we take this as an assumption that not all the core races will be available in the FRCG as choices (which wouldn´t bother me much, to be honest, since what we´ve seen for core so far seems to deviate from what already existed for the FR enough that it doesn´t work 100% properly)?
All core D&D races will be represented in FR. Realms includes everything in core D&D.
Doesn't that mean that Warforged will be included in the 4e Realms, since they will be in the 4e Monster Manual? I thought you said earlier that Warforged would not be in the 4e Realms? Not that I care overly much, I let one of my players play a warforged in a campaign, but I know that others do.
I have read that as a character levels, the character also gains new racial abilities. To me it seems that the Reincarnation spell would be extremely… messy. For example, a (deceased) level 6 elf is reincarnated as a dwarf. I suppose the racial levels could be converted to the new race, or you could have an aberant combination of racial abilities, or you could drop the reincarnation spell?
If God is in the details, it is no wonder the design team is full of gaming evangelists.
Thanks, John
Actually, I expect that sun elves, moon elves, and star elves would all fall into the description of "eladrin" for game stats, while wood elves and green elves would be "elves." But we're still going to call them sun elves, star elves, etc., for the most part. Nobody in Faerun would call those folks eladrins, they'd call them ar-tel-quessir, sun elves, or gold elves.
This is a very good call. Whereas I like the fact that elves have been thematically separated into three mechanically distinct races (Eladrin, Drow and Elves), as I have surmised would happen (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=925135), it would have been extremely jarring to apply this to existing campaign worlds and especially to Forgotten Realms, which has a long tradition of elven subraces. Once again, this is an excellent call, in my humble opinion.
Assuming that you adopt the 4th Edition ruleset but keep your campaign pre-Spellplague, you may be able to skip the 4e FR Campaign Guide. The new campaign book does include a good amount of information you'll want for playing 4th Ed. D&D in the Realms (for example, monster and villain stats, magic items, etc.) but it's roughly 75% story to 25% mechanics.
The Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (4e) may be more useful to you, since it will have lots of good character generation info and material such as an updated region approach, new FR races and classes, etc.
If you're adopting neither the "Post-Spellplague" Realms nor the 4th Edition D&D rules, well, then in all honesty neither book would be worth much to you.
I appreciate the reply Mr.Baker.
I will take a good look at 4e mechanics certainly. From what we know about them thus far they do seem solid. At the same time what Ive seen of 4e Forgotten Realms doesnt look good to me and I likely wont adopt any of the 4e Realms story. So I intend to continue the Realms without the updates, creating my own FR timeline as necessary, and when/if I adopt 4e mechanics, simply go with an its always been that way switch.
Will that 25% mechanics and the PLayers Guide you mentioned be stuff that will be also available in core books? Will the mechanics in them be setting specific? I suspect the answer to at least the second is no, but perhaps you will make my day and say yes.
I just don't get the way the design team is working on it.
This is a very good call. Whereas I like the fact that elves have been thematically separated into three mechanically distinct races (Eladrin, Drow and Elves), as I have surmised would happen (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=925135), it would have been extremely jarring to apply this to existing campaign worlds and especially to Forgotten Realms, which has a long tradition of elven subraces. Once again, this is an excellent call, in my humble opinion.
Except of course High Elves don't fit the Eldarin desciption.
Mr. Baker, Just a question most things design teams have done is usualy prefaced with things like, "Older players will hate this" or "Fans of X will be unhappy". Is there anything that older fans will like about the new FR?
I just don't get the way the design team is working on it.
Perhaps it'll have the same nameplate as before. And maybe the old parchment-style from1e FR will be back. Loved that. :D
Except of course High Elves don't fit the Eldarin desciption.
Can you clarify what you mean by High Elves?
Well, to be clear, we'd say something like this: "Eladrins in Faerun come in three kindreds: sun elves (or gold elves, or Ar-tel'quessir), moon elves (or silver elves, or Teu-tel'quessir), and star elves (or mithral elves, or ???-tel'quessir)." Differences between them are just cosmetic, although they might be based in different regions and have slightly different starting background options.
All core D&D races will be represented in FR. Realms includes everything in core D&D.
So basically, we´re having two "core races" (Elves and Eladrin) being used to represent one race (the elven one) and its subraces (be them sun, moon, or whatever), if I got it right?
Also, when Rich says "All core D&d races", I think he means player character races, the ones listed on the Player´s handbook as the standard PC races.
Will Ed be working on the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (FRPG?) at all? From what you stated above about the Campaign Guide and the Player's Guide, I am more likely to buy the Player's Guide because I do not intend to convert to 4e for at least 2-4 years.
Hawkins
Except of course High Elves don't fit the Eldarin desciption.
Maybe in 3E. This will be 4E. The standard assumptions wont apply in 4E, I think. I could be wrong. Yet I am getting the feeling that I am right. The Pantheon article said Corellon wont be as Elfy, human wizards will pray to him, heck even Dwarves will to. The DAYS OF Exclusive Racial Deities are over in 4E.
Richard will their be a God of Magic in the Exclusive sense?
I will understand if you cant answer that question right now.
500th post!!!
Maybe in 3E. This will be 4E. The standard assumptions wont apply in 4E, I think. I could be wrong. Yet I am getting the feeling that I am right. The Pantheon article said Corellon wont be as Elfy, human wizards will pray to him, heck even Dwarves will to. The DAYS OF Exclusive Racial Deities are over in 4E.
Which is sadly what is keeping me from being open minded about 4th....is that the standard of what I based 20+ years of gaming have just be chucked out the window. The mechanics I can live with hech I had fun playing 1st edition and Rifts I can ignore mechanics.
500th post!!!
Congrats.
Lets hope your next 500 will be just as entertaining...
What kind of effect will the Spellplague have on Spelljammers in Realmspace? Going a step further, will there at least be some mention of Spelljammers in the 4E Realms?
That said, I believe that the Campaign Guide and the Player's Guide will "talk to" each other pretty extensively -- for example, regions described in one will certainly be reflected in the other. Some of Ed's work may spill over into the FRPG before all's said and done.
Rich,
Will Ed be working on the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (FRPG?) at all? From what you stated above about the Campaign Guide and the Player's Guide, I am more likely to buy the Player's Guide because I do not intend to convert to 4e for at least 2-4 years.
Hawkins
BTW, we certainly don't begin our work with "Older fans will hate this." That's rarely put forward as a stated design goal.
Mr. Baker, Just a question most things design teams have done is usualy prefaced with things like, "Older players will hate this" or "Fans of X will be unhappy". Is there anything that older fans will like about the new FR?
I just don't get the way the design team is working on it.
I was asked the question on Candlekeep the other day: What happens to magic items when the Spellplague rolls through? I answered that I thought use-activated items (like swords or boots or flying carpets) that had already been created were already "plugged in" to the world's geomagical energy and didn't need to continuously interact with the Weave per se, although casters certainly would use the Weave to create new items. Spelljamming helms probably fall into that category. For some amount of time after the Spellplague hits, casters would have a hard time creating new magic items until they mastered the new ways to summon and shape the raw stuff of magic. But in time they'd be able to make new items, too.
And... yeah, I actually think we will keep a tiny little hint of spelljamming alive in the setting. Don't expect it to be a very prominent feature, but we're not planning to get rid of it. Pirates from the Tears of Selune? That's just cool.
With magic going down the tubes for a little while, would it be fair to assume that Gond and his crazy little gnomes on Lantan have been kicking it into overdrive (I assume smokepowder is deader than a doornail)? Can we expect to see new technological advances in the next 100 years?
What kind of effect will the Spellplague have on Spelljammers in Realmspace? Going a step further, will there at least be some mention of Spelljammers in the 4E Realms?
I think so, and I think I count as an older fan of the setting. I'm pretty jazzed about the little corner of the Moonsea where I've set my novel "Swordmage," for example. The story's evolved there (no more Maalthir in Hillsfar, Vaasans up to no good in Thar, the natural consequences of the Empire of Shade and Zhentil Keep butting heads) and I think there's plenty of old-school FR adventuring to be done up in that corner of Faerun. And there are dozens upon dozens of places like that--Waterdeep, the Silver Marches, Evereska, Cormyr, Amn, Tethyr, Impiltur, Damara, Thesk, Aglarond. The list goes on and on. You'll see lots of what you remember about these places, and a good sprinkling of new storylines and adventure opportunities.
BTW, we certainly don't begin our work with "Older fans will hate this." That's rarely put forward as a stated design goal.
Thanks for the reply.
Though I think you and the design team have lost sight of what made D&D great. Sorry to say that, but it seems the Realms and D&D in general are loosing so much for the sake of simplicity(not talking about Mechanics here). I will give it a look when it come out...hopefuly I'll be wrong.
Oh can you tell us about how long of a Time Jump is planned yet? Or of not now when will you be able to tell us?
The latest Design & Development article by James Wyatt ("Pantheon") prompted me to ask the following questions:
1) James refers to Bane being a "God of Tyranny and *War*" in FR. Because I have a hard time imagining that an experienced designer wouldn't do his homework properly, is this a reference to Bane killing Tempus and/or Garagos?
2) James also mentions how 4E will get rid of "Racial Pantheons" and all the deities are worshipped widely by every race -- he specifically mentions human wizards worshipping Corellon as a God of Magic. Is this the *real* reason why all the deities associated with magic and spellcasters were eliminated from the FR Pantheon? Will Corellon be the one and only God of Magic in 4E FR, too?
3) How many Core Deities will be implemented into the "new" FR Pantheon?
Can you give us more of breakdown of the differences between the FRCG and the Player's Guide (they are separate books, correct)? Will they be released relatively close to each other?
I'm sure you've been asked this before, but what's going to happen with the aasimar and the genasi (and the other subraces, like the shield and gold dwarves)?
Thanks.
And... yeah, I actually think we will keep a tiny little hint of spelljamming alive in the setting. Don't expect it to be a very prominent feature, but we're not planning to get rid of it. Pirates from the Tears of Selune? That's just cool.
Now that made my day Rich!
_____________________
Brian R. James
HUGE Spelljammer Fan
1) James refers to Bane being a "God of Tyranny and *War*" in FR. Because I have a hard time imagining that an experienced designer wouldn't do his homework properly, is this a reference to Bane killing Tempus and/or Garagos?
I'd be more inclined to think it was a simple slip because he's talking about the god of war in the core pantheon who just ended up being called Bane after the Realms deity of tyranny (whose church does have a pretty militaristic outlook).
Before I explain what the Forgotten Realms' god of tyranny and war is doing rubbing shoulders with Pelor, let me say a bit about our thinking when we created a pantheon in the first place.
...
Bane: Here's another god whose placeholder name just stuck, despite some reservations. We wanted an evil war god in the pantheon, and without Heironeous, Hextor didn't make a lot of sense. We wanted the kind of heavily militaristic god whose temples you might find among non-evil societies who have spent long years at war, as well as among hobgoblins. We wanted a god who embodied just the sort of tyrannical dictatorship that Bane stands for in the Forgotten Realms. We started calling him Bane as a placeholder. He went through a number of different, unsatisfying names. Finally, someone said we should just call him Bane. So Bane he remained.
In August, when the three core books plus the FRCS have been released, will this be a playable character: Gnome Illusionist/Thief?
Oh can you tell us about how long of a Time Jump is planned yet? Or of not now when will you be able to tell us?
I second this! Or do you even know yet? If you do know, when will we know? Why the bloody suspense?
Hi Rich!
The latest Design & Development article by James Wyatt ("Pantheon") prompted me to ask the following questions:
1) James refers to Bane being a "God of Tyranny and *War*" in FR. Because I have a hard time imagining that an experienced designer wouldn't do his homework properly, is this a reference to Bane killing Tempus and/or Garagos?
2) James also mentions how 4E will get rid of "Racial Pantheons" and all the deities are worshipped widely by every race -- he specifically mentions human wizards worshipping Corellon as a God of Magic. Is this the *real* reason why all the deities associated with magic and spellcasters were eliminated from the FR Pantheon? Will Corellon be the one and only God of Magic in 4E FR, too?
3) How many Core Deities will be implemented into the "new" FR Pantheon?
I second these as well!
Question:
How do you feel about the changes mentioned at the end of the Grand History of the Realms?
Results:
I hate the changes! What the hell were they thinking? [43%] 52 votes
I dislike them, but I could live with them if they are presented in a manner that makes sense. [27%] 32 votes
I like the changes, but have some reservations about what they entail. [13%] 16 votes
I like the changes and I feel very positive about the direction being taken with the update. [11%] 13 votes
I don''t care either way. (Please mention reason in a post.) [6%] 7 votes
Thanks for the reply.
Though I think you and the design team have lost sight of what made D&D great. Sorry to say that, but it seems the Realms and D&D in general are loosing so much for the sake of simplicity(not talking about Mechanics here). I will give it a look when it come out...hopefuly I'll be wrong.
Oh can you tell us about how long of a Time Jump is planned yet? Or of not now when will you be able to tell us?
Unfortunately I agree wth this. On our Univeristies Gamers Club mailing list one of the members has been posting 4e information as it becomes available so that all of the club members can see it since most dont visit the WotC website. He labeled his posts regarding the Realms as "The Dumbing Down of the Realms". I thought it was a bit harsh at first but more and more Im starting to think he was pretty spot on.
In any case it would be nice to know how big the time jump is so folks who intend to use it can get prepared.
I've gotten rather bored, tired, and just plain pee eyed off about having entire books about bloody Waterdeep in every edition. Waterdeep, at least to me, is a complete and utter waste (I hate reading about things I first read over a decade ago in place of that which I desire to read now). Give me something about Lantan or some other unknown place. Please stop giving me what I had 20 years ago. It's annoying and makes my left butt cheek itch.
In some ways, though, it's just as well to pinch from other settings. Hollowfaust, for example, is an interesting non-WotC/non-FR city to gain access to.
Waterdeep is pretty much an all-purpose city, and is a good example of how detailed one can get for an urban setting product. Thus, while I don't adventure there much I still find it useful. Once upon a time I had hope that a few other cities would be singled-out for similar treatment, alas I don't think there are enough fans to support such a venture by WotC.
In some ways, though, it's just as well to pinch from other settings. Hollowfaust, for example, is an interesting non-WotC/non-FR city to gain access to.
I'm not trying to attempt to be an ass (frankly, that's my gift;) If I desired to be such, I would suceed without effort:D )
I merely desire reasurrance that finally I won't spend yet more money to get that which I already have (why buy when I got? mentality). I've paid plenty of money for Waterdeep, in all editions. It's annoying (and it borders on insulting) to pay an increasing amount of money for a decreasing amount of Lore.
I still want Lantan, which won't happen anytime soon, as I've been told by designers....grrrrrrrr!:P
Yeah....nothing...except Lantan...is there any plans (I've asked before, but I'm persistant!) within my life time (I'm 25....) to have *something* about Lantan????
Here was Rich's response a few pages back:
No, no Lantan sourcebook. We've got no plans for one, and I don't expect we'll put one on the schedule. Sorry.
Here is a non-4e Realms related question. I posted it on the Candlekeep forums but you did not respond to it after a few days, so I thought I would post it here:
Originally posted in Questions for Richard Baker in the Candlekeep forums:
Rich, I just got finished reading The Bladesinger's Lesson in Realms of the Elves, and thoroughly enjoyed it except for one thing: The Fey'ri were allied with devils. Why did you choose to have them allied with devils when the lore surrounding the Fey'ri clearly states that they are Planetouched from their alliance and relations with demons?
Thanks in advance,
Hawkins
The fey'ri were allied with *outcast* devils in the service of Malkizid, the Branded King. Malkizid was thrown out of the Nine Hells and took up residence in the Barrens of Doom and Despair thousands of years back. The outcast devils summoned into Myth Drannor back in the 1350's (1340's? don't have my books in front of me) by the Zhents were associated with Malkizid's faction. That bit of lore comes up in the Last Mythal trilogy, but I don't think it's mentioned in The Bladesinger's Lesson.
Hey Rich,
Here is a non-4e Realms related question. I posted it on the Candlekeep forums but you did not respond to it after a few days, so I thought I would post it here:
Originally posted in Questions for Richard Baker in the Candlekeep forums:
Rich, I just got finished reading The Bladesinger's Lesson in Realms of the Elves, and thoroughly enjoyed it except for one thing: The Fey'ri were allied with devils. Why did you choose to have them allied with devils when the lore surrounding the Fey'ri clearly states that they are Planetouched from their alliance and relations with demons?
Thanks in advance,
Hawkins
1) James refers to Bane being a "God of Tyranny and *War*" in FR. Because I have a hard time imagining that an experienced designer wouldn't do his homework properly, is this a reference to Bane killing Tempus and/or Garagos?
Just because Bane's God of War in the core pantheon, it doesn't mean he's now God of War in the Faerunian Pantheon. Take Tyr, for example. In the Faerunian Pantheon he's God of Justice (And a Greater God). However, in the Asgardian Pantheon he's God of Courage, Trust, Strategy, Tactics, and Writing (And an Intermediate God).
Lolth is another example. In the Realms, she's God of Assassins, Chaos, Darkness, Drow, Evil, and Spiders. However, in Greyhawk, she's just God of Drow, Darkness, Evil, and Spiders. No Assassins Portfolio, and no Chaos Portfolio.
Same with Bane. Like other gods who're members of more then one pantheon, Bane has different Portfolios in each of those pantheons. Want a more specific example on point? Here's one. This isn't the first time that Bane's been shown as a god outside of Abeir-Toril. He's also worshipped in Ravenloft. And in Ravenloft, Bane holds the following Portfolios: Law, Fate, Judgment, Obedience, Order, Rulership, and Tyranny. He doesn't hold the Portfolios of Hatred or Fear as he does in the Faerunian Pantheon, nor does he hold the Portfolio of War as he will in the core pantheon. Tyranny seems to be the one common denominator. Seems that no matter where Bane goes, or where he's worshipped, he ALWAYS lays claim to the Portfolio of Tyranny.
Just because Bane's God of War in the core pantheon, it doesn't mean he's now God of War in the Faerunian Pantheon.
Let me quote James Wyatt: "Before I explain what the Forgotten Realms' god of tyranny and war is doing rubbing shoulders with Pelor..." (emphasis mine). Either that's a subtle hint about Bane killing Garagos and/or Tempus, or James has not done his homework.
Hmm.
There may be more of an emphasis in 4e FR on deities favored by those of a particular alignment. LE/LN/NE warriors may well be more inclined to call on Bane instead of Tempus on the battlefield. CG, CN, and NG types may prefer Tempus, with Red Knight (of course) covering LE/LN/LG. There could be a proxy war of the domain between the two main rivals, with the Red Knight (literally) a pawn.
We'll know one way or another when it's convenient.
There may be more of an emphasis in 4e FR on deities favored by those of a particular alignment. LE/LN/NE warriors may well be more inclined to call on Bane instead of Tempus on the battlefield. CG, CN, and NG types may prefer Tempus, with Red Knight (of course) covering LE/LN/LG. There could be a proxy war of the domain between the two main rivals, with the Red Knight (literally) a pawn.
We'll know one way or another when it's convenient.
You left out CE and TN alignment....though it is clear their are chaneing the alignment system to be something other the regular LG, LN, LE, NG, TN, NE, CG, CN, and CE.
There may be more of an emphasis in 4e FR on deities favored by those of a particular alignment. LE/LN/NE warriors may well be more inclined to call on Bane instead of Tempus on the battlefield. CG, CN, and NG types may prefer Tempus, with Red Knight (of course) covering LE/LN/LG. There could be a proxy war of the domain between the two main rivals, with the Red Knight (literally) a pawn.
We'll know one way or another when it's convenient.
I seriously doubt it, because I seem to recall Rich stating that they don't want "overlap" in portfolios, which apparently was the reason for eliminating Helm, Gorm, Haela, and the deities of magic from the FR Pantheon. Honestly, I believe that either Tempus or Bane will be the only God of War in 4E FR -- which means that Garagos and Red Knight will most likely perish as well.
(Can't say I like some of the alignment rules, but I hope they keep the general bits.)
But, again, my original point was that there may be one deity who handles that portfolio but *not all* whose profession or actions are governed by that portfolio will worship that god. Even when Mystra was still around, not all spellcasters worshipped her. So it could well be the same with warriors.
Why would a freedom-loving CG warrior worship Bane? Really.
I seriously doubt it, because I seem to recall Rich stating that they don't want "overlap" in portfolios, which apparently was the reason for eliminating Helm, Gorm, Haela, and the deities of magic from the FR Pantheon. Honestly, I believe that either Tempus or Bane will be the only God of War in 4E FR -- which means that Garagos and Red Knight will most likely perish as well.
He also said many deities would be getting demoted to demi-god or powerful divine servant status, so it doesn't mean that we are losing the Red Knight (we better not be, I draw the line there) but rather that she will be a demigod under the domain of the god of war, who will probably still be Tempus.
Let me quote James Wyatt: "Before I explain what the Forgotten Realms' god of tyranny and war is doing rubbing shoulders with Pelor..." (emphasis mine). Either that's a subtle hint about Bane killing Garagos and/or Tempus, or James has not done his homework.
Or he just misspoke. Mistakes happen. After all, they erroneously listed Bane as God of Strife in not one but TWO books! Forgotten Realms Campaign Settinig and Faiths & Panthens. Is it so hard to believe that he just made a mistake in his article, confusing Core Pantheon Bane with Faerunian Pantheon Bane?
Can we please keep the chit-chat down to a minimum in THIS thread? Right now many of us are trying to learn all we can about this new edition, and it's getting very hard to find the useful information in this thread at this point.
I don't mean to come off like a d__k, but there are at least 20 other threads out there where we can whine and complain, and lord knows I do more then my fair share.
Thanks in advance - Mark
So how far will the Time Line Advance will be? And if you can't answear that do you know when will it be anounced?
Is there a tentative schedule of when you can possibly start dropping new lines of (confirmed) information to us?
Rinonalyrna from these very message boards made a good point about how many designers are using the term "cool" to describe what's coming, but none of your number have as yet has properly expanded on why they think what's coming is cool.
I understand you're under information-restraints, but it'd be nice to have some idea if/when we'll get more updates beyond the scheduled release date of the 4E FR Campaign Guide.
::::::::::::::::
Beyond that, can you possibly skirt the NDA wall a bit and drop a few more hints our way?
If not, no prob.
Tempus is still the god of war in Realms, and the Red Knight is a demigod associated with his celestial court (such as it is).
So why does the core D&D version of Bane acquire a war portfolio? The answer is pretty simple: Just like Tyr in the Realms isn't the "core Tyr," we think the "core Bane" is a deity inspired by the FR Bane. In our discussions about the new core pantheon we kept coming back to a "lawful evil tyrant/war god" concept -- a figure a little like Ares, but with more shades of conquest and imposed authority than just pure battle. We kept slinging the name "Bane" around as a placeholder in our discussions just because it was a useful shorthand for a big part of the concept. Anyway, we finally just looked at it and said, "You know, we keep calling this guy Bane. Maybe he should just *be* Bane." After all, Realms shares other deities with the core game, like Bahamut and Tiamat and Lolth and Gruumsh and Corellon, etc., etc.
Anyway, I suppose the 4e Bane could pick up a bit of conquest or authoritarianism in his portfolio as a way of nailing down what we mean when we say he's the god of tyranny. That might be helpful, frankly. I mean, who would worship tyranny for its own sake anyway?
He also said many deities would be getting demoted to demi-god or powerful divine servant status, so it doesn't mean that we are losing the Red Knight (we better not be, I draw the line there) but rather that she will be a demigod under the domain of the god of war, who will probably still be Tempus.
Explaining cool is tough, because it's clearly subjective. I've defended the coolness of the Mystra's death-Spellplague-evolution of magic change, which I think is a "Time of Troubles"-type event much better grounded in the lore of the setting than, say, the Time of Troubles itself. It's cool to me because it fits well with existing lore, gets the setting to where it needs to go, and restores a sense of dark mystery and peril to magic that's lacking in the 2e/3e environment. But X percent of the folks who hear about it don't think it's cool and can't be convinced that it is, no matter what I say. The deific events reported in the last page or two of Grand History are the same thing -- some people think it's cool to see Realms deities caught up in a tragedy akin to the death of Balder, while other people don't think so. Nothing is cool to everyone, I guess.
Rich,
Is there a tentative schedule of when you can possibly start dropping new lines of (confirmed) information to us?
Rinonalyrna from these very message boards made a good point about how many designers are using the term "cool" to describe what's coming, but none of your number have as yet has properly expanded on why they think what's coming is cool.
I understand you're under information-restraints, but it'd be nice to have some idea if/when we'll get more updates beyond the scheduled release date of the 4E FR Campaign Guide.
::::::::::::::::
Beyond that, can you possibly skirt the NDA wall a bit and drop a few more hints our way?
If not, no prob.
The deific events reported in the last page or two of Grand History are the same thing -- some people think it's cool to see Realms deities caught up in a tragedy akin to the death of Balder, while other people don't think so. Nothing is cool to everyone, I guess.
To be fair, most everyone that has posted on this thread did not like it because the way it was detailed on the last couple pages of the GHotR made no sense. As it stands, without any of the gritty details surrounding the events that caused the death of Helm, it seems very OOC for most if not all of the deities involved. It is not that it is not "cool," it is because it makes not freaking sense! I hope this is the first thing that you guys clear up in upcoming DDI "preview articles," followed shortly by an explanation as to how Cyric and Shar snuck up and killed Mystra in her own Realm, and why they were not obliterated by the fallout (at least Cyric should have been since I am assuming that he is the one that snuck and and stabbed her in the back).
For my part, I will look up "the death of Balder" to see if that sheds any illumination.
EDIT: Only the Gesta Danorum version of the "Death of Balderus" bears any resemblance to the soap opera between Tyr and Helm. More details are still needed for it to make sense.
gets the setting to where it needs to go, and restores a sense of dark mystery and peril to magic that's lacking in the 2e/3e environment.
This tidbit caught my attention, and I think it is fantastic. The sense of mystery surrounding magic (as opposed to every other peasant watching a mage duel murmuring ooh, nice fireball . . . oops, that was countered . . . wow, nice Scorching Ray .. etc) has been lacking for quite some time. Bravo. :D
A lot of us didn't think it "Needed" anything.
I'm starting to think I don't have issues with the 4th edition revamp, I'm having subscriptions, and not in a positive way.
We have a schedule, but I'm not at liberty to share it. I think you'll start seeing preview articles in December, but that's as much as I can say. I'm just not allowed to scoop our D&D Insider content yet.
Explaining cool is tough, because it's clearly subjective. I've defended the coolness of the Mystra's death-Spellplague-evolution of magic change, which I think is a "Time of Troubles"-type event much better grounded in the lore of the setting than, say, the Time of Troubles itself. It's cool to me because it fits well with existing lore, gets the setting to where it needs to go, and restores a sense of dark mystery and peril to magic that's lacking in the 2e/3e environment. But X percent of the folks who hear about it don't think it's cool and can't be convinced that it is, no matter what I say. The deific events reported in the last page or two of Grand History are the same thing -- some people think it's cool to see Realms deities caught up in a tragedy akin to the death of Balder, while other people don't think so. Nothing is cool to everyone, I guess.
Nevertheless I do thank you for explaining why YOU think it's cool, even though I disagree with your rationale (for example, I don't think the setting "needs" to go in this particular direction).
But X percent of the folks who hear about it don't think it's cool and can't be convinced that it is, no matter what I say.
That's one way to look at it. In international fraternity recruiting methodology, we focus specifically on the "never joiners" or the "rarely joiners," since the other Z percent of folk (the larger majority) are theh "always joiners" - they'll take pretty much whatever you will give them. So if you always get around 50%, not counting the "nevers" or "rarelys," it's best for you to focus on catering to those groups rather than the 50% you're likely to already win no matter what.
But economics can be a little different. I'll actually bring the question up to some of my econ friends and see what they think. I don't like passing universal judgments on things I don't know much about (why I stay entirely out of politics, for instance).
Anyway, Rich, thanks again for taking the time to try catering to the horde.
But X percent of the folks who hear about it don't think it's cool and can't be convinced that it is, no matter what I say.
Mystra is the quintessential Realms deity, that's why. Killing her off is like killing off Athena in a setting built around the Olympian Pantheon, or killing off Spider-Man or Superman in a Marvel or DC RPG. She's an integral part of the setting. So I don't see how it'd be hard to imagine that killing off Mystra wouldn't be all that popular for Realms fans.
In addition, there're numerous ways the changes in magic could've been accomplished without killing off Mystra for good. She could've decided to change the rules of magic on her own. After all, Kelemvor changed the rules for death when he became God of the Dead. Why couldn't Mystra decide to change the rules for magic after a few years as Goddess of Magic?
Another option is killing her briefly, just as Mystryl died briefly against Karsus. She was resurrected moments later, but magic was changed in those brief moments. Or, if there will be a 100 year jump into the future, then Mystra could've lain dead for a century before finally being resurrected. That would've been interesting, as you would've had three generations come and go never having known Mystra, and her 4E version could show her shortly after her return beginning to rebuild her church, and her difficulties in presiding over the new laws of magic. And of course, it'd be nice to see Cyric seething in his cell over Mystra having come back to life, and plotting with newfound urgency to get out of his cell a lot sooner then 900 years so he can kill her all over again.
And it's not to much to expect that Mystra would have a plan to resurrect herself, either. After all, how many archwizards have contingencies in place should they die? How many times has someone like Manshoon cheated death? If they can cheat death, then Mystra certainly can. And if Bane can find a way to resurrect himself after being dead for only 14 years, then Mystra could do it in 100 years. Especially when so much of her power is scattered throughout all her Chosen. Hell, you could use that as a reason why there aren't so many Chosen of Mystra running around, any more. A lot of them ended up sacrificing themselves to resurrect Mystra.
Whatever the case, the point is that the changes to magic in the Realms could've been accomplished without permanently expunging Mystra from the Realms. And it doesn't say a lot when you're willing to excise a character which is intrinsic to the Forgotten Realms setting. I love the changes that I've heard so far about the 4E rules, but the changes to the Forgotten Realms...?
How much is the time line going to advance? Also why keep it a surprise? If you can't answear do you know about when this infomation will be announced?
I know it's not what you want to hear, as you've been handling naysayers for a few weeks now. I've been silent on these boards, taking a wait and see approach, but I now feel I must say something.
Basically, I've been a fan of the Realms since 1988. Even through Time of Troubles. Wow, almost 20 years, which included all of my 10 years spent serving in the Navy...
Unfortunately, and for the first time in my case, I will have to bow out and not count myself as a fan of the canon Realms anymore. To me, this is a bit sad. Not overmuch, as the Realms-to-date will stay alive through my campaigns, but still... I've always made it a point to enact canon in my games, and bend my own campaigns around it, oftentimes awkwardly, but always. I think it kinda made me feel as part of a brotherhood; to know other bunches of gamers out there followed the FR novels/accessories almost religiously, followed the "code" no matter what and keep their campaigns "sacred" and "by-the-book."
However, now, everything seems different. I don't even know where to start. I guess you can chalk it up to emotions rather than logic, but everything that's coming through the pipe, Realmswise, just sounds "fake" to me... almost like haphazardly patched up "let's create a vaccine and then make up a disease" kinda scenarios and plotlines. I know that "sounds fake" is an ironic expression to use in regards to fictitious world, but I think some on these boards will understand my vague feeling.
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy the Realms are surviving in some form, and that Ed will still be involved. I'm really happy to see a lot of the great boards-contributors getting involved at this point. If they can get excited with the coming changes, that's great! I also understand, business-wise, the need for evolution and change, to keep the money coming. Completely understandable... but I'd keep lying to myself if I put on a smile, spend thousands again on 4E, and somehow hope it will feel right again. Deep down I don't think it will, no matter what's thrown my way. I know that dwarf-like stoicism is not always healthy, but I thought I owed you an honest opinion on the upcoming Realms. I don't mean to degenerate the thread, put oil on fires; just giving you my opinion. It's been eating at me for the last few weeks, as I'm going through the last novels that are on my "FR unread" pile.
PS: I've read "Orc King" a few weeks ago, and found it great reading, despite not liking the hints the book gave on the future of the Realms. An old, early 80's part of me is rolling his eyes at orc-loving dwarves and "good drow ranger defending orcs by killing cross-burning HOODED folks..." tsk tsk tsk (please, even if I'm jumping off the bandwagon, please: do not kill all that is good about the Realms by making it a forum for real-world political correctness author agendas)
When something that appears in an FR sourcebook is reprinted with changes in a non-FR sourcebook, even when both are 3.5 material, which version are we expected to use? Ie. which is considered up-to-date, which is official, and which is a non-FR variant? And there's no Errata or patches to go by?
Some random examples:
* Bladesinger: Races Of Faerun 3rd, or Complete Warrior 3.5?
* Domains: Player's Guide To Faerun 3.5 or Spell Compendium 3.5? For example, Metal, which lost the possibility of exotic hammers.
* Half-Drow: Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd or Drow Of The Underdark 3.5? A half-elf with darkvision or 1st level feat?
And so on. There's probably many more cases of this.
And I can't houserule it, I have up to 300 players.
Thank you.
And I can't houserule it, I have up to 300 players.
Wait, wha...?!? That's a different 10-player group every day of the month!
Or an online shared world with a few dozen games and DMs.
I've been away from the forums for a while, so bear with me if this has been asked before (I really hope Rich Baker can answer this). Have you guys really killed Vhaeraun?, I have read in these forums and in EN world all about this deity trimming, but I mean...Vhaeraun was really cool, the idea of all evil Drow just worshipping Lolth is quite ... boring.
I have read just the first book in the lady penitent trilogy (haven't read he second one or a grand history of the realms), and at the end it seemed to me that all this affair of Vhaeraun's death was a scam he and his sister were playing on Lolth to catch her by surprise..., or maybe it was just what I wanted to believe. If Vhaeraun is really dead, it was the more anticlimatic end for a deity ever...
My concerns about Lisa Smedman writing this trilogy would be confirmed, I mean no disrespect; I am no fan-boy that rants just because novels don't go the way he wants; but because I believe her book in the war of the spider queen series was the weakest, story-line wise, it had a couple of irrelevant deus-ex-machinas and a few inconsistencies. Again, I respect the author and her work, it is just not my cup of tea.
Even if I disliked most of what you guys do I (and my players apparently) will pick up the 4E FR. Why? Because I am not really that emotionally attached to fictional characters, and the ones that I may need for my campaigns I will leave in my game. Simple enough. Just thought you you know this pertinent information. ;) I figure there are alot more lurkers out there that share my views on the game. Just don't "Dragonlance" the setting alright?
Plus I think you should make Selune or Corelleon the new god of magic. Selune is the obvious choice while Coreleon would make things a bit more interesting in my view. Especially if all alignments could worship him.
One other thing, do you think you will ever touch on the Night Parade again? I found that novel to be rather interesting and wanted a bit more info on the creatures and see if they can be found in any other location other than Calimsham.
Moving right along...
Mr. Baker, forgive my obsession with maps, but I'm wondering if you could give us a hint to perhaps quell some speculation that seems to be running rampant about resizing of the land masses and radical alterations to them? Not asking for anything specific, only whether or not we can expect the same map as 3e gave us, a (unlikely) return to the 2e maps, or something new and at least somewhat different? Maybe a hint at the scale of them might be nice as well... if you're so willing.
If you do an adventure set in Cormyr (or any location really), please give us lots of good info about the surrounding land and Cormyr itself. Make the adventure something that a player may pick up after the DM is doen running it maybe. Please make it better than the Moonsea stuff though.
Thanks.
Rich,
I know it's not what you want to hear, as you've been handling naysayers for a few weeks now. I've been silent on these boards, taking a wait and see approach, but I now feel I must say something.
Basically, I've been a fan of the Realms since 1988. Even through Time of Troubles. Wow, almost 20 years, which included all of my 10 years spent serving in the Navy...
Unfortunately, and for the first time in my case, I will have to bow out and not count myself as a fan of the canon Realms anymore. To me, this is a bit sad. Not overmuch, as the Realms-to-date will stay alive through my campaigns, but still... I've always made it a point to enact canon in my games, and bend my own campaigns around it, oftentimes awkwardly, but always. I think it kinda made me feel as part of a brotherhood; to know other bunches of gamers out there followed the FR novels/accessories almost religiously, followed the "code" no matter what and keep their campaigns "sacred" and "by-the-book."
However, now, everything seems different. I don't even know where to start. I guess you can chalk it up to emotions rather than logic, but everything that's coming through the pipe, Realmswise, just sounds "fake" to me... almost like haphazardly patched up "let's create a vaccine and then make up a disease" kinda scenarios and plotlines. I know that "sounds fake" is an ironic expression to use in regards to fictitious world, but I think some on these boards will understand my vague feeling.
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy the Realms are surviving in some form, and that Ed will still be involved. I'm really happy to see a lot of the great boards-contributors getting involved at this point. If they can get excited with the coming changes, that's great! I also understand, business-wise, the need for evolution and change, to keep the money coming. Completely understandable... but I'd keep lying to myself if I put on a smile, spend thousands again on 4E, and somehow hope it will feel right again. Deep down I don't think it will, no matter what's thrown my way. I know that dwarf-like stoicism is not always healthy, but I thought I owed you an honest opinion on the upcoming Realms. I don't mean to degenerate the thread, put oil on fires; just giving you my opinion. It's been eating at me for the last few weeks, as I'm going through the last novels that are on my "FR unread" pile.
PS: I've read "Orc King" a few weeks ago, and found it great reading, despite not liking the hints the book gave on the future of the Realms. An old, early 80's part of me is rolling his eyes at orc-loving dwarves and "good drow ranger defending orcs by killing cross-burning HOODED folks..." tsk tsk tsk (please, even if I'm jumping off the bandwagon, please: do not kill all that is good about the Realms by making it a forum for real-world political correctness author agendas)
We do have a FR adventure planned for 2008 post-4e, and Dave Noonan's beginning work on it right now. He's one of the best DMs I know, and he's kicking around a lot of interesting ideas. I think he'll measure up!
You need to work on making better FR adventures. Try and produce quality stuff along the lines of the Eberron adventures please. They don't have to be about famous dungeons either. I think adding real FR flavor is important.
If you do an adventure set in Cormyr (or any location really), please give us lots of good info about the surrounding land and Cormyr itself. Make the adventure something that a player may pick up after the DM is doen running it maybe. Please make it better than the Moonsea stuff though.
Thanks.
Fine, I'll ask again without being rude.
When something that appears in an FR sourcebook is reprinted with changes in a non-FR sourcebook, even when both are 3.5 material, which version are we expected to use? Ie. which is considered up-to-date, which is official, and which is a non-FR variant? And there's no Errata or patches to go by?
Some random examples:
* Bladesinger: Races Of Faerun 3rd, or Complete Warrior 3.5?
* Domains: Player's Guide To Faerun 3.5 or Spell Compendium 3.5? For example, Metal, which lost the possibility of exotic hammers.
* Half-Drow: Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd or Drow Of The Underdark 3.5? A half-elf with darkvision or 1st level feat?
And so on. There's probably many more cases of this.
And I can't houserule it, I have up to 300 players.
Thank you.
Hi there
I've been away from the forums for a while, so bear with me if this has been asked before (I really hope Rich Baker can answer this). Have you guys really killed Vhaeraun?, I have read in these forums and in EN world all about this deity trimming, but I mean...Vhaeraun was really cool, the idea of all evil Drow just worshipping Lolth is quite ... boring.
I have read just the first book in the lady penitent trilogy (haven't read he second one or a grand history of the realms), and at the end it seemed to me that all this affair of Vhaeraun's death was a scam he and his sister were playing on Lolth to catch her by surprise..., or maybe it was just what I wanted to believe. If Vhaeraun is really dead, it was the more anticlimatic end for a deity ever...
My concerns about Lisa Smedman writing this trilogy would be confirmed, I mean no disrespect; I am no fan-boy that rants just because novels don't go the way he wants; but because I believe her book in the war of the spider queen series was the weakest, story-line wise, it had a couple of irrelevant deus-ex-machinas and a few inconsistencies. Again, I respect the author and her work, it is just not my cup of tea.
"We did it because we thought it was cool." is usually the fast track to stupidity.
Let's name some other things that now suck because of "We did it because we thought it was cool."
Captain America: I don't think any explanation is necessary here, but I'll give one anyway. Marvel Comics and Joe Quesada made Joe Simon cry. No matter how GOOD Ed Brubaker is as a writer, this was an insult to people everywhere. When people outside America send Marvel messages telling them what a screwup this was, you know you messed up. Killing Captain America? Yeah, that was pretty dumb, true believers.
Marvel's Civil War: Now, this earns my ire for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the same thing as the above. You want realistic superheroes? Apparently, these people have the same type of short term memory reserved for eight year old video game junkies or people who don't vote.
"Let me see, Mr. Stark. You've been a major supervillain at least three times, and now you're revealing your secret identity, running a global police organization, and taking control of every superhero in the world? We should trust you WHY?"
Everything by Dan Didio: Dan Didio ruins superheroes one character at a time. Soon, there won't be anything left in the DCU that he hasn't ruined. So, any chance we can fix it? Heck, no. Soon, we'll be having a "Final Crisis" as if the infinite crisis we had last year wasn't bad enough.
The Recent Sci Fi Flash Gordon Series and it's Executive Design Team: If you haven't heard of it, it's because it's just that bad. But it's not like any Flash Gordon series before it, nor should it be. Whoever allowed this piece of drek to exist must have taken money for it to stink. Because let me tell you, even the Spellplague pales (At least, taken without the other 4E fixes) before the slobbering, drooling mess that is this TV Show.
So once again, I'll ask this: Is it REALLY WORTH IT to be lumped into a group with these so-called luminaries for this product?
DB
Wow, is it going to be constant whining and complaining untill august 2008? Good God I hope not!!!;)
Rich I would like to see a change in the novels. Can you get some more good series going like Paul Kemp's stuff of Jeff Grubb's Finders Stone Trilogy? Can we some more stories about Alias of Westgate perhaps? Not every series needs to be an epic RSE, and most of the RSEs lately have been pretty flat with some really boring main characters. Kemp's Cale has been the most interesting character to be in a RSE that I have seen so far. I actually enjoyed the Artemis stuff RAS did better than his last few Drizzt books.
I think another moonblade book would be a good way to kick off the NEW and IMPROVED HARPERS that will be coming out in 4E. Right?
I even enjoyed that one novel based on the fighter class, Ghostwalker I think it was. That showed how an evil guy could run a town right under the noses of the Silver Marches leaders.
Me thinks somebody really needs to take their medication!!!:D
Wow, is it going to be constant whining and complaining untill august 2008? Good God I hope not!!!;)
Trust me when I say that is better that way, In my country, after one or two days from a "bomb", the heat dissapears and nobody can do anything to improve things here. People who can maintain their passions (in a reasonable level) are the ones who can improve things.
How much is the time line going to advance? Also why keep it a surprise? If you can't answear do you know about when this infomation will be announced?
Mr. Baker,
How much is the time line going to advance? Also why keep it a surprise? If you can't answear do you know about when this infomation will be announced?
Lol. This seems to be the most consistent question Rich. You may want to tell whoever is in charge so they can consider releasing this tidbit of lore.
--Hawkins
My point is, only because people work in a big company, it doesn´t mean that they are infallible. So far, the decisions about the Realms sound impressively bad... so bad I might drop supporting the official setting and continue running my own timeline. Maybe if some concerted effort is made to explain the unexplainable happenings ( Tymora going along with this whole "Marry the guy with a stick up his behind" and then meekly shuffling along when he kills Helm ) and Mystra maybe returns ( somebody above already said how that might happen, better than I could. If frikkin Bane can come back, so can Mystra ), then I might take a better look, but so far it looks like lights out for me.
Mystra is the quintessential Realms deity, that's why. Killing her off is like killing off Athena in a setting built around the Olympian Pantheon, or killing off Spider-Man or Superman in a Marvel or DC RPG. She's an integral part of the setting. So I don't see how it'd be hard to imagine that killing off Mystra wouldn't be all that popular for Realms fans.
In addition, there're numerous ways the changes in magic could've been accomplished without killing off Mystra for good. She could've decided to change the rules of magic on her own. After all, Kelemvor changed the rules for death when he became God of the Dead. Why couldn't Mystra decide to change the rules for magic after a few years as Goddess of Magic?
Another option is killing her briefly, just as Mystryl died briefly against Karsus. She was resurrected moments later, but magic was changed in those brief moments. Or, if there will be a 100 year jump into the future, then Mystra could've lain dead for a century before finally being resurrected. That would've been interesting, as you would've had three generations come and go never having known Mystra, and her 4E version could show her shortly after her return beginning to rebuild her church, and her difficulties in presiding over the new laws of magic. And of course, it'd be nice to see Cyric seething in his cell over Mystra having come back to life, and plotting with newfound urgency to get out of his cell a lot sooner then 900 years so he can kill her all over again.
And it's not to much to expect that Mystra would have a plan to resurrect herself, either. After all, how many archwizards have contingencies in place should they die? How many times has someone like Manshoon cheated death? If they can cheat death, then Mystra certainly can. And if Bane can find a way to resurrect himself after being dead for only 14 years, then Mystra could do it in 100 years. Especially when so much of her power is scattered throughout all her Chosen. Hell, you could use that as a reason why there aren't so many Chosen of Mystra running around, any more. A lot of them ended up sacrificing themselves to resurrect Mystra.
Whatever the case, the point is that the changes to magic in the Realms could've been accomplished without permanently expunging Mystra from the Realms. And it doesn't say a lot when you're willing to excise a character which is intrinsic to the Forgotten Realms setting. I love the changes that I've heard so far about the 4E rules, but the changes to the Forgotten Realms...?
This man speaks the truth. That said... It´s not only about removing Mystra. It´s about the whole Helm/Tyr/etc. soap opera cluster**** that I´m also unhappy about.
In my opinion Shadowdale *is* a very good adventure, and I really liked the excerpts from 'Anauroch' -- I was a bit leery of it originally, but now I might just have to buy it (I love that it features old Netherese ruins and the Windsong Tower).
I also wish to thank you for lobbying 'Grand History' -- I finally got my copy and I love it! I'd like to see more Realms products having more "fluffy" content over crunch in the future. :D
I'd also like to ask you about the 'Last Mythal'-series -- did you intentionally write it to feel like a campaign (at least I think it would be very easy to convert into a campaign)? By the way, in my opinion that part taking place in Lorosfyr was really inspiring -- it really felt like a mythical, ancient and forgotten city lost to time and memory, filled with mysteries and horrors that no mortal should ever pay witness to.
Did you try out Shadowdale? Not to blow my own horn, 'cause I only wrote a small part of it, but I thought that was one of the better adventures we've done in the last couple of years.
We do have a FR adventure planned for 2008 post-4e, and Dave Noonan's beginning work on it right now. He's one of the best DMs I know, and he's kicking around a lot of interesting ideas. I think he'll measure up!
Rich, thank you for 'trying' - I say 'trying' because it's rather obvious that you really can't tell us anything. Still, even that is better then being ignored.
And for THE LOVE OF GOD PEOPLE, stop asking when the friggin' new campaign date will be!!!
They won't tell us because the CAN'T tell us, and have said so numerous times.
It's like every third question or so... I swear, it's like talking to my 5 yr old sometimes....
The Recent Sci Fi Flash Gordon Series and it's Executive Design Team: If you haven't heard of it, it's because it's just that bad. But it's not like any Flash Gordon series before it, nor should it be. Whoever allowed this piece of drek to exist must have taken money for it to stink. Because let me tell you, even the Spellplague pales (At least, taken without the other 4E fixes) before the slobbering, drooling mess that is this TV Show.
I couldn't get to the remote fast enough the other night when it came on, so I was forced to rip the eyes from my head.
It was either that, or get up off the couch.
And for THE LOVE OF GOD PEOPLE, stop asking when the friggin' new campaign date will be!!!
They won't tell us because the CAN'T tell us, and have said so numerous times.
It's like every third question or so... I swear, it's like talking to my 5 yr old sometimes....
Ok why the heck not? How does it spoil anything? It is a valid question.
I mean let say it is 100 year time advance...I'll proably won't buy it because I won't need it...it doesn't matter when I find it out. If it is ten years then I will look into it more carefuly before judging it.
I think treating this like a ending for a movie or a novel is a very big mistake as I am getting very tired of it. And I am sure others are as well.
Lol. This seems to be the most consistent question Rich. You may want to tell whoever is in charge so they can consider releasing this tidbit of lore.
--Hawkins
It is the most consistent question, however it also suffers from the one person asking it 5 times vs. 5 people asking it once problem. That being said, I can understand why they have Rich holding his tongue on soooo many issues that effect the coming Story Line. Obviously there is a lot that we don't know, and they can't really let some of it out without explaining a lot more. However, the timeline jump doesn't seem to be part of this. Knowing how far in the future the new campaign is set doesn't really require any other explanation. Furthermore, not releasing the distance of the jump, rather than building anticipation and excitement, seems to be seriously irritating, and simply adding to the already monumental crankiness that seems to pervade the boards.
So my question Rich (sorry about the pointless rambling) is WHY can't you tell us the timeline jump? Does it have an effect on the FR storyline in a way that makes it an important secret, or do we simply need to beat someone in the marketing department soundly about the head and neck?
It's something like THAT....
Its a marketing gimmick called 'buzz', and it's really, REALLY annoying sometimes.
Pretty much the only thing Mr. Baker or anyone 'in-the-know' has told us about 4e is that they CAN'T tell us about 4e.
What little is released can be read in their blogs and the designer columns. You will get absolutely NO straight answers here. Just be patient - Christmas is right around the corner and we will have plenty of time to ask for new setting books for the holidays. ;)
And YES, that was a GOAD to get them to slip us something. :P
"And then a beer truck hit toril, destroying magic, killing every recognizable NPC except for the ones we think are still valuble, and, oh, by the way, the Gods now have the collective intelligence of Rope Man, Strong Man, Cuckoo Man, Tornado Man, and Diaperman."
It is the most consistent question, however it also suffers from the one person asking it 5 times vs. 5 people asking it once problem.
Actualy having been the one to ask about it for about 5 times...
I will say this everytime I do ask it about 2 to 3 people agree that they want the question answeared. Also it not like I am demanding to know now...if he can't answear it then can't he give a time to when we will know? Or is that against the rules also....
Plus...there's the Beer Truck Ending factor.
"And then a beer truck hit toril, destroying magic, killing every recognizable NPC except for the ones we think are still valuble, and, oh, by the way, the Gods now have the collective intelligence of Rope Man, Strong Man, Cuckoo Man, Tornado Man, and Diaperman."
That was a classic!!!:DThis man speaks the truth. That said... It´s not only about removing Mystra. It´s about the whole Helm/Tyr/etc. soap opera cluster**** that I´m also unhappy about.
Yeah, I'm not to happy about that, either. Even soap operas have better plotlines, that's how little sense it makes. For one, why does Siamorphe leave the House of the Triad? I don't see that Lawful Good goddess abandoning a domain ruled by a Lawful Good god packed to the brim with Lawful Good gods in order to become part of a domain ruled by a Chaotic Good Goddess packed to the brim with Chaotic Good gods. And even if she did, why in the world would Sune be willing to give up Tymora in return? Siamorphe is a Demigod. Tymora, on the other hand, is an Intermediate God who's just shy of being a Greater God, herself. That's hardly what I'd call an equitable trade.
Secondly, why is Sune overseeing an arranged marriage? She's the God of Love and Passion, not the God of Marriage. She shouldn't be interested in marriages unless there's love/passion involved, and she should definitely not be interested in arranged marriages.
Third, why would Tyr even agree with this? Why would he be interested in Tymora? And why would Tymora be interested in Tyr? Torm marrying the Red Knight I can see. Lathander and Chauntea, definitely. But Tyr and Tymora? Tyr and Helm are gods she plays practical jokes on, not the type she'd fall in love with or marry. Nevermind that Tymora's just not the marrying type. She has flings all the time, most of which never last more then a year. The closest thing she's had to a longterm relationship is with the Halfling god Brandobaris. And now suddenly she's ready to settle down? And not just with any god, but with the biggest prude god of them all?
And what I said about Siamorphe goes double for Tymora. Why would this Chaotic Good God want to leave a domain ruled by a Chaotic Good God and packed to the brim with other Chaotic Good Gods, only to become a member of a domain packed full of Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral Gods? Especially when this particular Chaotic Good God is as fickle, mischievous, and mercurial as Tymora? Why in the world would she want to live in the House of the Triad?
Fourth, why would anyone believe that Helm and Tymora are falling in love? At least her and Tyr have some common ground, in that Tyr is also good. Tymora and Helm don't even have that much. And yet Tyr's supposed to believe that Helm and Tymora are falling in love, so much so that he's willing to challenge his friend to a duel to the death?
Last but not least, Tyr fighting Helm. Okay, I can believe that they'd fight each other because of their personalities, if their ethos dictated it. What I find interesting, though, is just how many characters had to act OUT of character just to arrive at a point when these two would finally act IN character. That's not the definition of a good story. And to top it off, they all go right back to acting out of character, again, with Sune pushing Tymora off on Tyr, Tymora going to the House of the Triad all weepy, etc. And all of this convoluted mess just to kill off Helm? What was the point? Nor did I see any reason why Siamorphe and Tymora have to switch places, either. The whole story is just one colossal joke which isn't funny in the slightest.
Actualy having been the one to ask about it for about 5 times...
Also it not like I am demanding to know now...if he can't answear it then can't he give a time to when we will know? Or is that against the rules also....
I just want them to tell us it so I don't have to see you post about it anymore. ;) Even though once it is posted you will be able to have a reason to complain about something new.
What a conundrum I am in.I want you to stop complaining but I do not see it happening in the forseeable future. Oh well.
Maybe the new book will have more detail as to the whole Tyr/Helm/Tymora deal. Maybe it will make sense. Do we know the whole story yet? No, but hopefully they will give it to us in 4E and hopefully it will be a good tale.
In fact, I'm willing to wager that even the folks over at the GH and Eberron boards want to know...
the folks at CK and Enworld would like to know as well....
but Rich specifically told us that we will be seeing 'something' definately in December regarding the new setting, and perhaps even a little in Nov if we are lucky. He didn't sound very optomistic about Nov though, so don't get your hopes up.
He has also said that it will be D&D Insider's job to give us the low-down, so repeatedly asking him and others on this thread is getting us all no-where.
My own personal suspician:
Everything that D&D Insider has already revealed in the designer columns is supposedly for 'core' rules, yet we were told way back at Gencon that they no longer want any seperation between 'core' and 'FR' rules. That means much of what has already been revealed will most likely wind up in FR (the cosmology, Eladrin, fiends, etc...) We still have no idea how far they want to go with this rules 'merger', since they have also promised that the settings will all retain their individuals flavors.
Neat trick, IF they can pull it off.
In Dragons of Fearun, the list of associated classes for House Orogoth doesn't include the wizard class even though it is a prerequisite to joining. Was this intentional?
Also, the cleric class isn't an associated class for the Church of Tcharzar (spelling?). Was that intentional?
Also, will there be any official errata coming out for the 3.5 FR books or are they no longer viable/worthy?
It is the most consistent question, however it also suffers from the one person asking it 5 times vs. 5 people asking it once problem.
Actually no, I have asked it along with at least 3 other people. One of those has asked at least twice, and there might have been one that I missed, but it is the most consistent question. Downplaying a consistent question in hopes of promoting your own is bad form.
So Rich,
The most consistent question is "How big of a time jump?" Please ask Chris P, or whoever is in charge of withholding this tidbit of info and ask if you can let us know any sooner, or at the very least tell us a date when you will be able to tell us.
Thanks in advance,
--Hawkins
The most consistent question is "How big of a time jump?" Please ask Chris P, or whoever is in charge of withholding this tidbit of info and ask if you can let us know any sooner, or at the very least tell us a date when you will be able to tell us.
Look, I really don't think we will get an answer to this question. Let's assume there will be a 100 year jump. (GHotR may or may not imply this, but it would be counterproductive to tell people that Sembia, for example, will be no more in the near future, and then expect people to play in Sembia in the present. The little story excerpt tells too much. If everybody knows that Obould's orcs will form a new good-aligned kingdom anyway, why play with the ambiguity in the present?) It would make sense since the Weave gets destroyed, gods drop like flies, magic has to be relearned anew, and so on. Or look at Drizzt: Would he still be musing over the "disastrous merging of two worlds" if this Abeir thing, whatever it may be, happened a 100 years ago? After all we know that it's one of the aces up WotC's sleeve they're planning to make a major factor in the new Realms. So in conclusion, I wouldn't expect all this to happen in a mere ten years.
As I said, let's assume the jump will indeed span 100 years. If Mr. Baker told us about that now, he'd have to worry that many of us will say, "No way, I won't kill my campaign, let my party grow old, just so I can play in the new Realms that don't appeal to me anyway." These people are likely to not buy future FR products, and WotC loses their business now. In other words, a confirmation would needlessly scare many gamers away without offering them a reason to stay.
If he confirms the time jump at a time when there have been many previews, when we have learned why he thinks this or that change is cool - or even rocks -, he puts us in a position where we have to ponder the pros and cons of keeping to the old Realms and starting all over in the new Realms, respectively, because by then we know what we will get instead. So it makes sense to not answer this question right now.
I don't see how asking this question over and over and over and over makes his answer more likely.
DB
Yeah, I'm not to happy about that, either. Even soap operas have better plotlines, that's how little sense it makes. For one, why does Siamorphe leave the House of the Triad? I don't see that Lawful Good goddess abandoning a domain ruled by a Lawful Good god packed to the brim with Lawful Good gods in order to become part of a domain ruled by a Chaotic Good Goddess packed to the brim with Chaotic Good gods. And even if she did, why in the world would Sune be willing to give up Tymora in return? Siamorphe is a Demigod. Tymora, on the other hand, is an Intermediate God who's just shy of being a Greater God, herself. That's hardly what I'd call an equitable trade.
Secondly, why is Sune overseeing an arranged marriage? She's the God of Love and Passion, not the God of Marriage. She shouldn't be interested in marriages unless there's love/passion involved, and she should definitely not be interested in arranged marriages.
Third, why would Tyr even agree with this? Why would he be interested in Tymora? And why would Tymora be interested in Tyr? Torm marrying the Red Knight I can see. Lathander and Chauntea, definitely. But Tyr and Tymora? Tyr and Helm are gods she plays practical jokes on, not the type she'd fall in love with or marry. Nevermind that Tymora's just not the marrying type. She has flings all the time, most of which never last more then a year. The closest thing she's had to a longterm relationship is with the Halfling god Brandobaris. And now suddenly she's ready to settle down? And not just with any god, but with the biggest prude god of them all?
And what I said about Siamorphe goes double for Tymora. Why would this Chaotic Good God want to leave a domain ruled by a Chaotic Good God and packed to the brim with other Chaotic Good Gods, only to become a member of a domain packed full of Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral Gods? Especially when this particular Chaotic Good God is as fickle, mischievous, and mercurial as Tymora? Why in the world would she want to live in the House of the Triad?
Fourth, why would anyone believe that Helm and Tymora are falling in love? At least her and Tyr have some common ground, in that Tyr is also good. Tymora and Helm don't even have that much. And yet Tyr's supposed to believe that Helm and Tymora are falling in love, so much so that he's willing to challenge his friend to a duel to the death?
Last but not least, Tyr fighting Helm. Okay, I can believe that they'd fight each other because of their personalities, if their ethos dictated it. What I find interesting, though, is just how many characters had to act OUT of character just to arrive at a point when these two would finally act IN character. That's not the definition of a good story. And to top it off, they all go right back to acting out of character, again, with Sune pushing Tymora off on Tyr, Tymora going to the House of the Triad all weepy, etc. And all of this convoluted mess just to kill off Helm? What was the point? Nor did I see any reason why Siamorphe and Tymora have to switch places, either. The whole story is just one colossal joke which isn't funny in the slightest.
This has been about the best summary I have seen of what I find most annoying about the new Realms. Well, that and killing off Mystra.
Rich? If one person says he doesn´t like the changes, that´s sad but not critical. If the vast mayority of them say they *hate* the changes, that should be a cause of concern for you. Chanting "Lalala, I cannot hear you!" and putting your fingers in your ears doesn´t help when your paying costumers are running away from you.
Well, The Mighty Heroes are kinda classic, but they are also kinda dumb. ;)
Now their kinda dumb. But when I was 8 years old it was awesome!;)
I REALLY can't believe he just asked it AGAIN.
Heh, I know right?
Lyv, don't count the people here on the forums as the "vast majority" of people who play Realms related games or buy FR stuff. More of them probably are found offline or on the other forums such as the Eberron forums.;) Just because there are a bunch of people on these forums that are in distress about the changes doesn't mean all too much. These same people usually complain or freak out when someone comes here giving their idea about taking over Silverymoon or killing El. "It can't be done" would be the usual response. If the people here reflected all FR sales then I am sure they would cater to their opinions, but the world is a big place with lots of different gamers and consumers.
However, we can only make judgments based off of what we see, can't we?
When it comes down to it I would have picked up the new stuff one way or the other. I change what I want when way or the other. I believe that all this change is because people have been buying more EB stuff than FR. I think their marketing has told them things that make them feel that they need to change FR a bit. Perhaps it is to get new gamers involved but I think it is to bring back people who have switched to something else over the years. I am running a EB game currently. When I am done FR 4E will probably hit the shelves and I will be picking it up.
This has been about the best summary I have seen of what I find most annoying about the new Realms. Well, that and killing off Mystra.
Rich? If one person says he doesn´t like the changes, that´s sad but not critical. If the vast mayority of them say they *hate* the changes, that should be a cause of concern for you. Chanting "Lalala, I cannot hear you!" and putting your fingers in your ears doesn´t help when your paying costumers are running away from you.
Not to be the 'arse' in here, but cynical business-types sometimes think in order to expand the base you have to forgo the old base and do what you can to lure the ones who will form the new base. It's kind of like having a bunch of senior citizens for customers, it gets tiresome so then you start trying to get the 'youngbloods' coming through the door. Fire one, hire two in their place.
And this is a definite break from previous editions. They may even give the newbies Mickey Mouse ears as thanks for showing up. ;)
Not to be the 'arse' in here, but cynical business-types sometimes think in order to expand the base you have to forgo the old base and do what you can to lure the ones who will form the new base. It's kind of like having a bunch of senior citizens for customers, it gets tiresome so then you start trying to get the 'youngbloods' coming through the door. Fire one, hire two in their place.
And this is a definite break from previous editions. They may even give the newbies Mickey Mouse ears as thanks for showing up. ;)
Heh. I think they figure even the people who hate the changes wil pick up the 4E FR stuff. Maybe not all of them but enough to make it profitable.
Heh. I think they figure even the people who hate the changes wil pick up the 4E FR stuff. Maybe not all of them but enough to make it profitable.
And they're probably right. Sadly, FR fans are known for their loyalty.
DB
And they're probably right. Sadly, FR fans are known for their loyalty.
DB
Loyalty without holding those accountable for good/bad changes = sheep. Just like in politics.
I will not go so far as to paint myself into a corner because they could pull it all together into a decent product but then again if people felt that comfortable with the end result how well would it sell without Ed's added contribution?
And, again, Mystra doesn't need to bite the big one yet again in order to get from point A to B.
It's like every other storyline out there. Do something for a while, add some things a few thought were 'kewl', then realize it wasn't so bright after a few more years so now someone has to kick the old mule in the side in order to get it going down a straight path, never knowing if that last kick's the one going to bring it down. Mule drops dead, they buy a new one, give it the same name, and go down the same road as if nothing ever happened.
For gosh sakes, think of the old mule.
It's like every other storyline out there. Do something for a while, add some things a few thought were 'kewl', then realize it wasn't so bright after a few more years so now someone has to kick the old mule in the side in order to get it going down a straight path, never knowing if that last kick's the one going to bring it down. Mule drops dead, they buy a new one, give it the same name, and go down the same road as if nothing ever happened.
For gosh sakes, think of the old mule.
Lol. I like that analogy. Accept your roses from the crowd (who happens to be just me right now, but I am sure that there are others):
Still, long live the Mighty Heroes.
I just want them to tell us it so I don't have to see you post about it anymore. ;) Even though once it is posted you will be able to have a reason to complain about something new.
I want you to stop complaining but I do not see it happening in the forseeable future. Oh well.
Maybe the new book will have more detail as to the whole Tyr/Helm/Tymora deal. Maybe it will make sense. Do we know the whole story yet? No, but hopefully they will give it to us in 4E and hopefully it will be a good tale.
Are my posts asking the question really that annoying? I apologize. I though I kept them very short and to the point.
Also if you want me personaly to stop complaining tell them to stop this annoying movie trailer type hype building advertisment compaign and start tell us solid facts. It has been a very poor advertisement campaign so far.
It has been a very poor advertisement campaign so far.
For 4e FR, and 4e as a whole in my opinion.
Are my posts asking the question really that annoying? I apologize. I though I kept them very short and to the point.
Also if you want me personaly to stop complaining tell them to stop this annoying movie trailer type hype building advertisment compaign and start tell us solid facts. It has been a very poor advertisement campaign so far.
Heh heh I can't really tell you to stop anything. The designers are going to do what they are goign to do though I figure. I figure we will get a little disclosure in Dec.
Ok, here goes nothing:Rich please tell John SOMETHING that is a solid fact so he can stop complaining. I am sure he is getting sick of doing it so PLEASE help us all out here? ;)
Ok, here goes nothing:Rich please tell John SOMETHING that is a solid fact so he can stop complaining. I am sure he is getting sick of doing it so PLEASE help us all out here? ;)
Lol. I think all we all really want is a few solid facts...
DB
I asked these before but I'm not sure if you missed them or couldn't answer them yet, but I'll ask again.
Can you give us a general breakdown of the materials that will be in the FRCG and the Player's Guide (they are separate books, correct)? Will they be released relatively close to each other?
What's going to happen with the aasimar and the genasi?
Thanks.
This means that we don't appreciate campaigns with lots of buzz, because it fosters what we already know, namely, that there's lies, damn lies, and taxes.
You would be far more likely to hear howls of appreciation from us as a target market if you said "This is what's going to be in. This is what's not. Prepare yourselves. Have a nice day."
Are you for real? John you play in HIS game? Is he like this in real life? People probably don't like you for many reasons. If this is how you think of yourself we can now understand many of the zany posts throughout the last few months. Your from Jersey right? If so I had better move. The water here must contaminate the brain a bit.
If you do feel the way you post, I'm sorry. I am a gamer and a bit on the geeky side when it comes to fanatasy stuff but I have never had any problem in the social world. I am sorry you are shunned by your "lessers".
I just accept them and they me. :D
So my question Rich (sorry about the pointless rambling) is WHY can't you tell us the timeline jump? Does it have an effect on the FR storyline in a way that makes it an important secret, or do we simply need to beat someone in the marketing department soundly about the head and neck?
Hi Rich,
I asked these before but I'm not sure if you missed them or couldn't answer them yet, but I'll ask again.
Can you give us a general breakdown of the materials that will be in the FRCG and the Player's Guide (they are separate books, correct)? Will they be released relatively close to each other?
What's going to happen with the aasimar and the genasi?
Thanks.
Are you for real? John you play in HIS game? Is he like this in real life? People probably don't like you for many reasons. If this is how you think of yourself we can now understand many of the zany posts throughout the last few months. Your from Jersey right? If so I had better move. The water here must contaminate the brain a bit.
You are from NJ to? Wow alot a people on these boards are from.
As for Mike he is my friend. He might be a little more dramatic then neccessary to get his point across but I generaly agree with him on these things. I think insulting him is well just a little rude, stupid, and well close minded. But then again I guess some people out there have to insult things they don't agree with...atleast that is what 'cool' people do.
If you do feel the way you post, I'm sorry. I am a gamer and a bit on the geeky side when it comes to fanatasy stuff but I have never had any problem in the social world. I am sorry you are shunned by your "lessers".
I just accept them and they me. :D
Sure they accept you...how many people know you play D&D?
Also let tell a little story...
We used to hang out after games at a local Dunkin n' Donuts. Till a group of people used to hang out there(I suppose they what would be refered to as 'cool' by society) and prety much after they over heard us talking about a D&D game just started to harress us alot. This group probably has a age range of 25 to 40...they pretty much played video games, talked about cars...and all that BS. We asked the managment to do something they refused we have never been back there.
This generaly the reaction we get around here by non-gamers. So who are the social retards us or they who are soo close minded that they can't accept people with different interest then themselves?
Don't believe me? Go out in public to a place like a Dunkin n' Donuts and just start talking about the game with friends...see what happens.
Also in general people who do play RPGs are smarter then your average person because it requires intelligence to learn the rules...(Or better yet I'll say RPGs tend attract smarter people)the fact is they are dumbing down the game and the Realms to try to increase they number of customers. This will fail because lets face it D&D isn't considered 'cool'.
Short answer: The exact date of the new setting is touched on in an upcoming preview article, so it's not for me to scoop it early. That article probably won't hit until the holidays, or possibly early in '08.
Question is this article going to be free for those of us with access to the internet? If so why do you(meaning WotC) need to withhold this infomation about the TLA? I mean I am hope they will be other tidbits of infomation in the article that most people read it. So what is the gain in keeping this kind of stuff secret?
Also in general people who do play RPGs are smarter then your average person because it requires intelligence to learn the rules...(Or better yet I'll say RPGs tend attract smarter people)
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that. RPG's don't attract smarter people. Although after seeing this exchange I'm starting to think that maybe they do attract more arrogant people. I've met far to many blithering idiots to ever be able to honestly say that RPG players are a cut above the rest intelligence wise.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with that. RPG's don't attract smarter people. Although after seeing this exchange I'm starting to think that maybe they do attract more arrogant people. I've met far to many blithering idiots to ever be able to honestly say that RPG players are a cut above the rest intelligence wise.
Really how did I come off as arrogrant? Just relating my experiences most gamers read alot more then the average person...most gamers are creative...most gamers develope criticle thinking skills above thosw who don't play. Please note I did say generaly also...of course they will be complete morons who play the game( you know the ones who like the changes...j/k). Your point?
Short answer: The exact date of the new setting is touched on in an upcoming preview article, so it's not for me to scoop it early. That article probably won't hit until the holidays, or possibly early in '08.
Thank you Rich.
They are indeed separate books. Generally speaking, the Player's Guide has a lot of material very much like the first two chapters of the 3e FRCS -- info on races, regions, Realms spells/powers, and so forth -- plus a good "hero's-eye view" of what the world's like. The Campaign Guide has geography, monsters, villains, organizations, campaign-start areas, stuff like that. It's aimed at the DM.
Thank you again Rich.
On to other things...
Mr. Baker, when you say "hero's-eye view", does that mean something of a sociological view of the Realms, the local customs, holidays, cultural habits sort of thing, or other stuff along those lines... or stuff more geared towards adventurers without going too much into the society around them... or perhaps some combination of the two?
Really, can we keep the chit-chat to a minimum in here? Lets all go to the Thank you for destroying the Realms thread and whine and complain all we want. ;)
BTW, there was a time when gamers were amongst the 'elite' (read: nerds), but that is no longer so. Most of the people here on these boards are above average I would say, but the majority of gamers out there are idiots these days (no more so then the rest of the population, though).
Thats why companies can sell us shlock and we accept it, and why politicians lie to us and we accept it - we have all become mindless cattle; cashcows for corporate America to bleed dry.
Now if you all don't mind, I'm going back to my pasture to "moo".
There's always backlash, and it's never positive. The bigger you go, the bigger the backlash.
This is one of the reasons I hate global RSEs. Global events belong in the Superhero genre, not as much in the heroic fantasy genre. Even The Lord of the Rings does not take place over the entire planet, but only in a limited group of countries on Middle Earth.
In the fantasy genre, like LOTR, world shaking events work like Daffy Duck swallowing all the explosives. You can only do it once.
Inevitably, players will dislike it if you change things in a way that they cannot comprehend. And these 4th edition changes are not comprehensible because they gave us the baby, but they didn't give us any bathwater for it, so to speak. The story materials are inconsistent with what has gone before, and as a result, before we've seen a single thing, people are complaining.
The one thing fans of the Realms always wanted was consistency within the roleplaying framework. It was our meat and drink, our bread and butter. But to quote the Escape Club "You've got to shine your shoes, and hide your loot, and get rich while you can." That's the logic that Wizards is currently using to reach out to its customer base.
The realms doesn't need or deserve to be micromanged by corporate downsizing, which is what 4e FR really kind of is, symbolically or intentionally.
They are indeed separate books. Generally speaking, the Player's Guide has a lot of material very much like the first two chapters of the 3e FRCS -- info on races, regions, Realms spells/powers, and so forth -- plus a good "hero's-eye view" of what the world's like. The Campaign Guide has geography, monsters, villains, organizations, campaign-start areas, stuff like that. It's aimed at the DM.
That's not a bad idea. Separating player and DM info into different books helps leave players with a sense of mystery when they encounter new monsters and so on. Provided the books are of significant size, it also expands the amount of info and rules considered 'core' for the setting and that is something I can certainly appreciate. Can you tell us something about the size of the Player's Guide and the Campaign Guide? By 'size', I really mean the pagecount. Also, is this approach also going to be taken with other settings too?
The thing is alot of people are playing MMORPGs now, people that would normally be considered "Cool". I was able to infect about 5 of my fellow Valets with WOWitus. They hear me and my other buddy talk about my tabletop game and look puzzled, but slightly intrigued. I guess I am a good salesman when it comes to goob stuff. Those MMORGERS are rubbing elbows with tabletop goobs though. Maybe through it all the nasty stigma of tabletop games can slowly melt away. Fantasy movies are becoming the norm and making more money than other types of cinema, and video games are doing very well also with all ages. This millenium is the DAWN OF THE GEEKS!!! ;)
Just to make this post in this thread legit I think you should give a little more info on the Utter East Rich. Not a books worth, just enough to wet a DMs imagination. Maybe in Dragon or something. I hated those serials but kept readign them for knowledge about the Utter East. That is really what I use all FR novels for, insight into the regions. Colorful heros and villains help, but making the regions come to life is an important feature in FR novels IMO.
Your from Jersey right? If so I had better move. The water here must contaminate the brain a bit.
No, it doesn't.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'd dislike the Spellplague no matter what form it was presented to me in.
Thanks for taking time to answer our questions and field our complaints. My question deals with new art work for the new FR Campaign Guide, how much is new and any returning artist? Any good maps or will they be release as a web-enhancement?
Mstran must be stopped!
Again, this is a classic example of bad marketing to target audience. Gamers are a notoriously cynical, gloomy bunch who are tired of being lied to. Many of us are frustrated by a world that we feel neither appreciates us nor understands us, because we are largely more intelligent than the average person. Yes, Mr. Baker, this means you, too.
This means that we don't appreciate campaigns with lots of buzz, because it fosters what we already know, namely, that there's lies, damn lies, and taxes.
You would be far more likely to hear howls of appreciation from us as a target market if you said "This is what's going to be in. This is what's not. Prepare yourselves. Have a nice day."
You would be far more likely to hear howls of appreciation from us as a target market if you said "This is what's going to be in. This is what's not. Prepare yourselves. Have a nice day."
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
As convoluted as his logic may seem (and is to some), I think most of us are of the opinion that if you (the WotC FR Staff) dropped the silly hype approach to marketing and just told us strait out what was in and what was out when you know it, then we would be much happier. I, and msatran and john I assume from their comments, respond much better to strait-forward marketing. And I am willing to bet most everyone who has been held in suspense since the poorly presented "spoilers" at the end of the GHotR also feels this way.
DB
Will this ever end...?
DB
Hey, I am trying to communicate in a calm and civilized manner. Do you have a problem with that? This is where I am coming from. I have a right to convey that to the WotC FR Staff.
DB
We have an idea that we'd like the pantheon to get smaller, in that the number of deities heading up continent-spanning faiths probably ought to be more like 20 or 30 instead of 150-ish.
It sounds like there'll be:
- 20-30 members of the Faerun Pantheon (likely subsuming the Mulhorand Pantheon and Chult Pantheon).
- 20-30 members of the Kara-Tur Pantheon
- 20-30 members of the Zakhara Pantheon
- 20-30 members of the Utter East Pantheon (with the Utter East officially delineated as a separate Indian-style continent in 4E).
- 20-30 members of the Maztica Pantheon (includes Anchorome?)
- 20-30 members of the Katashaka Pantheon
- 20-30 members of the Osse Pantheon
I imagine Faerun would have about 30, while peripheral continents such as Osse may have only about 20.
Is this the idea?
Travis
Edit: On second thought, the "Chult Pantheon" may be simply the part of the Katashaka Pantheon that is known in Faerun.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Actually Im with him on this one. The more I hear the hype and nothing substancial the less interested I become in it. I didnt like the hints at the end of Grand History and since then I havent been given anyting but reassurances that sooner or later something 'cool' will be said. The longer it takes the more apathetic towards the 4e Realms I become. I used to read all the FR forums, now I read only the General board, and only 4 threads in it. Last night I was reading one of the very few novels I havent finished yet and for the first time in my life I just stopped reading it and put it on the pile of finished books because I realized Im just not interested anymore. If I have to wait for January to hear anything at all, odds are Im going to end up walking away before you even get the chance to change my mind.
And yes, I know, no one cares, but I like to think all the money Ive thrown at WotC and moreso the FR is worth at least reading a post about my opinion, and I believe Mr.Baker will do that.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
:OMG!
WOW!!!You will win more flies with honey than you will with vinegar. But essentially, Hawkins is correct. While suspense is nice, most of us (Including you, I hear through the grapevine here that your 1391 game is fantastic) are Dungeon Masters. We create suspense for other people. Therefore, we have a tendency not to like suspense in our product line.
And the longer your game runs, the more you hate suspense with this sort of buzz, because Realms Gamers are, much as I am embarrassed to admit this, the most **** retentive of folk. If we don't have six months to a year to "work it into backstory," our players all say to us...Mike...John...Hawkins...
What did you just do? What do you mean my castle is now a swamp? There are Aboleths in my yard? Huh?
These things are hard to fix and harder to compensate for. And the thing is, we're the people who REALLY want to buy your product. We're not cranky because we don't want to spend the money. A lot of us are cranky because we DO.
Thats why I've switched to a 'wait-and-see' attitude for the most part - having been on both sides of the fence I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (even though I'm not liking some of what I'm hearing).
Mstran must be stopped!
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Last time I checked, personal attacks were against the TOC. :P
Of course, that would mean most of us would be gone because of attacks on you, so I suppose turn-about is fair play. ;)
I give up on trying to gleen anything useful from this - it has turned into a "voice your opinion" thread. The title is ASK the designers... not TELL the designers.
The die is cast, the wheels have been set in motion - bïtch and whine all you want, but ALL changes mentioned WILL be in the new FRCG next Aug. If you don't like it, don't buy it - but never, EVER stop lovin' the Realms.
If you don't like it, don't buy it - but never, EVER stop lovin' the Realms.
Amen to that brother - highly animated smoke rings fo LIFE!
More Actual Questions to Mister Richard Baker:
Are the infamous prologue and epilogue of The Orc King by RA Salvatore to be taken as canon, or they fanciful visions of what may-or-may-not be as part of a non-linear storytelling technique? (I firmly believe the latter, but no one will pay attention until I have proof, you see.)
What can you tell us that is not happening? (Process of elimination and all that.)
The Runescarred Berserker PrC in Unapproachable East (you wrote it) requires the Rashemen region and the Survivor regional feat, which was available to Rashemi in the FRCS (3e), but is not available to them in the PGTF (3.5 update). Now the class is impossible to enter without a complicated backstory. Is there a solution to this paradox?
Thank you.
(Are all my questions invisible? Oh, well, never mind them then.)
More Actual Questions to Mister Richard Baker:
Are the infamous prologue and epilogue of The Orc King by RA Salvatore to be taken as canon, or they fanciful visions of what may-or-may-not be as part of a non-linear storytelling technique? (I firmly believe the latter, but no one will pay attention until I have proof, you see.)
What can you tell us that is not happening? (Process of elimination and all that.)
The Runescarred Berserker PrC in Unapproachable East (you wrote it) requires the Rashemen region and the Survivor regional feat, which was available to Rashemi in the FRCS (3e), but is not available to them in the PGTF (3.5 update). Now the class is impossible to enter without a complicated backstory. Is there a solution to this paradox?
Thank you.
You have my sympathies BadCatMan he seems to pick and choose what he answers and what he doesn't...none of mine got answered either
I worked for FGU (Fantasy Games Unlimited) for a couple of years, and since they still hold the record for the MOST RPGs produced by ANY company, I would say I have a wee bit of experience with the gaming industry myself. I was mostly a playtester/mop-boy, but some of my ideas did make it into the final versions.
Thats why I've switched to a 'wait-and-see' attitude for the most part - having been on both sides of the fence I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (even though I'm not liking some of what I'm hearing).
Last time I checked, personal attacks were against the TOC. :P
Of course, that would mean most of us would be gone because of attacks on you, so I suppose turn-about is fair play. ;)
I give up on trying to gleen anything useful from this - it has turned into a "voice your opinion" thread. The title is ASK the designers... not TELL the designers.
The die is cast, the wheels have been set in motion - bïtch and whine all you want, but ALL changes mentioned WILL be in the new FRCG next Aug. If you don't like it, don't buy it - but never, EVER stop lovin' the Realms.
You are a genius!;)
I am still going to wait for the Aboleths to fall from the sky!
Rise mighty Xxiphu, rise Aboleth Overlords, I give my self to thee!
Actually no, I have asked it along with at least 3 other people. One of those has asked at least twice, and there might have been one that I missed, but it is the most consistent question. Downplaying a consistent question in hopes of promoting your own is bad form.
We've all (yes that's hyperbole) asked that question a couple of time, John has asked it once or twice per page on this thread for the past few pages. That was the reference I was making. One that he even recognized and admitted to. So I fail to see how this is an attempt at downplaying a question that one person kept asking again and again? What I was saying, is the question appeared more prevalent than it truly was, do to the great frequency in which it was asked.
Heh, I know right?
Lyv, don't count the people here on the forums as the "vast majority" of people who play Realms related games or buy FR stuff. More of them probably are found offline or on the other forums such as the Eberron forums.;) Just because there are a bunch of people on these forums that are in distress about the changes doesn't mean all too much. These same people usually complain or freak out when someone comes here giving their idea about taking over Silverymoon or killing El. "It can't be done" would be the usual response. If the people here reflected all FR sales then I am sure they would cater to their opinions, but the world is a big place with lots of different gamers and consumers.
Yeah, and maybe if people on Candlekeep are up in arms about what is happening that little base is a bit larger than you might think. I know it´s nice being a pollyanna, because you get to look down on people who have a negative opinion, but if almost all the voices heard are negative, then maybe it is because the people with said negative opinion are a mayority?
Yeah, and maybe if people on Candlekeep are up in arms about what is happening that little base is a bit larger than you might think. I know it´s nice being a pollyanna, because you get to look down on people who have a negative opinion, but if almost all the voices heard are negative, then maybe it is because the people with said negative opinion are a mayority?
I think that in any case forum posters represent some kind of sampling for marketing research purposes -- maybe they're the most vocal and passionate group of D&D players, but at the same time I personally feel that they are also the most "faithful" (as in "spending more money on the WoTC products than an 'average' gamer") of their fan base.
I think that in any case forum posters represent some kind of sampling for marketing research purposes -- maybe they're the most vocal and passionate group of D&D players, but at the same time I personally feel that they are also the most "faithful" (as in "spending more money on the WoTC products than an 'average' gamer") of their fan base.
I suspect the people posting here (and on Candlekeep) are the most vocal and passionate FR fans. That doesn't mean they spend more money in general. At my FLGS the owner was willing to say that he ordered five of a 'core' d&d supplement to one of an FR or Eberron one, simply based on what he expected to sell. I know that there's only one other person in my gaming group who buys any FR books, but most of us own several from the 'Complete...' series. Simply put, more people use their own homebrew worlds than use ANY published setting, and core books are more useful. All anecdotal, of course, but I don't think it's far off the trend.
WotC does marketing research, and their research just might go deeper than a few online polls that are always responded to by the same handful of people. So you have 200 people saying they don't want changes. Can you prove that WotC has not received feedback from 2,000 people saying they do want change, and none of those people have even heard of Candlekeep, let alone voted in a poll there?
I can't prove they have gotten such feedback of course, but then again I don't need to, and neither does WotC. Either the people in charge have done their homework and know 4E and the new Forgotten Realms will sell like hotcakes, or they're out of job because it fails miserably. Guess which scenario is more likely?
I think it's probably fair to say that the posters on these and other FR boards probably spend more on FR material than the 'average gamer', who likely has little use overall for setting specific books. Which I suspect was what Asgetrion was getting at.
If that's the case, then I apologise for getting the wrong impression. I'm still inclined to doubt though that FR fans spending is significantly different to that of other gamers.
@naysayers:
WotC does marketing research, and their research just might go deeper than a few online polls that are always responded to by the same handful of people. So you have 200 people saying they don't want changes. Can you prove that WotC has not received feedback from 2,000 people saying they do want change, and none of those people have even heard of Candlekeep, let alone voted in a poll there?
I can't prove they have gotten such feedback of course, but then again I don't need to, and neither does WotC. Either the people in charge have done their homework and know 4E and the new Forgotten Realms will sell like hotcakes, or they're out of job because it fails miserably. Guess which scenario is more likely?
This is what I am talking about. I am not trying to say the people on the boards are totally insignificant but they probably do not represent the majority of the people who buy FR products. If they did then probably there would be zero canon changes for this edition, or any edition to follow most likely.
Anyway, I know you can't really talk about the weave/shadow weave Rich but is there going to be a DRASTIC change to those two things in the new FR?
Anyway, I know you can't really talk about the weave/shadow weave Rich but is there going to be a DRASTIC change to those two things in the new FR?
:OMG! WotC does marketing research, and their research just might go deeper than a few online polls that are always responded to by the same handful of people. So you have 200 people saying they don't want changes. Can you prove that WotC has not received feedback from 2,000 people saying they do want change, and none of those people have even heard of Candlekeep, let alone voted in a poll there?
I can't prove they have gotten such feedback of course, but then again I don't need to, and neither does WotC. Either the people in charge have done their homework and know 4E and the new Forgotten Realms will sell like hotcakes, or they're out of job because it fails miserably. Guess which scenario is more likely?
Well, scientists just don't think like that. Until I see evidence otherwise, I have no inclination to believe otherwise.
And by your logic, no company would ever 'go under,' or very rarely, which is obviously not the case. Economics and advertising is nowhere near that simple - I HAVE been talking to my economics/business friends lately. ;)
I will not advance my FR timeline with 4eFR and will not be purchasing any other FR4e material, instead, at most, converting my existing FR campaign to 4e rules, with some input from that single FR4e book.
What it boils down to is this: while some attributes of 4e, that have been revealed, appeal to me (new magic system for example), there has been nothing revealed about FR4e that appeals to me and in fact some of what has been revealed consists of changes away from what I like most about the Realms.
What are we *not* doing? Well, we're not turning Faerun into a magitech world. We're not changing genre to fantastic horror, post-apocalyptic (some of you may disagree based on what we've said so far, but it's true), romantic fantasy, or whatever; the tone and feel of the setting remain center-stream fantasy. We're not flattening Suzail beneath a horde of radioactive mutant elephants. We're not decimating Turmish with a moon falling out of the sky. We're not having a *really* big fish swallow the Moonshaes. We're not importing the skull-shaped headquarters of the Legion of Doom into the Marsh of Chelimber. I mean, there's lots of things we're *not* doing...
Regarding Runescarred Berserker, that's a goof on our part, we should have caught that. Easiest answer: Add Survivor to the list of regional feats available in Rashemen.
(Are all my questions invisible? Oh, well, never mind them then.)
More Actual Questions to Mister Richard Baker:
Are the infamous prologue and epilogue of The Orc King by RA Salvatore to be taken as canon, or they fanciful visions of what may-or-may-not be as part of a non-linear storytelling technique? (I firmly believe the latter, but no one will pay attention until I have proof, you see.)
What can you tell us that is not happening? (Process of elimination and all that.)
The Runescarred Berserker PrC in Unapproachable East (you wrote it) requires the Rashemen region and the Survivor regional feat, which was available to Rashemi in the FRCS (3e), but is not available to them in the PGTF (3.5 update). Now the class is impossible to enter without a complicated backstory. Is there a solution to this paradox?
Thank you.
And by your logic, no company would ever 'go under,' or very rarely, which is obviously not the case. Economics and advertising is nowhere near that simple - I HAVE been talking to my economics/business friends lately.
The point is that WotC knows their own business strategy whether or not they tell us, and it's ridiculous to even think they wouldn't have one when it comes to something as major as what they're doing now.
No business plan is failsafe of course, there are all sorts of things that can go wrong, but claiming that the majority of their target audience will be against the latest product is wishful thinking, to put it nicely.
The point is that WotC knows their own business strategy whether or not they tell us, and it's ridiculous to even think they wouldn't have one when it comes to something as major as what they're doing now.
No business plan is failsafe of course, there are all sorts of things that can go wrong, but claiming that the majority of their target audience will be against the latest product is wishful thinking, to put it nicely.
I am still not convinced that they did enough research on this particular aspect of 4e. I know that they did quite a bit for the 4e Rules set, along with the playtesting they are doing now, but I cannot help but feel that they did not research what the Realms fans' reaction would be to the changes they have implemented on the Realms. I may be wrong. But the vibe I am getting is that this is what the designers felt would bring more new players into the Realms, not what the Realms grognards (or "Old Guard") would think about the changes. And and "out with the old, in with the new" philosophy only works if they get enough "new." And they probably will. But that does not make what they do to the Realms right. Anyways, I have decided that I can live with the changes even though I don't like them as long as they explain the changes in a way that makes sense opposed to the confusing, controversial snippets they gave us as "previews" at the end of the GHotR. I put more stock in the fact that Ed has promised the Realms grognards that it will be a place that we will enjoy to play in and read about even though it will not be the same place.
The point is that WotC knows their own business strategy whether or not they tell us, and it's ridiculous to even think they wouldn't have one when it comes to something as major as what they're doing now.
No business plan is failsafe of course, there are all sorts of things that can go wrong, but claiming that the majority of their target audience will be against the latest product is wishful thinking, to put it nicely.
Actualy not really...as I think their market research failed completely....
Also everything I have seen so far suggests these changes are to make their jobs easier...not for the fans.
Anyway, I know you can't really talk about the weave/shadow weave Rich but is there going to be a DRASTIC change to those two things in the new FR?
um he already answeared that question....both are going to be gone...as in no longer existing.
Show us an addition to the "New and Improved" Realms? What I mean by this is not a statement along the lines of "we are killing a bunch of famous Npcs and downsizing the god list to make Realms better." Tell us about something that is not being cut to make the realms better, but is being added. Maybe a new town, god, npc something that will demonstrate that you are doing more than slashing old lore to make the realms better fit a points of light campaign.
@naysayers:
WotC does marketing research, and their research just might go deeper than a few online polls that are always responded to by the same handful of people. So you have 200 people saying they don't want changes. Can you prove that WotC has not received feedback from 2,000 people saying they do want change, and none of those people have even heard of Candlekeep, let alone voted in a poll there?
I can't prove they have gotten such feedback of course, but then again I don't need to, and neither does WotC. Either the people in charge have done their homework and know 4E and the new Forgotten Realms will sell like hotcakes, or they're out of job because it fails miserably. Guess which scenario is more likely?
Well, if you don´t need to prove anything, nor do I. I hereby declare that Ed Greenwood is just a reality- and time-displaced Shakespeare. Also, the world merging with the Realms is ours! Hold on to your hats, it´ll happen when the new FRCG comes out! :P
Honestly, there is not a lot that points to WOTC doing such extensive market research. Otherwise, don´t you think that somebody might have spoken out on about it by now? Or do you think that forum users are singled out to be not contacted for such research?
And while I don´t think that nobody will buy the new setting, it may fail because WOTC seems to be actively driving away their old costumers and not recruiting enough new ones. Unless they somehow are able to make the Realms the new hot thing, which I cannot see happening.
What are we *not* doing? Well, we're not turning Faerun into a magitech world. We're not changing genre to fantastic horror, post-apocalyptic (some of you may disagree based on what we've said so far, but it's true), romantic fantasy, or whatever; the tone and feel of the setting remain center-stream fantasy.
That's a relief! A 100 year advancement in the timeline could have been (mis-)used to justify turning Faerun into magitech world and magitech is precisely one of the major reasons why I am not keen on Eberron.
I've defended the coolness of the Mystra's death-Spellplague-evolution of magic change, which I think is a "Time of Troubles"-type event much better grounded in the lore of the setting than, say, the Time of Troubles itself. It's cool to me because it fits well with existing lore, gets the setting to where it needs to go, and restores a sense of dark mystery and peril to magic that's lacking in the 2e/3e environment.
Rich,
You posted this a few days back. Is there any way we can see some more information regarding 'restores a sense of dark mystery and peril to magic'? Will we see mechanics in magic (system shock on a haste spell
, age 3 years for a Wish I'm looking at you 'old-school' fans! Love it.) that will be in effect in the Realms that will differ from the core? Or will core magic keep this dark mystery and peril as well? Or was this quote just an allusion to the Weave being destroyed as we saw in GHotR?
Thanks in advance for any info you can pass on!
If one trolls the message boards for X amount of time one can get an idea of nature of the 'chatter', what gets the kudos (and ire) of those out there...at least those on the boards. One can say people are more motivated to respond about something they dislike than about how content they are with X and Y, nonetheless some generalities can be gleaned from that. Whether that's it or if one's sitting there with a graph chat showing products with a certain theme are better sellers than others, I wouldn't be able to say. But they've probably done a fair amount of market research mixed with other data streams. If they try to reach a different audience and lose a hefty amount of the audience they already have, oops. Guess they didn't read the digital tea leaves too well. In that case another correction will come about in later products. Despite my irritation at some things already leaked I will wish them well, as it would be better they make it through (albeit with a proverbial bloody nose over certain things) than not at all.
Anyhow, message boards are for a more invested vocal segment of the larger audience. Equating the FR boards to a majority of FR gamers is almost as bad a stretch as saying MoveOn.org members represent the majority of Democrats (just to use as an example).
With that being said, killing Mystra again makes as much sense as a safety tab on a cyanide capsule. ;) (I have to keep saying it, it's in the Realms by-laws.)
I think that the Legion of Doom Skull shaped HQ should be in the Mere of Dead Men, myself. What better place to watch over the Hall of Justice in Waterdeep!:P
I know, right. That was one of the things I was looking forward to.
Would anyone really notice if a moon squished Turmish or a fish swallowed the Moonshaes? Afterall, it's not like they've been covered anywhere recently.
We're not flattening Suzail beneath a horde of radioactive mutant elephants.
They're using Hippos!!!
Again, this is a classic example of bad marketing to target audience. Gamers are a notoriously cynical, gloomy bunch who are tired of being lied to. Many of us are frustrated by a world that we feel neither appreciates us nor understands us, because we are largely more intelligent than the average person. Yes, Mr. Baker, this means you, too.
This means that we don't appreciate campaigns with lots of buzz, because it fosters what we already know, namely, that there's lies, damn lies, and taxes.
You would be far more likely to hear howls of appreciation from us as a target market if you said "This is what's going to be in. This is what's not. Prepare yourselves. Have a nice day."
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Rich 1, whiners 0.
Msatran and others, if you really want to take up this cause, I have some great ideas for you:
1. Go to NBC, tell them they should release the storyline for the rest of this season's The Office so we can all howl in appreciation. Also Scrubs, which is in its last season. If we all knew the season finale ahead of time, we can all "prepare ourselves"!
2. Go to JK Rowling, and let her know that she should have told us what was going to happen in Book 7 before she actually released it. I want to howl in appreciation!
3. Same thing with Robert Jordan's family, who are putting together the final Wheel of Time book.
4. In fact, why don't you just go to WotC and ask them exactly who's getting paid how much money to write what, and request drafts as they come in from the writers? Howling, appreciation, preparing ourselves, and etc.
Learn how the world works. I love it when people throw around the word "marketing" (and attach "straightforward" onto it frankenstyle!) as if they even knew what it really entails. I also love it when people pretend to know what market research shows ("I know for a fact Realms fans are X, so you better do Y or we won't buy your books!") will be a successful business strategy for WotC/Hasbro to pursue.
I find it hilarious people whined about how WotC kept 4E under wraps until a year before release, and then they now whine about how there's so much time before they get to see it.
or any other Avatar BUT that one. :P
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
It's nice to see Rich press back a little.
IMO the crap being hurled by the monkeys ought to be tossed righ back in their faces every now and then.
:P
It's nice to see Rich press back a little.
IMO the crap being hurled by the monkeys ought to be tossed righ back in their faces every now and then.
:P
You mean like the Spellplague? Or the Tyr/Helm/Tymora/Sune crap?
Rich 1, whiners 0.
Msatran and others, if you really want to take up this cause, I have some great ideas for you:
1. Go to NBC, tell them they should release the storyline for the rest of this season's The Office so we can all howl in appreciation. Also Scrubs, which is in its last season. If we all knew the season finale ahead of time, we can all "prepare ourselves"!
2. Go to JK Rowling, and let her know that she should have told us what was going to happen in Book 7 before she actually released it. I want to howl in appreciation!
3. Same thing with Robert Jordan's family, who are putting together the final Wheel of Time book.
4. In fact, why don't you just go to WotC and ask them exactly who's getting paid how much money to write what, and request drafts as they come in from the writers? Howling, appreciation, preparing ourselves, and etc.
Learn how the world works. I love it when people throw around the word "marketing" (and attach "straightforward" onto it frankenstyle!) as if they even knew what it really entails. I also love it when people pretend to know what market research shows ("I know for a fact Realms fans are X, so you better do Y or we won't buy your books!") will be a successful business strategy for WotC/Hasbro to pursue.
I find it hilarious people whined about how WotC kept 4E under wraps until a year before release, and then they now whine about how there's so much time before they get to see it.
You don't even get what a RPG is do you?
Personaly I like to think of it as something deeper and more involve then any story could be. This treating it like it is upcoming movie or a novel is stupid. I don't want to be surprised by it. I want something I can use to create a great RPG.
So far the changes means that the Realms won't be for me anymore as it will become more like a novel and less of a living world.
So Richard Baker I'll ask you this...
I liked the 160 something gods...
I liked Mystra/Midnight and the Weave...
I liked Helm....
I liked Shar acting behind the scenes...
I liked Elistraee and the drow pantheon...
Unfortunaly I have been told by team WotC these aren't 'cool' instead we have things I don't like being deemed 'cool' like Cyric.
So is there room in the new Realms for me? Do you even care about what fans want or are you guys more interesting in the stories you are telling?
If that's the case, then I apologise for getting the wrong impression. I'm still inclined to doubt though that FR fans spending is significantly different to that of other gamers.
Well, Eberron fans probably spend as much on their books as well. What I am saying is that most people on these boards (and other D&D boards as well) probably spend more money on D&D books than your "average" gamer. And FR fans that frequent these boards (and other FR boards) probably spend more money on FR books than your "average" FR fan. Why? Because I think they're more passionate about their hobby -- note that I am not stating this as fact, however. It's just my impression of how things are.
For Dungeon Masters, having limited time to prepare is always awful. The less time we have to prepare, the bigger a problem it is, especially in a historically oriented setting where every event impacts on a larger picture.
I'm sorry, Ancalimhotar, but this is not like any of those things that you're talking about. It's the DM's job to create suspense for his players, not the Realms Designers job to create suspense for DMs.
Think of yourself, for a minute, as the director of a film. And that entire film takes place on the Titanic. That's what this is far more accurately described as. Because the DM knows where he wants to get to, and whether or not the players get there is up to them. The only thing that the DM knows for sure is that at the end of the story, the boat sinks. But the problem is, metaphorically, we don't even know if the Titanic exists, so we can't know whether or not the boat sinks. But because it takes place on the Titanic, we know the boat is going to sink at the end. That's why your view doesn't hold water. The Titanic is representative of the Realms, at this point. It floats precariously and each of us has to decide whether it's being hit by an iceberg or not.
Unfortunately, as long as we don't know whether the boat sinks or not, we cannot prepare, work around, or deal with any of the things that we need to run our games because we don't know what they are.
So there you have it. An RPG is not a novel. It is a framework. Only the problem is, we don't even have the ability to decide whether or not the framework is worth the effort.
Rich,
Can you give us more info on what is going on in the FR, by telling us what you are NOT doing in the FR?
Thanks.
He did that already.
I am glad the weave/antiweave is going bye bye.
If they write out a god I need (Helm) I will just keep on using him. Same with NPCs. If my players complain that I am going off-canon (which they won't because they are not canon-crazies) I will tell them it's my version of the Realms. Seems simple enough to me.
Alas I am not a drama queen/king so there are many many things that may be a hassle or a bother but I shall always endeavor to endure. ;)
On a side note, this:" 5/. BEHAVE!
There is no obligation for any of the authors to respond to these questions. In fact with all the insults that have been flung at them over the years it is a miracle any of the authors still frequent these boards. Don't get angry if your question isn't answered. Stay polite to those authors who do answer, and don't chase them away!here"
is part of the GROUND RULES of this thread.
But it has things that I really liked (Drow, for example).
Also, for a while they have been building up to a crisis with Mystra. The fight between her and Shar, for example, has been building for a bit and it seemed to be hinted that something bad was likely to happen.
Now they have resolved this and moved the Realms into a new era. Nothing stops you from playing in the historical Realms. But a newer setting that makes things less confusing does make sense. It'll be cool and different. Heck, it can be the dystopian future your characters are trying to prevent. That'd be neat!
So I am planning to buy a couple of these books and see. I hope that they are really good and give me great material for fun games.
Maybe I am a minority but sometimes big changes are fun!!
I could put together a similar list that would be JUST as accurate -
Gallagher WON'T be transported to the Realms and throw Watermelons at the Red Wizards, Dinosaurs will not eat the Harpers (at least not all of them), Cthulhu will NOT cause the Kuo-toa to rise up and take over Halrua, Elric will not make an appearance and kill ALL of the Chosen with Stormbringer (causing him to absorb their collective energies and become the new god of Magic), Red Dragons will not suddenly lose their wings, become 'nice' and host weekly Poker Games at Baldur's gate, etc, etc....
Totally USELESS information... and if any of those things I mentioned DOES happen in the 4e Realms, I may just shoot myself in the head for having thought of it.
Let it be people - ask questions that DON'T pertain to the new setting or rules. All will be revealed in time.
Sleyvas over on the candlekeep.com forums asked you about whether magic items pre-spellplague would function post-spellplague.
This got me to wondering whether you were planning to introduce a level of undertainty wrt magic items found as treasure while playing in the 4E Realms.
While I'm sure you're not at liberty to say, I'd like to ask if you/the design team have considered how all magic items will function post-spellplague and whether or not you've considered what an effect (a chilling effect, if you ask me) it might have on gamers if they learn that after all their hard work in-game, not every magic item they find may function.
Also, with the events of the spellplague, will their be a drive amongst all magic using races in Faerûn to 're-learn' magic? And if so will that have some effect on who wields real power in the Realms post-spellplague?
but from all the stuff that designers have said in various venues, ALL permanent effects that existed BEFORE the Spellplague will still function normally. Its only 'newly cast' magic that is risky during the Spellplague. That means Liches will still be Liches, Mythals won't fall, magic items will still function perfectly, etc...
The gist is this - Magic is like the Internet. Everything you 'upload' is still there, even if you lose your connection. You may need to find a new service provider, but anything you had posted before hand will still be up and running when you get back online. The Weave was just the interface, so anyhting 'completed' will be fine.
I wonder what will happen to those spells that were in the middle of taking effect when it hit - we may get all sorts of random oddities like Wizhades and such.
There's always got to be someone who considers other people whiners, and apparently,Ancalimhotar, that's you.
For Dungeon Masters, having limited time to prepare is always awful. The less time we have to prepare, the bigger a problem it is, especially in a historically oriented setting where every event impacts on a larger picture.
I'm sorry, Ancalimhotar, but this is not like any of those things that you're talking about. It's the DM's job to create suspense for his players, not the Realms Designers job to create suspense for DMs.
Think of yourself, for a minute, as the director of a film. And that entire film takes place on the Titanic. That's what this is far more accurately described as. Because the DM knows where he wants to get to, and whether or not the players get there is up to them. The only thing that the DM knows for sure is that at the end of the story, the boat sinks. But the problem is, metaphorically, we don't even know if the Titanic exists, so we can't know whether or not the boat sinks. But because it takes place on the Titanic, we know the boat is going to sink at the end. That's why your view doesn't hold water. The Titanic is representative of the Realms, at this point. It floats precariously and each of us has to decide whether it's being hit by an iceberg or not.
Unfortunately, as long as we don't know whether the boat sinks or not, we cannot prepare, work around, or deal with any of the things that we need to run our games because we don't know what they are.
So there you have it. An RPG is not a novel. It is a framework. Only the problem is, we don't even have the ability to decide whether or not the framework is worth the effort.
I understand your sentiment, but I believe you're looking at it from the point of view of "what is best for me," not "what is best for the game, the business, the franchise."
I encourage you to read my thread on the Concerns and Criticisms board, where I try to put a little real-world perspective on what WotC is trying to do, and why people should stop getting mad: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=947168
I think, for example, that giving away information now is a terrible business idea. If they give it all away, they're cutting into their book sales. This includes the FR novels, the cash cow, which are exactly the same product that I used as an example earlier. DMs don't need to be preparing their games now for a year later. They can prepare in a year for a year after that. Nobody is going to die because of that.
I think, for example, that giving away information now is a terrible business idea. If they give it all away, they're cutting into their book sales. This includes the FR novels, the cash cow, which are exactly the same product that I used as an example earlier. DMs don't need to be preparing their games now for a year later. They can prepare in a year for a year after that. Nobody is going to die because of that.
Actualy I doubt it is as much as a cash cow as people think it is. I mean they have only one author who makes the Times best seller list on a regular basis with Realms novels. I doubt most book publishers take WotC seriously.
Anyway do you have any proof that they make that much money off the novels or are you just assuming?
Also how does revealing the Time Line Advancement spoil any books...heck it would spoil is one tidbit of infomation in a future article that will be free online with other bits of infomrmation. Though if it is not free then I completely agree with you they should not reveal it as of yet.
You have my sympathies BadCatMan he seems to pick and choose what he answers and what he doesn't...none of mine got answered either
I also posted some interesting questions that remain unanswered, but this is inevitable. Considering the sheer volume of questions coming in, Rich Baker cannot possibly answer them all even if he were permitted to divulge all information without any restrictions (which he cannot). I am happy he is trying to answer questions at all and does so with very reasonable frequency.
Quite frankly, that's THE most welcome change you could possibly give me. If you guys said "Don't write novels from any period where it could affect the PC's," then I would be happy as a clam.
Besides, I'd love to hear about stories of Netheril, and other old empires. I'd love to hear stories about the founding of Icewind Dale, or the guild wars that spawned the Lords of Waterdeep.
These are stories worthy in the telling, too. They acquire grand scale by virtue of their historicity rather than grand scale by virtue of someone saying "You know, I really need a hundred gorillas right in the middle of the Shaar. Loxos? Who needs them! Apes always win!""
I understand your sentiment, but I believe you're looking at it from the point of view of "what is best for me," not "what is best for the game, the business, the franchise."
That is a very idealistic notion -- yet we're all selfish and see things from our personal perspectives, as we should. If we really all thought "I must do what's best for the game and the industry", everyone would buy every D&D book out there -- even those that we wouldn't ever use (because higher sales are best for the industry).
I encourage you to read my thread on the Concerns and Criticisms board, where I try to put a little real-world perspective on what WotC is trying to do, and why people should stop getting mad: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=947168
I think, for example, that giving away information now is a terrible business idea. If they give it all away, they're cutting into their book sales. This includes the FR novels, the cash cow, which are exactly the same product that I used as an example earlier. DMs don't need to be preparing their games now for a year later. They can prepare in a year for a year after that. Nobody is going to die because of that.
And why would some pre-release information be a terrible business idea? WoTC does it frequently by releasing excerpts and art and map galleries of their products. For example, the excerpts from 'Anauroch' have convinced me to buy it, although I had already made up my mind not to do so. Another very good example is the Indie RPG industry -- many rules sets may be downloaded for free, in case you want to take a proper look at them or even try them with your friends. You probably see this as a terrible business strategy, but it has actually *increased* their notoriety and sales.
I also posted some interesting questions that remain unanswered, but this is inevitable. Considering the sheer volume of questions coming in, Rich Baker cannot possibly answer them all even if he were permitted to divulge all information without any restrictions (which he cannot). I am happy he is trying to answer questions at all and does so with very reasonable frequency.
Thank you for acknowledging my existence Roman, I get so few people to answer my posts or quote me in an answer that I have began to wonder if I am really connected to the internet...especially in this thread!
Thanks Again!
I understand your sentiment, but I believe you're looking at it from the point of view of "what is best for me," not "what is best for the game, the business, the franchise."
I don't see what's wrong with that.
Not that I'm in any position to give any official answers-
...I'd like to see Rich's answers, if you don't mind. ;)
The problem with short term turnover strategies is that they rely on the concept of relentless spending in order to function. Eventually, people run out of money. The question is whether you build your company to focus on long term, steady financial growth based on loyalty to an existing product, or whether you have constantly regenerating product to take advantage of an existing rules set.
Eventually, the problem is, this repeats the same psychological conditions that you see in many serial killers, where they produce things just to produce things. They can't stop, or hold back, or see what the next product will look like. For a serial killer, that means more dead bodies.
For a gaming company, that means people debating things like the very things we're debating now. How useful is this? Why should I buy it? How much am I prepared to spend? Are we building in enough product obsolescence that in seven years, we're going to need a new product?
This is the part you folks seem to be missing who are such a fan of the 4th edition changes. Badcatman is even more hosed than I am, he's got 300 players in his online game, I've only got 20 tabletop PCs and 14 groups of characters to micromanage.
How do you rewrite all that stuff and make sure that the long time players are satisfied? And the answer is, you can't do both. People who say "Hey, relax, it's gonna be great" are only looking at the half empty glass without realizing that the glass was half empty to start with and dungeon masters are filling it with stuff.
Did you just compare WotC to serial Killers?
msatran must be stopped!;) :P
P.S. I hope Rich Baker doesn't strangle my Old Grey box set. :D
...I'd like to see Rich's answers, if you don't mind. ;)
Actually, that was HIS, and everyone else official's - answers given in statements already made. Some of us read EVERYTHING before drawing our conclusions. If I could remember where I read it (probably CK), I would give you the link - but I'm sure Mr. Baker will be along shortly to confirm what I said (minus my 'Internet' analogy, of course).
Might have been in his blog... or someone elses... or even back a few pages here...
Whatever....
Actualy I doubt it is as much as a cash cow as people think it is. I mean they have only one author who makes the Times best seller list on a regular basis with Realms novels. I doubt most book publishers take WotC seriously.
Anyway do you have any proof that they make that much money off the novels or are you just assuming?
Also how does revealing the Time Line Advancement spoil any books...heck it would spoil is one tidbit of infomation in a future article that will be free online with other bits of infomrmation. Though if it is not free then I completely agree with you they should not reveal it as of yet.
The publishing branch of WotC has definitely been profitable, and its success in FY2005 was significant enough to merit mention in HAS's annual report (page 3, page 14 in the PDF). If you read the rest of it, D&D as a whole--even WotC as a subsidiary--gets talked about very little.
I understand your sentiment, but I believe you're looking at it from the point of view of "what is best for me," not "what is best for the game, the business, the franchise."
That is a very idealistic notion -- yet we're all selfish and see things from our personal perspectives, as we should. If we really all thought "I must do what's best for the game and the industry", everyone would buy every D&D book out there -- even those that we wouldn't ever use (because higher sales are best for the industry).
I don't see what's wrong with that.
Let me rephrase. I'm not advocating anyone do anything except in his own best interest. You are, in fact trying to get WotC to do something based on what's best for you, rather than what's best for them. You're saying, "release information now!" which may be great for you, but not so great for them. Why would they do it then?
And why would some pre-release information be a terrible business idea? WoTC does it frequently by releasing excerpts and art and map galleries of their products. For example, the excerpts from 'Anauroch' have convinced me to buy it, although I had already made up my mind not to do so. Another very good example is the Indie RPG industry -- many rules sets may be downloaded for free, in case you want to take a proper look at them or even try them with your friends. You probably see this as a terrible business strategy, but it has actually *increased* their notoriety and sales.
Seeming exceptions to the rule are nice, but they're not proof. In any case, the specifics are all different. The indie RPG industry is not the same as the mainstream fantasy one. They behave differently. Selling one book, Anauroch, is different from selling an entire line of novels and an entire edition of rules. And so on and so forth. None of us know the specifics, and so I don't think it's very productive to sit around speculating on what could be. I do think it is useful to voice valid concerns to WotC, but beating dead horses gets you nothing but dead horse guts squirted all over the place.
Actually, I am. What happens in seven years or so when they decide that this short term turnover strategy has failed?
The problem with short term turnover strategies is that they rely on the concept of relentless spending in order to function. Eventually, people run out of money. The question is whether you build your company to focus on long term, steady financial growth based on loyalty to an existing product, or whether you have constantly regenerating product to take advantage of an existing rules set.
Eventually, the problem is, this repeats the same psychological conditions that you see in many serial killers, where they produce things just to produce things. They can't stop, or hold back, or see what the next product will look like. For a serial killer, that means more dead bodies.
For a gaming company, that means people debating things like the very things we're debating now. How useful is this? Why should I buy it? How much am I prepared to spend? Are we building in enough product obsolescence that in seven years, we're going to need a new product?
This is the part you folks seem to be missing who are such a fan of the 4th edition changes. Badcatman is even more hosed than I am, he's got 300 players in his online game, I've only got 20 tabletop PCs and 14 groups of characters to micromanage.
How do you rewrite all that stuff and make sure that the long time players are satisfied? And the answer is, you can't do both. People who say "Hey, relax, it's gonna be great" are only looking at the half empty glass without realizing that the glass was half empty to start with and dungeon masters are filling it with stuff.
That's not how business works, at all, if I'm understanding you correctly.
When you say "short term turnover strategy," I assume you simply mean coming out with new supplements at a consistent pace? Or are you talking about new editions? Either way, there's not much wrong with it. Nobody is going to realize either one will fail in seven or however many years, and I don't even know what constitutes "relentless" spending and how this is somehow a problem for WotC. Your assertion that "eventually, people run out of money" is absurd and not in the realm of a discussion on business models, and the distinction you draw between "long term, steady financial growth" and "constantly regenerating product" makes no sense. You're trying to relate issues specific to D&D and FR to business in general, throwing in some whacky terms for good measure.
Anyway, I'd love to continue this discussion with all of you on the thread I linked before. It's on this topic there. Better than clutter Rich Baker's thread.
Did anyone at WotC take notice of the Eleven net book that Lord Karsus put together? It has over 37,000 views. Do you think there is demand for an Elf book for the Realms? Are there any plans?
Thanks
P.S. Thank you to Lord Karsus and every one that worked on the net book. Great job. :D
Now, on to my own personal speculation... divide magic items into two groups: use-activated, and spell trigger/completion. Use-activated items are generally things like swords, armor, boots, cloaks, rings, and so on. Such items created before the Spellplague probably function normally after the Spellplague. You used the Weave when you made them--you used the Weave to permanently "plug them in" to the world's natural geomagical field, the raw magical energy that pervades the universe. The Spellplague doesn't yank that plug out.
Spell tigger and spell completion items (wands, scrolls, things you generally need some levels in wizard to use) might be a different matter. I think those make use of the Weave each time you use them, and post-Spellplague I think they don't work anymore. Post-Spellplague wands work differently from pre-Spellplague wands (partially because I expect that the core game is changing wands into "wizards' weapons," hence the "+5 wand" teaser some of you have seen around).
There may be "workarounds" clever wizards can figure out, so if you have a pre-Spellplague wizard who's sunk a lot of his time and treasure into a nifty wand, maybe he can "re-plug it in" somehow. But now I really am just speculating.
Hello Rich,
Sleyvas over on the candlekeep.com forums asked you about whether magic items pre-spellplague would function post-spellplague.
This got me to wondering whether you were planning to introduce a level of undertainty wrt magic items found as treasure while playing in the 4E Realms.
While I'm sure you're not at liberty to say, I'd like to ask if you/the design team have considered how all magic items will function post-spellplague and whether or not you've considered what an effect (a chilling effect, if you ask me) it might have on gamers if they learn that after all their hard work in-game, not every magic item they find may function.
Also, with the events of the spellplague, will their be a drive amongst all magic using races in Faerûn to 're-learn' magic? And if so will that have some effect on who wields real power in the Realms post-spellplague?
I think there is clearly some demand for an Realms elf-themed book, but I don't know if there's more demand for that than something else. I'd love to get back to the Moonshaes or do a serious look at the Western Heartlands sometime, too. It's hard to say which one is more in need of doing first.
Mr. Baker,
Did anyone at WotC take notice of the Eleven net book that Lord Karsus put together? It has over 37,000 views. Do you think there is demand for an Elf book for the Realms? Are there any plans?
Thanks
P.S. Thank you to Lord Karsus and every one that worked on the net book. Great job. :D
I want to thank you yet again for coming back here and answering our questions, despite all the crap we give you. I think it is especially cool when you do this on your days off (i.e. today, Veteran's Day).
Thanks,
Hawkins
Oh, and one more thing: To any veterans reading, happy Veteran's Day, and thank you for your service. I'm a vet myself, but I had it pretty easy. I know a lot of you didn't, and I'm grateful for what you've done for us.
Rich,
I want to thank you yet again for coming back here and answering our questions, despite all the crap we give you. I think it is especially cool when you do this on your days off (i.e. today, Veteran's Day).
Thanks,
Hawkins
Actually, today's a workday here at Wizards. I'm at my desk, just like most Mondays. But they do give us the week between Christmas and New Year's, which is nice.
Oh, and one more thing: To any veterans reading, happy Veteran's Day, and thank you for your service. I'm a vet myself, but I had it pretty easy. I know a lot of you didn't, and I'm grateful for what you've done for us.
Well, there have been quite a few Sundays that you have answered questions on in the past too, so my thanks are still valid. ;) I know you get weekends off. And if I am wrong this time, I will feel like a complete dunce.
We try to be careful about poking around in things that might be considered unsolicited submissions, because we don't want to inadvertently expose the company to a claim that we've used something without paying for it.
No need to worry about that. In trying to get my 56 typed pages of text removed from here I learned that by posting it here I just gave it to you (WotC) and its your property now and I can go screw myself. So really that doesnt seem like it should be a problem to worry about.
Let me rephrase. I'm not advocating anyone do anything except in his own best interest. You are, in fact trying to get WotC to do something based on what's best for you, rather than what's best for them. You're saying, "release information now!" which may be great for you, but not so great for them. Why would they do it then?
I'm not saying any such thing, just responding to your statement.
And no, I don't speak in anyone's interest except my own.
However, even if I feel WotC is not going about this in a particularly fan-friendly way, if WotC can't release information it is because they have their reasons, the reasons themselves may not be releasable also. I chalk it up to the release of GHotR being a bit earlier than their 4E FR team could reasonably provide for what with the big events on the last page and all.
No need to worry about that. In trying to get my 56 typed pages of text removed from here I learned that by posting it here I just gave it to you (WotC) and its your property now and I can go screw myself. So really that doesnt seem like it should be a problem to worry about.
True.
Technically the Elven Netbook is their property, since it was posted here (in a raw, incomplete form). Also, no one should have any problem reading it, since it is 90 % adaptions from prior canon sources. Almost none of it is 'made-up' whole cloth - so all of the intellectual properties contained therein - names, places, dates, etc - are already theirs.
We just put it in a nice, neat format for 3e. ;)
There has been much discussion in some of the threads here about the idea that there is a "barrier" that the FR setting has that prevents (through intimidation) potential newcomers from getting to know the setting. From what I've read in this thread, the designers believe there is such a barrier and with 4E you are trying to eliminate it.
My question is, how are you going to prevent said barrier from reforming after a few years? After all, if there is a barrier, it formed simply because of the amount of novels, sourcebooks, and other assorted lore that has come down the pipe over the years. I'm assuming WotC isn't going to stop producing novels and sourcebooks, so what steps will be taken to prevent another barrier from forming?
A bit of history, similar to PDK who posted here a while back (as well as a other 'old-schoolers' such as myself), for the longest time (since the early 80s), D&D was my life: throughout HS & College and afterwards. I weathered the Time of Troubles, and rode the 2nd edition wave all the way through the end. When 3rd Ed came out, my gaming group fell apart for the most part (going to spend thousands on a new version wasn't in the cards) so we gave up. Gen-Con in Wisconsin was moving to Indy, TSR was defunct and moving their HQ, etc. I read A LOT of novels produced by TSR, bought most of the FR supporting books and a metric ton of stuff, but all of it went into storage at the dawn of 3rd ed. A couple of years ago, the gaming group changed a bit and we started up again. And since then, NwN helped rekindle my love of D&D, the FR history and I even started reading the novels as well, playing catch-up if you will.
Then getting back to topic (sorry
) rumor came out of 4th edition, the story line of the god love-triangle was a part of it and I couldn't believe that there was going to be all of these changes. I wanted to learn more so I finally made my way to these message boards and here I am.First off to Richard Baker... thanks for being a face to the public. I know it probably feels like a pie-throwing contest at times, but thanks. Back in the day, we had to write in to the creators to get their opinion and NEVER got a response.
I know that you cannot disclose a lot, but I am on the fence about 4th edition at this point, especially with the Pantheon, which is what I loved about the Realms. I know change is necessary for a multitude of reasons, but it just seems that the snow-globe effect seems silly at best.
I saw that major change can destroy personal favorites (Dragonlance) but I am glad to hear that FR is not going Sci-Fi (I consider Eberron too much of a mix of Sci-Fi and Fantasy). I was just curious though and getting to my question: Are any of the old school creators (who created these Pantheons in one way or another, Roger Moore comes to mind) still around?
*gets off of soap box*
Now, as for your question: It's a good one. Glaciers accumulate at X inches per year, and just because we scrape it down to bare rock this year doesn't mean it won't be 10x inches deep again in 10 years. So, here are a couple of things that I think will help this time around:
- I believe we're slowing down the "RSEs" in novels for a while. We've had a lot of worldshaking events in a short time over the last couple of years, it's time to tell some stories with smaller scope.
- We have new online tools on the way that might help to keep the setting more updated and accessible.
- Speaking very generally, we've been avoiding game source material that focuses on advancing world storyline or NPC stories for a while now. (Big adventures are an exception, of course.) That wasn't always true; much of the late 2e product really was oriented toward telling ongoing stories in the game sourcebooks, for example.
I don't doubt that new RSE's will eventually appear in novels again, but I'm hopeful that a more sedate pace will help to keep those barriers as low as possible as long as possible.
Time for me to ask a question.
There has been much discussion in some of the threads here about the idea that there is a "barrier" that the FR setting has that prevents (through intimidation) potential newcomers from getting to know the setting. From what I've read in this thread, the designers believe there is such a barrier and with 4E you are trying to eliminate it.
My question is, how are you going to prevent said barrier from reforming after a few years? After all, if there is a barrier, it formed simply because of the amount of novels, sourcebooks, and other assorted lore that has come down the pipe over the years. I'm assuming WotC isn't going to stop producing novels and sourcebooks, so what steps will be taken to prevent another barrier from forming?
Ed Greenwood still writes for us, even though most of the time that's in fiction instead of game product. Eric Boyd worked on a fair amount of 2nd Edition material (including a *lot* of work on the pantheon), and is still doing FR game product for us. Heck, *I'm* still around, even though I didn't do all that much in 2e Realms.
A number of great, talented people have moved on from FR (or D&D) to other things over the years--Roger Moore, Steve Schend, Sean Reynolds, Jeff Grubb, many others--but that's just how things go. Some of us are still around, though.
I saw that major change can destroy personal favorites (Dragonlance) but I am glad to hear that FR is not going Sci-Fi (I consider Eberron too much of a mix of Sci-Fi and Fantasy). I was just curious though and getting to my question: Are any of the old school creators (who created these Pantheons in one way or another, Roger Moore comes to mind) still around?
*gets off of soap box*
Well, I for one don't believe there is a real barrier. However, there is a *perception* out there in the core D&D audience that FR is too burdened by uber-NPCs and requires too much world expertise. I think that perception is largely mistaken, but what I think of that perception doesn't really matter -- if some core D&D players aren't buying into Realms because they believe bad things about the setting, then it's a real barrier. It's important to our business strategy to keep that barrier, real or imagined, as low as possible, because the Realms flourish when more people set their D&D games there.
I am curious...you(by you I mean WotC as a whole) are driving away fans for others. Yes I realize you are probably hoping to get more fans then you loose(and you hope alot of fans will stay, even though I really dislike the changes and how they are being sold I'll still wait for the final product to decide). But alot of people who don't play in the FR anymore play Eberron or perfer their own home brew worlds.
So aren't you worried that you might be killing Eberron with this? Or people will still perfer their homebrew worlds to even a more precieved accessable Realms?
Also what about us fans who like a rich and detailed (I.E. the 20 years of lore barrier and those 'uber'NPCs)? Or a world with the options that 160 gods provide? You can't please everyone...so why not make a new world to get the new player involved in?
Also I have a question about the servant deities. Personaly what I liked about 3.x was that the mechanic supported the flavor. So lets say I have a cleric of Lliira and 4th edition she becomes a servant of Sune(she already is) will there be mechanical difference between playing a cleric of Sune who worshipps Sune herself and a cleric of Sune who also reveres Lliira? I'll say this if there is then I can atleast work with this change in the 4th edition Realms.
Like I said I keep looking for reasons to continue to buy your product, please give me and others like me some reason.
I don't doubt that new RSE's will eventually appear in novels again, but I'm hopeful that a more sedate pace will help to keep those barriers as low as possible as long as possible.
I'm very happy to hear that the pace of the RSEs will be slowing down. Thanks for answering my question.
I'm very happy to hear that the pace of the RSEs will be slowing down. Thanks for answering my question.
:bounce: Yet why do I feel like Gollum at the end of Return of the King?
My Precious!!!:D
- I believe we're slowing down the "RSEs" in novels for a while. We've had a lot of worldshaking events in a short time over the last couple of years, it's time to tell some stories with smaller scope.
This is the single GREATEST piece of news I've heard since Gencon. I sure hope you guys can stick to this 'mission statement' - it almost seems as if the writers were having some sort of ego-contest trying to see who can do the most damage. I hope thats FAR from the truth, but that IS how many of us perceived it.
I was going to ask a question, but I'm so happy right now I can't think straight. :P
Poll Question:
How do you feel about the changes mentioned at the end of the Grand History of the Realms?
Results:
I hate the changes! What the hell were they thinking? [43%] 59 votes
I dislike them, but I could live with them if they are presented in a manner that makes sense. [27%] 37 votes
I like the changes, but have some reservations about what they entail. [12%] 16 votes
I like the changes and I feel very positive about the direction being taken with the update. [12%] 16 votes
I don''t care either way. (Please mention reason in a post.) [6%] 8 votes
First off, I'd like to thank Rinonalyrna Fathomlin for asking a damn good question, and then thank Rich for taking the time to answer it.
You're welcome.
This is the single GREATEST piece of news I've heard since Gencon. I sure hope you guys can stick to this 'mission statement'...
Same here--it's a change that I *CAN* get behind.
I love to play strategy games on the table top and on the PC. I play all the Total War games.(Rome:Total War, Medieval: Total War etc.) I would love to one day play a Forgotten Realms: Total War game. I think many people would buy a Realms based strategy game. After all if Warcraft can turn a strategy game into an RPG then why can't WotC do the opposite?;)
WotC owns Avalon Hills which owns Risk. Is there any chance you could get a Forgotten Realms Risk game made? I'd buy it.:D
Thanks for answering questions.
Hello Rich,
I love to play strategy games on the table top and on the PC. I play all the Total War games.(Rome:Total War, Medieval: Total War etc.) I would love to one day play a Forgotten Realms: Total War game. I think many people would buy a Realms based strategy game. After all if Warcraft can turn a strategy game into an RPG then why can't WotC do the opposite?;)
WotC owns Avalon Hills which owns Risk. Is there any chance you could get a Forgotten Realms Risk game made? I'd buy it.:D
Thanks for answering questions.
Just a heads up for you, there is a RTS game set in Eberron if you're looking for that sort of thing, but it is poorly made in my opinion. "Dragonshard" is the name of it.
First off, I'd like to thank Rinonalyrna Fathomlin for asking a damn good question, and then thank Rich for taking the time to answer it.
This is the single GREATEST piece of news I've heard since Gencon. I sure hope you guys can stick to this 'mission statement' - it almost seems as if the writers were having some sort of ego-contest trying to see who can do the most damage. I hope thats FAR from the truth, but that IS how many of us perceived it.
I was going to ask a question, but I'm so happy right now I can't think straight. :P
Delirious with joy huh MT63?:D
Just a heads up for you, there is a RTS game set in Eberron if you're looking for that sort of thing, but it is poorly made in my opinion. "Dragonshard" is the name of it.
I'm not really a fan of Eberron. I'm not saying it is bad, it is not my cup of tea.
RTS is fun, but the Total War format is very different. In RTS you build more units during battle. It is not very realistic. In the Total War format you manage your nations economy, taxes, construction, and recruitment in a turn based setting. Then if you launch an attack or are attacked the computer takes you to a battle board. The battle is RTS, but you can't produce new units. You just have to make do with what ever units you had on that area of the map when the battle started.
You're welcome.
Same here--it's a change that I *CAN* get behind.
As can I. I just wish they wouldn't implement it by initiating yet another RSE. I don't see how killing off Mystra or putting in the Tyr/Tymora/Helm love triangle makes the Realms more accessible.
Check the Ue thread - I think he posted a link somewhere in the first few pages.
I posted the link in the old Ulgarth thread. Here it is again, a French Abandonware site where I found it:
http://www.squakenet.com/abandonwarering/site.asp?idgame=2192&url=http://www.abandonware-france.org/ltf_abandon/ltf_jeu.php?id=674
I'm sure you'll work it out.
Or try Googling for an english version, or try Bittorrent... I'll shut up now.
Oh, and you'll probably need a DOS emulator as well.
Okay, bear with me on this - "Do magical effects designed to make changes to a setting affect people OUTSIDE of the setting?"
As an example, when Ravenloft's realms shift around, or new ones form, the inhaibitants are completely unaware of whats going on, and think it was always that way. Would someone who once 'visited' Ravenloft, as unlikely as that is, remember it the way it used to be? Would their memories change the minute they entered the dimension/plane/sphere?
Now, how does this pertain to FR? Well, for one thing the Cosmology changed with 3e. Does someone returning from the past, like that Mulhorandi archmage recently did, remember the great wheel and not understand why everyone believes in the "Cosmic Tree". I do realize that that is metagaming a bit, but IMG Ao decreed that that was "the way it's always been", so now everyone remmbers it that way (this has a prescedent, because he basically has done the same thing about folks knowledge of the events of the ToT that included him.)
This is why I ask - If the Batrachi Civiliztion had risen to a VERY high point, or any other creator/ancient race, at the time the Sundering Ritual was cast (-17,600 DR), and some of it's people were on other planes of existance, then when they came back and history was changed would they still remember things the way they were? Would they even exist at all, if the 'time-changing' effect wiped them all out thousands of years too early? Would they be 'exiled', because if they returned the magic would only 'kick-in' and effect them then?
In other words, could there be a bunch of REALLY p_ssed-off creatures in the ether, marooned there by the Elves when they changed the world (and the timeline?) - entire Races that may never have existed in the 'new' version of Toril?
And if this is hitting too close to 4e home, just gimme a "yes", and I'll go away quietly. ;)
Now, how does this pertain to FR? Well, for one thing the Cosmology changed with 3e. Does someone returning from the past, like that Mulhorandi archmage recently did, remember the great wheel and not understand why everyone believes in the "Cosmic Tree".
From a design and canon point of view, the Great Tree has always been the planar structure for the Realms.
IOW that Mulhorandi archmage has only ever been operating in the Great Tree.
Further, the concept of the structure of the planes is a tool for players and DMs...whereas within the scope of knowledge of actual beings in teh setting, there is no similar concrete map of how the planes are arrayed and structure.
Which of course means your guy could very well have been taught the planes are arrayed in a wheel-like structure, just as another archmage might have been taught something different.
How’s that for circular?
Well, how old-school is old-school?
Ed Greenwood still writes for us, even though most of the time that's in fiction instead of game product. Eric Boyd worked on a fair amount of 2nd Edition material (including a *lot* of work on the pantheon), and is still doing FR game product for us. Heck, *I'm* still around, even though I didn't do all that much in 2e Realms.
A number of great, talented people have moved on from FR (or D&D) to other things over the years--Roger Moore, Steve Schend, Sean Reynolds, Jeff Grubb, many others--but that's just how things go. Some of us are still around, though.
Old School, as far as D&D is considered is: Basic/Expert (before the birth of AD&D).
Eric Boyd put out the two bibles of the pantheon of Faerun for 2nd edition in my opinion. Great books, a lot of background, adventure hooks, etc. It is what D&D books should be based on IMHO.
I guess the heart of my original question is: What do the original creators feel about the snowglobe shake-up of 4th Ed. Pantheon?
I guess the heart of my original question is: What do the original creators feel about the snowglobe shake-up of 4th Ed. Pantheon?
Well, Ed Greenwood has written rather extensively on the new changes (he's aware of how shaken up people were by them). Go to the Candlekeep.com forum called "General Chat" (I think?). There is a stickied thread which has Ed's thoughts in the first post for all to read.
I guess the heart of my original question is: What do the original creators feel about the snowglobe shake-up of 4th Ed. Pantheon?
Well, Ed Greenwood has written rather extensively on the new changes (he's aware of how shaken up people were by them). Go to the Candlekeep.com forum called "General Chat" (I think?). There is a stickied thread which has Ed's thoughts in the first post for all to read.
Here's a link to Ed's words regarding the matter. It is what really brought me into the CK community. I made an account some 3 years ago, but never really pugged into it until reading this.
Old School, as far as D&D is considered is: Basic/Expert (before the birth of AD&D).
Eric Boyd put out the two bibles of the pantheon of Faerun for 2nd edition in my opinion. Great books, a lot of background, adventure hooks, etc. It is what D&D books should be based on IMHO.
I guess the heart of my original question is: What do the original creators feel about the snowglobe shake-up of 4th Ed. Pantheon?
They have all left us to use the better portion of their talents elsewhere...
Including Ed
Think about it from a business standpoint - these guys couldn't very well compete with themselves? They would save the best stuff for their own projects....
Steven Schend as well...
Including Ed
Think about it from a business standpoint - these guys couldn't very well compete with themselves? They would save the best stuff for their own projects....
Oh my god...are you serious?
If I were them I'd be offended some fan says I'm not giving my best in all I do.
What's more, the idea they've left or that they're 'competing' with themselves is ludicrous.
Ed's been writing Realsmlore and sharing it for years. Schend left with 3E but still gave us the novel Blackstaff. Both regularly answer fan questions and add to the body of Realmslore available by answering fan questions on the Candlekeep.com forums.
Finally: You know for a fact that Ed Greenwood is scheduled to contribute a goodly chunk of writing to the 4E Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.
Markus, it's comments like the ones you make that put the wrong idea in people's heads and spread false information about the Realms and its future.
You may not like 4E, but that's no good reason to spread disinformation.
It's not appreciated, to say the least.
:hoppingma
I am saddened to say that the latest ’Design & Development’-articles have finally convinced me that 4E (and consequently, 4E FR) is definitely not for me. It seems to me that the 4E “design guidelines” (in my opinion, at least) focus on simplifying (“dumbing down”) the game to appeal primarily to those boardgame/CRPG/MMORPG fans who don’t play tabletop RPGs -- it *is* pretty evident that many elements in the game seem to be drawn from these sources (I am also referring to earlier articles, too).
Yet to talk about ‘Terrain’ and ‘Quest’-articles -- first of all, movement in ‘squares’? I don’t think it is actually optional (or practical) *NOT* to use a miniature/battle map in combat. I just hope you guys remember to include a table which shows how many ‘squares’ you can travel in a day! ;) As for the “codified” Quest Cards –- ‘Hero Quest’ (and virtually any other FRPG-themed boardgame) had those, and most CRPGs and MMORPGs have ‘Quest Logs’. While they may indeed focus the action (and attention) of the players to drive the story towards these “encounters”, they will most likely deemphasize and disencourage role-playing at the same time (e.g. “Don’t waste time chatting with the innkeeper – let’s get to Castle Whiteshield so I can level up! The Quest XP alone should be enough!”). New players may even become “dependant” on them, expecting DMs to “guide” the story with the cards –- if they don’t get one, they’ll think that they’re playing “wrong” or going down the wrong path. Indeed, why waste time in role-playing, if delving into the ‘Crypt of Doom’ will gain you a magical sword and some nice Quest XP –- and wouldn’t it be only natural, since that’s how they play their MMORPGs and CRPGs, too? Even the more experienced role-players may be (on a subconscious level, at least) distracted by their presence on the table. And if I understood correctly how those “contradictory” Quests work in the game, the players are supposed to negotiate and decide together openly whose Quest will be completed, right? If that’s the case, I fail to see how it would actually encourage interaction and role-playing (“So, my Paladin only gets 300 XP for destroying the book, but your wizard guy will get a new spell plus twice that much XP -– okay, pay me 100 GPs and you can have it!”). And there *are* subtler ways for DMs to steer players back on the “right” track than waving a Quest Card in front of their noses (“Hey guys, *this* is where you should be going -- the Vampire Lord is waiting for you…”). So, let’s just set up the board and the minis, let the DM hand the Quest Card to the players, and roll initiative, right? Uh, are we talking about D&D Miniatures Game, Talisman or D&D?
Maybe I just take RPGs too seriously, but I have not seen a single feature/change in 4E that would have interested me in the least (or felt *COOL* or *Rocking* –- to use 4E terminology ;)). So, based on what I’ve read (even though we’ve only seen “glimpses” of the final product so far), I am completely sure that I’m not going to pick it up (unless the mechanics, flavour and design goals will change dramatically before June –- somehow I doubt it, though). Yet enough of ranting ;). In the end it doesn’t matter (to me) how good 4E FR will eventually turn out to be –- since my group is not making the transition to 4E (we've already voted on this), I’m not going to buy it either (not even to support the product line). It’s not a big deal, though, because I’ve still got tons and tons of 3E material to run, and it will sustain our campaigns for years. I just hope that 5E (and 5E FR) will be more to our taste, but until then I’m happily sticking to 3E. I just want to thank you for job well done on 3E FR –- I’ll probably return to this particular thread with questions when 5E is announced!
Wishing you all the best,
Asgetrion
Hi Rich!
Yet to talk about ‘Terrain’ and ‘Quest’-articles -- first of all, movement in ‘squares’? I don’t think it is actually optional (or practical) *NOT* to use a miniature/battle map in combat. I just hope you guys remember to include a table which shows how many ‘squares’ you can travel in a day! ;) As for the “codified” Quest Cards –- ‘Hero Quest’ (and virtually any other FRPG-themed boardgame) had those, and most CRPGs and MMORPGs have ‘Quest Logs’. While they may indeed focus the action (and attention) of the players to drive the story towards these “encounters”, they will most likely deemphasize and disencourage role-playing at the same time (e.g. “Don’t waste time chatting with the innkeeper – let’s get to Castle Whiteshield so I can level up! The Quest XP alone should be enough!”). New players may even become “dependant” on them, expecting DMs to “guide” the story with the cards –- if they don’t get one, they’ll think that they’re playing “wrong” or going down the wrong path. Indeed, why waste time in role-playing, if delving into the ‘Crypt of Doom’ will gain you a magical sword and some nice Quest XP –- and wouldn’t it be only natural, since that’s how they play their MMORPGs and CRPGs, too? Even the more experienced role-players may be (on a subconscious level, at least) distracted by their presence on the table. And if I understood correctly how those “contradictory” Quests work in the game, the players are supposed to negotiate and decide together openly whose Quest will be completed, right? If that’s the case, I fail to see how it would actually encourage interaction and role-playing (“So, my Paladin only gets 300 XP for destroying the book, but your wizard guy will get a new spell plus twice that much XP -– okay, pay me 100 GPs and you can have it!”). And there *are* subtler ways for DMs to steer players back on the “right” track than waving a Quest Card in front of their noses (“Hey guys, *this* is where you should be going -- the Vampire Lord is waiting for you…”). So, let’s just set up the board and the minis, let the DM hand the Quest Card to the players, and roll initiative, right? Uh, are we talking about D&D Miniatures Game, Talisman or D&D?
Maybe I just take RPGs too seriously, but I have not seen a single feature/change in 4E that would have interested me in the least (or felt *COOL* or *Rocking* –- to use 4E terminology ;)). So, based on what I’ve read (even though we’ve only seen “glimpses” of the final product so far), I am completely sure that I’m not going to pick it up (unless the mechanics, flavour and design goals will change dramatically before June –- somehow I doubt it, though). Yet enough of ranting ;). In the end it doesn’t matter (to me) how good 4E FR will eventually turn out to be –- since my group is not making the transition to 4E (we've already voted on this), I’m not going to buy it either (not even to support the product line). It’s not a big deal, though, because I’ve still got tons and tons of 3E material to run, and it will sustain our campaigns for years. I just hope that 5E (and 5E FR) will be more to our taste, but until then I’m happily sticking to 3E. I just want to thank you for job well done on 3E FR –- I’ll probably return to this particular thread with questions when 5E is announced!
Wishing you all the best,
Asgetrion
I think you are probably reading too much into the whole "quest cards" idea, Asgetrion. I feel that the way they are presenting them is as an idea of a possible help for some gaming groups that may find them useful as a remainder of what is going on in the game (think along the lines of a campaign diary that both the DM and the players can check on the fly). Also, you feel it will encourage metagaming (“So, my Paladin only gets 300 XP for destroying the book, but your wizard guy will get a new spell plus twice that much XP -– okay, pay me 100 GPs and you can have it!”), while that may not be the case, depending on how the whole idea is finally presented in the DMG (which I honestly think this is where the idea should be shown).
Also, there was a huge uproar about the use of squares when SW Saga was announced, and in the end, it wasn´t a big deal. 1 square = 1.5 meters (that´s 5 feet for you Americans), which makes for a fairly quick and easy conversion, should you not want to use squares at all.
Now, I agree with you that much of what´s been shown so far has been bland at most, and I got the feeling that this is in part due to them showing mostly flavor changes, which many old players have found lame, unnecessary, or simply uninteresting. I would expect that, once we start seeing more info on mechanics, there´ll be more to keep us interested (which is what I´m holding out for. It´ll be the point where I´ll decide if 4th edition is worth getting or not).
I'm hoping that 4th Edition might look a little better to you when you can see the whole game in one spot and actually hold it in your hands--so I hope you'll keep an open mind. Maybe it'll sneak up on you.
Hi Rich!
I am saddened to say that the latest ’Design & Development’-articles have finally convinced me that 4E (and consequently, 4E FR) is definitely not for me. It seems to me that the 4E “design guidelines” (in my opinion, at least) focus on simplifying (“dumbing down”) the game to appeal primarily to those boardgame/CRPG/MMORPG fans who don’t play tabletop RPGs -- it *is* pretty evident that many elements in the game seem to be drawn from these sources (I am also referring to earlier articles, too).
. It’s not a big deal, though, because I’ve still got tons and tons of 3E material to run, and it will sustain our campaigns for years. I just hope that 5E (and 5E FR) will be more to our taste, but until then I’m happily sticking to 3E. I just want to thank you for job well done on 3E FR –- I’ll probably return to this particular thread with questions when 5E is announced!
Wishing you all the best,
Asgetrion
Is there a chance that potion interactions will return?
I hear from some FR players that the scale of Faerun used to be much bigger than now. Will the scale/size of Faerun be increased again in the 4th edition, especially given how this would fit in with the 'points of light' concept by providing more wilderness between settlements even in civilized lands?
The map's going to be 120 miles to the inch, like the 3e poster map. It covers a similar area of the world. Faerun's about 3600 miles east-west at that scale, which is plenty big given the fact that most people walk, sail, or ride from place to place. There are some very large swaths of "darkness" already on the map, so we don't need to change the scale to make things farther apart.
Ok now I am confused as your colleagues have said there aren't any very large swaths of "darkness"....and they had to change thing so their would be...did I misunderstand them?
The map's going to be 120 miles to the inch, like the 3e poster map. It covers a similar area of the world. Faerun's about 3600 miles east-west at that scale, which is plenty big given the fact that most people walk, sail, or ride from place to place. There are some very large swaths of "darkness" already on the map, so we don't need to change the scale to make things farther apart.
Thank you for answering my question.
I agree that there are sufficient swaths of "darkness" already on the map, but I gathered that that feeling was not shared by the designers from the comment that FR will be, for lack of a better phrase, ehm, 'points of lightisized'.
Everything I hear so far speaks of incoherence and the right hand not really knowing what the left hand is doing.
I think that's a bit harsh. It appears more likely that we (as in collectively the people on the boards) are misinterpreting some of the design decisions as incoherence, due to the fact that we only have access to snippets of information rather than the big picture.
When I began with the Realm, I really did not like the character of Mystra. However, through reading of Greenwood's Elminster books and through playing and DMing campaigns where she has a presence I've grown to love this character. Now I can accept that she will die and be gone forever, but how will this effect the Sisters and Elminster. I mean, in "Blackstaff" we are lead to believe that a new Chosen is rising and then now BOOM! Mystra's dead. Will there be a god/goddess to take her place, will Elminster once again have to hold together the Weave, or have the Chosen fallen from their great heights leaving the great magics of the world to ruin?
Rich I don't ask so that you can give me a leak of information that we shouldn't know before 4e comes out. All I want is recognition that this event truly changes the Realm that I've come to love. This is unexpected also. It is just that it is obvious that Oghma will die in the near/distant future because of the curse of the former goddess of lies (And that it is accidentally Deneir who will do it). That means that Mystra goddess of magic is gone and "soon" the god of creativity will be lost to the Realms too. I just want to know that Wizards understands that some of these things will be devastating and will change the Realms as we know it.
Even the fact that I have spent a good chunk of my disposable income on Realms/TSR products for 29 years means nothing...
We have been thrown out with the trash...Since if they get all those 12 year olds who the
needs us old school gamers around anyway?Hello Rich,
I love to play strategy games on the table top and on the PC. I play all the Total War games.(Rome:Total War, Medieval: Total War etc.) I would love to one day play a Forgotten Realms: Total War game. I think many people would buy a Realms based strategy game. After all if Warcraft can turn a strategy game into an RPG then why can't WotC do the opposite?;)
WotC owns Avalon Hills which owns Risk. Is there any chance you could get a Forgotten Realms Risk game made? I'd buy it.:D
Thanks for answering questions.
Hey Rich,
I'm not sure if you can't answer or if you just missed my post.
Hello!
Are Bazim-Gorag and the other Evils going to stick around for 4E?
That beasty was a great bad guy to throw at my players and he worked well as a scaled up version to throw at them for Epic Levels also, so I hope he sticks around.
Also, it's probably not even an issue for you guys, but what are the chances of picking up the rights to use the Dungeon Magazine cover art featuring Bazim? The other set of artwork you have for him just pales by comparison.
Thanks again and hope you had a great holiday!
Hello Rich,
I love to play strategy games on the table top and on the PC. I play all the Total War games.(Rome:Total War, Medieval: Total War etc.) I would love to one day play a Forgotten Realms: Total War game. I think many people would buy a Realms based strategy game. After all if Warcraft can turn a strategy game into an RPG then why can't WotC do the opposite?;)
WotC owns Avalon Hills which owns Risk. Is there any chance you could get a Forgotten Realms Risk game made? I'd buy it.:D
Thanks for answering questions.
Do we recognize that we're changing the Realms? Well, I'd sure hope so. There are many things we want to remain the same, but the idea is that even old-school Realms players will find new and interesting aspects of the setting post-Spellplague.
Rich,
When I began with the Realm, I really did not like the character of Mystra. However, through reading of Greenwood's Elminster books and through playing and DMing campaigns where she has a presence I've grown to love this character. Now I can accept that she will die and be gone forever, but how will this effect the Sisters and Elminster. I mean, in "Blackstaff" we are lead to believe that a new Chosen is rising and then now BOOM! Mystra's dead. Will there be a god/goddess to take her place, will Elminster once again have to hold together the Weave, or have the Chosen fallen from their great heights leaving the great magics of the world to ruin?
Rich I don't ask so that you can give me a leak of information that we shouldn't know before 4e comes out. All I want is recognition that this event truly changes the Realm that I've come to love. This is unexpected also. It is just that it is obvious that Oghma will die in the near/distant future because of the curse of the former goddess of lies (And that it is accidentally Deneir who will do it). That means that Mystra goddess of magic is gone and "soon" the god of creativity will be lost to the Realms too. I just want to know that Wizards understands that some of these things will be devastating and will change the Realms as we know it.
The closest I've seen to this is (again) Dragonlance where the gods governing magic went with the rest of their pantheon. Didn't look very fun.
Wasn't.
There are some basic themes that should be represented within a pantheon. Period.
I obviously know you know this, its just I wanted to hear it.
So are the gods holding the magic of the realm together. Therefore doesn't that mean that divine and arcane magic are controlled by a person's patron deity?
I'm not sure I understand the question, Cassius. No deity replaces Mystra as goddess of magic after the events hinted at in the last page of the Grand History. The Weave dissolves, leaving magic ungoverned and unchecked. The Chosen are in the same boat as everyone else; they're going to have to learn to adjust to wielding magic without the interface provided by Mystra.
Do we recognize that we're changing the Realms? Well, I'd sure hope so. There are many things we want to remain the same, but the idea is that even old-school Realms players will find new and interesting aspects of the setting post-Spellplague.
If Mystra is gone will there still be dieties like Azuth and Sarvas, god(s) of spellcasters vice god(s) of magic?
What's more, the idea they've left or that they're 'competing' with themselves is ludicrous.
Why? I compete with myself all the time - it's how I make my money.
I build a magnificent deck for someone. Then when I'm hanging a few shelves for their neighbor, I mention the incredible deck - that's about three times the size of theirs and chock full of extras. Then the wife (ALWAYS the wife) wants to know if I could possibly build a better one, and I say "I suppose..."
Then when I'm done with the new masterpiece, I do it all over again to some other neighbor. All my business is word-of-mouth, and as long as I keep these Rich A__holes competing with each other, I'm rolling in gravy. :D
Anyhow, the few times I was slow (hasn't happened in a few years) I would work for someone else, and anything I did while working under their banner I would do 'adequately' - it would be decent work and well worth the money they are paying me - but any 'cool' ideas I get while working for them I will save and use on my OWN projects. Why the hell would I 'give-away' the best parts of my creativity to someone else?
Who knows... maybe it's just me... but I certainly don't try my hardest when I'm just chasing a paycheck.
Back on Topic:
So no answer on my "Time-Changing" question?
That is to say, would someone outside of an area of effect - let's say ALL OF REALMSPACE -be effected by any type of mind-altering magic regarding events taking place there? If history itself were to change and wipe out an entire race, would members of that race OUTSIDE of Realmspace (or whatever area we are talking about) still exist? Or would the magic "reach backwards and forwards in time" and cause members of that race to change or dissappear even on other planes?
I'm a big strategy game fan too, and I'd like to see that happen -- either Risk, or something like a fantasy-themed Axis & Allies. We've flirted with the idea off and on for a couple of years, but we don't have any firm plans yet. I sort of wish we'd move ahead, but I'm afraid it's not up to me.
For what little it's worth, I'll throw in my rabid support for this idea. Something like Risk: Godstorm using FR's map and setting specifics would be fun.
There are many things we want to remain the same, but the idea is that even old-school Realms players will find new and interesting aspects of the setting post-Spellplague.
Can you give us a little bit of info us old-school Realms players may actually like? I realize that question comes off a bit snide but the honest truth is so far all of the bits of info we have, are not having the effect of making me look forward to the "new" Realms. In fact its having the complete opposite effect, and judging by the posts in some of the other threads Im not the only one who feels that way. So far I havent heard ANYTHING that makes me think the Spellplague is doing anything but ripping out the things that made the Realms unique and interesting.
I'm a big strategy game fan too, and I'd like to see that happen -- either Risk, or something like a fantasy-themed Axis & Allies. We've flirted with the idea off and on for a couple of years, but we don't have any firm plans yet. I sort of wish we'd move ahead, but I'm afraid it's not up to me.
I still wish that the D&D monopoly wasn't an April Fools joke.
Anyway, I would buy a FR Risk just as fast as I got the LotR one. As fast as humanly possible.
Anyway, I would buy a FR Risk just as fast as I got the LotR one. As fast as humanly possible.
I have TWO of those...
Hmmmm...
My mapmaking skills, coupled with some scotchtap and all the pieces from those games...
The rest of you can dream... I'll try to post pics to show how this came out. :D
I'll call it Spellplague: 1385
Anyhow, no question, just an apology.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone by insinuating that Ed or anyone else would not try their hardest - I'm sure everyone involved in 4e is performing at 110%...
They had better. ;)
Can you give us a little bit of info us old-school Realms players may actually like? I realize that question comes off a bit snide but the honest truth is so far all of the bits of info we have, are not having the effect of making me look forward to the "new" Realms. In fact its having the complete opposite effect, and judging by the posts in some of the other threads Im not the only one who feels that way. So far I havent heard ANYTHING that makes me think the Spellplague is doing anything but ripping out the things that made the Realms unique and interesting.
Well, what sort of info do you think you would like?
a.) Mystra doesn´t get killed by mega-munchkin Cyric. The designers decided that they could do the 4E changes after all without such a heavy-handed plot decision and that killing Mystra *again* was not such a hot idea after seeing how everybody and their brother hated the very idea of it. Ditto for the Chosen.
b.) The whole Tymora/Helm/Tyr debacle was just a wishful dream Cyric had about *everybody* ending up losing in that scenario. Including the poor readers upon whom that seventh-rate soap opera plot was inflicted ( Seriously, WTH, dude... it reads like a plot-arc of a typical Brazilian soap opera. It´s Tymora, for Her sake! She doesn´t do "tragic obedient woman"! ).
That about sums it up. :D
a.) Mystra doesn´t get killed by mega-munchkin Cyric. The designers decided that they could do the 4E changes after all without such a heavy-handed plot decision and that killing Mystra *again* was not such a hot idea after seeing how everybody and their brother hated the very idea of it. Ditto for the Chosen.
b.) The whole Tymora/Helm/Tyr debacle was just a wishful dream Cyric had about *everybody* ending up losing in that scenario. Including the poor readers upon whom that seventh-rate soap opera plot was inflicted ( Seriously, WTH, dude... it reads like a plot-arc of a typical Brazilian soap opera. It´s Tymora, for Her sake! She doesn´t do "tragic obedient woman"! ).
That about sums it up. :D
I'm not "everybody", but I can confirm that both myself and my brother hate the murder of Mystra/Spellplague.:P :D
Thank you for replying to my post.
I love the idea of a Realms based Axis & Allies!! :D
a.) Mystra doesn´t get killed by mega-munchkin Cyric. The designers decided that they could do the 4E changes after all without such a heavy-handed plot decision and that killing Mystra *again* was not such a hot idea after seeing how everybody and their brother hated the very idea of it. Ditto for the Chosen.
I totally misread this at first and thought, "Oh wow! They changed their minds. Where was I when this happened? God(s) bless 'em, at last a Christmas wish that was answered."
And then of course reality set in like an annoying alarm clock buzzer.
So we have 'cushioned' the blow - but it's coming, like it or not. The most we can do is hope they do an apt job of it - with Ed on board I have high hopes.
Yep, Ed can help. He can nudge the ship a little bit past the rocky shores, etc...
Well, what sort of info do you think you would like?
Maybe one or two regions that 4e has not touched. Its hard to tell Mr.Baker, and I realize it sounds like Im just being difficult. You guys keep saying the old Realms fans will still have stuff they like, but EVERYTHING you announce (except the slow down of RSEs) seems to be designed to drive us away. I guess as horrible as this is to say, I just dont believe you when you say well still love it. I want you to tell me why you think that Ill love it despite you taking everything that was unique about it out.
1) Have you all considered using a different name for the Paladin class in 4ed? Seeing how you are allowing "Paladins" of different alignments, it seems like it would be worth it to use a name like Crusader, or Holy Warrior, and then name the different alignments different things. LG would be Paladin, while CG would be Liberator, and LN would be Judge, or something like that. I understand the concept, and even how people would feel that there is a need for a more balanced and open approach to the idea, however the name Paladin has stood for nobility, righteousness, and self-sacrifice pretty much since the days of the Holy Roman Empire. I think many people would feel better if Paladin was simply a type of Holy Warrior, rather than the name for all Holy Warriors.
2) What is going to happen with Torm in 4ed? Is he going to remain a god, or is he going to be demoted? Is he going to pick up parts or all of Helm's portfolio?
Thanks for your time and effort.
Well, what sort of info do you think you would like?
This is actually a hard question to answer. I would like information which carries the smell of autumn followed by the bright morning green of a spring dawn. The trees are bedding down for old lady winter; the leaves are decaying and giving off a wonderful earthly smell. An odor that I adore and reminds me, even though the next few months are cold and unforgiving I know spring is just on the horizon. Right at this moment I see nothing but a cold brutal winter which there is no glimmer of hope. Maybe I don’t have enough wood chopped, maybe my larder was raided by rats. It’s bleak and dreary.
Rich, give me a Spring.
How is that?
P.S.
Msatran must be stopped!:P
This is actually a hard question to answer. I would like information which carries the smell of autumn followed by the bright morning green of a spring dawn. The trees are bedding down for old lady winter; the leaves are decaying and giving off a wonderful earthly smell. An odor that I adore and reminds me, even though the next few months are cold and unforgiving I know spring is just on the horizon. Right at this moment I see nothing but a cold brutal winter which there is no glimmer of hope. Maybe I don’t have enough wood chopped, maybe my larder was raided by rats. It’s bleak and dreary.
Rich, give me a Spring.
How is that?
P.S.
Msatran must be stopped!:P
Winter is coming.
Ed Stark A Game of Thrones
Go Sylar!
OK, here's a question that shouldn't be too hard to answer...
Will giants (and their realms/kingdoms) have a greater presence in the New Realms?
This is actually a hard question to answer. I would like information which carries the smell of autumn followed by the bright morning green of a spring dawn. The trees are bedding down for old lady winter; the leaves are decaying and giving off a wonderful earthly smell. An odor that I adore and reminds me, even though the next few months are cold and unforgiving I know spring is just on the horizon. Right at this moment I see nothing but a cold brutal winter which there is no glimmer of hope. Maybe I don’t have enough wood chopped, maybe my larder was raided by rats. It’s bleak and dreary.
Rich, give me a Spring.
How is that?
P.S.
Msatran must be stopped!:P
WOW! That was a well written request Lord Toast...
I hope that you get a response...I, and the other old school 1ED/2ED gamers seem to have been thrown out with the trash.
Yes, the question was considered, but ultimately it boils down to this: We want one class in the job of "holy warrior", not nine.
Currently the text in the Player's Handbook says something to this effect: Paladins are almost always lawful or good. Chaotic or evil paladins do exist in the world, but they're almost never heroes; go see the DM if you want to play one.
Torm is probably going to be a demigod. We think he works best as a champion or hero in the service of other LG powers. He might be a lesser god, which means he's got clerics and worshipers and temples, but doesn't rate his own plane. (We've only got greater, lesser, and demigod; no real reason to distinguish intermediate, really.)
First off, I would like to thank you for taking your time to answer our questions (mine in particular.) I try hard not to ask questions that you are not able to answer, but these are questions that I realize you may not be able to answer. I figure it's worth a shot at least.
1) Have you all considered using a different name for the Paladin class in 4ed? Seeing how you are allowing "Paladins" of different alignments, it seems like it would be worth it to use a name like Crusader, or Holy Warrior, and then name the different alignments different things. LG would be Paladin, while CG would be Liberator, and LN would be Judge, or something like that. I understand the concept, and even how people would feel that there is a need for a more balanced and open approach to the idea, however the name Paladin has stood for nobility, righteousness, and self-sacrifice pretty much since the days of the Holy Roman Empire. I think many people would feel better if Paladin was simply a type of Holy Warrior, rather than the name for all Holy Warriors.
2) What is going to happen with Torm in 4ed? Is he going to remain a god, or is he going to be demoted? Is he going to pick up parts or all of Helm's portfolio?
Thanks for your time and effort.
One of the things I like most about the Realms is the "imaginary vistas" I see when I close my eyes and try to picture the places I'm reading about. I've tried to capture that feel in the fiction I've written for FR. Doing it in game product is a little harder, but I managed to catch a glimmer or two in products like Silver Marches, Underdark (Lorosfyr, the Glimmersea), and Unapproachable East (the description of the Great Dale's topography I'm especially proud of). I don't imagine that we're going to have *less* of that in 4e, and I frankly hope we'll have a litle more.
Here's the first paragraph of the prologue of my novel Swordmage, which I hope captures just a hint of that elusive feel:
It was late autumn in Myth Drannor, a bright cold morning with the first snows of the year dusting the open spaces between the trees. The fall colors were fading fast, but the trees of Cormanthor still mantled the city in a glorious cape of red, gold, and orange. Mist still lingered in the shadows of the forest, but the sun was brilliant on the golden treetops overhead, and the sky was perfect and clear. Geran Hulmaster fought with all his strength and lore against the mage Rhovann, dueling with blade and spell against spell and wand. Steel glittered and rang in the morning air as Geran parried bolts of crackling white force or deflected shining veils of madness in which Rhovann tried to ensnare him, while the wizard wove shields of spinning gold light to foil Geran’s own attacks.
This is actually a hard question to answer. I would like information which carries the smell of autumn followed by the bright morning green of a spring dawn. The trees are bedding down for old lady winter; the leaves are decaying and giving off a wonderful earthly smell. An odor that I adore and reminds me, even though the next few months are cold and unforgiving I know spring is just on the horizon. Right at this moment I see nothing but a cold brutal winter which there is no glimmer of hope. Maybe I don’t have enough wood chopped, maybe my larder was raided by rats. It’s bleak and dreary.
Rich, give me a Spring.
How is that?
P.S.
Msatran must be stopped!:P
Well said.
One of the things I like most about the Realms is the "imaginary vistas" I see when I close my eyes and try to picture the places I'm reading about. I've tried to capture that feel in the fiction I've written for FR. Doing it in game product is a little harder, but I managed to catch a glimmer or two in products like Silver Marches, Underdark (Lorosfyr, the Glimmersea), and Unapproachable East (the description of the Great Dale's topography I'm especially proud of). I don't imagine that we're going to have *less* of that in 4e, and I frankly hope we'll have a litle more.
Here's the first paragraph of the prologue of my novel Swordmage, which I hope captures just a hint of that elusive feel:
It was late autumn in Myth Drannor, a bright cold morning with the first snows of the year dusting the open spaces between the trees. The fall colors were fading fast, but the trees of Cormanthor still mantled the city in a glorious cape of red, gold, and orange. Mist still lingered in the shadows of the forest, but the sun was brilliant on the golden treetops overhead, and the sky was perfect and clear. Geran Hulmaster fought with all his strength and lore against the mage Rhovann, dueling with blade and spell against spell and wand. Steel glittered and rang in the morning air as Geran parried bolts of crackling white force or deflected shining veils of madness in which Rhovann tried to ensnare him, while the wizard wove shields of spinning gold light to foil Geran’s own attacks.
Torm is probably going to be a demigod. We think he works best as a champion or hero in the service of other LG powers. He might be a lesser god, which means he's got clerics and worshipers and temples, but doesn't rate his own plane. (We've only got greater, lesser, and demigod; no real reason to distinguish intermediate, really.)
Is there any real reason to distinguish ANY deities with these qualifiers? It really brings up the whole "how does worship-power influence a god's status," and so forth, and can quickly tumble into sticky deity-stat situations.
Are there any real rules that depend on these deity statuses? I mean, Earth's done pretty well with thousands of deities without explicitly having to label them with such categories. I think it's much *cooler* to learn "how powerful" gods are from myths, legends, tales, epics, and the influence of their church in the world.
Well said.
One of the things I like most about the Realms is the "imaginary vistas" I see when I close my eyes and try to picture the places I'm reading about. I've tried to capture that feel in the fiction I've written for FR. Doing it in game product is a little harder, but I managed to catch a glimmer or two in products like Silver Marches, Underdark (Lorosfyr, the Glimmersea), and Unapproachable East (the description of the Great Dale's topography I'm especially proud of). I don't imagine that we're going to have *less* of that in 4e, and I frankly hope we'll have a litle more.
Here's the first paragraph of the prologue of my novel Swordmage, which I hope captures just a hint of that elusive feel:
It was late autumn in Myth Drannor, a bright cold morning with the first snows of the year dusting the open spaces between the trees. The fall colors were fading fast, but the trees of Cormanthor still mantled the city in a glorious cape of red, gold, and orange. Mist still lingered in the shadows of the forest, but the sun was brilliant on the golden treetops overhead, and the sky was perfect and clear. Geran Hulmaster fought with all his strength and lore against the mage Rhovann, dueling with blade and spell against spell and wand. Steel glittered and rang in the morning air as Geran parried bolts of crackling white force or deflected shining veils of madness in which Rhovann tried to ensnare him, while the wizard wove shields of spinning gold light to foil Geran’s own attacks.
Thanks Rich for the response. I do have two recommendations, can you change Geran’s last name to something else. First time I read his last name it became Mulmaster in my mind’s eye. I had to do a double take on the sentence. And now his last name is Mulmaster, no matter how hard I try to get it right. The second recommendation is for servitor deities in 4th Ed FR, think you can sneak in some old Birthright deity names.
Greater God: You've got a worldwide church, clerics, and worshippers. You're powerful enough to generate an astral dominion (outer plane) of your own, and it generally takes on the characteristics you want; you are ruler over a celestial court. Not all greater gods choose to make their own planes--sometimes a couple of greater gods share a plane. Tyr is a good example.
Lesser God: You've got a church, clerics, and worshippers. You don't have your own plane, so you affiliate yourself with a greater god and have a substantial realm, palace, tiki bar, or whatever within that greater god's plane that you call your own. You're part of that greater god's celestial court, although you may be a loyal ally, a treacherous wild card, or a recluse who avoids contact with the "landlord." Someone like Beshaba is a good example. She's not important/strong enough to have a domain of her own, but she has clerics and temples and such.
Demigod: You don't have clerics or worshippers, but you're immortal and you are known to the mortals of the world as a mythological figure. You serve lesser gods or greater gods as a champion, herald, lady-in-waiting, or whatever. Clangeddin is a good example--he's really the most legendary dwarf hero, and serves as Moradin's two-fisted fightin' champion when Moradin wants someone's keister kicked. The Red Knight hangs with Tempus. And so on.
We think there are about 15-20 greater gods, a like number of lesser gods, and the rest of the figures in the pantheon are probably demigods. Siamorphe looks a lot better as someone else's lady in waiting than as a deity in her own right--or so we think, anyway.
Hey, Rich, this reply of yours caught my eye...
Is there any real reason to distinguish ANY deities with these qualifiers? It really brings up the whole "how does worship-power influence a god's status," and so forth, and can quickly tumble into sticky deity-stat situations.
Are there any real rules that depend on these deity statuses? I mean, Earth's done pretty well with thousands of deities without explicitly having to label them with such categories. I think it's much *cooler* to learn "how powerful" gods are from myths, legends, tales, epics, and the influence of their church in the world.
Hey, Rich, this reply of yours caught my eye...
Is there any real reason to distinguish ANY deities with these qualifiers? It really brings up the whole "how does worship-power influence a god's status," and so forth, and can quickly tumble into sticky deity-stat situations.
Are there any real rules that depend on these deity statuses? I mean, Earth's done pretty well with thousands of deities without explicitly having to label them with such categories. I think it's much *cooler* to learn "how powerful" gods are from myths, legends, tales, epics, and the influence of their church in the world.
Yes there's are good reasons for--DMs at least--knowing whether one's a big-heavy or whether one's the sort who has to tread carefully: Lolth and Eilistraee, Shar and Mask, and so on. The listed status can give a general idea of power as well as following, who's rising or falling at least according to the published Realms But the Intermediate thing wasn't really necessary so if Torm becomes a demipower in 4e like he was back then...no big deal. At least he'll still be alive.
It was late autumn in Myth Drannor, a bright cold morning with the first snows of the year dusting the open spaces between the trees. The fall colors were fading fast, but the trees of Cormanthor still mantled the city in a glorious cape of red, gold, and orange. Mist still lingered in the shadows of the forest, but the sun was brilliant on the golden treetops overhead, and the sky was perfect and clear. Geran Hulmaster fought with all his strength and lore against the mage Rhovann, dueling with blade and spell against spell and wand. Steel glittered and rang in the morning air as Geran parried bolts of crackling white force or deflected shining veils of madness in which Rhovann tried to ensnare him, while the wizard wove shields of spinning gold light to foil Geran’s own attacks.
Mr. Baker I have to say that was very well written. It provokes memories of when I lived up in the mountains and driving to and from work. Well except for the part of the swordmage and the wizard fighting...I never saw that. Though I occasionaly saw some pretty strange things...;) Maybe I'll take a drive up there this Sat.
But to me the realms were alot more than landscape(as I pointed out it made me think of driving home not the Realms). It about the people, the gods, the races, not just the surface it was the depth that made it great...
Also I don't mean this to be insulting but all we have are contradictions. And bleakness.
The deity-status thing is a handy shortcut for nailing down a god's place in the world. Here's how I see it working:
Greater God: You've got a worldwide church, clerics, and worshippers. You're powerful enough to generate an astral dominion (outer plane) of your own, and it generally takes on the characteristics you want; you are ruler over a celestial court. Not all greater gods choose to make their own planes--sometimes a couple of greater gods share a plane. Tyr is a good example.
Lesser God: You've got a church, clerics, and worshippers. You don't have your own plane, so you affiliate yourself with a greater god and have a substantial realm, palace, tiki bar, or whatever within that greater god's plane that you call your own. You're part of that greater god's celestial court, although you may be a loyal ally, a treacherous wild card, or a recluse who avoids contact with the "landlord." Someone like Beshaba is a good example. She's not important/strong enough to have a domain of her own, but she has clerics and temples and such.
Demigod: You don't have clerics or worshippers, but you're immortal and you are known to the mortals of the world as a mythological figure. You serve lesser gods or greater gods as a champion, herald, lady-in-waiting, or whatever. Clangeddin is a good example--he's really the most legendary dwarf hero, and serves as Moradin's two-fisted fightin' champion when Moradin wants someone's keister kicked. The Red Knight hangs with Tempus. And so on.
Interesting. I used to think of quasi-powers (mentioned in Greyhawk) the same way. It's a handy way to fold some of the others back into a greater faith. I still like the idea of demipowers being 'saints' (for which some small bonus could be gleaned by invoking them as a patron), butthis is simpler and cleaner.
We think there are about 15-20 greater gods, a like number of lesser gods, and the rest of the figures in the pantheon are probably demigods. Siamorphe looks a lot better as someone else's lady in waiting than as a deity in her own right--or so we think, anyway.
For the broader human (Faerunian) pantheon, yep.
We think there are about 15-20 greater gods, a like number of lesser gods, and the rest of the figures in the pantheon are probably demigods. Siamorphe looks a lot better as someone else's lady in waiting than as a deity in her own right--or so we think, anyway.
So what is going to happen to the churchs of these gods? I mean Siamorph has worshippers and churches. What is going to happen to the clerics? Also Siamorph was a goddess of nobles...a lady in waiting is a servant...how does that make sense?
Also will there be mechanical difference playing a worshipper of what ever goddess(I am guess Sune) Siamorph becomes a lady in waiting to who considers Siamorph their parton Saint and a regular worshipper of that goddess?
Tyr is a good example.
Tyr is on many people's black lists right now, I am not sure that I would use him for any examples. :P
We think there are about 15-20 greater gods, a like number of lesser gods, and the rest of the figures in the pantheon are probably demigods. Siamorphe looks a lot better as someone else's lady in waiting than as a deity in her own right--or so we think, anyway.
What happened to what you said about there the greater gods being trimmed down to about 30 (or did I misinterpret that post, it was a long time ago)? The list of Faerunian deities just seems to be getting shorter and shorter. I do not take this a a good sign (and I do not believe that many other Realms grognards will either).
So what is going to happen to the churchs of these gods? I mean Siamorph has worshippers and churches. What is going to happen to the clerics? Also Siamorph was a goddess of nobles...a lady in waiting is a servant...how does that make sense?
Well, not to be an annoying "corrector", but "ladies-in-waiting" tend to be noblewomen in their own right.
They aren't simple chamber maids.Not saying I would use this new system, but that part of Rich's post made sense to me.
Well, not to be an annoying "corrector", but "ladies-in-waiting" tend to be noblewomen in their own right.
I wonder if Tyr ever used Helm's helm as a chamber pot?
Torm is probably going to be a demigod. We think he works best as a champion or hero in the service of other LG powers. He might be a lesser god, which means he's got clerics and worshipers and temples, but doesn't rate his own plane. (We've only got greater, lesser, and demigod; no real reason to distinguish intermediate, really.)
I don't know about anyone else, Rich, but after this whole debacle with Helm and Tyr, I'd just like to see Tyr gone and have Torm replace him and become the new God of Justice. Yeah, he was a servant in life and a servant as a god, but I think it's time for Torm to step up to the big leagues. Let him pass on the Portfolios of Duty, Loyalty, and Obedience to another servitor deity (Possibly Nobanion or even Bahamut. Or better yet, create a new god who was once a mortal follower of Torm, a Paladin, who discovered the location of Chalsembyr, and who was rewarded by being elevated to Demigod status) while he claims the Portfolios of Justice, Guardians, Protection, Protectors, and Paladins. I think there're numerous good reasons to do so:
1) Tyr killing Helm has left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. Maybe I've got a limited imagination ;), but I imagine that the number of Realms players who like that plotline don't even reach into the double digits, percentage wise. It's probably a stretch to say that 2-3% of Realms fans like that story. Point is, Tyr's now inextricably linked to a story which has left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Realms fans, and his continued presence will only serve as a constant reminder of that story. So what's the value of keeping him around? He doesn't bring anything to the Realms, but instead detracts from it. Hell, he did so even before that whole debacle, as I'll illustrate below.
2) Tyr's an interloper deity, while Torm's a native. There're other interloper deities in the Realms, but Tyr's far more stand out then the rest. For some people, he starts conjuring up images of Thor, Loki, and Odin, and frankly, I don't want to think about Thor when I'm playing in the Realms. Bad enough that the story of Fenris was altered so that Kezef the Chaos Hound filled that role. I think it's time for Tyr to pack up and go home.
3) With Helm's death, his worshippers have to go somewhere. So where will they go? They certainly won't go to Tyr. Hell, Tyr may end up losing worshippers, too, once people hear about the whole sordid story with Tymora and Helm. Torm, on the other hand, is the natural choice for Helm's former worshippers to flock to. Especially with Torm and Helm having actively directed their churches to foster good relations with each other. With Helm's death, that's where those good relations would pay off, as Torm's church is likely to end up absorbing a good deal of Helm's worshippers. With that kind of influx of worshippers, that'd easily push Torm up to Intermediate status at a minimum.
4) Torm's star has been on the rise for years, now. Ever since the Time of Troubles, we've been told in supplement after supplement how popular his church is becoming. How many more worshippers he's gaining. Torm's church seemed to be rivalling Helm's church, and Helm is/was an Intermediate God. That's a god who should be promoted, not demoted. His fairly meteoric rise in popularity can only have been helped along by the return of Bane. It was Torm, after all, who killed Bane during the Time of Troubles. With Bane returned, and Faerunians fearful about what that entails, more and more people are praying to Torm for deliverance from Bane. Faerunians are looking to Torm for salvation, and has been pointed out before, the beliefs of worshippers can change a deity. With so many people praying to Torm to defend them from Bane, Torm's role in the Faerunian Pantheon would start shifting, and he'd soon enough cease to be simply about duty and loyalty. Especially if he were to pick up Helm's Portfolio of Protection.
5) Torm's story is a powerful one. It's the kind of story that real religions are built around. He sacrificed himself to save his worshippers. He died and was resurrected. It literally doesn't get better then that. So why have a god as vibrant and interesting as Torm as a mere servitor, when the god who he serves is dull and lacklustre by comparison?
Personally, I think you folks are missing a golden opportunity, here. You've got a fantastic confluence of events which can and should lead up to Torm stepping up and becoming a Greater God, taking his place as Bane's arch-nemesis. The ying to his yang and all that. It'd make for a great dynamic in the Faerunian Pantheon, and it'd be a whole lot more personal then setting up Tyr or Silvanus against Bane. The two of them literally fought each other to death, after all. Not to mention that in a lot of respects, Bane is a dark mirror of Torm. It'd be nice if they were on an equal playing field, again. Then we can just sit back and watch the conflict percolate.
That's my personal wish, anyway. But at the very least, Torm should be a Lesser God (In 4E terms, I mean). Putting him down as a Demigod is a contradiction to established background, in which he does have worshippers, and churches, and clerics, and even whole knightly orders devoted to him. And all of that background has said that his faith is only growing, not shrinking. And the influx of former Helm worshippers could only make it grow, not shrink. So there's no way that Torm should ever be listed as a Demipower in the 4E Realms.
Well, not to be an annoying "corrector", but "ladies-in-waiting" tend to be noblewomen in their own right.
Not saying I would use this new system, but that part of Rich's post made sense to me.
While that is true...I made a mistake.
And you can never be annoying, milady. But a goddess of Nobility right and duty to rule...serveing a common goddess? Sorry I just don't see this it goes against what Siamorph represents to me. She should be the one with ladies and waiting. I don't like these parasitic relationships forming. It doesn't seem very godlike or heroic like to me.What he's been scripted as doing is out-of-character except in the eyes of those who see LG as 'lawful stupid'. Certainly Helm paid the ultimate price as part of the changes.
As for Siamorphe, why is she hanging with Sune? Other than to provide some 'alignment diversity' in her realm? It would make more sense having her in Tyr's court.
Your opinion concerning Torm and Tyr was well thought out and articulated GreenKnight. This is just the sort of feedback I’d love to see more of here. I cannot say that you’ll sway the FRCG team one way or the other, but I for one was persuaded.
Stop it, you're making me blush. ;)
In light of recent events, though, a good argument can be made for Tyr being willing to vacate Faerun and look for greener pastures.
Due to the actions of his worshippers in Maztica, Helm saw a loss of worshippers (many of whom went over to Torm), despite the fact that Helm personally had nothing to do with that. Helm saw even further loss of worshippers as a result of the Time of Troubles. Which is pretty unfair, considering that he was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing. Yet Helm, despite being exactly who his worshippers knew and expected him to be, still ended up losing followers (many of whom, once again, went over to Torm).
If Helm was punished for events which he wasn't directly involved in, and for living up to his creed, then how much worse will it be for Tyr? We're not talking about the actions of some of his worshippers, but his own actions. And his actions weren't born out of his creed, of justice, but from pure and simple jealousy. How petty would his actions seem to most people of Faerun? How many people would trust Tyr's judgment if he misjudged one of his closest friends so badly that he ended up killing him? How many of Tyr's own worshippers would be repulsed by his actions?
Not to mention that Tyr's actions had repercussions across several faiths, and not just to the Tyrite faith. His argument with Siamorphe drove her from the House of the Triad, so that would anger Siamorphe's worshippers. Tymora's faithful would also consider her marriage to Tyr to be some form of curse brought down on her by Beshaba, as Tymora joined the House of the Triad utterly miserable and inconsolable. What was formerly one of the brightest spots in the Realms now has a dark cloud cast over it because of Tyr's actions, so Tymora's worshippers most likely despise him.
Then of course there's Helm's worshippers. Bad enough when your god is slain, but for your god to have been slain by his supposed friend in a jealous fit? That'd be viewed as nothing less then an act of betrayal. Tyr would most certainly earn the undying hatred of Helm worshippers. In addition, with the death of Helm, Ilmater left the House of the Triad in protest over Tyr's actions. So add Ilmater's worshippers to the mix of those who're incensed with Tyr.
On top of which, Tyr's actions led to a major facet of Faerunian faith being shattered, the Triad. And it isn't Ilmater who's going to be blamed for that. It's Tyr. Nevermind that the Triadic Knights will have to close down shop as there's no longer a Triad to worship.
So Tymora's worshippers, Helm's worshippers, Siamorphe's worshippers, Ilmater's worshippers, and Triad worshippers all despise Tyr and curse his name. And his own followers are likely turning away from him in droves due to his shameful actions (And more often then not, they're likely gravitating to Torm). Helm, after all, saw a large number of defections for far less. And Faerunians in general are doubtlessly less then thrilled by his behavior. All in all, things can't be all that good for the Tyrite Church. The state of affairs of the Helmite Church at its most unpopular point would likely look like paradise in comparison to what the state the Tyrite Church is, now.
All this is bound to result in a loss of power for Tyr, possibly demotion to Intermediate God status. In any event, it'd definitely result in an inbalance in the, uh... balance. Enough so that Ao may have to step in. It wouldn't do for the one and only Lawful Good Greater God in the Realms to drop precipitously in power. Whatever else Tyr is, though, Tyr is a stickler for the preservation of the balance. And rather then put it in peril, one can imagine him passing the Portfolio of Justice to Torm and giving him his place in the Faerunian Pantheon, before moving on to other worlds where he can start over again (Who knows? Maybe he shows up on Oerth with an all-new Procession of Justice? ;) ).
Once Torm is in place he can repair the damage done by Tyr, starting with letting Tymora return to Sune's court and bringing Ilmater and Siamorphe back to the House of the Triad (By that point one imagines that Siamorphe will be practically begging to go back. I doubt a Lawful Neutral deity will be able to spend any amount of time with Chaotic Good deities before eventually wanting to claw her own eyes out). With Ilmater back, and with a new deity taking on the Portfolios of Duty, Loyalty, and Obedience (I still think having a Paladin who found Chalsembyr being elevated to Demigod status would be a great idea. Although Bahamut would be cool, too, as would Nobanion, who seems a good fit for the Triad, despite currently residing in the House of Nature), Torm can then rebuild the Triad with himself at its head.
The good thing about that is that it follows a natural progression for Torm, going from the servant to the master. It follows his character progression from the Time of Troubles. Prior to it, he let his clergy walk all over him. The Torm from Pre-1358 DR could've never been a Greater God, as he was so focused with doing what he was told that he didn't know how to lead. The Time of Troubles, though, taught him what he needed to do in order to take command. And now instead of the Tormite Clergy twisting him around their fingers, Torm is firmly in control of his own church. He's learned to move beyond simply taking commands, and giving them. It's a vital lesson which Torm needed to learn, which has helped him in taking point in the battle against the newly resurrected Bane, and which now makes him qualified to become a Greater God.
Like I said, before. All the elements are there to make the Tormite faith a powerful force in Faerun. A moving story of how a god sacrificed himself to save his followers, and then rose from the dead. A powerful force of evil which has risen from the ashes and which he must stand against. Knightly orders dedicated to him. A Holy Grail like quest with Chalsembyr. And the worshippers of two other gods more powerful than he who would only be to glad to begin worshipping him. All that's needed is to make room for Torm alongside all the Greater Gods and you're set. Then all you'd have to do is sit back and let the epic battle between good and evil unfold.
What was Tyr's crime here??? He's being blamed what is ultimately bad scripting. For Heaven's sake.
What he's been scripted as doing is out-of-character except in the eyes of those who see LG as 'lawful stupid'. Certainly Helm paid the ultimate price as part of the changes.
Agreed, but it'd take a whole lot of more bad scripting to undo all of that. What's done is done. The only thing, now, is to make the best of it. And it's much better for Tyr to make a graceful exit from the Realms then to stick around as the most reviled deity on Faerun.
As for Siamorphe, why is she hanging with Sune? Other than to provide some 'alignment diversity' in her realm? It would make more sense having her in Tyr's court.
Yeah, I figure it'll be about a month before Siamorphe starts to go slowly insane from hanging around that bunch. ;)
My wish anyways,.....I always loved Bhaal.
It would certainly make me more willing to give the 4E Realms a closer look, if the suggestions regarding Torm ascending and Tyr descending ( or better disappearing altogether ) would be adopted by WotC. I´m willing to accept that Mystra is a goner, too late to do anything about it now. I just hope Alustriel and the Simbul are okay. ^^
"You killed me and no one cared! Now I'll show you just how illogical things can be!"
I think they need to ressurect Bhaal and then have him assassinate Tyr for being a butthole. He could reclaim Murder from Cyric and he can regain Violence which I don't think anyone has now. He can THEN serve under Bane as a Lesser God.
My wish anyways,.....I always loved Bhaal.
I don't know about killing Tyr, but I can definitely get behind the return of Bhaal AND Myrkul. Bhaal as the Demigod of Murder (and Violence) in service to Bane, and Myrkul as the Greater God of Wasting, Decay, Corruption, Parasites, Old Age, Dusk, Fall, and Exhaustion. All those Portfolios save for Fall lay unclaimed, so why not? And how hard would it be for Myrkul to snatch Fall back from Mielikki? Besides, he's a great antithesis to Lathander. Pretty much all of those Portfolios are in direct opposition to Lathander's Portfolios. If he were to press Velsharoon into his service then you'd have the start of an interesting branch of the Faerunian Pantheon under Myrkul's control.
Maybe all of this is Murdane's insane revenge.
"You killed me and no one cared! Now I'll show you just how illogical things can be!"
While that is true...I made a mistake.
Good to know.;)
click here
I don't know about anyone else, Rich, but after this whole debacle with Helm and Tyr, I'd just like to see Tyr gone and have Torm replace him and become the new God of Justice. Yeah, he was a servant in life and a servant as a god, but I think it's time for Torm to step up to the big leagues. Let him pass on the Portfolios of Duty, Loyalty, and Obedience to another servitor deity (Possibly Nobanion or even Bahamut. Or better yet, create a new god who was once a mortal follower of Torm, a Paladin, who discovered the location of Chalsembyr, and who was rewarded by being elevated to Demigod status) while he claims the Portfolios of Justice, Guardians, Protection, Protectors, and Paladins. I think there're numerous good reasons to do so:
1) Tyr killing Helm has left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. Maybe I've got a limited imagination ;), but I imagine that the number of Realms players who like that plotline don't even reach into the double digits, percentage wise. It's probably a stretch to say that 2-3% of Realms fans like that story. Point is, Tyr's now inextricably linked to a story which has left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Realms fans, and his continued presence will only serve as a constant reminder of that story. So what's the value of keeping him around? He doesn't bring anything to the Realms, but instead detracts from it. Hell, he did so even before that whole debacle, as I'll illustrate below.
2) Tyr's an interloper deity, while Torm's a native. There're other interloper deities in the Realms, but Tyr's far more stand out then the rest. For some people, he starts conjuring up images of Thor, Loki, and Odin, and frankly, I don't want to think about Thor when I'm playing in the Realms. Bad enough that the story of Fenris was altered so that Kezef the Chaos Hound filled that role. I think it's time for Tyr to pack up and go home.
3) With Helm's death, his worshippers have to go somewhere. So where will they go? They certainly won't go to Tyr. Hell, Tyr may end up losing worshippers, too, once people hear about the whole sordid story with Tymora and Helm. Torm, on the other hand, is the natural choice for Helm's former worshippers to flock to. Especially with Torm and Helm having actively directed their churches to foster good relations with each other. With Helm's death, that's where those good relations would pay off, as Torm's church is likely to end up absorbing a good deal of Helm's worshippers. With that kind of influx of worshippers, that'd easily push Torm up to Intermediate status at a minimum.
4) Torm's star has been on the rise for years, now. Ever since the Time of Troubles, we've been told in supplement after supplement how popular his church is becoming. How many more worshippers he's gaining. Torm's church seemed to be rivalling Helm's church, and Helm is/was an Intermediate God. That's a god who should be promoted, not demoted. His fairly meteoric rise in popularity can only have been helped along by the return of Bane. It was Torm, after all, who killed Bane during the Time of Troubles. With Bane returned, and Faerunians fearful about what that entails, more and more people are praying to Torm for deliverance from Bane. Faerunians are looking to Torm for salvation, and has been pointed out before, the beliefs of worshippers can change a deity. With so many people praying to Torm to defend them from Bane, Torm's role in the Faerunian Pantheon would start shifting, and he'd soon enough cease to be simply about duty and loyalty. Especially if he were to pick up Helm's Portfolio of Protection.
5) Torm's story is a powerful one. It's the kind of story that real religions are built around. He sacrificed himself to save his worshippers. He died and was resurrected. It literally doesn't get better then that. So why have a god as vibrant and interesting as Torm as a mere servitor, when the god who he serves is dull and lacklustre by comparison?
Personally, I think you folks are missing a golden opportunity, here. You've got a fantastic confluence of events which can and should lead up to Torm stepping up and becoming a Greater God, taking his place as Bane's arch-nemesis. The ying to his yang and all that. It'd make for a great dynamic in the Faerunian Pantheon, and it'd be a whole lot more personal then setting up Tyr or Silvanus against Bane. The two of them literally fought each other to death, after all. Not to mention that in a lot of respects, Bane is a dark mirror of Torm. It'd be nice if they were on an equal playing field, again. Then we can just sit back and watch the conflict percolate.
That's my personal wish, anyway. But at the very least, Torm should be a Lesser God (In 4E terms, I mean). Putting him down as a Demigod is a contradiction to established background, in which he does have worshippers, and churches, and clerics, and even whole knightly orders devoted to him. And all of that background has said that his faith is only growing, not shrinking. And the influx of former Helm worshippers could only make it grow, not shrink. So there's no way that Torm should ever be listed as a Demipower in the 4E Realms.
Rich, that is what I really, really want to see. Even though I know my desires don't weigh too heavily on your decisions, I know most of the people on this board probably agree, and it could go a real long way towards helping to heal the perceptions towards the 4ed Realms caused by the end of Grand History of the Realms.
However, I understand that you did that for a reason, one we do not know certainly, but most likely one that was an attempt to remove both Tyr and Helm is my guess. I just think you should know that most of us think that's a great idea, and would help provide some of those "good changes" that people keep asking for.
Also, regarding the core question, yeah I know it's core, but since I was also asking about Torm, I figured I should at least give it a shot. Thanks for answering my questions, even if I didn't particularly like the answers.
So interesting and so well-reasoned, in fact, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to the other designers working on FR 4e. We had a brief huddle this morning, and I think we're going to implement it: Torm in, Tyr out. More details than that I can't reveal yet, but it actually helps "spackle in" a couple of pantheon events we were working on anyway.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion, Green Knight!
I don't know about anyone else, Rich, but after this whole debacle with Helm and Tyr, I'd just like to see Tyr gone and have Torm replace him and become the new God of Justice. Yeah, he was a servant in life and a servant as a god, but I think it's time for Torm to step up to the big leagues. Let him pass on the Portfolios of Duty, Loyalty, and Obedience to another servitor deity (Possibly Nobanion or even Bahamut. Or better yet, create a new god who was once a mortal follower of Torm, a Paladin, who discovered the location of Chalsembyr, and who was rewarded by being elevated to Demigod status) while he claims the Portfolios of Justice, Guardians, Protection, Protectors, and Paladins. I think there're numerous good reasons to do so:
1) Tyr killing Helm has left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. Maybe I've got a limited imagination ;), but I imagine that the number of Realms players who like that plotline don't even reach into the double digits, percentage wise. It's probably a stretch to say that 2-3% of Realms fans like that story. Point is, Tyr's now inextricably linked to a story which has left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Realms fans, and his continued presence will only serve as a constant reminder of that story. So what's the value of keeping him around? He doesn't bring anything to the Realms, but instead detracts from it. Hell, he did so even before that whole debacle, as I'll illustrate below.
2) Tyr's an interloper deity, while Torm's a native. There're other interloper deities in the Realms, but Tyr's far more stand out then the rest. For some people, he starts conjuring up images of Thor, Loki, and Odin, and frankly, I don't want to think about Thor when I'm playing in the Realms. Bad enough that the story of Fenris was altered so that Kezef the Chaos Hound filled that role. I think it's time for Tyr to pack up and go home.
3) With Helm's death, his worshippers have to go somewhere. So where will they go? They certainly won't go to Tyr. Hell, Tyr may end up losing worshippers, too, once people hear about the whole sordid story with Tymora and Helm. Torm, on the other hand, is the natural choice for Helm's former worshippers to flock to. Especially with Torm and Helm having actively directed their churches to foster good relations with each other. With Helm's death, that's where those good relations would pay off, as Torm's church is likely to end up absorbing a good deal of Helm's worshippers. With that kind of influx of worshippers, that'd easily push Torm up to Intermediate status at a minimum.
4) Torm's star has been on the rise for years, now. Ever since the Time of Troubles, we've been told in supplement after supplement how popular his church is becoming. How many more worshippers he's gaining. Torm's church seemed to be rivalling Helm's church, and Helm is/was an Intermediate God. That's a god who should be promoted, not demoted. His fairly meteoric rise in popularity can only have been helped along by the return of Bane. It was Torm, after all, who killed Bane during the Time of Troubles. With Bane returned, and Faerunians fearful about what that entails, more and more people are praying to Torm for deliverance from Bane. Faerunians are looking to Torm for salvation, and has been pointed out before, the beliefs of worshippers can change a deity. With so many people praying to Torm to defend them from Bane, Torm's role in the Faerunian Pantheon would start shifting, and he'd soon enough cease to be simply about duty and loyalty. Especially if he were to pick up Helm's Portfolio of Protection.
5) Torm's story is a powerful one. It's the kind of story that real religions are built around. He sacrificed himself to save his worshippers. He died and was resurrected. It literally doesn't get better then that. So why have a god as vibrant and interesting as Torm as a mere servitor, when the god who he serves is dull and lacklustre by comparison?
Personally, I think you folks are missing a golden opportunity, here. You've got a fantastic confluence of events which can and should lead up to Torm stepping up and becoming a Greater God, taking his place as Bane's arch-nemesis. The ying to his yang and all that. It'd make for a great dynamic in the Faerunian Pantheon, and it'd be a whole lot more personal then setting up Tyr or Silvanus against Bane. The two of them literally fought each other to death, after all. Not to mention that in a lot of respects, Bane is a dark mirror of Torm. It'd be nice if they were on an equal playing field, again. Then we can just sit back and watch the conflict percolate.
That's my personal wish, anyway. But at the very least, Torm should be a Lesser God (In 4E terms, I mean). Putting him down as a Demigod is a contradiction to established background, in which he does have worshippers, and churches, and clerics, and even whole knightly orders devoted to him. And all of that background has said that his faith is only growing, not shrinking. And the influx of former Helm worshippers could only make it grow, not shrink. So there's no way that Torm should ever be listed as a Demipower in the 4E Realms.
Sooo... can someone pass me a cigar? Hrm, what? *checks the date* November 29th, so this isn't an April Fool's Joke, unless you're one of those people who likes to celebrate April Fool's Day months in advance in order to take people by surprise. Well, assuming this isn't a joke...
Congrats, GreenKnight- especially since I also agree with clearing the way for a "New, Improved" Triad led by Torm instead of Tyr. The story arc of Torm is a lot more compelling this way. (I like the similar "Filling into the New-God Shoes" arc for Kelemvor, with mentoring from Jergal.) And major kudos to Rich Baker and the other 4E FR guys for taking coherent fan input into consideration in their design.
My question is, as someone who uses FR game product but doesn't really read the novels (which I know have been and will continue to be FR canon), where did you get the background for Torm from the ToT (1358) to present (1374)? Was this your deduction from the 2E/3E FRCS and History of the Realms? Or is there more to learn from the novels?
Also, will the whole love triangle mess for Helm, Tyr, and Tymora be covered in upcoming fiction, the 4E FRCS, or do we just have to rely on a couple of paragraphs on the last page of the History of the Realms?
This is a really interesting suggestion, and a well-reasoned argument.
So interesting and so well-reasoned, in fact, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to the other designers working on FR 4e. We had a brief huddle this morning, and I think we're going to implement it: Torm in, Tyr out. More details than that I can't reveal yet, but it actually helps "spackle in" a couple of pantheon events we were working on anyway.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion, Green Knight!
I agree that GreenKnight has some excellent reasoning in his suggestion, but I also think that you need to very carefully concider what getting rid of Tyr is going to do to the rest of the pantheon... Especially since he is very much caught up in the recent dramas within the Pantheon. His fate does not just effect himself, but other deities as well. In particular, of course, I'm talking about Tymora.
Sune set up Tymora to "marry" Tyr, and now you're going to take Tyr out of the picture. Given that Tymora went quietly to the House of the Triad (even after Helm's death at Tyr's hands), what will happen to her when her "betrothed" (:rolleyes
is no longer in the picture? Will we see Tymora return to Brightwater? Will we see any kind of reaction from her at all regarding Helm's death? Or are you planning for Sune to arrange Tymora to marry Torm now? (My preferences: she returns to Brightwater and the whole arranged marriage thing just goes away like it never happened.)On GreenKnight's last point - I feel the death and resurrection of Torm is far too close to a certian real world religious story, and would much rather see that aspect played down, not played up.
Hrm, what? *checks the date* November 29th, so this isn't an April Fool's Joke, unless you're one of those people who likes to celebrate April Fool's Day months in advance in order to take people by surprise. Well, assuming this isn't a joke...
Wow, good for you.
You don't see something like this every day!On GreenKnight's last point - I feel the death and resurrection of Torm is far too close to a certian real world religious story, and would much rather see that aspect played down, not played up.
To be fair, the death and rebirth of a god (or goddess) has been used in many real world religions, not just one.
It's a pretty ancient and widely used concept, if not universal.The rise of Torm is classic fantasy. His resurrection is classic D&D. I foresee much hope.
But this is an excellent opportunity to fix Tymora too! Let her return to Brightwater. That could really straighten things out for my favourite characters. She can just forget the mess she's caused and hang with her friends.
But this is an excellent opportunity to fix Tymora too! Let her return to Brightwater. That could really straighten things out for my favourite characters. She can just forget the mess she's caused and hang with her friends.
I agree. The love triangle story made Tymora a far more passive character than she should have been (being handed around like meat).
I agree. The love triangle story made Tymora a far more passive character than she should have been (being handed around like meat).
Agreed. I'm hoping that if Tyr does abscond from the Realms, that he and Tymora will get their marriage annuled and all parties can forget the whole thing ever happened. In short, it should be treated like a marriage in Vegas. What happens there stays there.
Agreed. I'm hoping that if Tyr does abscond from the Realms, that he and Tymora will get their marriage annuled and all parties can forget the whole thing ever happened. In short, it should be treated like a marriage in Vegas. What happens there stays there.
I can only add my assent to this. Rinonalyrna said it best, the way it was told, Tymora was handed around like a piece of meat, and that is just *so* out of character for her...
And a big congratulation, GreenKnight. What just happened doesn´t do so very often, and your well-crafted argument certainly deserved to be made canon.
To be fair, the death and rebirth of a god (or goddess) has been used in many real world religions, not just one.
That is true, but there must be some reason why the religion you have inferred from what I said immediately sprang to mind, and not say the Egyptian deity Osiris.
I just think they should be careful.
Heya,
That is true, but there must be some reason why the religion you have inferred from what I said immediately sprang to mind, and not say the Egyptian deity Osiris.
Good point.
I can't say I'm bothered by the concept or the similarity to Christianity, but some people would be. As always it's for WotC to decide.1. Girlfriend killed by Umberle because of Lathander
2. Followers make mess of Maztica, loses influence
3. Does his duty as commanded by Ao, loses followers
4. Killed by ally (the God of Justice at that) over a girl
Though personally I really prefer Helm's return or someone of similar disposition to take over Helm's portfolios. His position in pantheon (despite seemingly boring and overlapping with some of the Triad) is very distinct from anyone else. His history and lore also forges connections with a variety of gods, some of them rather interesting and unique (he doesn't like some evil gods sure, but he also doesn't like some good deities). Who will take over for the god of dedicated warriors, stalwart guardsmen, and heroes with a streak of gray?
That is true, but there must be some reason why the religion you have inferred from what I said immediately sprang to mind, and not say the Egyptian deity Osiris.
You guys are talking about Aslan, right? Oh wait... he's Nobanion now.
So interesting and so well-reasoned, in fact, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to the other designers working on FR 4e. We had a brief huddle this morning, and I think we're going to implement it: Torm in, Tyr out.
Tyr out and Torm in?
To Greenknight:
To Rich Baker: Nicely done... perhaps the planar bus hasn't left Damara yet - you know, the one with Poseidon on it. I hear there's a few more empty seats in there as well. I'd miss Oghma, but perhaps it is time for FR to say goodbye to many of its interloper gods. At least re-name a few of them, like you did with Baast.
Keep Loviatar... any woman who likes to whip hineys is okay in my book. :D
But this is an excellent opportunity to fix Tymora too! Let her return to Brightwater. That could really straighten things out for my favourite characters. She can just forget the mess she's caused and hang with her friends.
It does look a little strange - like she's only being lumped in their with them because it's the "Bimbo Plane" (no offense to any females present). I'm not saying thats what Brightwater is, but it sure seems like it's become WotC's Lifetime: Television for Women. RW pantheons would NEVER divide along a male/female axis like that - they do so by interests. Tymora was Tyche (uh-oh, another interloper!), and THAT goddess just didn't seem the type to hangout with THAT crowd.
But then again, she is a whole new goddess now.
Rich Baker.... Please, please, please give Erevan Ilesere a more active role in 4ED!! He is such a wonderful deity (ask Erik Scott De Bie), and has never had the recognition that many people would love for him to see. Just think of all the possibilities Erevan Ilesere could open up and all the new plot hooks and mayhem he can play a role in, or even cause. After all, he'd cause as much trouble to evil deities as he would to the good gods and goddesses. He is the ultimate trouble maker and needs a bigger roll in the Realms. Plus, I know that Erik Scott De Bie will do a splendid job with Erevan in Forgotten Realms.
Just thought I'd put in my two Zhents! Thank you so much. ;)
GEV
But Helm IS dead and as I said before, they won't back-peddle on anything officially announced. They will not bring him back, and to tell the truth, his reputation has been pretty tarnished from the two major events already mentioned - I think Torm grabbing his portfolios and suffering a meteoric rise is much more epic then a powerful interloper god just getting more powerful while keeping his subordinants in check.
Oh, I never asked them to back-peddle from anything, I do expect them to go forward by progressing the timeline and plots forward. Bane died, then he came back. Cyric took over the portfolios of Bhaal and a smattering of others. Kelemvor took charge of the dead. Something similar can happen for Helm or his position in the pantheon. I think it would be almost necessary for some being to take over the portfolios of Helm under a similar attitude and interpretation. Whether that is Helm or another god, that's ultimately up to the designers. Hopefully they don't just give his portfolios to Torm, Bahamut, or who ever. They all differ from the more pragmatic outlook of Helm.
I just think the concept of Helm is a good one, especially for the profession of "adventurers." He's in like every one of the recent computer games set in the Realms (or most of them at least). I think he has a lot of publicity amongst the PC/Console gaming crowd. He's a good alternative between Tyr/Torm and Bane.
On GreenKnight's last point - I feel the death and resurrection of Torm is far too close to a certian real world religious story, and would much rather see that aspect played down, not played up.
Torm's death and resurrection are actually almost nothing like Jesus's. Torm died FIGHTING, being active, and aggressive.
I see Torm more as a Mithras or Adonis figure. (Not the hyper-pretty Adonis version, mind you. Though I would assume him to be pretty handsome, too.)
It's good to hear that Torm is sticking around. Though, I really liked the Triad, and still like Tyr, too. I, personally, LOVE the mini-pantheons. If it's WotC's idea to keep Greaters with a minor 'court' of Lessers under them, I think the Triad would have been one of the first, if not THE first, one of these mini-pantheons/courts to have sprung to mind.
Though, this makes me wonder about others, too. The Deities of Fury, for example. I am assuming Talos as the Greater, and maybe Umberlee as the Lesser, and Malar and Auril as Demi's? Though Malar is pretty active in some areas; maybe he'll stay a Lesser or Demi. I can see Auril getting canned to Demi, even though she has a pretty big following among Frost Giants and Sossal.
Then there's Nobanion... I have a feeling that he's going to be totally out, too. That makes me really sad.
I really think that the staff should take into account the role of a traditional death/undeath type figure in the 'new pantheon.' Kelemvor doesn't cut it. This would mean either bumping Velsharoon up to Lesser, or having Myrkul somehow revived. As much as I don't mind him being in the Crown of Horns, I'd love to see him come back with some force, and become a true antagonist of Kelemvor.
Also won't point out the inconsistencies of Torm bering brought back as other gods have died serving their portfolios(incliding Bane and Cyric has gotten away with murder because of it)...because heck I liked the guy.
Also just a little reality check here all Richard Baker said was that he was going to send over to the guys who are making the descisions...that really doesn't say that it will be accepted.
All you're going to do is give players an excuse to run around committing evil acts irresponsibly saying "But I worship Erevan Ilesere. I can do that." I've seen it in a million campaigns, I'll see it in a million more.
Yeah, you're right. Forgot which thread I was in, as this isn't really the place for side discussions.
Not a problem...I don't think anybody on these boards are innocent of starting side discussions...though I think this thread isn't place for it.
See I just started a side discussion...
:DOh, and please DON'T give Erevan Ilesere a larger role. Hunt his followers down with every divination spell known to man and butcher them.
All you're going to do is give players an excuse to run around committing evil acts irresponsibly saying "But I worship Erevan Ilesere. I can do that." I've seen it in a million campaigns, I'll see it in a million more.
Why is it that you seem to follow me around the boards and always have something negative, harsh and straight up nasty to say to all my posts? In the years since you started on the FR boards you seem to always reply with harsh and nasty little responses to anything and everything I post. You're creepy in a sad internet stalker way. So, hello ignore list!
Hrm, what? *checks the date* November 29th, so this isn't an April Fool's Joke, unless you're one of those people who likes to celebrate April Fool's Day months in advance in order to take people by surprise. Well, assuming this isn't a joke...
Congrads! How about a this instead
? There is no emote for a cigar.Thanks Green Knight and thanks Rich.
I am so happy with this.
I have been playing FR since 1E and I love the Realms. I have not minded Tyr there at all, but Torm has been a favorite and a FR staple. He deserves this moment.
This roxors my boxors :D
Thanks!
Plus will there be a bit more info about the deaths of Mystra and Helm in the main 4E book? Also folks they brought back Bane, they can eventually bring back the other dead gods, high level NPCs and the Weave. It might take 5 years or the next edition, but my money is on all that stuff coming back to the Realms at some point.
Good job Knight. The best part of the Avatar books is when Torm fought a more powerful god than himself knowing he would probably die. It's been a while since Iread them so this is my impression of the Tantras battle. I liked Torm from that point on. If he does get a boost and take some portfolios I think he should become LN perhaps. Who knows, alignment might not be as big a crutch in 4E and it might not matter one way or the other.
There is something I don't understand. In light of Spellplague and the demise of many gods, what is going to happen with the souls of those who died and according to the lore they are in the realms of those gods? I doubt there is possible a migration to another deity.
Also if Spellplagues drives most wizards mad, why do the wizards of the the coast seem unaffected?:D
This is a really interesting suggestion, and a well-reasoned argument.
So interesting and so well-reasoned, in fact, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to the other designers working on FR 4e. We had a brief huddle this morning, and I think we're going to implement it: Torm in, Tyr out. More details than that I can't reveal yet, but it actually helps "spackle in" a couple of pantheon events we were working on anyway.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion, Green Knight!
Also if Tyr is gonna go, Torm should probably have some hand in it (whether killing him outright for being a jerk, dragging his butt over to Ao for trial, etc). This sets up a "nice" animosity from former Tyrians.
Also if Spellplagues drives most wizards mad, why do the wizards of the the coast seem unaffected?:D
Howso? Clearly they have had it for 2 years now, incubating in their minds. ;)
I'm not trying to belittle anyone's concerns, but I'm getting the feeling that a whole new can of worms has been inadvertantly opened up.
I must have missed whatever sordid stuff was involved with the whole Helm / Tyr / Tymora thing, and I'm glad I did. Wow, how cheapening for all three gods involved... Almost as bad as the Time of Troubles stuff.
I'd definitely prefer to see less of the interloper gods (or, more of the interloper gods becoming more Realms-branded, as Lolth has). They've always felt out of place, and often underused (or, as in this love-triangle junk, or the ToT, merely badly used in such a way as to make them all look really bad).
Helm, as a sorta-kinda-Heimdall-figure, always appealed to me far more than Tyr, and Torm more than either of them.
Good point.
Most people would only remember that one resurrection myth because its currently THE major religion in the world, and the other myths are ancient and not widely known outside of those who study them. Certainly they are not known to the average person
This is a really interesting suggestion, and a well-reasoned argument.
So interesting and so well-reasoned, in fact, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to the other designers working on FR 4e. We had a brief huddle this morning, and I think we're going to implement it: Torm in, Tyr out. More details than that I can't reveal yet, but it actually helps "spackle in" a couple of pantheon events we were working on anyway.This is perhaps the most encouraging news about 4E realms I have seen yet.
Excellent work GreenKnight. And thanks Rich Baker
Well if it works for Torm...shouldn't Tymora be a greater goddess by now? I mean ever since the ToT she has been skyrocketing towards greater godhood for a very long time now. I mean there is just as much lore for Tymora to be a greater goddess as there is for Torm to be if not more? So instead of having her move back to Brightwater or stay in the Triad maybe have her have her own domain.
I don't like Tymora as a greater deity, especially as there was a reason for her having less power alongside her sister Beshaba. Tyche was split in twain for a reason :D
So if you elevate one, you must elevate the sister to create a balance....
What about Tempus? What about Ilmater? What about Tymora?
I'm not trying to belittle anyone's concerns, but I'm getting the feeling that a whole new can of worms has been inadvertantly opened up.
Or Lathander? Or Selune?
I suspect there's still a sun and a moon in FR.
Most people would only remember that one resurrection myth because its currently THE major religion in the world, and the other myths are ancient and not widely known outside of those who study them. Certainly they are not known to the average person
Well, Hinduism has one such myth (about Krishna, I believe), and there are many Hindus in the world, if not amongst the D&D-playing populace. Besides, I'd count 2000 years old as being "ancient".
Anyway, Greenknight said that his point about a god dying and coming back to life (for the benefit of his followers) is "the stuff real world religions are made of", and he was correct. I don't see any problem with it, because it's obviously a concept that has appealed to many people for a very, very long time, even if individual religions might not.
This is a really interesting suggestion, and a well-reasoned argument.
So interesting and so well-reasoned, in fact, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to the other designers working on FR 4e. We had a brief huddle this morning, and I think we're going to implement it: Torm in, Tyr out. More details than that I can't reveal yet, but it actually helps "spackle in" a couple of pantheon events we were working on anyway.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion, Green Knight!
WOW,. I hate this Idea,. I mean, I really HATE this Idea. I cant think of an idea related to 4E that I hate more. The mess you have created around the gods was bad enough, the "soap opera" story line was bad enough! But this, this clinches it for me. You guys have taken my last hit point. Placed me into negatives. I'm bound for the outer planes. Irrevocably slain with no chance of resurrection. I held out long as I could. I had a good armor class and actual damage reduction regarding the changes you had proposed. I was optimistic about what was coming. I welcomed some changes. Was concerned about others but nothing hit as close to home as this. I just wanted to drop in and say goodbye, enjoy your new addition and enjoy raving the Realms. I'm glad I left before I got to see what your about to do to my home.
I hope 4E tanks. I hope no one buys it. I hope Hasbro sells the D&D brand name out from under you. you no longer deserve to have it. You have no care for it's history and tradition beyond your own petty pockets.
goodnight
WOW,. I hate this Idea,. I mean, I really HATE this Idea. I cant think of an idea related to 4E that I hate more. The mess you have created around the gods was bad enough, the "soap opera" story line was bad enough! But this, this clinches it for me. You guys have taken my last hit point. Placed me into negatives. I'm bound for the outer planes. Irrevocably slain with no chance of resurrection. I held out long as I could. I had a good armor class and actual damage reduction regarding the changes you had proposed. I was optimistic about what was coming. I welcomed some changes. Was concerned about others but nothing hit as close to home as this. I just wanted to drop in and say goodbye, enjoy your new addition and enjoy ruining the Realms. I'm glad I left before I got to see what your about to do to my home.
I hope 4E tanks. I hope no one buys it. I hope Hasbro sells the D&D brand name out from under you. you no longer deserve to have it. You have no care for it's history and tradition beyond your own petty pockets.
goodnight
um...now this is going too far.
Disliking something is okay. Disliking something strongly and posting about it in a colourful and creative manner is also ok. Moving from a rant against an idea to an attack against a person is not.
DB
While I certainly don't agree with Hammer of Tyr, I must say the "Hm, we haven't really thought about any of the repercussions of our divine comedy - excellent suggestion, thanks, we'll probably give Tyr a kick in the behind and promote Torm whom we were going to demote a minute ago" response doesn't exactly inspire hope for the 4e Realms. But maybe that's just me ;)
DB
For me, it is a lot more palatable than the God of Justice getting away with murder. His very portfolio condemns him, whether he was duped into it or just let his rage get the better of him.
This is a really interesting suggestion, and a well-reasoned argument.
So interesting and so well-reasoned, in fact, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to the other designers working on FR 4e. We had a brief huddle this morning, and I think we're going to implement it: Torm in, Tyr out. More details than that I can't reveal yet, but it actually helps "spackle in" a couple of pantheon events we were working on anyway.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion, Green Knight!
If only you could take his suggestions about Mystra, as well...
For me, it is a lot more palatable than the God of Justice getting away with murder. His very portfolio condemns him, whether he was duped into it or just let his rage get the better of him.
What muder? It was a sanction duel that over something very improbable and silly but Helm had full rights to refuse said duel and had full opportunity to defend himself.
Don't blame the god for bad writing. Or for the fact that Cyric is the most powerful god ever that has the ability to mess with anybody he wants in anyway he want(even in regards to that god's portfolio) and gets off with a slap on the wrist.
If only you could take his suggestions about Mystra, as well...
If only we had the chance...
For me, it is a lot more palatable than the God of Justice getting away with murder. His very portfolio condemns him, whether he was duped into it or just let his rage get the better of him.
It's not that GreenKnight's suggestions don't make any sense - they do -, it's that the designers don't seem to have put much thought into it. First they cook up this Tyr / Helm / Tymora / Cyric nonsense that doesn't exactly heighten my confidence in the sophistication of the 4e Realms, and then it takes a guy on the message board to come up with something better than they've come up with in the past two years? (And GreenKnight was neither the first nor the only user to have thought things through as far as this story is concerned.) If nothing GreenKnight said has occurred to them before, maybe they're not the right people for the job. I don't mean to insult them, but seriously, my oh my.
DB
First they cook up this Tyr / Helm / Tymora / Cyric nonsense
Why do people have a problem with the God of Strife actually being good at his job? What's really nonsense is how much of a non-threat the evil gods have been portrayed as for years. If Cyric can manipulate the god of justice into killing one of his closest allies, that means that evil is truly a threat and heroes are needed to combat it.
then it takes a guy on the message board to come up with something better than they've come up with in the past two years?
And how many other things are they working on concurrently that said message poster doesn't? A lot. Is GK developing an entire new edition of a gameline, while working out changes to multiple campaign settings, while working up new "assumed meta-setting" fluff? No, he's not.
I don't mean to insult them, but seriously, my oh my.
But you mean to make judgments based on a lack of knowledge of the workload they have taken on, by implying that they're doing less development than people on a message board who seem to have plenty of free time to focus on their favorite aspects of whatever.
Why do people have a problem with the God of Strife actually being good at his job? What's really nonsense is how much of a non-threat the evil gods have been portrayed as for years. If Cyric can manipulate the god of justice into killing one of his closest allies, that means that evil is truly a threat and heroes are needed to combat it.
And why do people have a issue that the other gods should be just as good at their jobs as Cyric is...if the good gods are so incompetent why hasn't evil taken over? I mean really can't both sides be as competent and 'good at their jobs' and still tell a good story?
Warning: mainly off topic
Being evil is one thing, being believable and well thought out is another. Skeletor is evil, too. That doesn't mean that he's a compelling villain or that Masters of the Universe is a sophisticated show. YMMV.
Because that's not his job. And once the FRCS comes out, and you find ideas in it you consider silly, I doubt you'd say, "Sheesh, my little daughter would've come up with a better idea - but hey, you guys had so much to do, so it's okay."
I don't care how much they have to do. I don't even care if they try to develop a new renewable energy source on the side. I judge their product. GHotR is out, and I think the idea is the usual over-the-top silliness we've come to know and love in the ToT.
DB
Why do people have a problem with the God of Strife actually being good at his job? What's really nonsense is how much of a non-threat the evil gods have been portrayed as for years. If Cyric can manipulate the god of justice into killing one of his closest allies, that means that evil is truly a threat and heroes are needed to combat it.
Being evil is one thing, being believable and well thought out is another. Skeletor is evil, too. That doesn't mean that he's a compelling villain or that Masters of the Universe is a sophisticated show. YMMV.
And how many other things are they working on concurrently that said message poster doesn't? A lot. Is GK developing an entire new edition of a gameline, while working out changes to multiple campaign settings, while working up new "assumed meta-setting" fluff? No, he's not.
Because that's not his job. And once the FRCS comes out, and you find ideas in it you consider silly, I doubt you'd say, "Sheesh, my little daughter would've come up with a better idea - but hey, you guys had so much to do, so it's okay."
But you mean to make judgments based on a lack of knowledge of the workload they have taken on, by implying that they're doing less development than people on a message board who seem to have plenty of free time to focus on their favorite aspects of whatever.
I don't care how much they have to do. I don't even care if they try to develop a new renewable energy source on the side. I judge their product. GHotR is out, and I think the idea is the usual over-the-top silliness we've come to know and love in the ToT.
DB
And why do people have a issue that the other gods should be just as good at their jobs as Cyric is...if the good gods are so incompetent why hasn't evil taken over?
I never said anything of the sort. I merely pointed out that complaining because the God of Strife (who is one of the most powerful gods in the whole pantheon now) does his job, and does it well, is silly.
I mean really can't both sides be as competent and 'good at their jobs' and still tell a good story?
Sure they can. But being a God of Justice doesn't make you immune to manipulation by a deity whose primary purpose is to cause discord. In fact, being the God of Justice makes it easier to be manipulated, because if he can be convinced that his ally has betrayed him (Helm taking Tymora for himself), in order to do his job (administer justice), he would be falling right into Cyric's trap.
Thus, Cyric does his job and causes discord by convincing Tyr that Helm is stealing his betrothed. Then, Tyr does his job by demanding justice from Helm in the form of a duel. Helm, being a god of defenders and guardians, has no choice but to defend himself in the duel and falls.
[sblock=Warning: mainly off topic]
Being evil is one thing, being believable and well thought out is another. Skeletor is evil, too. That doesn't mean that he's a compelling villain or that Masters of the Universe is a sophisticated show. YMMV.
Being a god of strife and discord and being capable of manipulating the god of justice into believing a grave injustice has been visited upon him is evil, believable and well-thought out... and very compelling, as it has elements of divine tragedy.
Because that's not his job. And once the FRCS comes out, and you find ideas in it you consider silly, I doubt you'd say, "Sheesh, my little daughter would've come up with a better idea - but hey, you guys had so much to do, so it's okay."
And it's easy to sit outside of somewhere and critique someone on their job when you don't actually know the full extent of his job.
I don't care how much they have to do. I don't even care if they try to develop a new renewable energy source on the side. I judge their product. GHotR is out, and I think the idea is the usual over-the-top silliness we've come to know and love in the ToT.
And I don't care if you don't like it. I don't see you producing anything of any comparable quality or size, so I don't see why your opinion on the matter should mean a thing, especially when compared to people like GK who can present an idea in such a manner that even the developers stop to appreciate what it could mean for the setting.
I never said anything of the sort. I merely pointed out that complaining because the God of Strife (who is one of the most powerful gods in the whole pantheon now) does his job, and does it well, is silly.
Sure they can. But being a God of Justice doesn't make you immune to manipulation by a deity whose primary purpose is to cause discord. In fact, being the God of Justice makes it easier to be manipulated, because if he can be convinced that his ally has betrayed him (Helm taking Tymora for himself), in order to do his job (administer justice), he would be falling right into Cyric's trap.
Thus, Cyric does his job and causes discord by convincing Tyr that Helm is stealing his betrothed. Then, Tyr does his job by demanding justice from Helm in the form of a duel. Helm, being a god of defenders and guardians, has no choice but to defend himself in the duel and falls.
I want a more realistic approach to the gods then just this divine comedy or tragedy. Sure Tyr is tricked into doing a injustice...shouldn't his domain sense have gone off?
Also what about Lliira coming around and tricking Cyric to spread some happieness...
I am tired of the good gods sitting around and doing nothing. Cyric should have been killed.
Bane embodies many of Machiavelli's ideals. It would be an interesting plot arc if Bane absconded with Tymora and forced his will on her and by extension on her followers. It could lead to a battered wife syndrome for Tymora which makes for good drama.
Not for me it doesn't.
Let's leave Tymora alone. She's been through enough crap already lately.
I want a more realistic approach to the gods then just this divine comedy or tragedy. Sure Tyr is tricked into doing a injustice...shouldn't his domain sense have gone off?
No, because it's just a stupid "get out of jail free" card that doesn't even apply, since he was thoroughly convinced that Helm was betraying him. By this same "domain sense" logic, Mystryl should have never died, as her domain sense would have informed her of Krasus' plans before it took effect, since her domain is magic itself.
Also what about Lliira coming around and tricking Cyric to spread some happieness...
What about it? Cyric is a god of strife, lies, and discord. That doesn't give him any more ability to see through deception. In fact, I would think it would make him more likely to doubt the truth, since he can't be sure what is false and what is not.
I am tired of the good gods sitting around and doing nothing. Cyric should have been killed.
They are bound by the Balance, just as he is. He is fulfilling his role, as laid down by Ao himself. It's not for the gods of good to decide what is best for the balance, it's for them to fulfill the purpose laid down for them.
Why do people have a problem with the God of Strife actually being good at his job? What's really nonsense is how much of a non-threat the evil gods have been portrayed as for years.
I don't think that's been true anymore for a while now. If you read novels and haven't read The Twilight War trilogy, read it--you'll see what I mean. And these aren't the first novels in which the forces of evil are powerful, just the best example I can think of.
No, because it's just a stupid "get out of jail free" card that doesn't even apply, since he was thoroughly convinced that Helm was betraying him. By this same "domain sense" logic, Mystryl should have never died, as her domain sense would have informed her of Krasus' plans before it took effect, since her domain is magic itself.
She did forsee it and set up a course of action. She let him cast the spell in order to stop this nonsense.
What about it? Cyric is a god of strife, lies, and discord. That doesn't give him any more ability to see through deception. In fact, I would think it would make him more likely to doubt the truth, since he can't be sure what is false and what is not.
I could live with this interpertation if it has been the case.
They are bound by the Balance, just as he is. He is fulfilling his role, as laid down by Ao himself. It's not for the gods of good to decide what is best for the balance, it's for them to fulfill the purpose laid down for them.
What Balance...or the one that Ao commanded Mystra to protect? And Cyric action did what to this 'Balance'?
And how is Justice not be served by Tyr just killing Cyric? Death is a acceptable punishment for murder after all. And he was given the purpose by Ao to Justice. Cyric should be dead..except that the designers don't seem to be that interested in consistency.
This is a really interesting suggestion, and a well-reasoned argument.
So interesting and so well-reasoned, in fact, that I took the liberty of forwarding it to the other designers working on FR 4e. We had a brief huddle this morning, and I think we're going to implement it: Torm in, Tyr out. More details than that I can't reveal yet, but it actually helps "spackle in" a couple of pantheon events we were working on anyway.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion, Green Knight!
Congratulations GreenKnight.
Say, while you guys are actually listening to good ideas from us, I'll link to this old thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=937551
I particularly recommend post #10. ;)
What's happening to Hoar? He's too much of a loner to join any of these mini-pantheons, not willingly. Tyr and Shar were contesting for an alignment shift in him - how would this turn out? If Tyr stays, and his murder of Helm is painted as an act of vengeance, then Hoar would lean towards him. If not, then he'd be pretty disillusioned with Tyr. But he's unlikely to fall to Shar, as he's always been against such evil.
Personally, I'd like to see him stay as he always was, and perhaps become the new god of justice. 'Course, he's only a demi-god, though it's about time one of his vengeful plots came off.
What Balance...or the one that Ao commanded Mystra to protect?
The Balance is what the Tablets of Fate are all about: the divine powers fulfilling their intended functions and keeping reality functioning as it is supposed to.
And Cyric action did what to this 'Balance'?
He's been on trial before, because he wasn't fulfilling his intended purpose, and once his proper mind was restored and he turned back to his task, the trial ended in his favor. He's supposed to cause problems for everyone else, because that's his job. However, deicide might be beyond that role, so Ao is allowing him to be imprisoned because of that violation. We don't know until we see the final product.
And how is Justice not be served by Tyr just killing Cyric?
For what act, in particular?
Manipulating him into killing an ally? Not really. Tyr is at fault for Helm's death, because real justice wouldn't accept "I was manipulated into it."
Murdering Mystra? Perhaps so, but perhaps there was a trial and he was overruled by a consensus. Or even Ao, himself. What justice is there in violating a verdict handed down for imprisonment?
Death is a acceptable punishment for murder after all. And he was given the purpose by Ao to Justice. Cyric should be dead..except that the designers don't seem to be that interested in consistency.
Death may be an acceptable option for a sentence, but Cyric wasn't sentenced to death. He was sentenced to imprisonment. We don't know all the particulars. Ever stop and think about the fact that Cyric and Shar murdered Mystra (the most powerful god in the pantheon at the time) in her own bedroom? Think about how much power it would take to perform such a feat, and you might start thinking that Cyric's imprisonment might have been the only option available to them.
I don't think that's been true anymore for a while now. If you read novels and haven't read The Twilight War trilogy, read it--you'll see what I mean. And these aren't the first novels in which the forces of evil are powerful, just the best example I can think of.
Nope, haven't read those. The last FR novels I read were Prince of Lies and the Crucible. However, my view of the evil deities and their effectiveness is based primarily on the roleplaying supplements.
Debate ideas, not people. Kay?
Show
By definition, an opinion never is. That should go without saying.
GHotR doesn't come out in a year - it's already been published. If WotC didn't want the idea to be judged, maybe they shouldn't have put it in there. As matters stand, it's fair game to discuss. And because of the treatment of the gods in the past, that we already know that religion won't get a supplement in the foreseeable future, that the gods will get allocated roughly the same space they got in the 3e FRCS and that it seemed that GreenKnight's stating the obvious seemed to be news to Mr. Baker, I seriously doubt we'll be presented with an explanation that gets across what you've been trying to explain before.
Well, you didn't see why my opinion should mean a thing - which was pretty personal, thank you very much. Thanks for clarifying this. You're not supposed to accept my opinion as more important than anyone else's, because it simply isn't. You should judge it on its own. The way of thinking I fail at projecting my thoughts into is that a published author's opinion should automatically be more important than someone else's who isn't a published author. There are horrible authors who profit from heavy advertising or luck like Christopher Paolini, and there are people who might make good authors, but just have no interest to become one (or who can't afford the financial risk since it's extremely hard to make a living this way). If I think you have a good idea, then it doesn't matter to me if you make a living of publishing good ideas. The doctor example doesn't apply here. The designers don't do something we know absolutely nothing about and have to take their word for it. You can learn how to write, to express yourself - you can't learn to have good ideas. We all can come up with stories, and we all do, and I consider many of those the designers come up with to be what I'd like to describe as an analogue of the stories the Bruckheimer movies have - not very complex, sometimes downright simple, unbelievable and over the top, but easy to digest, and since they're not considered to be the most important aspect of these movies, few people seem to mind.
So let's agree to disagree.
Oh my, are we splitting hairs now? Okay, you like it, I dislike it.
DB
And then it all comes down to opinion, and can't really debate someone's opinion, since it's not objective.
By definition, an opinion never is. That should go without saying.
Absolutely correct. I never call any creative endeavor bad. It just isn't to my taste, which is an expression of subjective opinion, rather than objective statements. I also prefer to judge whether I like something by having as much context as possible... like, say, waiting for the product to be finished and published instead of making that judgment almost a year in advance, based on small tidbits of information.
GHotR doesn't come out in a year - it's already been published. If WotC didn't want the idea to be judged, maybe they shouldn't have put it in there. As matters stand, it's fair game to discuss. And because of the treatment of the gods in the past, that we already know that religion won't get a supplement in the foreseeable future, that the gods will get allocated roughly the same space they got in the 3e FRCS and that it seemed that GreenKnight's stating the obvious seemed to be news to Mr. Baker, I seriously doubt we'll be presented with an explanation that gets across what you've been trying to explain before.
Never said it was worthless. I just don't see why I should accept your opinion as more important than people that do this for a living, which demonstrates both their ability to actually do it and to make money off of it.
Well, you didn't see why my opinion should mean a thing - which was pretty personal, thank you very much. Thanks for clarifying this. You're not supposed to accept my opinion as more important than anyone else's, because it simply isn't. You should judge it on its own. The way of thinking I fail at projecting my thoughts into is that a published author's opinion should automatically be more important than someone else's who isn't a published author. There are horrible authors who profit from heavy advertising or luck like Christopher Paolini, and there are people who might make good authors, but just have no interest to become one (or who can't afford the financial risk since it's extremely hard to make a living this way). If I think you have a good idea, then it doesn't matter to me if you make a living of publishing good ideas. The doctor example doesn't apply here. The designers don't do something we know absolutely nothing about and have to take their word for it. You can learn how to write, to express yourself - you can't learn to have good ideas. We all can come up with stories, and we all do, and I consider many of those the designers come up with to be what I'd like to describe as an analogue of the stories the Bruckheimer movies have - not very complex, sometimes downright simple, unbelievable and over the top, but easy to digest, and since they're not considered to be the most important aspect of these movies, few people seem to mind.
So let's agree to disagree.
Don't put words in my mouth. I only love my family and friends, literary preferences never even approach the same realm.
Oh my, are we splitting hairs now? Okay, you like it, I dislike it.
DB
that it seemed that GreenKnight's stating the obvious seemed to be news to Mr. Baker, I seriously doubt we'll be presented with an explanation that gets across what you've been trying to explain before.
Everything I've been trying to explain has been taken from the same source materials as your opinions. These changes, to me, shift the Faerun pantheon away from "how D&D gods act" into how the mythologies of the Greeks and Norse told us the gods acted... upon whim, with flawed reasonings, and for hubris.
We all can come up with stories, and we all do, and I consider many of those the designers come up with to be what I'd like to describe as an analogue of the stories the Bruckheimer movies have - not very complex, sometimes downright simple, unbelievable and over the top, but easy to digest, and since they're not considered to be the most important aspect of these movies, few people seem to mind.
And I view this mentality as people not fully understanding all the permutations that can come from such events. You may think it's simple, but that may only be because you've missed things that I see. I may think it's complex, but that may only be because I've interpreted things differently.
So let's agree to disagree.
I always agree to disagree.
Oh my, are we splitting hairs now? Okay, you like it, I dislike it.
No. I haven't expressed an opinion in favor of anything. I've merely pointed out things that it appeared you hadn't considered. One doesn't need to hold an opinion in order to argue objective points.
Sure it would except that Tymora has many allies who wouldn't let it happen. Also ingnores the part that Tymora can defend herself. Personaly if she wasn't a goddess then yes it would make a good story...but I am tired of seeing the Realms gods being made into 'stories' and 'good' drama'. The reason I play RPing games is because I don't have to follow the same rehash myths and stories that have been done to death.
I agree with John here about the gods. When 4E hits, lets stop treating gods as NPCs please? No more RSEs, no more god soap operas. I would like to see the gods be a bit more ... just not used as much if possible. If there are new adventures can they not be about the power struggles between the gods.
I do like how Kemp is doing things in his most recent series but I really don't want to see any more gods in the novels either. Whew. Sorry for that rant.
Hammer, you need to relax btw. It is just a game. Get some outside time.;)
I thought Helm was getting killed off because he was 'redundant', that Torm could handle that role better as a protector-god.
As far as I'm concerned Torm is the FR equivalent to Heironeaous (sp?). Since Hextor's already been replaced with Bane in the 4e PHB, what does it say about the Realms itself?
I'm not saying that Green Knight didn't make a case for keeping Torm as a lesser power (at least), merely that I don't see the point in killing Tyr. There is a case for having a god of justice.
As I've said before, it's better to keep something in the game/setting--and elect not use it in one's own--than to eliminate entirely.
While I certainly don't agree with Hammer of Tyr, I must say the "Hm, we haven't really thought about any of the repercussions of our divine comedy - excellent suggestion, thanks, we'll probably give Tyr a kick in the behind and promote Torm whom we were going to demote a minute ago" response doesn't exactly inspire hope for the 4e Realms. But maybe that's just me ;)
DB
Indeed.
I for one think Greenknight's idea regarding Torm is sensational, and that Rich and the other designers are to be commended for considering it. Far from being a signal that they're drifting from one ad hoc plot point to the next, it shows they are logically considering the implications of the "Grand History" timeline and making decisions accordingly. Isn't that what good design is all about?
Should I post a well thought-out ten-page thesis on "Reasons why Cyric should go". I promise it will be logical and make perfect sense within the context of the setting, and help the designers to eliminate yet another "pesky god". They've already gone from the original promise of thirty or so Greater Gods to "about 15-20". If I write enough ideas down maybe we can get them down to 7 or 8.
Just let me know if it would be worth my time, because I really want him gone in the worst way. He is one of my "top 10 Reasons why NOT to buy 4e FR".
Debate ideas, not people. Kay?
I thought we were only supposed to ask questions on this thread? Or have you just given up at this point?
Seriously, I wish all the 'debate' would be taken to the appropriate 4e threads - publicly announcing the acceptance of Greenknight's idea might not have been the most savy thing to do - I think you just opened the floadgates for everyone who thinks his ideas are the best.
and we all know mine are. :P
now as long as they leave the racial pantheons well enough alone with in reason, id be willing to buy it when it comes out, instead of leaning towards not wasting the money for it.
favorite racial deities:
corellon larethian
yondalla
sehinine moonbow
moradin
bahamut
eilistraee( you could replace her with steelheart from row)
that elven trickster god
laebolas enloth
clangeddin
there are a few others but their names escape me..
never really liked Tyr anyway, l
rot in pieces many many pieces, and let your corpse rot in the astral plane right next to myrkul's corpse. that would be ironic
good idea GK, and good enough if mr baker took notice and can get in the door.
To parrot MarkusTay63's point concering reasoning, I could make a bulletpoint list as to why Mask is a better (and more likeable) choice to replace Shar.
eilistraee( you could replace her with steelheart from row)
I tried that once, it doesn't work without rewriting history and implementing lots of changes, besides she's not drow.
Actually I do have a question. When Mystra's killed, Azuth and Velsharoon get wooshed out into the Astral Sea. Why don't Cyric and/or Shar get wooshed out and lost as well?
Hmmmm....
You just made me think of something - isn't the new cosmology based entirely around the Astral sea?
Just what the hell did those two do while they were stuck in there? Blow up the Great Wheel and The Tree?
EDIT: corrected the two gods that fled.
I tried that once, it doesn't work without rewriting history and implementing lots of changes, besides she's not drow.
..... ummm not quite, she wasnt drow in the begining either, snd that part of the history isnt written to the best of my knowledge.
they could do it
Actually I do have a question. When Mystra's killed, Savras and Velsharoon get wooshed out into the Astral Sea. Why don't Cyric and/or Shar get wooshed out and lost as well?
To parrot MarkusTay63's point concering reasoning, I could make a bulletpoint list as to why Mask is a better (and more likeable) choice to replace Shar.
savras is dead, its azuth and vhesh who are missing and pressumed dead.
dont like shar, not fond of mask either, but he has one thing going for him, shar is higher up on the dislike list, so id agree with you and markustay63
Of course the answer will probably be "Well they--Cyric and Shar--are Greater Deities and as such that can control their environment (creating a "personal mini-realm", if you will) that allowed them to make it out of Dweomerheart as it disintegrated..."...or something to that effect.
Maybe Cyric killed her via a booby-trapped shadow-laced present, to commemorate the day of her (their) ascension. I can imagine what the card said:
"Hey, Merry Ascension Day! You don't look a day older---Call me later. BFF! Kelemvor
"The smiley face should've been a giveaway to Mystra that Kelemvor didn't send it, as he isn't the jolly sort.
1) Will Mask finally move on up the ladder? He has featured prominently in tales of the gods since the ToT and for a god of thieves he's a lesser deity?! I mean, c'mon, thievery is as old as time itself. And with the latest in trying to outwit Shar AND his old proxy/chosen demigod, he just might steal his way to true divinity (greater godhood.) and start his own little mini-pantheon.
2) Is Shar going to remain uncontested after she moved Cyric to kill Mystra? Or is Selune going to assume a greater mantle to keep her sister in check. Remember that in the early times she divested herself of some divinity to create Mystryl as a counter and helper against Shar. Now with that ally gone, what will happen to Selune?
3) Is Bahamut going to be a reincarnation of the god of justice perhaps? Being an LG god and all, he could assume said mantle, or any Triad mantle for that matter.
4) With Cyric imprisoned, will we see the re-emergence of Myrkul and/or Bhaal? Both could create havoc and strife wherever they went, and would be both a counter to Bane as well as the good deities. It could be Cyrics finally trumph card when he is imprisoned and Bane's former allies owing allegiance to an upstart would certainly make for a better pantheon and more strife, than they returning to Bane's fold (if they are returning.) With Cyric gone and only "3" evil mini-pantheons (Talos, Bane, Shar) we could well see a "Cyric" mini-pantheon without its Head of State :D
That's it I think
Derek
um...now this is going too far.
Actually his point is well deserved when you realise this has all spiralled out of a very poorly thought out idea to reduce the no of deities of Faerun.
It would have made more sense to have Faerun split apart rather than merge so those various pantheons are split apart as the realms is separated into variants of itself so that each vriant Faerun hs one set of deities say Mulloruhand or whatever its called, another has a completely different set perhaps even the one listed in the new 4e phb for example.
THIS allows for poor thinking to be swept under by simply explaining that Tyr was blamed for Helm's death by rivals like Cyric's faith who are using this lie to sunder the Triad and it works far too well!
Unfortunately all thats being said here is to condone something that should have been cast into the bin back in high school and thats just plain sad to me.
One day I'll figure out how to cancel my signing in but until then please take care to realise that just because you have a negative reaction it doesn't mean something bad has happened merely you have some useful information to dwell over that might save your skins when 4e finally arrives...
PS: Everything I've heard makes me think you should put Faerun 4e on hold for a year so you can release a new setting to fit the 4e series because so far you're mking far too many mistakes and I figure this is due to leaving yourselves far too little time to prep it, TAKE THAT TIME I'm counting on you to show the capabilities you had bck when 3.0 was released and I find that better than 3.5 except of course for Eberron but you have some good ideas for Faerun this however isn't one of them...
Take care and all the best
THIS allows for poor thinking to be swept under by simply explaining that Tyr was blamed for Helm's death by rivals like Cyric's faith who are using this lie to sunder the Triad and it works far too well!
Unfortunately all thats being said here is to condone something that should have been cast into the bin back in high school and thats just plain sad to me.
Because that's how they wanted it, as opposed to some writer who has a novel mapped out, is certain it should go in a certain way, starts cranking out the chapters...and finds that his/her story has gone another direction because of the actions of the characters. This happens with a lot of writers, the characters have a life of their own and while the end result isn't what was expected it still winds up being a pleasant experience. Here, however, this is "shoe-horn & hammer". It's an art, not a science, and the cobbling so far has left many current fans a little sadder for it.
I would also like to note for the Wiz_O's benefit that I've periodically asked questions here, they just haven't been answered. Not even the neutral-toned/generic ones.
Actually his point is well deserved when you realise this has all spiralled out of a very poorly thought out idea to reduce the no of deities of Faerun.
It would have made more sense to have Faerun split apart rather than merge so those various pantheons are split apart as the realms is separated into variants of itself so that each vriant Faerun hs one set of deities say Mulloruhand or whatever its called, another has a completely different set perhaps even the one listed in the new 4e phb for example.
THIS allows for poor thinking to be swept under by simply explaining that Tyr was blamed for Helm's death by rivals like Cyric's faith who are using this lie to sunder the Triad and it works far too well!
Unfortunately all thats being said here is to condone something that should have been cast into the bin back in high school and thats just plain sad to me.
One day I'll figure out how to cancel my signing in but until then please take care to realise that just because you have a negative reaction it doesn't mean something bad has happened merely you have some useful information to dwell over that might save your skins when 4e finally arrives...
PS: Everything I've heard makes me think you should put Faerun 4e on hold for a year so you can release a new setting to fit the 4e series because so far you're mking far too many mistakes and I figure this is due to leaving yourselves far too little time to prep it, TAKE THAT TIME I'm counting on you to show the capabilities you had bck when 3.0 was released and I find that better than 3.5 except of course for Eberron but you have some good ideas for Faerun this however isn't one of them...
Take care and all the best
John was referring to the part where the person he quoted wished harm upon Rich Bakers children. One of the Wizo's edited it out.
Actually his point is well deserved when you realise this has all spiralled out of a very poorly thought out idea to reduce the no of deities of Faerun.
It would have made more sense to have Faerun split apart rather than merge so those various pantheons are split apart as the realms is separated into variants of itself so that each vriant Faerun hs one set of deities say Mulloruhand or whatever its called, another has a completely different set perhaps even the one listed in the new 4e phb for example.
THIS allows for poor thinking to be swept under by simply explaining that Tyr was blamed for Helm's death by rivals like Cyric's faith who are using this lie to sunder the Triad and it works far too well!
Unfortunately all thats being said here is to condone something that should have been cast into the bin back in high school and thats just plain sad to me.
One day I'll figure out how to cancel my signing in but until then please take care to realise that just because you have a negative reaction it doesn't mean something bad has happened merely you have some useful information to dwell over that might save your skins when 4e finally arrives...
PS: Everything I've heard makes me think you should put Faerun 4e on hold for a year so you can release a new setting to fit the 4e series because so far you're mking far too many mistakes and I figure this is due to leaving yourselves far too little time to prep it, TAKE THAT TIME I'm counting on you to show the capabilities you had bck when 3.0 was released and I find that better than 3.5 except of course for Eberron but you have some good ideas for Faerun this however isn't one of them...
Take care and all the best
I meant the last paragraph....mostly I agree with him.
I may be tempted to make voodoo dolls of the design team and dangle them over an open flame (along with marshmallows because they're tasty when burnt) but that isn't the same thing.
I'm totally kidding, btw, don't tase me bro!
That is a bit much.
I may be tempted to make voodoo dolls of the design team and dangle them over an open flame (along with marshmallows because they're tasty when burnt) but that isn't the same thing.
I'm totally kidding, btw, don't tase me bro!
Location listed as California?
check...
Prepare to be tased, hippie!
eilistraee( you could replace her with steelheart from row)
What is the 'steelheart from row'?
I agree with John here about the gods. When 4E hits, lets stop treating gods as NPCs please? No more RSEs, no more god soap operas. I would like to see the gods be a bit more ... just not used as much if possible. If there are new adventures can they not be about the power struggles between the gods.
I do like how Kemp is doing things in his most recent series but I really don't want to see any more gods in the novels either. Whew. Sorry for that rant.
I totally agree with you and John here. The fact that Paul Kemp can literally make gods characters in his novels without bothering me says a lot about how good a writer he is.
I may be tempted to make voodoo dolls of the design team and dangle them over an open flame (along with marshmallows because they're tasty when burnt) but that isn't the same thing.
Be creative (unlike some I won't mention), and make the Voodoo dolls out of Marshmellows! :D
Then as you eat them, you can listen to them scream from the next room.
Hmmmm... I think Karsus is right... I AM an Elder Evil... :coolcthul
I'm totally kidding, btw, don't tase me bro!
That was one of the most sickening video clips I have seen since the massacre at Tiananmen Square. I'm old enough to remember when this really was a free country - I find little humor in it.
Question: It's December, time for some REAL info as promised - will Orcs be a playable race in the core rules? If not, will then then be added into the FR mix come Aug?
Oh, and a question; Do the designers wish their voodoo doll replicas to be dipped in creamy or extra-chunky?
As for the incident in question, I haven't seen it past the one quotable clip. If one truly wishes to be disgusted, however, see clips of what happens to religious minority groups in Indonesia.
Hmm...with an orc kingdom in the works there shouldn't be any surprise if they're an option. Certainly no nation remotely related to gnomes getting prominence in 4eFR unless they decide to showcase Mt. Nevermi---er, Lantan. There was a bit of info on EnWorld about what's been seen so far.
-- George Krashos
Hey, there's an idea. Why don't they replace Gond with a gnome deity? Let the real Nebelun take over. :P
1) Cyric's involvement with the Tyr/Helm/Tymora affair left a bad taste in a lot of players mouths. I can imagine that the number of people who liked that plotline doesn't even reach double digits, percentage wise. Point is, Cyric's now linked inextricably to a plot that left a bad feeling with a lot of Realms fans, and his continued existence will only serve to highlight it. And that's not even starting on the Cyric killing Mystra issue. A god barely competent enough to tie his own shoelaces manages to kill the Goddess of Magic on her own plane? That makes lots of sense! Unless of course..
2) Shar did it all and just used Cyric as the muscle. In which case, it would make good sense for Shar herself to make sure Cyric's silenced afterwards, so word never gets out about her involvement. She can even masquerade as Cyric, with no one the wiser for at least 1,000 years.
3) Cyric's a joke of a deity, and a bad joke at that. Unfortunately, it's a bad joke that's run on for too long. He was driven mad by his own book, and we are meant to take him seriously as a Greater God of Strife? Utterly ridiculous. Give his portfolio's to gods with an established track record of basic competence. Or even basic sanity.
4) Shar's star has been on the rise for a long time, and if you do it right, she can become a player far behind the scenes, manipulating gods to do her work. I personally think that would be a far more interesting role for her then the more active role she's taking at the moment. Keep her in the background, as a master manipulator.
5) Cyric's death opens up opportunities for Mask as well, who's a far more interesting God, and who's star has been on the rise too, not least thanks to Paul S Kemp's excellent novels. Anything that gives Mask more room to play is a good thing in my book.
I'm sure other fans here can come up with other reasons for Cyric's removal. Hope you consider this, Rich.
Now I will have to post a list with TEN bullet points explaining exactly why the setting can't live without him, out of spite.
Although you did save me some trouble - the guy makes the setting read like a comic strip.
I know but ever since Gond showed up on the shores as a gnome during the ToT it's ground my gears.
Hey, there's an idea. Why don't they replace Gond with a gnome deity? Let the real Nebelun take over. :P
Since he's a Gnome, shouldn't it be Nebelawn? ;)
My kids were watching Goosebumps yesterday (the little ones, not the teens), and the children were being attacked be evil LAWN Gnomes! I thought that was great! I am SO going to have to use that somewhere (Gnomish versions of Gaurdian Golems?)
On the positive side, all the less-than-good/fair/necessary things happening for the Realms are making my plans for an alternative (non-FR) campaign look that much better. If independent publishing survives the slowdown I'd be tempted to...
Now, for Markus...Nebelawn? Argh, you're messsing with 'the man' among gnomes. That does it, I'm sending Banjo (from Order of the Stick) to whoop you. He and the ankle-biter killer halfling.
That would be an Orthodox Banjoist.:D
Here are a few I've wondered about concerning the 4e Realms:
1) Will FR deities have alignments that are known to everyone, or are we looking at an Eberron-type setup where there's ambiguity?
2) With the set of FR deities narrowing somewhat, will we see more of a Highlander-type setup where "there can be only one" deity per portfolio and anybody wanting to add a portfolio has to seize it from the incumbent?
3) Will there be clearer guidance for PCs who make it their life's mission to take down a deity? I'm not suggesting turning FR deities into ordinary monsters who can be annihilated by low-level PCs at will, but I think a fair number of people are also turned off by the idea that high-level PCs can't hope to succeed no matter how hard they work toward it, especially given the instances in official continuity where mortals have successfully taken on deities (and in a few cases even assumed their portfolios).
If there is not going to be a new Mystra and the Weave is gone does that mean that Mystra's power will return from whence it came, Selune and Shar?
It just seems that it would be a good solution.:D
Bel
Tiax Rules!
Better yet, to get all sides happy, I would say, kill some gods and elevate the Chosen in their place.:D
1) Yes, we think the alignments for FR deities are certainly known to players/DMs. We're not trying to create ambiguity with the pantheon, we want you to be able to pick sides and feel confident about your decision. Whether they're widely known to characters in the world is a trickier question. For example, I suspect that deities such as Bane or Cyric must present some "redeeming qualities" to gain a wide support base of basically neutral townsfolk, commoners, etc. For example, maybe the average Zhent looks at Bane as a god of kingship and divine authority, as opposed to tyranny. But that's about as much gray as we'd want to see in that.
2) I think that in general one deity per portfolio is better. Some very broad portfolios can support a couple of overlapping deities, but even then I think each deity has a particular slant on the topic. War, destruction, and misfortune all overlap at least a little bit, but there is certainly room for Tempus, Talos, and Beshaba.
3) I'm of the opinion that if you're playing the highest-level characters possible, and you decide to rid the cosmos of an evil god, your DM should be able to craft that adventure for you. There are plenty of examples in fantasy fiction of heroes destroying gods (the Elric series springs to mind). So maybe 30th-level heroes (remember, there's a new level scale) who decide to take on Bane should be able to succeed... if they do everything right, such as questing for the right artifact ahead of time, paying attention to ancient prophecies about eclipses and people of unique ancestry, and so forth. It shouldn't ever be a "routine" adventure to take down a god, but I think it ought to be possible.
Here are a few I've wondered about concerning the 4e Realms:
1) Will FR deities have alignments that are known to everyone, or are we looking at an Eberron-type setup where there's ambiguity?
2) With the set of FR deities narrowing somewhat, will we see more of a Highlander-type setup where "there can be only one" deity per portfolio and anybody wanting to add a portfolio has to seize it from the incumbent?
3) Will there be clearer guidance for PCs who make it their life's mission to take down a deity? I'm not suggesting turning FR deities into ordinary monsters who can be annihilated by low-level PCs at will, but I think a fair number of people are also turned off by the idea that high-level PCs can't hope to succeed no matter how hard they work toward it, especially given the instances in official continuity where mortals have successfully taken on deities (and in a few cases even assumed their portfolios).
Rich, I had a thought and figured I'd ask about it here.
If there is not going to be a new Mystra and the Weave is gone does that mean that Mystra's power will return from whence it came, Selune and Shar?
It just seems that it would be a good solution.:D
Bel
If so, then yes--you'll see plenty. My own upcoming novel "Swordmage" is set entirely post-Spellplague. Most other new novels will be, too (several ongoing series currently in the works will still be spanning the edition for a little while still).
so when 4th edition hits will there be 4th edition Forgotton Realms books released at some point?
(or one of you other Realms Champions who knows more about the setting than I),
Quick question about the Spellplague. I realize this might be cutting a little close to the 'what year is the new Realms in' question, but maybe not. How long do the effects of the Spellplague last? Are casters inflicted with this particular plague sent immediately into a frenzy, destroying everyting around them, before burning out and dying a few minutes later? Or is it more akin to Robert Jordans' Wheel of Time (if you know it) where the 'casters' slowly go mad over the course of months or years, and only at the end start to loose control of their magic?
Thanks for any info you can provide!
Bel
You didn't hear it from me, but I think Selune's going to be a greater god by the time this all falls out... at least a portion of Mystra's power is restored to Selune when Mystra falls. That doesn't make Selune the new goddess of magic, but I wouldn't be surprised if surviving clerics of Mystra tended to turn to Selune in the years following the Spellplague.
Rich,
So, what do you think about the majority of Wizards (of any alignment, not just the Good ones) who worshiped Mystra? In other words - are we going to see the likes of Azuth in some form or another again?
(I personally like the idea of Selune taking up a good amount of Mystra's role, even if I wouldn't have killed Mystra in the first place.)
(I personally like the idea of Selune taking up a good amount of Mystra's role, even if I wouldn't have killed Mystra in the first place.)
Agreed. Again, it's nice to hear that a good-aligned god that I like might be gaining something out of all this.
I gotta say, though, I'm not to keen on the idea of a party of Level 30 characters being able to take down a Greater God. If Level 30 PC's can kill a Greater God, then how much easier would it be to kill off Lesser Gods or Demigods? And if Level 30 characters can kill off Greater Gods, they why haven't they done so, before? I imagine that, if it were possible, that Elminster, the Simbul, and a couple others would've gotten together by now to kill Bane, Cyric, and Shar, and then work their way down from there.
I can see being able to kill a Demigod (Especially the 4E Demigod, I.E. the "immortal champion of the faith". They sound more like Hercules from Greek myth then D&D gods). And I can also see the killing of a Demigod as a stepping stone towards killing a Greater God (You kill a Demigod and become a Demigod, yourself). But to be able to kill a Greater God? That's a bit much. I much preferred gods who were actual 'Gods', and who could TPK a Level 50 party in one round. This change, though, eliminates some of the grandeur of the gods if you can get a couple of the Uber-Realms-NPC's together and lay waste to half the pantheon. I don't care at all for the idea that a faith which has endured thousands of years can suddenly come to an abrupt end cause a handful of Level 30 dungeon delvers got it into their head to kill a god.
I don't buy it. The scale has to be the same for all the classes. My players are all pretty much of the same opinion.
If you mess with a god, the result should be squish.
If you mess with a god, the result should be squish.
Bane, Myrkul & Bhaal did it...
They were very prepared and very powerful, and I bet they just defeated him by the skin of their teeth!
I'm pretty sure that's what Rich is talking about - when you're exceedingly powerful and you wanna take down a god, it's not gonna be easy, but the possibility for that adventure will be there. You'll need a certain artifact and certain conditions will be met, you'll have to outsmart the god, etc.
Like when Tenacious D beat the Devil in The Pick of Destiny!:D
(It won't happen in my game, certainly, but some groups like that kind of stuff.)
Bane, Myrkul & Bhaal did it...
They were very prepared and very powerful, and I bet they just defeated him by the skin of their teeth!
I'm pretty sure that's what Rich is talking about - when you're exceedingly powerful and you wanna take down a god, it's not gonna be easy, but the possibility for that adventure will be there. You'll need a certain artifact and certain conditions will be met, you'll have to outsmart the god, etc.
Like when Tenacious D beat the Devil in The Pick of Destiny!:D
(It won't happen in my game, certainly, but some groups like that kind of stuff.)
There was more to that story than a simple deicide. Bane, Myrkul&Bhaal killed Borem who was a dying god (I don't think we ever learned why was he dying) and then they drank his blood taking a piece of his divine essence.
And they were 3 not one. Perhaps what Rich meant is that a party of high level characters could take out a god or demi-god, but this in no way ensures that the party are going to become gods themselves.
Well, Borem was one of the Seven Lost Gods, so he probably was far from being on the same level as a Greater God. They had to take his divine essence for themselves, though, before they moved on to Jergal. So it wasn't a straight shot to killing a Greater God. They had to take out a weaker god and become divine themselves before they even had a hope of fighting a Greater God.
Yes, but when even the "flavor text of the setting" has this type of event happening (regardless of the difficulty of the path) then it makes sense to make the event achievable in the game system itself.
Or they could just kill them all, then it's problem solved I guess.
2) I think that in general one deity per portfolio is better.
Agreed!
3) I'm of the opinion that if you're playing the highest-level characters possible, and you decide to rid the cosmos of an evil god, your DM should be able to craft that adventure for you. There are plenty of examples in fantasy fiction of heroes destroying gods (the Elric series springs to mind). So maybe 30th-level heroes (remember, there's a new level scale) who decide to take on Bane should be able to succeed... if they do everything right, such as questing for the right artifact ahead of time, paying attention to ancient prophecies about eclipses and people of unique ancestry, and so forth. It shouldn't ever be a "routine" adventure to take down a god, but I think it ought to be possible.
Yes, I think this is reasonable, but I am not sure how this could be reasonably expressed mechanically. Unless their stats are very high indeed above the level attainable by mortals (which I would be OK with, but if anything WotC has tended to lower the challenges posed by demonlords and such to make them more easily slayable even by lower level characters), than if gods are given stats, the PCs will be able to slay them even without "questing for the right artifact... paying attention to ancient prophecies and people of unique ancestry, and so forth." On the other hand, not giving a god stats leaves it entirely in the hands of the DM, which is fine by me, but it is not really a mechanical rule. I suppose each god could have a list of things needed to make him vulnerable listed in his description/statblock) I wonder what approach 4E will take?
And overlapping deities are the way cultures and religion are meant to be.
The Greeks had Dionysus, the god of wine, pleasure and revelry.
The Romans had Bacchus, the god of wine, pleasure and revelry.
The ancient Celtics of Gaul had Cernunnos, the god of wine, pleasure and revelry.
Different cultures are going to have the same portfolios and domains covered by completely different deities, because the people are absolutely different in foreign lands. Why should the realms be any different? Why would people in Mulhorand worship Tempus or Sune? I would assume they would have their own pantheon with their own deities who have the same exact portfolios and domains as those who have Tempus and Sune! So do you see what I'm saying Rich? And please don't get rid of Erevan Ilesere.
Well Rich, the portfolio for mischief, trickery and rogues should go to Erevan Ilesere hands down!!
And overlapping deities are the way cultures and religion are meant to be.
The Greeks had Dionysus, the god of wine, pleasure and revelry.
The Romans had Bacchus, the god of wine, pleasure and revelry.
The ancient Celtics of Gaul had Cernunnos, the god of wine, pleasure and revelry.
Different cultures are going to have the same portfolios and domains covered by completely different deities, because the people are absolutely different in foreign lands. Why should the realms be any different? Why would people in Mulhorand worship Tempus or Sune? I would assume they would have their own pantheon with their own deities who have the same exact portfolios and domains as those who have Tempus and Sune! So do you see what I'm saying Rich? And please don't get rid of Erevan Ilesere.
It's nice to hope (as I like Erevan too) but realize not to expect. The main pantheon gets first dibs, apparently.
If so, then yes--you'll see plenty. My own upcoming novel "Swordmage" is set entirely post-Spellplague. Most other new novels will be, too (several ongoing series currently in the works will still be spanning the edition for a little while still).
Okay, this next one might hit a bit too close to home (meaning: concrete info)
You say the novels will be post-Spellplague, but will they also be pre-4e FR?
In other words, will they take place 'between editions'?
It's Dec., and you promised us info by Dec., and maybe even Nov. if we were lucky (which we weren't). Throw us a bone here.
PS - Thanks for the Selûne info, BTW, it was nice to receive some good news.
Well, I for one don't believe there is a real barrier. However, there is a *perception* out there in the core D&D audience that FR is too burdened by uber-NPCs and requires too much world expertise. I think that perception is largely mistaken, but what I think of that perception doesn't really matter -- if some core D&D players aren't buying into Realms because they believe bad things about the setting, then it's a real barrier. It's important to our business strategy to keep that barrier, real or imagined, as low as possible, because the Realms flourish when more people set their D&D games there.
Now, as for your question: It's a good one. Glaciers accumulate at X inches per year, and just because we scrape it down to bare rock this year doesn't mean it won't be 10x inches deep again in 10 years. So, here are a couple of things that I think will help this time around:
- I believe we're slowing down the "RSEs" in novels for a while. We've had a lot of worldshaking events in a short time over the last couple of years, it's time to tell some stories with smaller scope.
- We have new online tools on the way that might help to keep the setting more updated and accessible.
- Speaking very generally, we've been avoiding game source material that focuses on advancing world storyline or NPC stories for a while now. (Big adventures are an exception, of course.) That wasn't always true; much of the late 2e product really was oriented toward telling ongoing stories in the game sourcebooks, for example.
I don't doubt that new RSE's will eventually appear in novels again, but I'm hopeful that a more sedate pace will help to keep those barriers as low as possible as long as possible.
Sorry for the poorly-timed response, but I only just discovered this thread....
Won't Living FR make this difficult? The RPGA games should have at least a moderate impact on the game setting, which updates things at a constant pace, at least with high-level games. Or will Living FR have little impact on the campaign setting?
You didn't hear it from me, but I think Selune's going to be a greater god by the time this all falls out... at least a portion of Mystra's power is restored to Selune when Mystra falls. That doesn't make Selune the new goddess of magic, but I wouldn't be surprised if surviving clerics of Mystra tended to turn to Selune in the years following the Spellplague.
Excellent - I like this!
Especially since you didn't heard this from him, even though he just posted it in the main WotSC public board.:D
This is as much a suggestion as it is a question. Is there any chance that - at long last - all clerics of 4E will get the "deity's weapon of choice" - weapon proficiency for free? Obviously, some will get a short straw with maces, daggers and the like, but one would imagine that a war deity's priest wields an appropriate battle axe with the same ease as the normal cleric wields his mace, since he spent most likely exactly the same amount of time wielding this weapon as a normal cleric his maces and morningstars. For this is surely the reason why a cleric gets all simple weapon proficiencies "for free", i.e. pre-character-time training.
Maybe one can balance that with chopping four simple weapon proficiencies for such a an axe-wielding cleric.
Okay, this next one might hit a bit too close to home (meaning: concrete info)
You say the novels will be post-Spellplague, but will they also be pre-4e FR?
In other words, will they take place 'between editions'?
It's Dec., and you promised us info by Dec., and maybe even Nov. if we were lucky (which we weren't). Throw us a bone here.
PS - Thanks for the Selûne info, BTW, it was nice to receive some good news.
Hello Mr. Baker!
This is as much a suggestion as it is a question. Is there any chance that - at long last - all clerics of 4E will get the "deity's weapon of choice" - weapon proficiency for free? Obviously, some will get a short straw with maces, daggers and the like, but one would imagine that a war deity's priest wields an appropriate battle axe with the same ease as the normal cleric wields his mace, since he spent most likely exactly the same amount of time wielding this weapon as a normal cleric his maces and morningstars. For this is surely the reason why a cleric gets all simple weapon proficiencies "for free", i.e. pre-character-time training.
Maybe one can balance that with chopping four simple weapon proficiencies for such a an axe-wielding cleric.
Sorry for the poorly-timed response, but I only just discovered this thread....
Won't Living FR make this difficult? The RPGA games should have at least a moderate impact on the game setting, which updates things at a constant pace, at least with high-level games. Or will Living FR have little impact on the campaign setting?
What is the 'steelheart from row'?
its a title of a ln elven goddess in races of the wild.
i never can remember her name off the top of my head, and often called steelheart is easier to remember than her name let along the queen of arvendor's name.
so Mr. Baker, will the seldarine stay pretty much the same???
"And no one dared disturb the sound...of silence." Simon & Garfunkel
My new novel "Swordmage" is set entirely in 4e Realms -- both for timeline and game edition. Game mechanics are pretty transparent in the book (meaning that you wouldn't easily be able to tell if the book was anchored in 3e or 4e rules if you didn't know already).
Can you give us a list of the upcoming novels that are pre Spellplague? I plan on finishing out the series Ive started and I may as well read the remaining pre 4e novels, but I cant stomach the changes youre making to the setting I love and I just need to decide where my jumping off point is going to be.
From what I've seen so far, no, clerics don't get the "weapon of choice" for free. However, there's no reason a cleric can't spend a feat to be proficient in batle axe or greatsword or whatever.
From the few things I know about 4e, multiclassing fighter/cleric wouldn't be as desasterous as in 3.5 so may it be that clerics of war goods have a few levels of fighter without becoming useless?
From the few things I know about 4e, multiclassing fighter/cleric wouldn't be as desasterous as in 3.5 so may it be that clerics of war goods have a few levels of fighter without becoming useless?
You wouldn't even need to go that far. From what I've heard of 4E, you get a ton of Feats. Like in Star Wars Saga, every class appears to get a Feat every even level, in addition to the one they get at first level and every three levels. That's 26 Feats by 30th-Level. More then enough to pick up a Weapon Proficiency.
Great question there.My new novel "Swordmage" is set entirely in 4e Realms -- both for timeline and game edition. Game mechanics are pretty transparent in the book (meaning that you wouldn't easily be able to tell if the book was anchored in 3e or 4e rules if you didn't know already).
Thank you for the timely response, it doesn't really tell us much, but every little bit helps - and it DOES give me hope. If you can't tell weather the novel is 3e or 4e, that means the 'new' Realms must still be pretty damn familiar.
From what I've seen so far, no, clerics don't get the "weapon of choice" for free. However, there's no reason a cleric can't spend a feat to be proficient in batle axe or greatsword or whatever.
Not a good idea, burning a Feat seems like a real waste, so I would suggest house-ruling it - it DOES make sense for priests to get it for Free, after all.
Or, conversely, just do what I do - start EVERY character as a Fighter; if your going human, it's a complete no-brainer to take your first level in Fighter regardless of what build you're working toward.
A good point, and one that I can't easily address off the top of my head. I'm not well versed in what the Living Realms campaign is planning (hey, there's only one of me!) but I think you're right--we would want to treat major plot arcs in Living Realms as canon events for the world.
I am not, nor ever was a member of the RPGA and have never played in a Living Campaign. However, I am very familiar with them, having followed the Sarbreener, Raven's Bluff, and Malatra material intently (you see, 'Living' is nothing new to the Realms).
From what I gather, and what I've seen of the adventures, making the material canon is not nearly as "earth-shattering" as the novel plots are/were. The adventures are smaller, and build upon local plots and intrigues. Someone living in a town or region where there is "Living" activity would be affected by it, perhaps, but people a hundred miles away might not even hear about it - and folks on the other side of Faerûn would definately not even know about it.
BTW, may I make a suggestion, Rich? I do not know if you have any plans for the DI for creating an FR 'newspaper' - something along the lines of the old Mystara Almanac series. This is something that FR fans have been wanting for quite some time, and the Living Realms seems the PERFECT opportunity to do this. Since events that transpire will be canon, perhaps we can read about them monthly, bi-monthly, or perhaps even quarterly. In this way, you guys get to 'pad-out' the DI with FR material, and you can use the questionable (by some) Living events in this format. We get lore, you get material, the RPGA gets to run their games... everyone wins.
Since you guys seem to be in the "Holiday Spirit" with taking fan suggestions, I think this is one MANY of us could get behind. ;)
BTW, may I make a suggestion, Rich? I do not know if you have any plans for the DI for creating an FR 'newspaper' - something along the lines of the old Mystara Almanac series. This is something that FR fans have been wanting for quite some time, and the Living Realms seems the PERFECT opportunity to do this. Since events that transpire will be canon, perhaps we can read about them monthly, bi-monthly, or perhaps even quarterly. In this way, you guys get to 'pad-out' the DI with FR material, and you can use the questionable (by some) Living events in this format. We get lore, you get material, the RPGA gets to run their games... everyone wins.
Since you guys seem to be in the "Holiday Spirit" with taking fan suggestions, I think this is one MANY of us could get behind. ;)
Yes, this would be really great. It's interesting, hardcore Realms fans and hardcore RPGA fans are usually two, very different breeds of animal. I'm both, and so I try to keep up with both boards and the current happenings.
It really would be an everyone wins situation! Plus, I really want the LFR authors to write some good story arcs that make sense in the Realms. I think that having their work shown in D&DI would help keep them accountable! A big selling point for me on Living FR has been the promise of the RPGA to work together with the FR design team and novelists to come up with a cohesive Realms experience. Anything that encourages these different departments working together bodes well for that.
I will say this much: We think that some of the deities in demihuman pantheons might really be Faerunian deities "known by another name." For example, is Sehanine just the elven name for Selune? Or is Sehanine an avatar of Selune? And other deities in those demihuman pantheons sure look like mythological heroes (read: demigods) as opposed to gods. I've cited the example of Clangeddin a few times.
So, I guess to answer your question honestly: No, expect changes to the Seldarine. Some will be revealed to be demigods/"patron saints" in Corellon's celestial retinue, and others might be revealed to be... something else.
so Mr. Baker, will the seldarine stay pretty much the same???
Can you give us a list of the upcoming novels that are pre Spellplague? I plan on finishing out the series Ive started and I may as well read the remaining pre 4e novels, but I cant stomach the changes youre making to the setting I love and I just need to decide where my jumping off point is going to be.
Is Greenknight gonna get a credit in the 4e FRCS for his Torm/Tyr suggestion?
Thank you for the timely response, it doesn't really tell us much, but every little bit helps - and it DOES give me hope. If you can't tell wheather the novel is 3e or 4e, that means the 'new' Realms must still be pretty damn familiar.
Not a good idea, burning a Feat seems like a real waste, so I would suggest housruling it - it DOES make sense for priests to get it for Free, after all.
Or, conversely, just do what I do - start EVERY character as a Fighter; if your going human, it's a complete no-brainer to take your first level in Fighter regardless of what build you're working toward.
I am not, nor ever was a member of the RPGA and have never played in a Living Campaign. However, I am very familiar with them, having followed the Sarbreener, Raven's Bluff, and Malatra material intently (you see, 'Living' is nothing new to the Realms).
From what I gether, and what I've seen of the adventures, making the material canon is not nearly as "earth-shattering" as the novel plots are/were. The adventures are smaller, and build upon local plots and intrigues. Someone living in a town or region where there is "Living" activity would be affected by it, perhaps, but people a hundred miles away might not even hear about it - and folks on the other side of Faerûn would definately not even know about it.
BTW, may I make a suggestion, Rich? I do not know if you have any plans for the DI for creating an FR 'newspaper' - something along the lines of the old Mystara Almanac series. This is something that FR fans have been wanting for quite some time, and the Living Realms seems the PERFECT opportunity to do this. Since events that transpire will be canon, perhaps we can read about them monthly, bi-monthly, or perhaps even quarterly. In this way, you guys get to 'pad-out' the DI with FR material, and you can use the questionable (by some) Living events in this format. We get lore, you get material, the RPGA gets to run their games... everyone wins.
Since you guys seem to be in the "Holiday Spirit" with taking fan suggestions, I think this is one MANY of us could get behind. ;)
You wouldn't even need to go that far. From what I've heard of 4E, you get a ton of Feats. Like in Star Wars Saga, every class appears to get a Feat every even level, in addition to the one they get at first level and every three levels. That's 26 Feats by 30th-Level. More then enough to pick up a Weapon Proficiency.
Hm, you're probably right. However, I would really enjoy if a Cleric could get more from his favoured weapon than just a little fluff. In 3.x if you did not have the war domain, you got nothing from using your favoured weapon, so most of mine run around with the typical mace just because it did the most damage ;)
Maybe Clerics have the option to pick fighter talents for the favoured weapon of their deity?
I'll have to check our crediting policies, but I don't think so. Possibly among the list of "Additional Thanks to..." folks. You'll understand that I'm a little leery of establishing a precedent. I don't want to get toasted later on if somebody posts an idea in an obscure thread, we don't see it but have the same notion and implement it, and then the poster blasts us for using "his" idea without credit.
"Additional thanks to..." is actually more of what I meant. I seem to remember a large list of people thanked for playtesting at the beginning of the 3.0 Phb.
Might just be my imagination.
Or age.
What was I talking about?
I will say this much: We think that some of the deities in demihuman pantheons might really be Faerunian deities "known by another name." For example, is Sehanine just the elven name for Selune? Or is Sehanine an avatar of Selune? And other deities in those demihuman pantheons sure look like mythological heroes (read: demigods) as opposed to gods. I've cited the example of Clangeddin a few times.
So, I guess to answer your question honestly: No, expect changes to the Seldarine. Some will be revealed to be demigods/"patron saints" in Corellon's celestial retinue, and others might be revealed to be... something else.
So does this mean that all the nonhuman pantheons are being merged into the Faerunian Pantheon? How about the Mulhorandi Pantheon? Will they remain apart, or also become a part of the Faerunian Pantheon? Or are we talking a case of a god holding a membership in multiple pantheons (Much like how Bane is active in both the Faerunian Pantheon and the Core Pantheon)?
Sorry, but I'm not at liberty to tell you exactly what's going on with each specific deity yet. I hope to be able to say more soon.
I will say this much: We think that some of the deities in demihuman pantheons might really be Faerunian deities "known by another name." For example, is Sehanine just the elven name for Selune? Or is Sehanine an avatar of Selune? And other deities in those demihuman pantheons sure look like mythological heroes (read: demigods) as opposed to gods. I've cited the example of Clangeddin a few times.
So, I guess to answer your question honestly: No, expect changes to the Seldarine. Some will be revealed to be demigods/"patron saints" in Corellon's celestial retinue, and others might be revealed to be... something else.
okay
just ill be disagreeing with someone in the distant future then
Hm, you're probably right. However, I would really enjoy if a Cleric could get more from his favoured weapon than just a little fluff. In 3.x if you did not have the war domain, you got nothing from using your favoured weapon, so most of mine run around with the typical mace just because it did the most damage ;)
How about this - a cleric receives a divine bonus of +1 to hit and damage when using his diety's preferred weapon - ergo, you have to waste a Feat to use the weapon, but at least you get something for it.This should also stack with any other bonuses (so a +5 Holy Slayer Mace would be truly devastating in the hands of a Priest of Selûne).
Sorry for the thread interruption - and thanks for the info once again, Rich. ;)
We're already planning to have some pretty consistent Realms support in D&D Insider. I don't believe we're going to segregate it from core game material, but I'd hope that you'd see a lore-full Realms piece almost every month once we raise steam and get underway with this.
Kinda like what has been put here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20071205 Rich?:D
The Cavern of Death
Ninety miles west of the ruins of Tilverton, in the heart of the desolate Stonelands, stands a nameless hill whose sere slopes are crowned by a long-ruined villa. Little remains aboveground, but beneath the hill lies a large cave carved out of the stone by a rushing torrent that now has vanished. This is the Cavern of Death -- domain of the lich Asbaron, who lived and died more than a thousand years ago. In this dark and terrible place he lingers still, his mind long since lost in a purposeful madness.
Asbaron of the Emerald Eyes
Born in the ruined realm of Anauria in 199 DR, the Year of the Cold Enchanter, Asbaron traveled widely and collected a great hoard of dangerous lore as he prolonged his life by various dark bargains and rituals. Exceedingly ancient and cruel, he eventually crossed over into undeath, becoming a lich. Hundreds of years after the fall of Anauria, he returned to his family's ancestral home and established his lair in the caverns beneath.
Asbaron has spent centuries obsessed with the fates of two long-scattered families: his own House Nemrin and their rivals House Maluradek, both noble families of the ancient realm of Anauria. From his earliest childhood, Asbaron was raised on the bitterness and gall of his great-grandfather Ashkelor, a warlock who believed first that House Nemrin was meant to rule a mighty realm, and secondly that the treachery and jealousy of House Maluradek stole away from House Nemrin its chance to rule Anauria. In Ashkelor's twisted view, Anauria never would have fallen had a Nemrin sat on the throne, and he poured his hate and resentment into Asbaron throughout Asbaron's childhood and his early studies.
A Scion of Maluradek?
In the thirteen centuries since the fall of Anauria, the Maluradek family has long since dissolved into the general human population of western Faerûn. Literally thousands of people can trace descent from one of the Maluradeks alive during the last days of the kingdom . . . including, perhaps, a human or partially human player character. Through diligent research and tracing of various family trees, the lich Asbaron discovers that one of the characters in the party is a Maluradek descendant. He dispatches his servants to assassinate the character in whatever distant corner of Faerûn the heroes happen to find themselves in. When the player characters trace the assassins back to their origin, they discover that some hitherto unsuspected enemy lurking in the Stonelands seems to have it in for them -- a perfect reason to investigate the old stories about the Cavern of Death.
Ashkelor died a thousand years ago, but Asbaron still remembers his great-grandfather's lessons. To amend this ancient wrong, Asbaron has spent centuries of his undead existence searching out the far-flung descendants of House Nemrin, hoping to find one suitable for a throne (and a throne suitable for that Nemrin). He is a demanding and cruel judge of his family's progeny, and he seeks a descendant of iron will, keen intelligence, driving ambition, and magical strength. Any Nemrin descendant who does not measure up is ignored . . . or, in the case of the truly weak, plucked from the family tree. The lich spends most of his time seeking out hidden heirs of the ancient Nemrin blood and spying on those he knows about, looking for the right mix of character, ability, and position. At the same time, Asbaron has made it his personal crusade to extirpate the scions of Maluradek wherever he finds them. He has not yet succeeded in completely exterminating this ancient line, and the knowledge that the descendants of those who "betrayed" his house a thousand years ago still walk Faerûn absolutely maddens him.
Also, Asbaron is engaged in a years-long feud against the Zhentarim. First of all, his minions have sacked the Zhentish caravans seeking to pass through the Stonelands on more than one occasion. Secondly, Asbaron's minions recently slew a minor lord of Zhentil Keep after the lich identified him as a Maluradek descendant. The Zhentarim have therefore sent several expeditions against Asbaron, but each ended in failure.
A master of gem magic, Asbaron has a peculiar affinity for emeralds. Two large, perfect emeralds rest in the lich's eye sockets, wreathed in the unholy green flames that burn there. Dozens of smaller gemstones are affixed to his old yellow bones, many enchanted with potent spells.
Asbaron's Servitors
As one might expect, Asbaron's servitors include a number of undead -- mostly skeletons and wights of various types. Many of these were once human guards or merchants whose caravans were attacked and plundered by Asbaron's minions. The lich also rules over a large tribe of troglodytes, a band of gargoyles, and a variety of monstrous guardians such as leucrottas, manticores, and a gorgon.
The Greenflame troglodytes are the most numerous of Asbaron's servants. The Nemser caverns have long been overrun by the simple creatures, who worship Asbaron as a god. The lich promises the troglodytes' chieftains and shamans perpetual existence in the form of undeath should they serve him well. Asbaron's sinister bargain is so alluring that most Greenflame warriors are literally eager to die in the service of their undead master, hoping that such a display of loyalty and bravery will earn them a higher place when the lich raises them into undeath.
The gargoyles loyal to Asbaron lair in the ruined cellars and passages of old Nemsergaar, the ancient family seat. Their ability to range far out over the Stonelands in search of plunder or undertake long errands hundreds of miles from the cavern make them especially useful. Asbaron often sends them to steal books and genealogies from libraries and temples, assassinate Maluradeks he discovers, or carry gifts and advice to any Nemrins he currently favors. Like the troglodytes, they too serve the lich for the promise of eternal existence.
Asbaron's pet monsters have no such desire, of course. The lich controls his more powerful minions by means of a ritual in which he embeds a magic emerald in the flesh of a living creature's brow. The gemstone ritual dominates the subject creature, and it also gives Asbaron the ability to perceive what his enslaved monsters perceive and issue them telepathic commands over a substantial distance. Asbaron cannot watch through all such gems constantly; in practice he only looks in on a particular monster for a few minutes at a time once every day or so (or more intently if he has reason to be watchful).
A small number of powerful lieutenants (the troglodyte shaman, the gargoyle chief, and a few of the undead) bear these gems not only to ensure their loyalty, but as a mark of favor. These individuals are known as Asbaron's "Eyethanes," and they are greatly feared by the other creatures in the caverns and ruins because they speak directly for the lich, commanding his minions. Asbaron himself rarely deigns to do so.
The Nemser Caves
Beneath the ancient ruins of Nemsergaar, the old seat of House Nemrin, lies a maze of living limestone caverns carved out of the heart of the hills by once-torrential streams born in the Stormhorns snows. These caves are quite splendid in many places, festooned with frozen cascades of flowstone, mineralized pools, living streams, and wide galleries. For the most part they are unimproved and show little working. There are two main entrances: A steep staircase descends from the ruins of the palace above, and a large cave mouth opens up a few hundred yards distant where the stream flowing through the caves emerges. Gargoyles infest the ruins and guard the upper entrance, while the lower quickly leads into a mazelike troglodyte warren.
The Cavern of Death itself is a large, bell-shaped pit or shaft in the center of the complex. The entrance is near the top of this hundred-foot high cavern. This is one of the few chambers that has been substantially worked, and a stone staircase winds down to the floor past bas-reliefs of skeletal figures and dozens of burial-niches in the walls where real skeletons stand. A shrine to Orcus fills the floor of the cave, which is normally lit by eerie green flames burning in iron cressets along the walls. The lich's personal chambers, workroom, library, treasure vault, and trophy room are all linked to this cavern, and a secret escape tunnel leads down into the depths of the Underdark below the caves.
House Nemrin of Anauria
After the fall of Netheril in the Year of the Sundered Webs, three smaller realms survived the wreckage of the great empire: Anauria, Asram, and Hlondath. Anauria was the wealthiest of these three. It stood in the broad lands north of the Stormhorns, in that part of Anauroch that is now known as the Sword. In the days of Anauria, the Stonelands were green and forested, a well-watered upland of swift streams rushing down from the mountains to the south. A number of Anaurian noble families built hunting lodges, villas, and summer palaces in the hills, retreating to the cooler elevations during the hottest months of the year. One of these families was House Nemrin, a family of wealthy nobles who wielded great influence in the affairs of Anauria.
During the last years of the kingdom, the Nemrins fell into disfavor. Accused of trafficking with demons and plotting rebellion by a rival noble family -- House Maluradek -- Lord Ashkelor Nemrin found himself banished from the court on the basis of evidence presented to the king by his rivals. Ashkelor removed himself to the relative seclusion of his family's summer palace in the hills, Nemsergaar. There Ashkelon plotted revenge against his accusers and awaited his vindication before the king.
Ashkelor's vindication never came. A great orc-horde swept down from the harsh reaches of northern Anauroch in the Year of Fallen Guards, destroying Anauria's cities and plundering its countryside. Roving bands of monsters pillaged most of the estates in the southern hills. Nemsergaar was sacked and burned during one such raid, and left in ruins. Most Anaurians died under orcish axes or fled to other lands, never to return -- but the Nemrins remained. A warlock of no small skill, Ashkelor Nemrin concealed his family in caverns hidden beneath Nemsergaar and survived the destruction of his home.
After the fall of Anauria, Ashkelor emerged to claim what was left of the realm -- but it was a vain boast. For a few generations, the surviving Nemrins clung to their claim and tried to reestablish the kingdom, but nothing came of their efforts. In time most of the remaining Nemrins drifted away and finally abandoned ruined Anauria. Ashkelor's great-grandson Asbaron, a warlock even more formidable than his ancestor, was the last of the line born in Nemsergaar.
About the Author
A former officer in the US Navy, Rich Baker has been a game designer since 1991. He has written or contributed to more than 70 game products, including 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons and Axis & Allies Miniatures. He is also the author of eight Forgotten Realms novels, including The New York Times best-seller Condemnation.
Rich married his college sweetheart, Kim, in 1991; they have two daughters, Alex and Hannah. Rich's interests include Golden Age SF, military history, hiking in the Cascades, wargaming, and the Philadelphia Phillies.
Asbaron of the Emerald Eyes
Born in the ruined realm of Anauria in 199 DR, the Year of the Cold Enchanter, Asbaron traveled widely and collected a great hoard of dangerous lore as he prolonged his life by various dark bargains and rituals. Exceedingly ancient and cruel, he eventually crossed over into undeath, becoming a lich. Hundreds of years after the fall of Anauria, he returned to his family's ancestral home and established his lair in the caverns beneath.
Asbaron has spent centuries obsessed with the fates of two long-scattered families: his own House Nemrin and their rivals House Maluradek, both noble families of the ancient realm of Anauria. From his earliest childhood, Asbaron was raised on the bitterness and gall of his great-grandfather Ashkelor, a warlock who believed first that House Nemrin was meant to rule a mighty realm, and secondly that the treachery and jealousy of House Maluradek stole away from House Nemrin its chance to rule Anauria. In Ashkelor's twisted view, Anauria never would have fallen had a Nemrin sat on the throne, and he poured his hate and resentment into Asbaron throughout Asbaron's childhood and his early studies.
A Scion of Maluradek?
In the thirteen centuries since the fall of Anauria, the Maluradek family has long since dissolved into the general human population of western Faerûn. Literally thousands of people can trace descent from one of the Maluradeks alive during the last days of the kingdom . . . including, perhaps, a human or partially human player character. Through diligent research and tracing of various family trees, the lich Asbaron discovers that one of the characters in the party is a Maluradek descendant. He dispatches his servants to assassinate the character in whatever distant corner of Faerûn the heroes happen to find themselves in. When the player characters trace the assassins back to their origin, they discover that some hitherto unsuspected enemy lurking in the Stonelands seems to have it in for them -- a perfect reason to investigate the old stories about the Cavern of Death.
Ashkelor died a thousand years ago, but Asbaron still remembers his great-grandfather's lessons. To amend this ancient wrong, Asbaron has spent centuries of his undead existence searching out the far-flung descendants of House Nemrin, hoping to find one suitable for a throne (and a throne suitable for that Nemrin). He is a demanding and cruel judge of his family's progeny, and he seeks a descendant of iron will, keen intelligence, driving ambition, and magical strength. Any Nemrin descendant who does not measure up is ignored . . . or, in the case of the truly weak, plucked from the family tree. The lich spends most of his time seeking out hidden heirs of the ancient Nemrin blood and spying on those he knows about, looking for the right mix of character, ability, and position. At the same time, Asbaron has made it his personal crusade to extirpate the scions of Maluradek wherever he finds them. He has not yet succeeded in completely exterminating this ancient line, and the knowledge that the descendants of those who "betrayed" his house a thousand years ago still walk Faerûn absolutely maddens him.
Also, Asbaron is engaged in a years-long feud against the Zhentarim. First of all, his minions have sacked the Zhentish caravans seeking to pass through the Stonelands on more than one occasion. Secondly, Asbaron's minions recently slew a minor lord of Zhentil Keep after the lich identified him as a Maluradek descendant. The Zhentarim have therefore sent several expeditions against Asbaron, but each ended in failure.
A master of gem magic, Asbaron has a peculiar affinity for emeralds. Two large, perfect emeralds rest in the lich's eye sockets, wreathed in the unholy green flames that burn there. Dozens of smaller gemstones are affixed to his old yellow bones, many enchanted with potent spells.
Asbaron's Servitors
As one might expect, Asbaron's servitors include a number of undead -- mostly skeletons and wights of various types. Many of these were once human guards or merchants whose caravans were attacked and plundered by Asbaron's minions. The lich also rules over a large tribe of troglodytes, a band of gargoyles, and a variety of monstrous guardians such as leucrottas, manticores, and a gorgon.
The Greenflame troglodytes are the most numerous of Asbaron's servants. The Nemser caverns have long been overrun by the simple creatures, who worship Asbaron as a god. The lich promises the troglodytes' chieftains and shamans perpetual existence in the form of undeath should they serve him well. Asbaron's sinister bargain is so alluring that most Greenflame warriors are literally eager to die in the service of their undead master, hoping that such a display of loyalty and bravery will earn them a higher place when the lich raises them into undeath.
The gargoyles loyal to Asbaron lair in the ruined cellars and passages of old Nemsergaar, the ancient family seat. Their ability to range far out over the Stonelands in search of plunder or undertake long errands hundreds of miles from the cavern make them especially useful. Asbaron often sends them to steal books and genealogies from libraries and temples, assassinate Maluradeks he discovers, or carry gifts and advice to any Nemrins he currently favors. Like the troglodytes, they too serve the lich for the promise of eternal existence.
Asbaron's pet monsters have no such desire, of course. The lich controls his more powerful minions by means of a ritual in which he embeds a magic emerald in the flesh of a living creature's brow. The gemstone ritual dominates the subject creature, and it also gives Asbaron the ability to perceive what his enslaved monsters perceive and issue them telepathic commands over a substantial distance. Asbaron cannot watch through all such gems constantly; in practice he only looks in on a particular monster for a few minutes at a time once every day or so (or more intently if he has reason to be watchful).
A small number of powerful lieutenants (the troglodyte shaman, the gargoyle chief, and a few of the undead) bear these gems not only to ensure their loyalty, but as a mark of favor. These individuals are known as Asbaron's "Eyethanes," and they are greatly feared by the other creatures in the caverns and ruins because they speak directly for the lich, commanding his minions. Asbaron himself rarely deigns to do so.
The Nemser Caves
Beneath the ancient ruins of Nemsergaar, the old seat of House Nemrin, lies a maze of living limestone caverns carved out of the heart of the hills by once-torrential streams born in the Stormhorns snows. These caves are quite splendid in many places, festooned with frozen cascades of flowstone, mineralized pools, living streams, and wide galleries. For the most part they are unimproved and show little working. There are two main entrances: A steep staircase descends from the ruins of the palace above, and a large cave mouth opens up a few hundred yards distant where the stream flowing through the caves emerges. Gargoyles infest the ruins and guard the upper entrance, while the lower quickly leads into a mazelike troglodyte warren.
The Cavern of Death itself is a large, bell-shaped pit or shaft in the center of the complex. The entrance is near the top of this hundred-foot high cavern. This is one of the few chambers that has been substantially worked, and a stone staircase winds down to the floor past bas-reliefs of skeletal figures and dozens of burial-niches in the walls where real skeletons stand. A shrine to Orcus fills the floor of the cave, which is normally lit by eerie green flames burning in iron cressets along the walls. The lich's personal chambers, workroom, library, treasure vault, and trophy room are all linked to this cavern, and a secret escape tunnel leads down into the depths of the Underdark below the caves.
House Nemrin of Anauria
After the fall of Netheril in the Year of the Sundered Webs, three smaller realms survived the wreckage of the great empire: Anauria, Asram, and Hlondath. Anauria was the wealthiest of these three. It stood in the broad lands north of the Stormhorns, in that part of Anauroch that is now known as the Sword. In the days of Anauria, the Stonelands were green and forested, a well-watered upland of swift streams rushing down from the mountains to the south. A number of Anaurian noble families built hunting lodges, villas, and summer palaces in the hills, retreating to the cooler elevations during the hottest months of the year. One of these families was House Nemrin, a family of wealthy nobles who wielded great influence in the affairs of Anauria.
During the last years of the kingdom, the Nemrins fell into disfavor. Accused of trafficking with demons and plotting rebellion by a rival noble family -- House Maluradek -- Lord Ashkelor Nemrin found himself banished from the court on the basis of evidence presented to the king by his rivals. Ashkelor removed himself to the relative seclusion of his family's summer palace in the hills, Nemsergaar. There Ashkelon plotted revenge against his accusers and awaited his vindication before the king.
Ashkelor's vindication never came. A great orc-horde swept down from the harsh reaches of northern Anauroch in the Year of Fallen Guards, destroying Anauria's cities and plundering its countryside. Roving bands of monsters pillaged most of the estates in the southern hills. Nemsergaar was sacked and burned during one such raid, and left in ruins. Most Anaurians died under orcish axes or fled to other lands, never to return -- but the Nemrins remained. A warlock of no small skill, Ashkelor Nemrin concealed his family in caverns hidden beneath Nemsergaar and survived the destruction of his home.
After the fall of Anauria, Ashkelor emerged to claim what was left of the realm -- but it was a vain boast. For a few generations, the surviving Nemrins clung to their claim and tried to reestablish the kingdom, but nothing came of their efforts. In time most of the remaining Nemrins drifted away and finally abandoned ruined Anauria. Ashkelor's great-grandson Asbaron, a warlock even more formidable than his ancestor, was the last of the line born in Nemsergaar.
About the Author
A former officer in the US Navy, Rich Baker has been a game designer since 1991. He has written or contributed to more than 70 game products, including 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons and Axis & Allies Miniatures. He is also the author of eight Forgotten Realms novels, including The New York Times best-seller Condemnation.
Rich married his college sweetheart, Kim, in 1991; they have two daughters, Alex and Hannah. Rich's interests include Golden Age SF, military history, hiking in the Cascades, wargaming, and the Philadelphia Phillies.
(ps i still dont see sehanine and selune being the same as one is a goddess of death and rebirth and the other is the moon)
So, I guess to answer your question honestly: No, expect changes to the Seldarine. Some will be revealed to be demigods/"patron saints" in Corellon's celestial retinue, and others might be revealed to be... something else.
This actually makes me even sadder than the changes to the Faerunian pantheon. The Seldarine was always fairly small, and its very mythologically based. It'd be awkward to have Sehanine as Selune, for previously stated reasons. It also sort of messes up the whole Lolth/Sehanine conflict, and completely revamps the idea of the Moon (Sehanine) being part of the creation of the Elves. Not to mention Angharradh, and so on.
Also, consider this. Since the eladrin will be in-force in 4e why wouldn't WotC consider bringing in--for example--Queen Morwel (of the Court of Stars) as his consort instead of Sehahine?
Not saying it's right but they're working to "Faerunize" things so there's less racial separation in 4e/FR, divinity-wise. Which means demihuman deities have less of a footprint in the Realms outside of the main creator/patron deities.
The second impression that I get from him is that because the designers don't like the Realms they didn't really think through the changes that are being made. It looks like someone decided that the Realms was cluttered with deities an just started trying to find ways to get rid of them without thinking about the effect on the setting.
A good example of what I'm talking about is the death of Helm. It reads like a poorly thought out excuse to kill him. The same is true of the deaths in the dwarven pantheon. Then there is the Spellplague, one big excuse to kill gods. You said that Torm would be a saint in 4e and he wouldn't have clergy. Then GreenKnight wrote one well thought out post which included the death of Tyr and now Torm will be a greater god? Now we find out the the Elven pantheon will also be whittled down. You plan to accomplish this by saying that some of the Elven gods were secretly human gods all along? This entire plan to trim the pantheon looks pretty half-cocked to me. It doesn't look like the end result of years of planning.
I keep coming back hoping there will be some new information that makes it all make sense, but every thing I read about 4e Realms makes it less likely that I will even look at the FRCG.
A good example of what I'm talking about is the death of Helm. It reads like a poorly thought out excuse to kill him. The same is true of the deaths in the dwarven pantheon. Then there is the Spellplague, one big excuse to kill gods. You said that Torm would be a saint in 4e and he wouldn't have clergy. Then GreenKnight wrote one well thought out post which included the death of Tyr and now Torm will be a greater god? Now we find out the the Elven pantheon will also be whittled down. You plan to accomplish this by saying that some of the Elven gods were secretly human gods all along? This entire plan to trim the pantheon looks pretty half-cocked to me. It doesn't look like the end result of years of planning.
Indeed.
And again the prevalent idea of demihuman deities being secretly human deities is annoying. If they're going to go that route then do some give-and-take, not some one-way street.
Rich, ever consider having Geb replace Grumbar as part of the process? And keeping Deep Sashelas, considering how it's hard to imagine sea elves worshipping Umberlee (who's definitely not their type)? Others are debating changes such as this even if we disagree with the general thrust of the actual cuts:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14513067#post14513067
Only problem is that they're both moon deities, both have 'mystery' aspects about them...also, since elves have the lythari and Selune concerns herself with lycanthropes...
Also, consider this. Since the eladrin will be in-force in 4e why wouldn't WotC consider bringing in--for example--Queen Morwel (of the Court of Stars) as his consort instead of Sehahine?
.
1: the lythari, I never considered true lycanthropes, and i could be wrong but wouldnt it make more since to have them worship the lone wolf?
edit:selune only interest with the lycanthropes are the ones of good alignment.
and now that too is up for grabs as the nobonian(sp?), and Sharess also have followers who fit that build, as well well as monstrous humanoids that fall under their domains.
2:as for queen morwel; couldnt say, I didnt like the book of exualted dead or the book of vile trash.
my only knowledge of her is that she is the queen of the eldarin, the ghael eldarin and others, which was to my understanding was greyhawk, not the realms.
so if Im wrong, please correct me.
There has been some anxiety over the way the change in the FR pantheon and possibly notable NPCs will impact the enjoyability of the games. Will there be material in the FR books or elsewhere on how to update the game to 4E while maintaining the old deities and NPCs? In other words, how much support will there be for DMs who want to run a more "traditional" FR game?
1: the lythari, I never considered true lycanthropes, and i could be wrong but wouldnt it make more since to have them worship the lone wolf?
edit:selune only interest with the lycanthropes are the ones of good alignment.
and now that too is up for grabs as the nobonian(sp?), and Sharess also have followers who fit that build, as well well as monstrous humanoids that fall under their domains.
2:as for queen morwel; couldnt say, I didnt like the book of exualted dead or the book of vile trash.
my only knowledge of her is that she is the queen of the eldarin, the ghael eldarin and others, which was to my understanding was greyhawk, not the realms.
so if Im wrong, please correct me.
1) Yes, that is correct but in my mind shapeshifting is close enough for this. And since Selune watches over (or is worshipped by) good lycanthropes, that makes it more of a match. Again not saying it's right.
2) I don't remember seeing anything about Queen Morel or eladrin in the old Greyhawk books I had. But she was in BoED and (Mr. Baker correct me if you wish)...The Last Mythal trilogy. If the latter is correct then I wouldn't be surprised considering what's happening in 4e and the kinds of changes they keep implementing in preparation.
And again the prevalent idea of demihuman deities being secretly human deities is annoying.
If the demihuman priesthoods are described in their own right, as in Demihuman Deities, their 'real identities' will be relative theological pinheadery, easy to change in a campaign. If they're footnotes to the Faerûnian priesthoods, the depth and playability of the demihuman religions will be sadly reduced.
2) I don't remember seeing anything about Queen Morel or eladrin in the old Greyhawk books I had. But she was in BoED and (Mr. Baker correct me if you wish)...The Last Mythal trilogy. If the latter is correct then I wouldn't be surprised considering what's happening in 4e and the kinds of changes they keep implementing in preparation.
An "eladrin queen" shows up in Farthest Reach, and while it is likely she was Morel, she is never named as such in the novel.
Sorry, but I'm not at liberty to tell you exactly what's going on with each specific deity yet. I hope to be able to say more soon.
I will say this much: We think that some of the deities in demihuman pantheons might really be Faerunian deities "known by another name." For example, is Sehanine just the elven name for Selune? Or is Sehanine an avatar of Selune? And other deities in those demihuman pantheons sure look like mythological heroes (read: demigods) as opposed to gods. I've cited the example of Clangeddin a few times.
So, I guess to answer your question honestly: No, expect changes to the Seldarine. Some will be revealed to be demigods/"patron saints" in Corellon's celestial retinue, and others might be revealed to be... something else.
I'm trying to given 4E FR a chance but this is really pushing me away. I liked the individual racial pantheon and I hoped that the celestial courts concept applied to the Faerunian pantheon would make them more distinct like the racial pantheons. I think that would break up the large number of gods into something more manageable pieces, thus making them quick to grasp. I don't see this as helping too much, if for instance Selune and Sehanine are still distinct enough to recognize, then there is still confusion between their actual natures. On the other hand, the more likely outcome would be that both deities lose a lot of their flavor, what made them unique and distinct from other deities. They would just become generic amorphous all-encompassing goddess of this vague set of traits and portfolios.
At least the changes with Mystra/Cyric and Tyr/Helm/Torm are a progression of the current gods (no matter how I disagree with the plot behind it). Those changes are events in the divine history of those gods. This proposed melding of Selune and Sehanine is essentially a retcon. I thought the whole point of the Spellplague was to avoid retcons, but yet we seem to be getting retcons anyway. I would rather the changes didn't have to reach so hard. If the Spellplague solves all your transition needs, they it's partly forgivable, but it doesn't seem to, so why bother with it at all?
Sometimes I really wonder, if WotC is so determined on these dramatic changes to the Realms why not just start a new campaign setting (hey, it worked for Eberron) with contributions by Ed Greenwood, RA Salvatore, etc. because that is what 4E FR appears to be. Except with FR 4E you still have to make an effort to work with established lore, you don't have the unbound freedom (as with any setting) to implement some of these ideas and it shows. Here it's like trying to squeeze a large person into a small sized shirt, which I suppose is forcibly doable but looks ill-fitting.
I have a few questions for you.
1. Who is the creative director of the 4e Realms campaign setting? Does this person role-play in 3e FR? Has this person ever role-played in the Realms?
2. Are there any game designers working on 4e FR that have never played in a Realms game in 3e? Which 4e FR game designers have played in 3e FR? When was the last time they played?
3. I know Ed Greenwood is working on the campaign setting, but it seems like he is on the side lines. (only working outside of Faerun) Will he be working on the "new" pantheon? Will he do any work on the main continent? If so then what regions?
4. I believe Chris Perkins said that some of the Realms designers were opposed to the changes at first. If the statement is inaccurate please correct me. If it is accurate could you tell us who was in favor of the changes and who was opposed to the changes? Did the designers in favor of the changes play in 3e Realms games?
5. Who at WotC made the final decision to move forward with the 4e changes to the pantheon and the weave?
6. After seeing the reactions from the Realms community do you regret the decision to make the changes? If you had the option would you take a mulligan?
I'm sorry about the negativity in some of my other posts. I need to stop posting when my blood pressure is up.
I understand if you can't fully answer every question, but please try to be as candid as possible. Many Realms fan are very upset about the changes and there is a growing perception that the changes were made by people who don't like or role-play in Forgotten Realms. I think we all know your long history with the Realms. So please don't think these questions are about you.
If the demihuman priesthoods are described in their own right, as in Demihuman Deities, their 'real identities' will be relative theological pinheadery, easy to change in a campaign. If they're footnotes to the Faerûnian priesthoods, the depth and playability of the demihuman religions will be sadly reduced.
Again, I can turn it in the other direction and ask...why not the other way? I may have my favorites among the Faerunian pantheon but as a whole there's nothing superior about them to their non-human counterparts. I don't read minds from this distance, I can only look at results from the decision-making process in front of us, and I haven't seen them replace a FR deity with one from the so-called "non native" interloper pantheons. If they wish to portray a shared, more integrated world religion-wise then deities of other groups should've been adopted by the other cultures. I can always do it in my campaign (e.g. I can say Hanali was adopted in and Sune is her alias among humanity), but this isn't so much about what *I* do with the campaign as what *WotC* is doing with the published campaign.
So, question for the Designer: Will there be any non-human deities we're familiar with that will replace a Faerunian deity or be adopted into the pantheon?
you know what would be next saying that Sune and hanili are the same.
it still smells like a bad idea Mr. Baker. real bad, bad enough for me not to want to buy it.
I am Sune. I am Hanali. I am Sharess. We all share a bath. But really, we are all aspects of the same tofu monster god.
My PC's have BEEN to these places and visited some of them. (They like to chat with their deities, a troubling prospect to be sure for those with more capricious deities, but hey, why not...)
DM: You didn't really have this conversation.
Player: !#$%$%! you! (Gets his things and walks out.)
You want to see more people playing D+D? This won't get it for you.
"Oh we need a boss for this dungeon hermmmmm how about the forest troll warlord Zul'jin, yeah he hasn't been seen since Warcraft III!"
"Um....but earlier quests paint him as a hero..."
"Just retcon it like we always do!"
"Ok!"
So yeah I know how you feel when your favorite setting gets butchered and changed around because some of the devs who were not there in the begining had a "cool idea" and wanted to fit it in.....
All the racial Gods are now aspects of the main God. Which really blows for the Realms Deities.
:rolleye2: :raincloud :surrender :headexplo ;) :P :D
It looks like they are Eberroning the Realms Deities!
Are you saying the Realms have been "Ebberboned"? :P
That is the annoying part, to some higher-ups apparently racial deities aren't that unique...unless they're human.
In this instance, some of us are objecting to the one-way nature that the Realms trim/retcon is going through. If they're going to axe and demote en masse to get to that magically low number cited months ago then it ought to be spread-out. The main creator/ruler god of each pantheon seems to be 'safe', so far, but there are other deities of interest that could be interspersed within the 'main' pantheon.
Just to be a little cheeky, shouldn't there be Affirmative Action for minority pantheon members? Why is Clangeddin less qualified to wield an axe as a full-on war god than Tempus? Is it because he's shorter? Is there shortism rampant among the FRDT? Should the halfling and gnome pantheons start picketing the office for more respect? Are the gnomes even allowed to show up or will they be arrested on arrival? Will Baravar and Brandobaris resort to saran-wrapping bathroom facilities at random to get their point across? And will Erevan make pigs fly in a circle formation over HQ, turning an otherwise uneventful walk outside into something distinctly odoriffic? ;)
Just to be a little cheeky, shouldn't there be Affirmative Action for minority pantheon members? Why is Clangeddin less qualified to wield an axe as a full-on war god than Tempus? Is it because he's shorter? Is there shortism rampant among the FRDT? Should the halfling and gnome pantheons start picketing the office for more respect? Are the gnomes even allowed to show up or will they be arrested on arrival? Will Baravar and Brandobaris resort to saran-wrapping bathroom facilities at random to get their point across? And will Erevan make pigs fly in a circle formation over HQ, turning an otherwise uneventful walk outside into something distinctly odoriffic? ;)
ROFLMAOAPMP
Rich: "Hey, Tyr, how's it going?"
Tyr: "About as well as it should for a weary god of justice. What's up?"
Rich: Well I'd like to thank you for dealing with the Helm issue so well--I mean, it's out of character for you to be like that, to actually kill a fellow deity over something so bogus as a miscommunication over Tymora. And then to help imprison Cyric---"
Tyr: Yep, the first part was hard to swallow. C'mon, Tymora? She's a flake, not my type. But you know Sune, she always thinks she's right so one kinda has to go through the motions. As for Cyric, he deserves it."
Rich: "No kidding! Well, thanks for helping us out...Unfortunately, we're going to have to let you go. Torm's taking your place." (Hands him a pink slip)
Tyr: "Are you joking? I helped get that kid started in this business! Hey, who helped you reduce the fines from that fender bender a few years ago???"
Rich: "I know, I'm really sorry. But he's a little younger, eager to please...and you're just plain old and frumpy."
Tyr: "I know what it really is, you guys don't want me to reach retirement age and collect the benefits owed. I still belong to a union, you know, you can't!"
Rich: "Yes, yes we can. They aren't backing you up on this. If it helps, we're going to be laying off a few of the others and give their responsibilities over to whoever's left. So you aren't the only one."
Tyr: "Hmmm. I see. Do I get severance?"
Rich: Yes, here's a fat check to help you out."
Tyr: "Can I use you as a reference for my next job?"
Rich: "Sorry, no can do. The door's to your left."
I'd ask a question but I'm still waiting on the last one to be answered. :P
This proposed melding of Selune and Sehanine is essentially a retcon. I thought the whole point of the Spellplague was to avoid retcons, but yet we seem to be getting retcons anyway. I would rather the changes didn't have to reach so hard. If the Spellplague solves all your transition needs, they it's partly forgivable, but it doesn't seem to, so why bother with it at all?
Sorry, but I'm not at liberty to tell you exactly what's going on with each specific deity yet. I hope to be able to say more soon.
I will say this much: We think that some of the deities in demihuman pantheons might really be Faerunian deities "known by another name." For example, is Sehanine just the elven name for Selune? Or is Sehanine an avatar of Selune? And other deities in those demihuman pantheons sure look like mythological heroes (read: demigods) as opposed to gods. I've cited the example of Clangeddin a few times.
So, I guess to answer your question honestly: No, expect changes to the Seldarine. Some will be revealed to be demigods/"patron saints" in Corellon's celestial retinue, and others might be revealed to be... something else.
Are you guys serious????? Sehanine is going to be just an elven name for Selune???? Do you guys know that will destroy hundreds of thousands of years of elven history in the realms???? I think I just vomited in my mouth! It's drastic changes like this that make every one I know in the gaming community realize that they will never buy 4ED D&D products. RichBaker, you just hammered the last nail in the coffin for 4ED in FR for sooooooo many people.
1. Bill Slavicsek is the VP of RPG R&D. Chris Perkins is the Design Manager, which most closely corresponds to creative director. Bruce Cordell is heading up the design team working on the 4e FRCS; two years ago I headed up the revision team that created the original story bible we're working from. I used to be the Creative Director for FR (2000-2003) but we've reorganized a few times since, so these days I'm just a senior designer. Chris ran Dungeon magazine for quite a long time, and produced several outstanding FR adventures. Bruce writes FR novels. I don't know about their playing histories, but I've certainly run FR campaigns in 3e (including the playtest campaigns for Silver Marches and Prison of the Firebringer).
2. You'll have to ask them. Rob Heinsoo, Logan Bonner, Bruce Cordell, Chris Sims, Phil Athans, and Ed Greenwood are the guys currently engaged in the design and writing.
3. Ed is doing work in Faerun as well as elsewhere. He didn't have that much to do with the pantheon, but some of our big plans stem from a proposal he set forward many years ago that he called "the Sleeping Gods."
4. Depends which changes and which designers. We oppose things all the time. Debate, reasoned argument, and consensus are the tools of our trade.
5. That was a consensus decision made at the time we worked up the revision guide. Bruce, Phil, and I were the primary authors of the guide. Chris and Bill OK'd it.
6. Some parts, sure. Much of this work is highly subjective, so it's hard to prove that a storyline development is right or wrong. Some of you on the boards didn't like the Tyr-Helm storyline. We thought it was interesting to draw on real-world mythology for a bit of fallibility, caprice, and ironic doom. Will all Realms fans hate that? Not likely. Will some? Well, sure. Clearly a dozen posters on this board do, but that doesn't mean everyone does. Do I regret what we're doing? No, not really. I think it's the right course, even if it's a controversial one.
Hi Rich,
I have a few questions for you.
1. Who is the creative director of the 4e Realms campaign setting? Does this person role-play in 3e FR? Has this person ever role-played in the Realms?
2. Are there any game designers working on 4e FR that have never played in a Realms game in 3e? Which 4e FR game designers have played in 3e FR? When was the last time they played?
3. I know Ed Greenwood is working on the campaign setting, but it seems like he is on the side lines. (only working outside of Faerun) Will he be working on the "new" pantheon? Will he do any work on the main continent? If so then what regions?
4. I believe Chris Perkins said that some of the Realms designers were opposed to the changes at first. If the statement is inaccurate please correct me. If it is accurate could you tell us who was in favor of the changes and who was opposed to the changes? Did the designers in favor of the changes play in 3e Realms games?
5. Who at WotC made the final decision to move forward with the 4e changes to the pantheon and the weave?
6. After seeing the reactions from the Realms community do you regret the decision to make the changes? If you had the option would you take a mulligan?
I'm sorry about the negativity in some of my other posts. I need to stop posting when my blood pressure is up.
I understand if you can't fully answer every question, but please try to be as candid as possible. Many Realms fan are very upset about the changes and there is a growing perception that the changes were made by people who don't like or role-play in Forgotten Realms. I think we all know your long history with the Realms. So please don't think these questions are about you.
So, question for the Designer: Will there be any non-human deities we're familiar with that will replace a Faerunian deity or be adopted into the pantheon?
1. Bill Slavicsek is the VP of RPG R&D. Chris Perkins is the Design Manager, which most closely corresponds to creative director. Bruce Cordell is heading up the design team working on the 4e FRCS; two years ago I headed up the revision team that created the original story bible we're working from. I used to be the Creative Director for FR (2000-2003) but we've reorganized a few times since, so these days I'm just a senior designer. Chris ran Dungeon magazine for quite a long time, and produced several outstanding FR adventures. Bruce writes FR novels. I don't know about their playing histories, but I've certainly run FR campaigns in 3e (including the playtest campaigns for Silver Marches and Prison of the Firebringer).
Just a follow up question here...is there any games being run by the staff that have lasted for a very long time? Meaning games that have been ongoing for twenty years? Games that don't follow canon? That isn't a playtest? Where past PCs still exist and effect the world?
I am asking because with all the flavor changes and such...this edition doesn't seem very friendly to gamers who do run ongoing living campaigns. Maybe you guys just lost sight of the gamers who like that kind of game(or confuse us with RPGA members...sorry but a module driven camapign isn't much living by how I would define it, please not this is just opinion not a slight against the RPGA).
So in that light can you really say that the New FR is for everyone?
Yes. Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed dudes who want to be the god of destruction. I'm just sayin'....
Kill Mystra? So what... Waste 1/2 dozen Dwarvish deities, and kill off some Faeruûnian gods in a silly love-triangle? Whatever...
Mess with the Elvish powers? Never liked them anyway, buncha pansies...
And the Drow gods were always living in Lolth's shadow anyhow...
BUT, you're screwin' with the ORCISH PANTHEON?!
You, sir, have now crossed the line....
In the words of Ghandi - "Stop killing my sacred cows, dude!"
So far, I haven't been ecstatic about a single 4E decision.
Paladins not paragons of justice anymore, they're just random alignments in the candy jar? Thanks, but no thanks.
Deities who are all turning out to be pieces of giant tofu monsters? Thanks, but no thanks.
Loss of the Seven Sisters and Mystra in favor of...nothing? Thanks, but no thanks...
Vancean Magic System going bye bye? Thanks, but no thanks. It may not be perfect, but it's not D+D without it.
Orb, Staff, Wand? !@#$%%!!!
You never had that conversation, it has been retconned? Thanks, but no thanks. That's not D+D either.
Your cleric can't cast spells anymore, or has to make room on his sheet for the Servant of the Fallen feat? This is just outright unpleasant. Virtually NONE of the PC's in my FR have clerics that worship greater deities.
Let's look at this from a roleplaying perspective.
Well, a long time ago, I used to worship Eilistraee. But now, I worship Tofu. I really don't understand how I came to worship a deity with no personality that was really six other deities, but there it is. And you know, I still have all the same powers, and some new ones, but you know, the Tofu doesn't have the same personality.
A long time ago, I used to worship the Red Knight. But now, I worship Tempus. Seems the Red Knight was just Tempus as if he were a girl, and I've been confused all this time. I don't know how I could have made such a mistake, what with my Knowledge: Religion Check of +15, so whereas before, I was a smart, capable warrior priest or priestess, now I'm a complete idiot! They say you learn something new every day. I learned that my god LIED TO ME! AND he's a cross dresser!
Want to lose all your players? Implement these religions.
What about Lurue? Will she be the new goddess of Magic? That would entertain me greatly, as that was Ed's original idea.
Yes. Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed dudes who want to be the god of destruction. I'm just sayin'....
If it should happen on-stage (between their followers, that is), it could be entertaining. Orcs storming the temples, lightning erupting from the skies in response...other gods standing back, asking, "So who are we supposed to root for?"
Thanks for answering my question, btw.
Answering as best I can...
1. Bill Slavicsek is the VP of RPG R&D. Chris Perkins is the Design Manager, which most closely corresponds to creative director. Bruce Cordell is heading up the design team working on the 4e FRCS; two years ago I headed up the revision team that created the original story bible we're working from. I used to be the Creative Director for FR (2000-2003) but we've reorganized a few times since, so these days I'm just a senior designer. Chris ran Dungeon magazine for quite a long time, and produced several outstanding FR adventures. Bruce writes FR novels. I don't know about their playing histories, but I've certainly run FR campaigns in 3e (including the playtest campaigns for Silver Marches and Prison of the Firebringer).
2. You'll have to ask them. Rob Heinsoo, Logan Bonner, Bruce Cordell, Chris Sims, Phil Athans, and Ed Greenwood are the guys currently engaged in the design and writing.
3. Ed is doing work in Faerun as well as elsewhere. He didn't have that much to do with the pantheon, but some of our big plans stem from a proposal he set forward many years ago that he called "the Sleeping Gods."
4. Depends which changes and which designers. We oppose things all the time. Debate, reasoned argument, and consensus are the tools of our trade.
5. That was a consensus decision made at the time we worked up the revision guide. Bruce, Phil, and I were the primary authors of the guide. Chris and Bill OK'd it.
6. Some parts, sure. Much of this work is highly subjective, so it's hard to prove that a storyline development is right or wrong. Some of you on the boards didn't like the Tyr-Helm storyline. We thought it was interesting to draw on real-world mythology for a bit of fallibility, caprice, and ironic doom. Will all Realms fans hate that? Not likely. Will some? Well, sure. Clearly a dozen posters on this board do, but that doesn't mean everyone does. Do I regret what we're doing? No, not really. I think it's the right course, even if it's a controversial one.
Thank you for responding and for being candid. On point number 3 are the "sleeping gods" that you are talking about the Shadervari, dark primordial beings that predate the creation of Shar and Selune. Is Volumvax, the character in Paul Kemp's novels and one of the Shadervari. Just asking.
Hmm, Ed thought of having Lurue as a deity of magic?
Chris Perkins already pretty much said that the answer to that is no. It occurs to me that there may be no need to switch to 4.0, or to give Wizards a dime ever again.
So far, I haven't been ecstatic about a single 4E decision.
Paladins not paragons of justice anymore, they're just random alignments in the candy jar? Thanks, but no thanks.
Deities who are all turning out to be pieces of giant tofu monsters? Thanks, but no thanks.
Loss of the Seven Sisters and Mystra in favor of...nothing? Thanks, but no thanks...
Vancean Magic System going bye bye? Thanks, but no thanks. It may not be perfect, but it's not D+D without it.
Orb, Staff, Wand? !@#$%%!!!
You never had that conversation, it has been retconned? Thanks, but no thanks. That's not D+D either.
Your cleric can't cast spells anymore, or has to make room on his sheet for the Servant of the Fallen feat? This is just outright unpleasant. Virtually NONE of the PC's in my FR have clerics that worship greater deities.
Let's look at this from a roleplaying perspective.
Well, a long time ago, I used to worship Eilistraee. But now, I worship Tofu. I really don't understand how I came to worship a deity with no personality that was really six other deities, but there it is. And you know, I still have all the same powers, and some new ones, but you know, the Tofu doesn't have the same personality.
A long time ago, I used to worship the Red Knight. But now, I worship Tempus. Seems the Red Knight was just Tempus as if he were a girl, and I've been confused all this time. I don't know how I could have made such a mistake, what with my Knowledge: Religion Check of +15, so whereas before, I was a smart, capable warrior priest or priestess, now I'm a complete idiot! They say you learn something new every day. I learned that my god LIED TO ME! AND he's a cross dresser!
Want to lose all your players? Implement these religions.
What about Lurue? Will she be the new goddess of Magic? That would entertain me greatly, as that was Ed's original idea.
OMG!! for once I stand with you and compliment you on your words and views! Good job Msatran, you said everything I and many, many other consumer fans have been feeling about this joke of an edition. I'm with you!
A long time ago, I used to worship the Red Knight. But now, I worship Tempus. Seems the Red Knight was just Tempus as if he were a girl, and I've been confused all this time. I don't know how I could have made such a mistake, what with my Knowledge: Religion Check of +15, so whereas before, I was a smart, capable warrior priest or priestess, now I'm a complete idiot! They say you learn something new every day. I learned that my god LIED TO ME! AND he's a cross dresser!
Always wondered why in Salvatore's books barbarians are dominated by misogyny. Thanks for clearing up that aspect.:D
Btw, what does retcon means?
Always wondered why in Salvatore's books barbarians are dominated by misogyny. Thanks for clearing up that aspect.:D
Btw, what does retcon means?
Comes from Comic Books. Its a way of changing something to something else and saying this is how its always been despite what you remember.
For example, Sehanine has a long history and is not Native to the Realms. It would be retconning to say that in reality all that history you've ever heard about here never actually happened she was actually justSelune with a mask on. None of that other stuff you heard about with her history actually happened. Never existed. You imagined it all.
---
This is silly. This is absolutely silly.
I'm not even a proper FR fan, I'm just a user who found FR to be a better place to play in than Eberron. And now you're erasing everything that made FR the better choice and replacing it with sheer nonsense.
I'll be sticking with the old style. Me and my 300-odd players and DMs.
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions here on the boards despite the oscillating atmosphere that trends to the hostile/negative. I have some questions of my own and would be very glad if you found the time to answer them:
1. a) I am nowhere near as invested in the Forgotten Realms as most people on this board and although I am a primarily a Pen and Pencil D&D gamer, most of my Forgotten Realms exposure comes from D&D FR computer games such as the Baldur's Gate series or Newerwinter Nights 2, though I did read some Forgotten Realms rulebooks too. As such, I am not opposed to most of the changes that you have presented as happening in Forgotten Realms so far. I even like the fact that there will be fewer gods, as the sheer number of gods was probably by far the most confusing aspect about the Realms for me. Still, the negative reaction of the more experienced Forgotten Realms' crowd to the changes is rubbing off on me to a certain extent. It is hard to remain excited about something in such an atmosphere. My question is how does WotC plan to entice new gamers to Forgotten Realms if the proposed changes hamstring the network of Forgotten Realms enthusiasts - people who are crucial to selling Forgotten Realms to new players by word of mouth and by acting as repositories of knowledge about the Realms, excitedly passing it on to enquiring new souls seeking more knowledge about the game. Seeing the reaction - this crucial network may be close to disintegration. As such, what do you (meaning WotC, not necessarily you personally) plan to do to address this issue? Do you foresee a possible demise of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting due to this problem?
1. b) Making vast changes to the setting, you must have known you would alienate a large percentage of the existing Forgotten Realms fanbase. Apparently, the purpose of those changes is to open up Forgotten Realms to new gamers, but the design philosophy behind the setting seems to be moving towards the design philosophy underlying the Eberron campaign setting, which has ostensibly been more successful in enticing new gamers and generating sales than Forgotten Realms. I wonder why is this being done at the cost of a large section of the existing fanbase, when the ultimate result is likely to be decreased differentiation between Forgotten Realms and Eberron and competition between the two for the same players, even as many of the old FR players who prefer the previous style of FR, abandon it? If this is what is nonetheless desired, why not just make up a whole new setting for it instead?
2) Is it really worth it to throw out the high-level characters? Apart from the emotional/story attachments many 'old' FR players have towards them, the absence of other high-level characters than the PCs, feels like it is not a living world, where things are happening in the background whatever the PCs decide, or don't decide to do.
3) In some ways, the changes you are implementing seem like they make it feasible to minimize changes in the future. I don't really have a problem with changes in general so long as I like the resluts, but for the sake of those disgruntled by this, can you commit that there will be at least 3-year time periods (measured in RL) between any further major storywise upheavals in the Realms?
We'll probably retcon the divine rank of minor deities (folks like the Red Knight or Clangeddin). Something like the Selune-Sehanine situation I mentioned earlier would not be handled through a retcon per se. More than that I can't say right now.
Thank you for responding Rich. I know I may not voice my comments as softly as I should, I try though.
Well, I expect some "retcons" based on the rules. The divine rank system was a 3e ruleset and now 4E is using something else, so logically the divine ranks have to shift. However, you can completely change the rules while maintaining both the core and details of a character or aspect of the setting.*
Whether the Red Knight is the equivalent of DR 1, 5, or 10 does not matter too much as long as she is still patron deity of warfare strategy and tactics, serves Tempus and has specific relationships and attitudes towards certain other deities. If she were to suddenly overtake Tempus or begin a feud with Torm then it takes some explanation, but depending on the explanation it can work. However, if she were suddenly retconned as Bane's strong right hand (retcon in relationships) or changed to a deity of personal combat and skill at arms (retcon in identity) it would be something else entirely. The problem is that the Selune/Sehanine thing is leaning closer to a retcon of the fundamental identities and defining relationships of long established deities. I can't help but feel the Realms has more to lose than gain from this drastic reduction. Hopefully as you hinted the change is more complex than this, but right now it sounds rather bland as do many of the changes of 4E (regardless of the results, which is a separate concern that makes me wary of enjoying the new Realms).
*Just like in the new edition you could simply state that Elminster is a 21st level wizard rather than a 29th level wizard (with additional classes and temples for a total of CR 39 nonetheless). It does not contradict the flavor and history of the character much, at either level, Elminster is still an archmage and sage. I think the main thing is that the NPCs don't need to break the rules to maintain their personas and positions. I feel many of the high-level NPC problems will be alleviated by just such a simple update. Not providing stats at all could be another significant solution. Another is just not focusing on the iconic characters. People will start believing the new Realms are for the PCs when the books stop focusing on the NPCs; however, that does not mean the NPCs have to be killed.
That is another hope I have; that while WotC is trying to reduce the prominence of certain NPCs I hope they aren't just going to be slaughtered wholesale. I think it would be a great opportunity for stories showing them in a state of severely reduced power and struggling to fit into this new world. Essentially I hope that WotC will try to redeem some of those 'problematic' NPCs rather than just discarding them. I'm not talking about Elminster or Drizzt either, but rather everyone else who may be getting the ax.
Something like the Selune-Sehanine situation I mentioned earlier would not be handled through a retcon per se. More than that I can't say right now.
This is not a question to Rich, but rather trying to come up with an idea of how and why the deities get as they are in 4E. :D And a little thought to throw out to ya'll.
Since we will possibly see an Abeir-Toril and the emergence of the Feywild and Shadowfell, what has been conjectured to mean that two worlds will collide and create a brand new world where high elves are really eladrin. Why can't this work for the gods themselves?
Consider Selune and Sehanine, the example used by Rich himself. What if, in the early dawn of history, these 2 goddesses where actually a part of a whole, and with the split of the two worlds, had to separate duties and aspects in order to keep the two worlds apart. Thus when the two worlds collide they will go back to being one goddess, still the same, but known differently to different people.
There's also another idea, and how exactly it fits I cannot say :D But how about gods taking on more characteristics of others (bestial, for example: Talos subsumes Gruumsh and takes on a more bestial aspect as a god.) becoming more than they were before.
And a third idea is: Sehanine was always a deity who worked for Selune, a minor aspect of Selune, so to speak. And with the collision of the two worlds she asks Selune to grant her followers spells and thus becomes a demigod in service to Selune AND Corellon. Both are goddesses of mystery, so they should have fair warning of what is about to happen.
These are just a few ideas, and I am not saying they will work for the Realms, but before we see just what Rich and the others come up with we can't really judge just how much "Forgotten Realms feel" it has. I can understand being slightly upset by seeing a favourite deity go, but without knowing how it is written....
To Rich: I think people are more fearful of something like the Tyr-Helm write-up in GHotR than anything.
To everyone else: Changes are good, it makes us evolve. Personally I feel the Realms has needed to evolve for a loooooong time. So far, all the realms has gotten is a facelift now and again, its never radically changed.
To everyone else: Changes are good, it makes us evolve. Personally I feel the Realms has needed to evolve for a loooooong time. So far, all the realms has gotten is a facelift now and again, its never radically changed.
Really now...name a evolution that has happened in nature in recorded history that was benificial? I'll wait....The truth is most evolution in nature has lead to that species extinction.
So a change can be good or bad. A more natutal change to the Realms would have been a good change...this change is less than good. True this entirely opinion but please don't say change is good as a blanket statement it can be easily torn to shreds. As most absolute statewments can be...
If you like the change that is great...I am happy for you. Me I like to play ongoing games which I am thinking WotC has stopped caring to support my playing style. So the only way I'll but 4th edition is if the new system is easily changed to the flavor I have liked...
as for the New Realms...well I will like to think my Realms game(and hopefuly the one I play in) will evolve beyond a publish world setting and become more home brew....
If you like the change that is great...I am happy for you. Me I like to play ongoing games which I am thinking WotC has stopped caring to support my playing style. So the only way I'll but 4th edition is if the new system is easily changed to the flavor I have liked...
Unfortunately ongoing games are the exception rather than the rule. I wish I could say I've played in a game as long as you have, but the truth is most games don't last nearly that long, so it's not a feasible to make business decisions based on the most likely superior but much much more difficult to maintain and less common play style.
OMG!! for once I stand with you and compliment you on your words and views! Good job Msatran, you said everything I and many, many other consumer fans have been feeling about this joke of an edition. I'm with you!
Is this not one of the signs of the apocalypse? GEV and msatran agreeing with each other??? :D :P
Good job Msatran, you said everything I and many, many other consumer fans have been feeling about this joke of an edition.
"...many, many other..." ????
Let it never be said that the zealots allowed reasoned thinking to stand between them and their assumptions!
Unfortunately ongoing games are the exception rather than the rule. I wish I could say I've played in a game as long as you have, but the truth is most games don't last nearly that long, so it's not a feasible to make business decisions based on the most likely superior but much much more difficult to maintain and less common play style.
I have yet to see any data to support this that ongoing games are the exception. I wouldn't say they are a rule. Heck you might be right that now a days it might be the 1 year( or college games) campaigns and then on to other stuff. But I don't think this is the case or atleast I think there are alot more ongoing games out there then you might think.
But anyway my statement was totaly from my own perspective...I am not asking them to form bussiness policy on my opinion. If next year rolls around and they double the books they sale I'll tip my hat to then and congratulate them(though I still think they could have done it without the changes they did do). But right now it looks like they are going to be producing a product that is no longer useful to me.
Does it hurt me slightly? Sure I have defended D&D from attackers from the people who think it is evil, or just a waste of time, or a nerd activity or from other RPers who think it is hack n' slash. It has been my favorite past time since I have been 10 years old. I have gotten lots of people interested in D&D. Now they seem to be moving in directions I don't like...and worst yet sometimes they seem to mocking things I liked. Sure time move on but that doesn't mean it hurts anyless especialy with something that has withstood the test of time like D&D did.
Will I play 4th edition or in the new Realms...sure I'll give it a try; I do play other games besides D&D. But when my main group decides if they are going to convert as of right now with everything I have seen my vote will be no. They are simply changing too much of the flavor(yeah I know flavor can be changed...but why bother when I have 3.x which marrys the flavor and mechanics so well in places and the others places are easy to fix). I just don't get how it is sound bussiness to alienate prexisting customers base
I have yet to see any data to support this that ongoing games are the exception.
Your initial post indicated you were talking about campaigns that had lasted several years, if not decades. I think that was the perspective Reneshat was coming from.
As a rule, most games don't reach high level, very high level or epic levels.
Here's the kicker: WotC is trying to get games to last longer by upping the level cap and making each level be something cool (that way 'dead levels' don't happen that much or at all).
If each level is more interesting, then players keep wanting to play. Enthusiasm (hopefully) leads to campaigns lasting longer.
So....maybe try looking at what WotC is doing not so much as ending support for existing campaigns as trying to ensure each new (4E) campaign lasts longer than its 3E equivalent.
But I don't think this is the case or atleast I think there are alot more ongoing games out there then you might think.
In my experience, which is pretty large at least locally, is that if a game lasts 2 years, it is considered a long game. Most games around here last somewhere between 6 to 18 months. My friend boasts a "campaign" that has lasted for years, but really it's just the same world with a revolving door of players and games with large amounts of time in between bits of activity in the world. Since next time it gets played in, odds are none of the players will know how the previous games have shaped the world they are now playing in, it's not really the same campaign at all.
All this being said, I am hoping there are more games out there that last 3 to 5 years than occur around here, but even so, games with lengths such as yours would be so statistically small as to truly be an exception. It's not saying they don't exist, just that the number of 2 month long campaigns that don't last because the DM stinks, he didn't get loyal players, or because stuff just came up, unfortunately outnumbers them. Before you ask, no I don't have any study that backs this up on me, however I wouldn't be surprised if there is one out there.
From the DM who earlier tonight/last night saw the disastrous end of the campaign he had been running for about 3 months when one of the players decided to randomly turn Chaotic Stupid(Evil) and most of the other players didn't seem to mind that
Is this not one of the signs of the apocalypse? GEV and msatran agreeing with each other??? :D :P
Hey. I was surprised.
Your initial post indicated you were talking about campaigns that had lasted several years, if not decades. I think that was the perspective Reneshat was coming from.
That what I was refering to....I also think I made it clear that there is no way to know the numbers of ongoing games vs the short game....
As a rule, most games don't reach high level, very high level or epic levels.
I wouldn't say that is a rule...about 90% of the games I play in go to about a min. of 17th level. The other major groups go about as high if not higher...the lowest level I think is about 15 th level is where the DM just doesn't like running that high due to powerlevel.
Here's the kicker: WotC is trying to get games to last longer by upping the level cap and making each level be something cool (that way 'dead levels' don't happen that much or at all).
No there are trying to fit more leveling in a shorter time period by speeding up the rate of leveling. Games will last just as long but end at a higherr level. As for dead levels...I really never cared one way or the other...besides most levels you get skill points to spend, your saves go up etc...I mean sure there are some dead levels but sometimes those are the best levels because you can level your character in about 3 minutes and get back to the game...
If each level is more interesting, then players keep wanting to play. Enthusiasm (hopefully) leads to campaigns lasting longer.
There is really two reasons I have find that people stop playing at a certain level...besides attrition to bad DMs, bad players, or RL stuff coming into play(which no rules system will ever change.)
1) It is a game played during college which starts at the start of the year and end at the last day...
2) There are actualy people out there that don't like high power games...they don't like running gamnes where the PCs are epic. These people also probably will have no interest in the new edition. Heck with the faster rate of leveling these people campaigns will end very quickly.
So....maybe try looking at what WotC is doing not so much as ending support for existing campaigns as trying to ensure each new (4E) campaign lasts longer than its 3E equivalent.
Sure but it won't because they are gearing the game towards the quick campaigns...
Also they could have done in it in a way that doesn't kill(or atleast get those existing ongoing games to convert) by doing it and a thousand time better manners...but like I said I think that the designers don't know(very little experience with) long lasting and ongoing games.
In my experience, which is pretty large at least locally, is that if a game lasts 2 years, it is considered a long game. Most games around here last somewhere between 6 to 18 months. My friend boasts a "campaign" that has lasted for years, but really it's just the same world with a revolving door of players and games with large amounts of time in between bits of activity in the world. Since next time it gets played in, odds are none of the players will know how the previous games have shaped the world they are now playing in, it's not really the same campaign at all.
All this being said, I am hoping there are more games out there that last 3 to 5 years than occur around here, but even so, games with lengths such as yours would be so statistically small as to truly be an exception. It's not saying they don't exist, just that the number of 2 month long campaigns that don't last because the DM stinks, he didn't get loyal players, or because stuff just came up, unfortunately outnumbers them. Before you ask, no I don't have any study that backs this up on me, however I wouldn't be surprised if there is one out there.
You see the thing is...I just don't think I am that lucky as to find such a game(by the way the ongoing living game I have only been playing for about 15 years...). Is it such a abberation?
I don't have a study to back me up either just a gut feeling...that most study of this nature will not be accurate as gamers are a very...different from each other...but if there was a study I would definitly like to see it.
From the DM who earlier tonight/last night saw the disastrous end of the campaign he had been running for about 3 months when one of the players decided to randomly turn Chaotic Stupid(Evil) and most of the other players didn't seem to mind that
I am sorry to hear this...that pretty much sucks. But do you really think new rules will change these players?
Hey, this coming October, I will hit 20 years of Forgotten Realms. I just don't know if it's going to be worth it to make the switch.
There's some things I definitely do not like, but I'm willing to give it a shot once I'm able to look at the changes in their finished product as a complete work.
That's awesome that you've been playing in the Realms for that long!
To Rich Baker and any other designer for the last serveral posts there has been a disdcuusion about ongoing living games and the quick short game. I am curious as to your opinion on these matters.
To everyone else: Changes are good, it makes us evolve.
Not all changes are good, and not all evolution is good either. "Evolve" is not a synonym for "improve".
Will there be FR specific Talent trees for certain classes Rich?
So....maybe try looking at what WotC is doing not so much as ending support for existing campaigns as trying to ensure each new (4E) campaign lasts longer than its 3E equivalent.
Interesting Point, and I am forced to agree with the logic behind it. ;)
I played in one long game (off and on for sevral years, but not steady), where the characters reached high levels (20+). Every single other D&D campaign I've been involved with has only run a few months to a year, unfortunately.
The one long campaign I was in was back when we were young and didn't have much responsiblilty, so it was easy to get together nearly every weekend. The problem is, as gamers get older, they have more on their plate and less time to play - I'm hoping the DI might be able to solve some of that, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I could get behind an edition that didn't allow people to grow bored so quickly - I'm just wondering how they'll overcome that roadblock. Internet gaming can be fun, but it has a completely different feel from face-to-face gaming (and you don't get any Doritoes!)
I WILL start a game up using 4th edition rules when they come out, although I think my campaign will definately be in an 'Alternate Reality' FR - which it always has been anyway. I'll consider it a 'test drive', and am greatly interested in seeing if "campaign shelf-life" can truly be extended by a new ruleset.
I was just kidding with my earlier Orcish Pantheon comments - although it did leave me shaking my head once again. It will be interesting to see whats left of the cosmology we know when all this is over. However, just because something is 'interesting' doesn't neccesarily make it 'good'. I find virulent diseases interesting as well - but I wouldn't enjoy one.
Question: With all this talk of 'Magical Traditions', does this mean that each different type of caster uses different sources of power, or will some of them be 'tapping into' the same sources, but using different methods?
Not all changes are good, and not all evolution is good either. "Evolve" is not a synonym for "improve".
That's called involution. Or more to the point, retroactive evolution.:D
Here's a question for Mr. Baker. What is going to happen with the half-elves? Are they still going to be the weak race compared to the other like they are in 3E? Back in 2E, they were one of the best races, due to the high number of multiclasses available to them. In 3E they only got some minor skills and resistances.
I am sorry to hear this...that pretty much sucks. But do you really think new rules will change these players?
Not unless the new rules come with legal exemptions for DMs who flog their players for doing things so awful that it can turn the DMs stomach. Apparently some of the players didn't mind what he was doing, and thought I was being too tough. Other players never wanted to play with him again. So in all, there was no way to keep the game going.
There will be some new "builds" published in the FR player character sourcebook, but I don't think you could call those FR-specific talent trees.
From what I've heard, races in the PHB have a number of Racial Talents they can select in place of Class Talents. So are these builds about mixing specific Talents in order to create a better representation of something?
For instance, you said a while back that Sun Elves, Moon Elves, and Star Elves are mechanically Eladrin. So will there be 'builds' so people can see how most Sun Elves look like in comparison to Moon Elves (I.E. An Eladrin with Talents A, C, G, and L is a good representation of a Sun Elf, while an Eladrin with Talents B, E, I, and J is a good representation of a Moon Elf)? Is that what you mean, Rich?
We've got sound research data on that question (a few years old, but the most serious market research effort we've done in the 16 years I've been in the business), but I'm not sure that I'm allowed to say much about the results. Shorter campaigns are more commonplace than longer campaigns, but that might be simply stating the obvious. Asimov's "Rule of the Multiple Smalls" would tell you that much.
So I am guessing that I am right in that the new edition is geared towards more the shorter campaigns than long ongoing ones? I mean from all appearences it looks that way to me already...so is there anything in the rules to support a long lasting living world with multiple groups of adventures going though it?(No I don't mean the RPGA)
I mean do you have alternative experience chart to slow down leveling?
Or will come out with game mechanics that continue to support the classical flavor?
How flexable will the rules be in recreating the old flavor?
I mean would you say it would be worth it for people like myself to convert to 4th edition?
So I am guessing that I am right in that the new edition is geared towards more the shorter campaigns than long ongoing ones? I mean from all appearences it looks that way to me already...so is there anything in the rules to support a long lasting living world with multiple groups of adventures going though it?(No I don't mean the RPGA)
I mean do you have alternative experience chart to slow down leveling?
Or will come out with game mechanics that continue to support the classical flavor?
How flexable will the rules be in recreating the old flavor?
I mean would you say it would be worth it for people like myself to convert to 4th edition?
He's going to say he thinks there are lot's of good things in the new edition, but you should wait and check it out for yourself. However, when it comes to the experience, do what I (and the RPGA for that matter) do and gimp experience and wealth/magic item gain rates. That way it stays balanced, and it lasts longer. If all I'm doing is a short dungeon crawl campaign, I use the charts in the DMG, otherwise, slow it down. The experience moves a bit too fast in 3.5, so who knows how fast it's going to be in 4ed.
So I am guessing that I am right in that the new edition is geared towards more the shorter campaigns than long ongoing ones?
John.....there are 30 levels in 4th edition.
I mean, that's a fact man.
I haven't seen any statement by WotC that they are going to shorten the gap between each level.
And even if they do....once again: 30 levels.
What good reason is there to think the 'old flavor' is going to go away?
What good reason is there to think long-lasting campaigns won't work in 4E?
People used to rip WotC for leveling in 3E being "too fast" ....when it fact it wasn't. That was just people jumping on the bandwagon and not thinking first.
Let's wait and see what they do first before we start assuming campaigns won't work.
People used to rip WotC for leveling in 3E being "too fast" ....when it fact it wasn't.
How is that a fact? It was neither too fast nor too slow, because it depends on how fast or slow the individual wants it to be.
DB
John.....there are 30 levels in 4th edition.
I mean, that's a fact man.
I haven't seen any statement by WotC that they are going to shorten the gap between each level.
Actually, the interval between levelling has been shortened, so that it now takes the same amount of time to reach level 30 as it used to take to reach level 20 in the 3.X edition. There have been several statements to that effect, one of which can be found here:
http://uk.gamespy.com/articles/819/819068p3.html
John.....there are 30 levels in 4th edition.
I mean, that's a fact man.
And there was technically a infinite level in 3.x...but realisticaly up to thirty was playable. So 3.x had atleast up to 30 levels.
I haven't seen any statement by WotC that they are going to shorten the gap between each level.
Roman pointed out where they did say this.
And even if they do....once again: 30 levels.
Again 3.x had 30+ levels....
What good reason is there to think the 'old flavor' is going to go away?
Um...have you read any of the Design & Developement articles?
What good reason is there to think long-lasting campaigns won't work in 4E?
Sure I suppose you could...but it is very tough to convert one from 3.x to 4th.
People used to rip WotC for leveling in 3E being "too fast" ....when it fact it wasn't. That was just people jumping on the bandwagon and not thinking first.
I think 1st and 2nd were a little too slow at times...3.x is just about the speed I like to see leveling(and can be a little too fast).
Let's wait and see what they do first before we start assuming campaigns won't work.
They have revealed alot of infomation already that gives a very strong hints as to what it is going to be like though....
He's going to say he thinks there are lot's of good things in the new edition, but you should wait and check it out for yourself. However, when it comes to the experience, do what I (and the RPGA for that matter) do and gimp experience and wealth/magic item gain rates. That way it stays balanced, and it lasts longer. If all I'm doing is a short dungeon crawl campaign, I use the charts in the DMG, otherwise, slow it down. The experience moves a bit too fast in 3.5, so who knows how fast it's going to be in 4ed.
Sure you can...but I'll point out they have said they have worked the encounters, Exp chart, etc to a very fine mathimatical equation...so how easy to you think that would be to tinker with?
Also it seems like the game will be all about the leveling to the point where they have to give all races racial abilities so that your race choice effects you thoughout your adventureing career. What next level abilities based on you gender so your choice of gender will have a impact?
Sure you can...but I'll point out they have said they have worked the encounters, Exp chart, etc to a very fine mathimatical equation...so how easy to you think that would be to tinker with?
Pretty easy actually. They worked the encounters, experience chart, and wealth by level so that everything would move at the pace they thought was best. However, if you cut the experience and wealth by the same percentage, wham, you now have characters of the same power level at the same level, facing the same encounters, still as balanced, only it takes longer to progress. Just look at the RPGA's own "living campaign." They cut back the rate at which you gain wealth and experience so that the game takes longer to progress. If the RPGA does it, then obviously the rate of leveling is only as important as the players and DM want it to be.
Pretty easy actually. They worked the encounters, experience chart, and wealth by level so that everything would move at the pace they thought was best. However, if you cut the experience and wealth by the same percentage, wham, you now have characters of the same power level at the same level, facing the same encounters, still as balanced, only it takes longer to progress. Just look at the RPGA's own "living campaign." They cut back the rate at which you gain wealth and experience so that the game takes longer to progress. If the RPGA does it, then obviously the rate of leveling is only as important as the players and DM want it to be.
That was 3.x...which never claimed to be carefully mathmaticaly balanced unlike 4th edition.
How is that a fact? It was neither too fast nor too slow, because it depends on how fast or slow the individual wants it to be.
You're talking about house-ruling the rate of advancement.
I'm talking about using the rules as written, as opposed to the assumptions made by otherws about the RAW.
:::::::::::
TY for the link, Roman.
:::::::::::
johnkretzer
Incorrect.
Third Edition and its revision had 20 levels. Class progressions, monsters, the game mechanics...all geared to 20 levels of play. See the PHB.
Mechanical progressions for classes, spellcasting, etc... all change with Epic Level.
The Epic Level Handbook was designed for those very few campaigns that progressed past twenty levels, or that wanted to start play at higher levels.
The exception for D&D was the Forgotten Realms. The intial 3E design for the Forgotten Realms assumed the ELH rules would be incorporated into the Realms, but by the time the FRCS was printed the ELH rules hadn't even been completed yet (see the Epic NPC stats in the FRCS).
I remember when being 15th level MEANT something. People used to think...holy !@#$!@. Your character got to 15th level? That's AMAZING!
And I liked that ethic. It made me feel special and it made my players feel special, and we felt good about ourselves. Now we're grognards for having to work at it.
Now 15th level is a dime a dozen, and I'm looking for the guy who's supplying the dimes. The problem with the 7 sisters and Elminster, if there was a problem, wasn't the 7 sisters and Elminster. It was that being 15th-18th level suddenly wasn't particularly special. I guarantee you that most games will still take place between levels 5-15, and end. The new ranges don't mean ANYTHING. It's what the metatext of the game says.
I remember when being 15th level MEANT something.
It still does.
Now 15th level is a dime a dozen...
In your campaigns, maybe. I've never seen campaigns pump up characters to 15th level like it was nothing, and I doubt most campaigns do.
In your campaigns, maybe. I've never seen campaigns pump up characters to 15th level like it was nothing, and I doubt most campaigns do.
Wow way to miss someones point.
If you haven't seen alot of campaigns hit 15th just wait till 4th edition...which was his point.
That was 3.x...which never claimed to be carefully mathmaticaly balanced unlike 4th edition.
4ed, carefully mathematically balanced? I hear there is a monster living in Loch Ness as well.....
I would like to ask you and the design team to reconsider the scope of the changes in 4e Realms. I know that there will still be many changes, but do the changes really need to be so drastic?
I noticed that some early defenders of the 4e changes on the boards are starting to complain about 4e as much as the rest of us. It doesn't look like our arguments against 4e are changing their minds. It looks like each new change that gets released causes 4e to loose a few more supporters.
A few pages back you said, "Tyr is out and Torm is in." To most Realms fans that is no big deal. To Hammer of Tyr it was a very big deal. You killed his favorite god in a few lines. The moment he saw that Forgotten Realms lost a long time fan. He won't buy 4e Realms books and he will likely be a source of negative word of mouth for the "new" setting. He can't be the only fan of Tyr to feel that way.
The loss of one costumer doesn't matter. WotC is a big company. The loss of a few fans doesn't even matter. Now multiply Hammer of Tyr by the number of gods that you plan to kill, demote, and retcon out of existence. Add in the fans of soon to be dead NPCs. Now add the people who liked the Weave. Don't forget about the people who like the Red Wizards of Thay or other regions and groups which get destroyed. Finely add to that number the people who just don't like the cumulative effect of the changes. Do you see what I'm getting at? You loose a few fans here and a few fans there with each new change that we find out about. Sooner or latter you'll be left with only the fans of Shar.
You will help the setting tremendously, in my opinion, if you cut back the changes to a minimum. Instead of 40 gods could you make it 80? Do you really need to throw out racial pantheons? Couldn't you let the demi-gods have clerics still?
Each new change right now is just another cut that bleeds away a few more Realms fans. Please be careful the setting doesn't fall victim to the death of a thousand cuts. From where I stand it looks like Forgotten Realms is hemorrhaging fans.
Can't heroes be short, or fat, or have flaws anymore? What's wrong with playing a character that has a few weaknesses? That, to me, seems to be the big problem. Everything's becoming too stylized and CGI smooth.
D+D does not need plastic surgery.
So, everyone. What do I tell my players?
Do I tell them: I'm sorry. You're a bard. There are no rules for you? Your character dies?
Do I tell them: Oh, you've always really been worshipping this deity, no matter what's happened in the gameworld. Your character's a moron?
Do I tell them: Well, you were a druid, but now, you're just a cleric of a nature god with a secondary ranger focus, so suck it up?
These are NOT ways to win friends and influence people among gamers. My question is really how can you possibly countenance such behavior for people who love their characters and have played them for a really long time?
It's unethical, it's inconsiderate, and the bad Dungeon Mastering you folks are trying to prevent will actually get promoted instead.
There's my two lead pieces, because obviously, my two copper pieces aren't worth anything.
I hear there is a monster living in Loch Ness as well.....
Only for the tourist season. In the winter she goes to her private bay on Corfu. ;)
It still does.
In your campaigns, maybe. I've never seen campaigns pump up characters to 15th level like it was nothing, and I doubt most campaigns do.
In the last session of my campaign my players just hit lvl 11th and I'm DMing CotSQ, which means that they'll end with at least lvl 18th.
Hello Rich,
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions here on the boards despite the oscillating atmosphere that trends to the hostile/negative. I have some questions of my own and would be very glad if you found the time to answer them:
1. a) I am nowhere near as invested in the Forgotten Realms as most people on this board and although I am a primarily a Pen and Pencil D&D gamer, most of my Forgotten Realms exposure comes from D&D FR computer games such as the Baldur's Gate series or Newerwinter Nights 2, though I did read some Forgotten Realms rulebooks too. As such, I am not opposed to most of the changes that you have presented as happening in Forgotten Realms so far. I even like the fact that there will be fewer gods, as the sheer number of gods was probably by far the most confusing aspect about the Realms for me. Still, the negative reaction of the more experienced Forgotten Realms' crowd to the changes is rubbing off on me to a certain extent. It is hard to remain excited about something in such an atmosphere. My question is how does WotC plan to entice new gamers to Forgotten Realms if the proposed changes hamstring the network of Forgotten Realms enthusiasts - people who are crucial to selling Forgotten Realms to new players by word of mouth and by acting as repositories of knowledge about the Realms, excitedly passing it on to enquiring new souls seeking more knowledge about the game. Seeing the reaction - this crucial network may be close to disintegration. As such, what do you (meaning WotC, not necessarily you personally) plan to do to address this issue? Do you foresee a possible demise of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting due to this problem?
1. b) Making vast changes to the setting, you must have known you would alienate a large percentage of the existing Forgotten Realms fanbase. Apparently, the purpose of those changes is to open up Forgotten Realms to new gamers, but the design philosophy behind the setting seems to be moving towards the design philosophy underlying the Eberron campaign setting, which has ostensibly been more successful in enticing new gamers and generating sales than Forgotten Realms. I wonder why is this being done at the cost of a large section of the existing fanbase, when the ultimate result is likely to be decreased differentiation between Forgotten Realms and Eberron and competition between the two for the same players, even as many of the old FR players who prefer the previous style of FR, abandon it? If this is what is nonetheless desired, why not just make up a whole new setting for it instead?
2) Is it really worth it to throw out the high-level characters? Apart from the emotional/story attachments many 'old' FR players have towards them, the absence of other high-level characters than the PCs, feels like it is not a living world, where things are happening in the background whatever the PCs decide, or don't decide to do.
3) In some ways, the changes you are implementing seem like they make it feasible to minimize changes in the future. I don't really have a problem with changes in general so long as I like the resluts, but for the sake of those disgruntled by this, can you commit that there will be at least 3-year time periods (measured in RL) between any further major storywise upheavals in the Realms?
In your campaigns, maybe. I've never seen campaigns pump up characters to 15th level like it was nothing, and I doubt most campaigns do.
Wow way to miss someones point.
If you haven't seen alot of campaigns hit 15th just wait till 4th edition...which was his point.
quoted by MS "I remember when being 15th level MEANT something. People used to think...holy !@#$!@. Your character got to 15th level? That's AMAZING!
Now 15th level is a dime a dozen, and I'm looking for the guy who's supplying the dimes. "
MS was talking about the current edition. He may have been talking about 4E as well, but he was talking about "Here and Now" with this statement. So his point didn't really seem like it was about 4E but about the current edition. So to quote you
Wow way to miss someones point. .
Heh.
I have not seen any campaign I was in hit 15. I wouldn't mind it. I want to have fun. I really don't care if I met a player that got to 30th level in the current campaign. What I might say to him is "How do you like 4 hour encounters?" but not "Oh wow, your incredible for having reached such a lofty goal!" Most gamers young and old that I have met feel the same. People want to just relax and have fun with a game. This is a game for most people and a Lifestyle for a few IMO.
Posted by Roman
"I wonder why is this being done at the cost of a large section of the existing fanbase"
We do not know if this is at a cost to a large group or not. A large number of the vocal (nonlurker) ONLINE community may dislike the changes though. Does that mean a large group of FR consumers? If the online people really do what they say and not buy the FR 4E will that put a hurting on WOTCs sales? I am not sure. I just had a conversation with my gaming group last night. They do feel that you need to know quite a bit to play in the Realms. I told them that is not true and they partially agreed but they said that is "The Feel" of the Realms, whether it is true or not.
To Rich: I think people are more fearful of something like the Tyr-Helm write-up in GHotR than anything.
That, and all the other ways they are screwing up the Realms Pantheons. I think one key point that they FR designers missed was:
We like racially diverse deities and pantheons
Let me say it again:
We Like Racially Diverse Deities And Pantheons
And once more:
We Like Racially Diverse Deities And Pantheons
@Forgotten Realms Designers
Many of the things that you have implied that you are doing to the Realms Pantheons have not been been printed in a supplement and you can take them back. I understand that you have to change the divine ranks since in the new edition there will only be two ranks: Lesser and Greater. I also understand that each Lesser Deity will have to have a patron Greater Deity. I also understand that you only want to have about 20 (even though you said 30 originally) Greater Deities. And I know that some of the Lesser Deities die in the sundering of the Cosmos and the Spellplague. However, I suggest (and I believe that many of the other readers here and on other forums), that you might want to discontinue the outright theft of Lesser Deities (and even some Greater Deities from the sound of it) from the various Racial Pantheons (i.e. Elf, Orc, et cetera) and making them aspects of Human Deities and parts of Human Pantheons. To be honest, I find this concept vulgar and racist (please understand that I am not trying to call you or WotC racists, but this is how I feel about the concept). I also believe that this will destroy part of one of the key elements of the Realms, its racial diversity, not only amongst the Mortals, but amongst the Deities as well. THIS IS PART OF WHAT MAKES THE REALMS "REAL" FOR SO MANY REALMS FANS! If you don't trust me, ask us. Set up a sign up for you to send customer feedback surveys to snail mail addresses. Ask us what we want! Please, include us in the process. I am not saying that you should take everything we say and implement it, but you are in serious danger of angering your current customer base in hopes of encouraging new customers to buy into the "new" Realms. And I believe that for the Realms to survive, you will need not only the new customers, but the old as well.
This is a heartfelt plea from an Realms grognard who wishes to see the "new" edition of the Realms succeed even though he does agree with and outright dislikes many of the changes that have been implemented already for the "new" edition. I want to buy into the 4e Realms (both figuratively and literally). But every time I get over one atrocious change that has been implemented, I then read of another atrocious change.
It's unethical, it's inconsiderate
How is this unethical, for Bob's sake? Let's not get carried away here. Clearly you and your group are not who WotC wants to cater to. So stick to 3.5. Nobody forces you to pick up 4e as soon as it's published, so the exclusion of 3e concepts that don't get carried over into 4e is not unethical. In fact, I think many pro-4e folks will wait for additional supplements because the bare-bones version without gnomes, bards, druids and what have you doesn't allow you to continue playing with an existing party if it includes any of these. Maybe WotC hopes that you like the new ruleset so much that you start a new 4e campaign.
On topic: We started our campaign in 2001. By now the highest level in the party is 11th. So much for leveling being "too fast" / "too slow".
DB
And yes I see the humor in not having a question for this thread.
Originally Posted by Mr_Miscellany
In your campaigns, maybe. I've never seen campaigns pump up characters to 15th level like it was nothing, and I doubt most campaigns do.
quoted by MS "I remember when being 15th level MEANT something. People used to think...holy !@#$!@. Your character got to 15th level? That's AMAZING!
Now 15th level is a dime a dozen, and I'm looking for the guy who's supplying the dimes. "
MS was talking about the current edition. He may have been talking about 4E as well, but he was talking about "Here and Now" with this statement. So his point didn't really seem like it was about 4E but about the current edition. So to quote you Heh.
Actualy msatran point was that it used to mean more to be a 15th level character...now it won't mean as much since it is alot easier to get to 15th level in 4th edition.
I don't totaly agree with his point as I really don't like to brag about my characters that much. As long as I am having fun I don't care if my character remains at first level for 5 years. The character sheet and is a small part of my characters.
I have not seen any campaign I was in hit 15. I wouldn't mind it. I want to have fun. I really don't care if I met a player that got to 30th level in the current campaign. What I might say to him is "How do you like 4 hour encounters?" but not "Oh wow, your incredible for having reached such a lofty goal!" Most gamers young and old that I have met feel the same. People want to just relax and have fun with a game. This is a game for most people and a Lifestyle for a few IMO.
I agree completely so why are they making leveling such a big deal in this edition?
Hi Rich,
I would like to ask you and the design team to reconsider the scope of the changes in 4e Realms. I know that there will still be many changes, but do the changes really need to be so drastic?
I noticed that some early defenders of the 4e changes on the boards are starting to complain about 4e as much as the rest of us. It doesn't look like our arguments against 4e are changing their minds. It looks like each new change that gets released causes 4e to loose a few more supporters.
A few pages back you said, "Tyr is out and Torm is in." To most Realms fans that is no big deal. To Hammer of Tyr it was a very big deal. You killed his favorite god in a few lines. The moment he saw that Forgotten Realms lost a long time fan. He won't buy 4e Realms books and he will likely be a source of negative word of mouth for the "new" setting. He can't be the only fan of Tyr to feel that way.
The loss of one costumer doesn't matter. WotC is a big company. The loss of a few fans doesn't even matter. Now multiply Hammer of Tyr by the number of gods that you plan to kill, demote, and retcon out of existence. Add in the fans of soon to be dead NPCs. Now add the people who liked the Weave. Don't forget about the people who like the Red Wizards of Thay or other regions and groups which get destroyed. Finely add to that number the people who just don't like the cumulative effect of the changes. Do you see what I'm getting at? You loose a few fans here and a few fans there with each new change that we find out about. Sooner or latter you'll be left with only the fans of Shar.
You will help the setting tremendously, in my opinion, if you cut back the changes to a minimum. Instead of 40 gods could you make it 80? Do you really need to throw out racial pantheons? Couldn't you let the demi-gods have clerics still?
Each new change right now is just another cut that bleeds away a few more Realms fans. Please be careful the setting doesn't fall victim to the death of a thousand cuts. From where I stand it looks like Forgotten Realms is hemorrhaging fans.
As long as their are nerds, WoTC will survive.
I agree completely so why are they making leveling such a big deal in this edition?
OK, in defense of the designers...everything's been revamped INCLUDING the toughness of the monsters. Things are more graduated so (to use a 3.* mechanic) a CR 12 monster (or equivalently matched set of opponents) won't risk a TPK on an 11th or even 10th level party to the same degree it does now. I don't believe they could've done one without working on the other. Yes, it means characters gain levels a little faster and gain abilities on each level but it's more graduated.
I don't think this is a big deal, other than the part about magic which *cough cough* mandated Mystra's death.
Now, for newer players who are used to Everquest and WoW (and saying this may irritate higher-ups who doth protest the point too much because P&P isn't the same as a video game) it will matter that every new level is graduated and brings a goody. Not everyone enjoys busting butt for X number of sessions before getting a level that may amount to nothing more than extra HP and a higher caster level.
In many ways I get an old-style D&D vibe when I think of going past 20th level in 4e. I keep thinking of the last two D&D boxed sets and how options and gameplay were detailed.
30 is the new 20. And personally I'm glad there won't be a need for a new ELH. I hated how the magic items were absurdly priced (among other things). So while 4e FR isn't shaping up as much to my liking, the game itself I'm not so bah humbug on.
OK, question: Anything new and horrific going to happen with Baldur's Gate and the surrounding territory? Candlekeep and the environs are dying to get incorporated, more like an official city/nation-state.
And illogic is the new logic.
The problem I have with this whole situation is that Wizards keeps telling us that we don't understand the Big Picture.
To that, I say...nuts.
Let me tell you a story about the big picture and how it actually works.
There's a soldier and his sargeant on a hill in Iraq, and most of their unit has been killed by terrorists. They know that on the other side of the hill lies an encampment with fifty terrorists. The sargeant looks at the soldier and says. "Okay, orders have come down from up top. We have to take the hill."
"Just the two of us?" The soldier says.
"Yeah." The Sargeant says. He doesn't seem happy about it.
"We're gonna die." The soldier says.
"We're going." The Sargeant says. "You just don't understand the big picture."
The soldier sighs, picks up his gear, and vows that if he survives, one day, he will understand what the big picture is.
So they take the terrorists out, kill them all, and the soldier vows that one day, the knowledge of the big picture will be his. "So how do you know what the big picture is?" He says to his Sargeant.
"Damned if I know." His sargeant says. "The generals make all those decisions."
So he works, and he works, for fifteen years in the Army, and he finally gets promoted to General, and he walks into the war room, and they're playing war games, and he walks over to another general and says "So what's this big picture I've heard so much about?"
The other general looks at him and says "Boy...we don't make those decisions. It's the senators and the congressmen. They make those decisions."
Thwarted, our hero decides to become a senator. He's a war hero, he's popular, he easily gets elected to the senate. He walks into his first committee meeting and says "So what's this big picture that I've heard so much about?"
The other senators look at him like he's flipped out. "We don't make those decisions..." says a man who looks suspiciously like Ben Stein. "It's the President. He makes those decisions."
Our hero sobs. He must become President of the United States to find out what is going on. So he works, and he slaves, and he gets elected, and he walks into the oval office for the first time.
"So..." He says. "At last...the big picture..." And the outgoing president stares at him for a moment, and a light of recognition dawns in his eyes, and it's his old sargeant!
"Don't tell me..." The old president says. "You were on that !#$%%!ing hill too."
1. Nobody tells you anything so you never know whats going on
2. Theres an aweful lot of waiting
3. Getting fed steak is never a good thing.
msatran, that is a pretty dumb story. If you were in the military, you would understand not only how dumb that is, but how offensive it is.
You really think that this story is about the military? I guess you consider Catch-22 to be offensive and stupid too?
I dunno, as someone who spent a rather large chunk of time in the military I found it funny and actually pretty accurate. There are only a few things certain in the military..
1. Nobody tells you anything so you never know whats going on
2. Theres an aweful lot of waiting
3. Getting fed steak is never a good thing.
You really think that this story is about the military? I guess you consider Catch-22 to be offensive and stupid too?
Army humor is for soldiers. Do-nothing whiners don't understand that a good soldier does what he's told, and serves his country by doing what he's told. What's worse is joke's implications are completely wrong.
I don't want to get into a meaningless argument about tangential topics on this thread. If you want to whine about 4E, go to the 9999999999999999 other threads. In fact, go to this thread, where all I do is explain why the basis for your criticisms of 4E and WotC's business decisions are probably incorrect, or at the very least, incomplete: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=947168
Look, after my post above, I received two PMs from others who have participated heavily on this thread who expressed their thanks for my saying what I did. People are getting tired of the proselytizing, particularly from that one fellow, msatran. They just don't want to be the bad guy to have to say it. Just keep the thread on topic. I come here to read Rich Freakin Baker answer questions, not to drag through anonymous nobodies' whining. Most of the time, I just scroll down the page looking for Rich's posts, and if I don't find them, I close the thread. But I got suckered into reading that post because it was in an enticing screenplay format. Lesson learned, I guess.
You really think that this story is about the military? I guess you consider Catch-22 to be offensive and stupid too?
But then again seeing your avartar I shouldn't be surprised.
Who knows with MS? He comes off as a crackpot and even the other canon-FR people around here seem a bit leery of him.
He probably should not have used the Irag analogy though. Placing any generic soldiers within a combat situation would have come across better.
Plus we don't know the big picture. People rarely do in many cases.
Anyway I am curious which sourcebooks will pop up in 4E. Can we get a Cormyr book?
With all the troubles we've seen popping up in the Dales and Cormyr throughout third edition, will we see these areas getting a breather? Or are they in for more and more trouble? It seems the local non-adventuring populace would be getting tired of having their faces to the grindstone :D
. . . though it does keep us adventurers busy . . .
Rich,
With all the troubles we've seen popping up in the Dales and Cormyr throughout third edition, will we see these areas getting a breather? Or are they in for more and more trouble? It seems the local non-adventuring populace would be getting tired of having their faces to the grindstone :D
. . . though it does keep us adventurers busy . . .
I just want a Cormyr sourcebook. No adventures please, just info on nobility and other good stuff. I also would like a straight Amn book and a straight Tethyr book.
I just want a Cormyr sourcebook. With lots of adventures please, and info on nobility and other good stuff. I also would like a straight Amn book and a straight Tethyr book.
Fixed it for you! :D ;)
I would love to see a Cormyr book, but I would like adventures too. Amn and Tethyr I know less about, and I have enough pre 4e info on the Dales to last a lifetime . . .
Yet, I would still like more :D
Fixed it for you! :D ;)
I would love to see a Cormyr book, but I would like adventures too. Amn and Tethyr I know less about, and I have enough pre 4e info on the Dales to last a lifetime . . .
Yet, I would still like more :D
I want the adventures on the side, just not in my sourcebook is all. Decent adventures can help sell a setting I think. Note I said decent designers. Many of the one found for 3rd E just have not wowed me. Plus there was really no flavor in them. I would use non-FR adventures before using the ones with the FR imprint. At least with 3E.
I want the adventures on the side, just not in my sourcebook is all. Decent adventures can help sell a setting I think.
Fair enough.
Who knows with MS? He comes off as a crackpot and even the other canon-FR people around here seem a bit leery of him.
I would agree with you except msatran didn't just invented that story. That is a very old joke.
He probably should not have used the Irag analogy though. Placing any generic soldiers within a combat situation would have come across better.
Agreed he modernized which might be a distraction from what the story meant.
Plus we don't know the big picture. People rarely do in many cases.
And that is the point of the story...no one knows what the 'Big Picture' is. The 'Big Picture' concept is usualy used to get people to do a action that they don't understand.
Please take your arguments and insults to each other somewhere else or use the mail function provided by this forum.
And yes, once again, I lack a question for Rich.
I dunno if someone asked this before:
Will there be colourful "realmsian" inns and taverns in the New Realms? As in Volo-colourful? Will the current establishments in Waterdeep, Sundabar, Silverymoon, Scornubel (to name just a few cities with famous locations) survive?
I mean with civilization dwindling to points of light I imagine a lot of businesses are going to lose their customer base and thus die. Like in the real world. To not take a current but an ancient RL example: The Cologne (or London) of Ancient Rome had several tens of thousands of citizens and many many wine- and alehouses and so on. In the dark ages they were much reduced to sometimes a few hundred citizens and no real "places to go" but lots of farming space protected by city walls (at least in Cologne's case, the Romans left Britain before building real city defences against barbarian hordes). I'm really worrying about this because a lot of the role-playing and brawling in my realms-games takes place in, around and on the way between pubs, "festhalls" and inns. (The PCs are brawling and playing in Realms-pubs, that is. My group ordinarily sits around my living room table and behaves in a civilized manner.) (Please blame any strange phrasings on me being not a native speaker.)
Give us colorful places, just without the high level barkeeps and barwenches.;)
I would like to see more of Volo i
Sadly, you can't.
I killed him near the Nashkel mines....
I dunno if someone asked this before:
Will D&D 4e use the great wheel cosmology?
Will the Forgotten Realms cosmology return to the great wheel?
Viewed in isolation, no single change we're contemplating would really pass the "is this ABSOLUTELY necessary?" test. If we subject every change we're planning to that test, then nothing would change (which, no doubt, would please a segment of our audience). But we don't think we can stay exactly where we are forever.
In my opinion, there is a *minimum* amount of change that's desirable with a campaign update, and a *maximum* amount of change. Change too little, and you haven't provided that clear starting point needed to entice new fans... or reawaken the interest of old fans who have mastered everything we've shown them so far. Change too much, and it's not the same property anymore. Most of the arguments we're having are about where each of those marks really lies.
Hi Rich,
I would like to ask you and the design team to reconsider the scope of the changes in 4e Realms. I know that there will still be many changes, but do the changes really need to be so drastic?
(
Putting everything back? Sorry, we've got to see this through.
Hey, Mr. Baker, unlike others that for some illogical reason blame you (all those silly Baker must be stopped posts) for...everything really....I have an honest question.
Will the history of the Realms be modified?
The hisory of the Realms is pretty shadowy, but we DO know a lot. We know much of Netheril, some of the Crown Wars, some of Imaskari, some of everything. Will what we know be rendered obsolete?
Oh yeah, for tradition sake, will there be anything about Lantan? I know there won't, but I'm obligated to ask
1a. I have a pet theory I call the "elevator" theory. Each year, a certain number of people enter our demographic and become D&D players. We want to make sure that there's an elevator with an open door waiting on the "first floor" to take them up to the Realms. It's been a long time since we put an elevator on the first floor for the potential Realms fans. Without a regular influx of new fans, pure "life friction" and attrition will thin out the number of Realms games being played and books being read. If there's a proselytizing network out there as you suggest, they're not proselytizing enough to fill that elevator for us. We have to do some work too.
1b. We're not moving Realms toward Eberron. In what way do you think we are? (Other than something cosmetic like the number of deities?) There's nothing driving us to make Realms more like Eberron.
2. When we ask gamers what turns them off of Forgotten Realms, one of the hits we keep getting back is "all those high-level NPCs steal the limelight." Whether the perception is an accurate reflection of how the setting really works is immaterial--it's a perception that stops gamers from trying out the Realms. We're not planning a campaign of wanton NPC slaughter, but I sure need to show the broader gaming audience that it's time to let go of that perception. Lecturing undecided purchasers about how NPCs *should* be used in the Realms doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. How else could we tackle this problem of perception without real change?
3. No, I can't guarantee no upheavals for three years. First off, it's not up to me. More to the point: I can tell you right now that we don't have any planned, and that we'd like to avoid Realms-shaking events for a while... but if a Bob Salvatore or Paul Kemp or Elaine Cunningham some other talented author drops a truly kick-butt story proposal in our laps that happens to shake the Realms, we'd be foolish to tell them that we can't accommodate that outstanding story. If it's the *right* story, it's the right story.
[Snipped a bit for length]
I am just reposting my questions so that they do not get lost in the backlog.
Originally Posted by Roman
Hello Rich,
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions here on the boards despite the oscillating atmosphere that trends to the hostile/negative. I have some questions of my own and would be very glad if you found the time to answer them:
1. a) My question is how does WotC plan to entice new gamers to Forgotten Realms if the proposed changes hamstring the network of Forgotten Realms enthusiasts - people who are crucial to selling Forgotten Realms to new players by word of mouth and by acting as repositories of knowledge about the Realms, excitedly passing it on to enquiring new souls seeking more knowledge about the game.
1. b) Making vast changes to the setting, you must have known you would alienate a large percentage of the existing Forgotten Realms fanbase. Apparently, the purpose of those changes is to open up Forgotten Realms to new gamers, but the design philosophy behind the setting seems to be moving towards the design philosophy underlying the Eberron campaign setting, which has ostensibly been more successful in enticing new gamers and generating sales than Forgotten Realms.
2) Is it really worth it to throw out the high-level characters? Apart from the emotional/story attachments many 'old' FR players have towards them, the absence of other high-level characters than the PCs, feels like it is not a living world, where things are happening in the background whatever the PCs decide, or don't decide to do.
3) In some ways, the changes you are implementing seem like they make it feasible to minimize changes in the future. I don't really have a problem with changes in general so long as I like the resluts, but for the sake of those disgruntled by this, can you commit that there will be at least 3-year time periods (measured in RL) between any further major storywise upheavals in the Realms?
Just keep the thread on topic. I come here to read Rich Freakin Baker answer questions, not to drag through anonymous nobodies' whining. Most of the time, I just scroll down the page looking for Rich's posts, and if I don't find them, I close the thread. But I got suckered into reading that post because it was in an enticing screenplay format. Lesson learned, I guess.
Rich,
With all the troubles we've seen popping up in the Dales and Cormyr throughout third edition, will we see these areas getting a breather? Or are they in for more and more trouble? It seems the local non-adventuring populace would be getting tired of having their faces to the grindstone :D
. . . though it does keep us adventurers busy . . .
Dear Mr. Baker,
I dunno if someone asked this before:
Will D&D 4e use the great wheel cosmology?
Will the Forgotten Realms cosmology return to the great wheel?
We're not planning a campaign of wanton NPC slaughter...
That's wonderful to hear, but when Chris Perkins mentions in a podcast that high-level NPCs will be "nuked", doesn't that leave the impression that there's going to be a "wanton NPC slaughter"?
Would it be unfair of me to suggest that loaded terms like "nuked" be avoided if the FR design team doesn't really want to ruffle anyone's feathers by leaving an impression of offhanded destruction?
Now, sometimes we take events that are known and spin much larger stories out of them... so a timeline entry from a long time ago might just be the tip of an iceberg, really. In fact, there are a couple of real jaw-droppers in that regard coming up. But nothing we add in way of detail, explanation, and heretofore unexplored or unknown events will "undo" existing Realms history. Your Grand History of the Realms is going to be honored as written for the foreseeable future.
Hey, Mr. Baker, unlike others that for some illogical reason blame you (all those silly Baker must be stopped posts) for...everything really....I have an honest question.
Will the history of the Realms be modified?
The hisory of the Realms is pretty shadowy, but we DO know a lot. We know much of Netheril, some of the Crown Wars, some of Imaskari, some of everything. Will what we know be rendered obsolete?
Oh yeah, for tradition sake, will there be anything about Lantan? I know there won't, but I'm obligated to ask
Many high-level characters will be exiting the stage in 4e, but many others will still be around. No one's getting killed off specifically because they're high level. Now, there are some Chosen who are getting removed from the stage specifically because they're Chosen; the Chosen tend to be the "poster children" in the wider D&D audience for the perception that Realms games are about a set of uber-NPCs.
That's wonderful to hear, but when Chris Perkins mentions in a podcast that high-level NPCs will be "nuked", doesn't that leave the impression that there's going to be a "wanton NPC slaughter"?
Would it be unfair of me to suggest that loaded terms like "nuked" be avoided if the FR design team doesn't really want to ruffle anyone's feathers by leaving an impression of offhanded destruction?
There will be some new "builds" published in the FR player character sourcebook, but I don't think you could call those FR-specific talent trees.
From what I've heard, races in the PHB have a number of Racial Feats they can select. So are these builds about mixing specific Feats in order to create a better representation of something?
For instance, you said a while back that Sun Elves, Moon Elves, and Star Elves are mechanically Eladrin. So will there be 'builds' so people can see how most Sun Elves look like in comparison to Moon Elves (I.E. An Eladrin with Racial Feats A, C, G, and L is a good representation of a Sun Elf, while an Eladrin with Feats B, E, I, and J is a good representation of a Moon Elf)? Is that what you mean, Rich?
What I gathered from a previous post of yours is that Eladrin won't be called Eladrin in the Realms, but will instead be referred to as Star Elves, Sun Elves, and Moon Elves. Likewise, Elves will be referred to as Wild Elves and Wood Elves.
So are there any more instances of that in the Realms? Where a race is referred to as one thing in the PHB, but bears a different name in the Realms? Same goes for classes. Will any classes, or certain variants of classes, be called something else in the Realms? The example I'm specifically thinking of, here, is if evil Paladins will be referred to as Paladins in the Realms, or if they'll be called something else in the Realms (Like Anti-Paladins or Blackguards). It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I thought I'd ask as I'm curious to know the answer. Thanks.
Well... yes, they actually make out pretty well. Cormyr regains much of its strength, and the return of a strong elven realm in Myth Drannor definitely improves the situation around Cormanthor. I'll say more about that when I can.
Thank you Rich!:D That made me feel a little better about the 4E Realms. Rich on some other threads,(in the 4E Forums) some posters overseas have all ready gotten Wizards Presents "Races and Classes. They are saying that Specialty Schools of Magic are no more. Is that why Thay is about to be(in my opinion) radically changed in 4E? Thank you for your time and patience.Anyway, in a recent podcast interview with Chris Perkins, the following was said.
STEVE: And we spoke about this a few weeks ago, but I was asking you if there was going to be, or if you're exploring the ability for you to actually create these characters as real physical 3D models. Minis that you can bring wih you. And since it does say on your card mini R&D I'd imagine you'd know this one. I know spore is fooling around with this, that you'll be able to do this maybe. And I was wondering if there was any progress or updates on that.
CHRIS PERKINS: At the moment, nothing that we're announcing. We have for the past year anyway been exploring diffferent options. Everything from print on demand to ordering directly from the company that actually cranks out the minis for us. There are some logistical issues as you might expect, as far as quantities, the fact that most of our minis are produced overseas, there's just a lot of stuff going on right now. Probably to early to say at what point we'll be able to get people to create 3d representations of the character digitally and then place an order and have that figure as a plastic figure show up at their door three weeks later.
STEVE: Ok. (crosstalk) But least you're looking towards going towards that route, because it is still a pen-and-paper game. And obviously if you have this really cool 3d representation of your character with a glowing sword and this awesome pose and you don't want to go to the game table and use like a bead as your character, you know, it's just not gonna be the same.
CHRIS PERKINS: Right. And there's a lot of unique tensions that go on, too. I mean, we have a business of selling randomized collectible miniatures. So one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is "How does a print on demand venture impact the value of the collectible game? You know, f you can make any character you want, why do you want this character in this box" kind of thing? Is it because it had a pose that you just can't make? You know, what are the characteristics that distinguish one from the other? Those are the questions we're trying to answer right now.
Once again sorry if I'm way off topic, but I'm near to burst from excitement at hearing this, and hope it's something that comes about. So have you heard about this, Rich? And do you think it's something that might materialize, eventually? I know I'd love to design a miniature in DDI and then have an actual miniature produced. Plastic, pewter, painted, unpainted, doesn't matter to me. All I know is it'd be fantastic if I could make a miniature for good ole' Balin Cormaeril, Purple Dragon Knight of Cormyr, or for any other characters I feel inclined to get a mini of. :D
We're pretty committed to the scope of the changes we're making at this point. We've got a number of projects underway (several novel series, the new FRCG, the FRPG), and we're just not going to seriously reverse course now.
I've been saying this for two months, but no one seems to want to believe it.
At least I have a good quote to use now. ;)
Will 4e be open source?
One of the reasons why I so greatly enjoyed 3e was because nearly every setting used the same basic rules. For years I had to painstakingly converted stuff from other company's settings, but 3e did away with most of that. It was wonderful...
I hope you guys won't be taking a step backwards where this is concerned.
1b. We're not moving Realms toward Eberron. In what way do you think we are? (Other than something cosmetic like the number of deities?) There's nothing driving us to make Realms more like Eberron.
Well the fact that you are reducing the number of powerful NPCs....
Got a question on how clerics will work in 4th edition(I have asked repeatly and haven't gotten a straight answear as of yet.)
Personaly to me the Realms deities have never been cosmetic...so I am definitly keeping them all. So the question is how do clerics work in 4th edition? How hard is it to make cleric of say Helm using 4th edition rules(while keeping it different and distinct from say Torm) so that that the mechanics reflect the flavor? I not expecting a really long answear here(though it would be nice) as I know you can't give details as of yet. But a simple yes and no would suffice.
A couple of good questions, Roman -- I wanted to wait until I had a few minutes to try to respond with some thought.
1a. I have a pet theory I call the "elevator" theory. Each year, a certain number of people enter our demographic and become D&D players. We want to make sure that there's an elevator with an open door waiting on the "first floor" to take them up to the Realms. It's been a long time since we put an elevator on the first floor for the potential Realms fans. Without a regular influx of new fans, pure "life friction" and attrition will thin out the number of Realms games being played and books being read. If there's a proselytizing network out there as you suggest, they're not proselytizing enough to fill that elevator for us. We have to do some work too.
Do you have sales figures to back that one up? Even a quick glance at AmazonUK tells me that the FRCS is currently sitting at 57,689 in the sales ranking of books, which is not bad for an eight year old book, compared to 99,377 for Eberron's Campaign Setting.
2. When we ask gamers what turns them off of Forgotten Realms, one of the hits we keep getting back is "all those high-level NPCs steal the limelight." Whether the perception is an accurate reflection of how the setting really works is immaterial--it's a perception that stops gamers from trying out the Realms. We're not planning a campaign of wanton NPC slaughter, but I sure need to show the broader gaming audience that it's time to let go of that perception. Lecturing undecided purchasers about how NPCs *should* be used in the Realms doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. How else could we tackle this problem of perception without real change?
Do you not see a value in helping potential DM's be good DM's? You could have tackled this problem of perception via a change in presentation, simple as. Focus more on the small stories, rather then constant RSE's where you need to 'get rid' of the high level NPC's. Point more to things like 'Concerns of the Mighty' as proper, ingame explanations as to why those high level NPC's shouldn't steal the limelight.
3. No, I can't guarantee no upheavals for three years. First off, it's not up to me. More to the point: I can tell you right now that we don't have any planned, and that we'd like to avoid Realms-shaking events for a while... but if a Bob Salvatore or Paul Kemp or Elaine Cunningham some other talented author drops a truly kick-butt story proposal in our laps that happens to shake the Realms, we'd be foolish to tell them that we can't accommodate that outstanding story. If it's the *right* story, it's the right story.
So, no more WOTC mandated RSE's? That's good news.
About the NPCs, taking them out without killing many is the best way to go I figure. That way canon people can still "use" them and noobs can not "worry" about them. I had a converstaion about NPCs and FR lore in general the other night with my group and was suprised to hear that they felt it was all a bit too much. They do like the proposed changes though. They would have played it if I ran it any which way though. They were not "cononized" so they don't care about the change, they just want a fun place to play in.
I am curious what happens to Halruaa during 4E? Will it be the New Nethrils main competitor after the Thayan uphevals?
Will ghostwise hafling be around still?
What will happen to Lantan? Will it blow up?
I just read something about the SLEEPING GODS idea. So when they awaken is that a sign of Abeir returning Rich? Huh? Huh?
I think, however, the fact that the FRCS is 40,000 places higher on the sales list then the Eberron CS on Amazon does rather suggest something.
One uses the figures one can get. If I were able to get figures from 'Borders' and the like, then I would.
I think, however, the fact that the FRCS is 40,000 places higher on the sales list then the Eberron CS on Amazon does rather suggest something.
Possibly, that it's been on sale for longer.
Quick question: Since techniques/stances/maneuvers are becomming canon (good thing IMO) what about the surviving NPC's such as Drizzt? Will Drizzt suddenly start doing maneuvers?
There are pros and cons to both version of your probably answer (i.e. a yes or a no). If its yes, then how did he suddenly learn them? They are not magic and not affected by the plague. if no, then obviously, you will have people wondering why he cannot use them when its a mainstay of the ranger class.
How do you plan to handle this.
Thanks!
Thank you!
Do you not see a value in helping potential DM's be good DM's? You could have tackled this problem of perception via a change in presentation, simple as. Focus more on the small stories, rather then constant RSE's where you need to 'get rid' of the high level NPC's. Point more to things like 'Concerns of the Mighty' as proper, ingame explanations as to why those high level NPC's shouldn't steal the limelight.
This is exactly what they don't want to do, as Mr. Baker said in the post you quoted. So what's the point?
DB
Thanks for taking the time with these questions.
1.) I have one quick question. If one of the goals of 4e FR is to draw in new gamers, wouldn't it make sense to put on the COVER of the campaign guide: The world of Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights
Putting Drizzt on the cover is a nice touch that will catch the eye of novel readers. Why not go that extra step and catch the attention of the huge computer/console gaming community that are fans of FR material?
A couple of good questions, Roman -- I wanted to wait until I had a few minutes to try to respond with some thought.
Thank you for answering - I know you are busy working on the new setting and truly appreciate that you still remain engaged with the fans.
1a. I have a pet theory I call the "elevator" theory. Each year, a certain number of people enter our demographic and become D&D players. We want to make sure that there's an elevator with an open door waiting on the "first floor" to take them up to the Realms. It's been a long time since we put an elevator on the first floor for the potential Realms fans. Without a regular influx of new fans, pure "life friction" and attrition will thin out the number of Realms games being played and books being read. If there's a proselytizing network out there as you suggest, they're not proselytizing enough to fill that elevator for us. We have to do some work too.
I had suspected that Realms sales were slipping and agree that something needs to be done to revitalize it. The proselytizing network may not be sufficient to generate enough interest, but I fear a little that it could be sufficient to kill interest in the setting for new people with the negative reaction about the changes. As I mentioned, for example, I was/am quite excited that there will be fewer gods, as I did find the large number of gods confusing and overwhelming - exactly as a new player might and exactly what you are trying to rectify. It is hard to remain enthusiastic in an atmosphere of general negativity, though, which makes me wonder whether the changes, no matter how good for attacting new players, will not merely accelerate Forgotten Realms' demise.
1b. We're not moving Realms toward Eberron. In what way do you think we are? (Other than something cosmetic like the number of deities?) There's nothing driving us to make Realms more like Eberron.
This is a good example that miscommunication can work both ways - not just from designers to fans but also vice versa. I did not mean to suggest that you are making the setting like Eberron (thank God - while I wish those who like the setting to have good gaming, it is just not my style). What I wanted to get across is that it appears that you are adopting some principles behind Eberron design: no very high level NPCs, small number of deities, cut down on history to reduce barriers to entry. These principles may make gameplay more enjoyable to a large section of the RPG playerbase, but will move the Forgotten Realms into even more direct competition with Eberron. Keeping the previous FR design principles may appeal to a smaller number of players, but those are probably not the same players as those playing Eberron, so the competition for them would be lower.
I guess I am just seeking reassurance on the matter. I don't have the data and you do; I am not a professional game designer and you are. Tell me the new setting will sell well and thus thrive... and I will be satisfied in this regard. I want to see the setting succeed, but the negativity from the core fans makes me anxious about whether it will, though, I can see some encouraging signs from a rather positive atmosphere here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=214039&page=1&pp=30
2. When we ask gamers what turns them off of Forgotten Realms, one of the hits we keep getting back is "all those high-level NPCs steal the limelight." Whether the perception is an accurate reflection of how the setting really works is immaterial--it's a perception that stops gamers from trying out the Realms. We're not planning a campaign of wanton NPC slaughter, but I sure need to show the broader gaming audience that it's time to let go of that perception. Lecturing undecided purchasers about how NPCs *should* be used in the Realms doesn't seem like a winning strategy to me. How else could we tackle this problem of perception without real change?
Well, unless you market the game with "Improved Realms: NPCs killed off", I don't see how new players are even going to find out... without reading the book. Of course, if they do so, you might as well say that the world is vast and with many problems with the major NPCs there mostly to provide something to be happening in the background so as to create the illusion that PCs are not the only ones in the world. I guess you can still do that even with the planned changes depending on how many NPCs do make it into the next edition.
Note: Does not the appearance of Drizzt on the cover (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/218287200) run counter to your strategy of removing the impression that FR is filled with major NPCs? That said, I personally do like the cover (except for the white band at the top, which seems a bit distracting and seems to be a feature of all 4E front covers).
3. No, I can't guarantee no upheavals for three years. First off, it's not up to me. More to the point: I can tell you right now that we don't have any planned, and that we'd like to avoid Realms-shaking events for a while... but if a Bob Salvatore or Paul Kemp or Elaine Cunningham some other talented author drops a truly kick-butt story proposal in our laps that happens to shake the Realms, we'd be foolish to tell them that we can't accommodate that outstanding story. If it's the *right* story, it's the right story.
Fair enough - as I said it does not bother me, but I thought something like that might ameliorate those disgruntled by the changes. In any case, by committing to a time-out on 'large upheavals' I meant something on the scale of the Spellplague or Time of Troubles, not some of the more 'minor' events, even when they are rather significant.
Side-note:
If you succeed with 4E Realms, though, and I hope you do, I think that it may ultimately prove to be more long-lived than Eberron exactly because some degree of change is necessary to keep the setting interesting and viable. Eberron is developing a pattern of being static, which appeals to the fans and will surely work for now, because the setting is still relatively new, but once it starts to seem stale, it will be more difficult to change due to the pattern of being static.
I do have sales information to back up my assertion that Realms is not as self-proselytizing as you suggest, but I'm not at liberty to disclose those numbers. Whether my elevator theory is accurate or not, I couldn't say; that's why I described it as a theory.
One uses the figures one can get. If I were able to get figures from 'Borders' and the like, then I would.
I think, however, the fact that the FRCS is 40,000 places higher on the sales list then the Eberron CS on Amazon does rather suggest something.
Is it too late to change the cover for the FRCS? I mean, c'mon! Why not just rename the setting Drizz't Land?
None of the fighter-types in my books are going to scream out "Two Swords High Decapitating Strike!" right before they launch an attack. But if I wrote about how Regdar leaped into the air and slashes his two blades in a vicious scissors-cut at his foe, well, didn't I just describe some kind of fancy combat maneuver? We've been doing stuff like that in our fiction for years. No need to change it, really.
Hey Richy Rich :D ,
Quick question: Since techniques/stances/maneuvers are becomming canon (good thing IMO) what about the surviving NPC's such as Drizzt? Will Drizzt suddenly start doing maneuvers?
There are pros and cons to both version of your probably answer (i.e. a yes or a no). If its yes, then how did he suddenly learn them? They are not magic and not affected by the plague. if no, then obviously, you will have people wondering why he cannot use them when its a mainstay of the ranger class.
How do you plan to handle this.
Thanks!
Rich -
Is it too late to change the cover for the FRCS? I mean, c'mon! Why not just rename the setting Drizz't Land?
I seccond that. I'm completely tired of seeing HIM on every FR product published. He is a minor player on a minor kingdom. If you have the obligation to put a known character on the cover, at least let it be Elminster, he is far more iconic than the lousy, almost unkown in the realms, Drizzt. And still I would preffer an air view of the Sword Coast or the Silver Marches as cover.
With drizzt on the cover you are automaticaly alienating part of the group you are trying to make into FR cosumers. Don't you have idea that Drizzt is the most hated character in the realms by the detractors and even by many followers?
Has the 4e FR design team thought about using current statistics instead of one from 2 years ago? Why don't you have someone set up a sign up sheet for anyone (including non-FR fans) to sign up for a Customer Feedback Survey to be mailed to them via snail mail to tell you what they think about the FR setting as a whole, and what they would like kept the same and what they would like changed? Get us involved.
Another thought: Have you thought about briefly covering the 20-30 major deities covered in a the FRCG, and then covering them in more detail with their lesser deity servitors in another source book (along with holy sites, holy days, notable churches, clerical ranks, et cetera)? And also, does that survey from two years ago ask people what they think about you subverting racial deities into aspects or parts of human deities and pantheons?
Can you tell us when this month you guys are going to show us some of the bright and happy aspects of the new version of the setting? You said definitely by December, and we are almost halfway through the month.
This seems to be a little bit....facetious.
The authors RSE one upmanship that has ground the Realms down to the same level that killed off the Thieves World series that started out great and ended up in the sewers.
Either you tell the authors to knock off the RSEs, or you do what you did to Eberon and have the novels be non canon.
I do not believe the devs when you all said that Cyroc will be under "house arrest" for however many thousands of years you said.
He will be out and free to muck up the setting just as quick as one of the authors just can't hold their wine in any more and writes up yet another RSE starring him.
With the authors having to top each others stories, there will be another RSE before even 2008 is over.
would you rather have Elminster on the cover???
how about larloch???
well you can actually be grateful that its not Lord NAsher Alagondar of NEverwinter.
Im actually glad that old man should be dead in the timeline advance.
anyway Mr. Baker I assume from another post of yours that Myth ?Drannor is still around, what of its Mythal?? and will all the FR player races be in the frcs 4e or the FR players book??
seriously, whats wrong with drizzt???
He appears only because he SELLS, and for no other reason. Elminster existed from day one and he is usually the one introducing the Realms in the Campaign Setting. He knows more about Toril than most people (alive or un-alive)
None of the fighter-types in my books are going to scream out "Two Swords High Decapitating Strike!" right before they launch an attack. But if I wrote about how Regdar leaped into the air and slashes his two blades in a vicious scissors-cut at his foe, well, didn't I just describe some kind of fancy combat maneuver? We've been doing stuff like that in our fiction for years. No need to change it, really.
That is such an excellent point. Most of what we're seeing are ways to really just describe or lend depth to stuff that has been - or should have been - going on for years. Flashy maneuvers, rallying cries from the leaders that fill a person with purpose and determination to go that extra mile, etc etc. Only now it sounds like there will finally be a nicely quantified way of dealing with more cinematic and descriptive combat.
He appears only because he SELLS, and for no other reason. Elminster existed from day one and he is usually the one introducing the Realms in the Campaign Setting. He knows more about Toril than most people (alive or un-alive)
From ENworld;
Originally Posted by JPL
Of course they have Drizzt. In addition to being a tremendously popular character, he is a rather good example of what a young adventurer in the Realms can aspire to become. No Chosen of Mystra whoo-hah, just a few flavorful magic items, a certain degree of fame, and some recurring bad guys. And unlike some of the high level magic types, he minds his own business.
From ENworld;Originally Posted by JPL
Of course they have Drizzt. In addition to being a tremendously popular character, he is a rather good example of what a young adventurer in the Realms can aspire to become. No Chosen of Mystra whoo-hah, just a few flavorful magic items, a certain degree of fame, and some recurring bad guys. And unlike some of the high level magic types, he minds his own business.
I think the negativity surrounding Drizzt would kind of overshadow that. Detractors of Drizzt would have you think that anyone playing a "good drow" is playing a Drizzt clone (no matter that she's a female drow wizard who happens to be CG - she's a Drizzt clone, and nothing more.
) By the way, I don't hate/dislike Drizzt... He's just not my cup of tea. The negativity about him annoys me, but it is a point that needs to be taken into consideration - it's a point that's every bit as valid as people's attitudes towards the Seven Sisters, and look what's happened to them.Anyway, I'd much rather see a less NPC centric cover (so no Elminster either). A band of young adventurers (at least one of which should be female, to give female players a character to relate to - I thought Wizards were trying to find more female gamers, not continue to exclude them inadvertently) would do much better, IMHO. But I guess it doesn't really matter what I think, since I'm not going to buy the FRCG (or anything else Realms once 4e arrives).
...The negativity about him annoys me, but it is a point that needs to be taken into consideration - it's a point that's every bit as valid as people's attitudes towards the Seven Sisters, and look what's happened to them.
I would content that both points are not equally as valid. The Seven Sisters have been a road block to new players entering the realms. Most Drizzt haters are just tired of players picking 'Drizzt-like' characters in their games. That wouldn't be a problem unless lots of people loved Drizzt. So Drizzt is not a hinderence to anyone joining the realms: there is just a segment of gamers that are annoyed by Drizzt fans. Getting rid of Drizzt in the 4e handbook wouldn't do anything to get rid of the Drizzt fans.
Anyway, I'd much rather see a less NPC centric cover (so no Elminster either). A band of young adventurers (at least one of which should be female, to give female players a character to relate to - I thought Wizards were trying to find more female gamers, not continue to exclude them inadvertently) would do much better, IMHO. But I guess it doesn't really matter what I think, since I'm not going to buy the FRCG (or anything else Realms once 4e arrives).
This would make much more sense since WotC is trying to change a perception that in the Realms the PCs matter.
Also Drizzt was never a young adventurer...in the first book he appeared in he defeated a white dragon(with help from another 'young' adventuer) a balor(by himself).
So why do we like a character such as Drizzt, but want to move some of the Chosen off-stage? It's a fair question. After all, Drizzt is probably *perceived* in the audience at large as an uber-NPC just as much as Elminster or the Simbul, even though he's not really in their league. But as I said above, he is clearly one of the most popular things we've got going.
Rich -
Is it too late to change the cover for the FRCS? I mean, c'mon! Why not just rename the setting Drizz't Land?
Hello Rich, You said earlier that you were slowing down the RSEs, but you just recently posted that if the authors come up with a "truly kick butt proposal that happens to shake the realms" you would use it.
This seems to be a little bit....facetious.
The authors RSE one upmanship that has ground the Realms down to the same level that killed off the Thieves World series that started out great and ended up in the sewers.
Either you tell the authors to knock off the RSEs, or you do what you did to Eberon and have the novels be non canon.
I do not believe the devs when you all said that Cyroc will be under "house arrest" for however many thousands of years you said.
He will be out and free to muck up the setting just as quick as one of the authors just can't hold their wine in any more and writes up yet another RSE starring him.
With the authors having to top each others stories, there will be another RSE before even 2008 is over.
Here's the deal: For years now, every new Drizzt novel Bob Salvatore writes has hit the New York Times list (and hit higher just about each time). No secret sales info there, that's public knowledge. We'd be fools not to make use of that popularity.
So why do we like a character such as Drizzt, but want to move some of the Chosen off-stage? It's a fair question. After all, Drizzt is probably *perceived* in the audience at large as an uber-NPC just as much as Elminster or the Simbul, even though he's not really in their league. But as I said above, he is clearly one of the most popular things we've got going.
That's a very fair answer, I think. Basically, you are saying Drizzt is so popular that he may attract more new people to the setting than he will scare off the detractors. You are probably right.
(Apologies to the thread if I'm breaking a posting rule with this one. I just read the last couple of pages and thought Rich could use some positive vibes for a change)
With this is mind, does it mean that
1) They are reusing artwork for the FRCG cover?
2) That they are making new art for the FRCG cover, but it's going to focus on Drizzt and this cover is representative of what the finished artwork will be?
or 3) Is this just a temporary place holder before the finished artwork is revealed, which won't feature Drizzt?
As an addition to the previous Drizzt question, it would appear that the artwork on the FRCG is a reused version of the artwork that was put on the DnD Minitures Archfiends Boxset, where the Drizzt mini was released.
With this is mind, does it mean that
1) They are reusing artwork for the FRCG cover?
2) That they are making new art for the FRCG cover, but it's going to focus on Drizzt and this cover is representative of what the finished artwork will be?
or 3) Is this just a temporary place holder before the finished artwork is revealed, which won't feature Drizzt?
I second this one. I'd like to know this as well.
That's a very fair answer, I think. Basically, you are saying Drizzt is so popular that he may attract more new people to the setting than he will scare off the detractors. You are probably right.
It"s easily demonstrated that there is quite more peoples who read the novels on forgotten realms than peoples who actually play it..
Fact, there is many who don't even know there is a game on it.
It"s easily demonstrated that there is quite more peoples who read the novels on forgotten realms than peoples who actually play it..
Fact, there is many who don't even know there is a game on it.
In the book store I work at (a Borders) as well as all of the book stores in my city, the D&D books are NOT shelved with the novels, so no, the novel readers will not see it. They are shelved in a different section in what we call a spine out, meaning the spine is facing the customer, not the cover. The store has to have a certain amount of a book in order to use that book as a face out, but Borders, or at least none in the state I live in, ever get enough of any one D&D book at a time save the 3 core books to warrant a face out.
So the novel readers who may be interested in a Drizzt cover will not see it. D&D players with the apperantly overwhelmingly accepted opinion that NPCs ruin games, however, will see one of those NPCs standing proudly on the campaign settings cover.
From ENworld;
Originally Posted by JPL
Of course they have Drizzt. In addition to being a tremendously popular character, he is a rather good example of what a young adventurer in the Realms can aspire to become. No Chosen of Mystra whoo-hah, just a few flavorful magic items, a certain degree of fame, and some recurring bad guys. And unlike some of the high level magic types, he minds his own business.
Drizzt is pretty active hero (not just "adventurer", hero), and doesn't "mind his own business" by definition.
The Seven Sisters have been a road block to new players entering the realms.
No, they are not. That's not a fact, unless perception now equals fact (truthiness?).
No, they are not. That's not a fact, unless perception now equals fact (truthiness?).
Rich Baker Chris Perkins have stated that they are based on customer information they have gathered. Unless all those folks were lying to WoTC, then it is true.
As an addition to the previous Drizzt question, it would appear that the artwork on the FRCG is a reused version of the artwork that was put on the DnD Minitures Archfiends Boxset, where the Drizzt mini was released.
With this is mind, does it mean that
1) They are reusing artwork for the FRCG cover?
2) That they are making new art for the FRCG cover, but it's going to focus on Drizzt and this cover is representative of what the finished artwork will be?
or 3) Is this just a temporary place holder before the finished artwork is revealed, which won't feature Drizzt?
Rich, this is my main problem with the Drizzt cover. I understand the decision to put a very popular character on the front, and Drizzt is a fine choice. It's just that the cover isn't very evocative. It doesn't spark my imagination, it doesnt't evoke a sense of wonder or a feeling of grand adventure. It's just a plain picture of Drizzt doing nothing. I really hope that reused artwork is just a temporary mock up, and that the final piece shows a scene with Drizzt (perhaps something like the beautiful Grand History cover or a battle scene?)
As always, thanks for your time
Rich Baker Chris Perkins have stated that they are based on customer information they have gathered. Unless all those folks were lying to WoTC, then it is true.
No, try reading more carefully. Rich said that there was a perception among people that the Seven Sisters were harmful to FR campaigns, but that doesn't mean it was taken as an absolute fact.
We're talking about fictional characters, here, for goodness sake.
No, try reading more carefully. Rich said that there was a perception among people that the Seven Sisters were harmful to FR campaigns, but that doesn't mean it was taken as an absolute fact.
We're talking about fictional characters, here, for goodness sake.
Uhh... if new players don't play FR based on those perceptions, then yes, they are roadblocks. Whether or not those perceptions are accurate is a different issue, but it doesn't change the fact that new folks sometimes pass on FR based on those perceptions.
Truth is Drizzy sells books, and they want to sell this book.
Rich Baker Chris Perkins have stated that they are based on customer information they have gathered. Unless all those folks were lying to WoTC, then it is true.
Even if that is true, the data they are using is 2 years old. In the information age, that is ancient history. That is why I wish they would set up a customer opinion survey, via snail mail if they feel the need, to figure what both FR and non-FR gamers want to see in the new edition of the setting. Unfortunately, this does not seem to make much sense to them.
Also, the dislike of "uber-npcs" does not explain what they are doing to racial pantheons by turning them into aspects of human deities or putting them into human pantheons.
Even if that is true, the data they are using is 2 years old. In the information age, that is ancient history.
I could be completely wrong here, but didn't they start designing 4e about 2 years ago? Wouldn't that mean they were using current information at the time when they were laying plans for FR?
It would seem silly to me to work on something for 2 years based on current info, then get new info and start over again. It would be a never ending cycle.
No, they are not. That's not a fact, unless perception now equals fact (truthiness?).
The problem is Perception is Reality.
Truth is Drizzy sells books, and they want to sell this book.
Drizzle-shizzle, by dizzle. Snoop! ;P
I wonder if Moradin would replace Gond? Too much of a stretch, but it would be an interesting development. Imagine the shock of the Lantanese if a contingent of dwarfbeards showed up...
Drizzle-shizzle, by dizzle. Snoop! ;P
I wonder if Moradin would replace Gond? Too much of a stretch, but it would be an interesting development. Imagine the shock of the Lantanese if a contingent of dwarfbeards showed up...
Or Lantan explodes......
Or Lantan explodes......
With the whole Weave going bye bye isn't that going to mess with the gnomes stuff? Think of all that SMOKEpowder!
Or Lantan explodes......
Wanna bet Realms coinage whether Evermeet or Lantan bite the dust first? :P
I think there's an important distinction there. I'm tired of hearing people say these high level NPCs are problems in-and-of themselves--such statements are either mistaken or outright disingenuous.
The problem is also the hostility of fandom to ANY criticism, and such critics are hadwaved as basicaly 'you just don't get it, bah'.
When the critics are often players who had a love affair with the setting, or gave it at least an honest try...
Wanna bet Realms coinage whether Evermeet or Lantan bite the dust first? :P
I think Evermeet will probably screwed over considering all those powerful elven spellcasters and the Spellplague....
It's not a good time to have a very magic orientated nation now.....
I think there's an important distinction there. I'm tired of hearing people say these high level NPCs are problems in-and-of themselves--such statements are either mistaken or outright disingenuous.
You are wrong. They are problems. For example, to me, and to lots of other people WotC has gotten feedback from. Drizzt brings in customers. The Seven Sisters, to many, are flavorless uber NPCs that do the opposite.
Uhh... if new players don't play FR based on those perceptions, then yes, they are roadblocks. Whether or not those perceptions are accurate is a different issue, but it doesn't change the fact that new folks sometimes pass on FR based on those perceptions.
If their perceptions are flawed it's their problem, not the NPCs fault.
You are wrong. They are problems. For example, to me, and to lots of other people WotC has gotten feedback from. Drizzt brings in customers. The Seven Sisters, to many, are flavorless uber NPCs that do the opposite.
Stop letting your personal opinions cloud your reason. If you owned WotC, you'd understand. Instead, you're just one customer. You don't speak for us all.
Just because YOU think they are flavorless it doesn't mean they are. The Seven have deep development and each one of them is VERY different from the other. They are part of the original characters Ed created on the early days of the realms. If you feel backing you statement tell me why you think that way.
If done well it will change perception of the setting faster than anything. Not only did the setting lose some good aligned epic NPCs, if they died facing off against rivals or great evils, then it highlights that even epic characters are mortal; that they will have suitable rivals and threats in the Realms. So far that doesn't seem the case. The delivery needs extensive work and the designers need to stop with the irritating hints "ohhh, what we did with the Chosen, their fans will not like us." There are few things better than actual details to dispel rumors or convert the old fans, instead of designers voicing their own preconceived notions of portions of the fanbase.
While 'lectures' about how NPCs should be handled likely will not change common perception completely, it should still get some attention in 4E. FR has a bad reputation for the NPCs problem. Even with the most prominent NPCs gone, the cost remains that the designers confirmed and reinforced the perceived veracity of the idea, so much that they justified changes to the setting based on it. There is now a heavy onus on the setting. By the comments and actions of the designers, the Realms setting officially "failed" once before. The margin of error for the second time will be nonexistent. The Realms from now on must definitively show again and again that it is not going to fall into the same stumbling block as before.
As both Chris and Rich said, there isn't a complete lack of high level characters in the new Realms. This has to be handled well, the "lectures" might help to offset some of this. Both sides of the fans from the old Realms fans and the new or returning players will be looking at this. Old Realms fans will point out how with some high level NPCs still around nothing really changed. The returning people who hated the Realms for this reason will latch on to the first high level character who even vaguely resembles the old guard NPCs of the Realms and rip the setting a new one. Hopefully it all goes for the best, but I think this official admittance of the Realm's crippling flaw opened a lot of difficult doors.
As for Drizzt on the cover of the FRCG; Drizzt appeared in the 2e campaign box set cover, so nothing new there. Of course he shared the cover with several other NPCs so it presented a more balanced cover of the Realms while still maintaining the 'Drizzt factor.' I hope that 4E FR will take a similar approach. No one denies that Drizzt is overwhelmingly popular, but depending on him solely makes him a crutch for the setting. FR needs to develop other characters so it can draw in other types of fans. Otherwise FR will rapidly become just the setting for Drizzt and nothing else (which we can't do anything about if WotC decides to do so). Already with the passing of the old Realms NPCs most of the other Realms characters will be gone in 4E, leaving us only Drizzt.
So I feel the perception game cuts both ways. To me it's okay to counter some of the negative perceptions of the Realms with hard hitting changes but in doing so I felt WotC overcompensated too much to the other extreme. Such widespread changes to the Realms also leaves many holes that have to patched up. Hopefully the designers account for all (heck, most) of them. I guess with myself mostly divested in the Realms, all I can say is the best of luck to them. I already love the old Realms, I will check back in August to see your reason why I should love the new Realms. And to paraphrase someone near and dear to the Realms, they better be good* reasons.
* By good I mean mind-blowing, beyond fantastic, utterly magnificent, can't-live-without excellence because the new Realms can't just be as good as the old Realms, they have to be better in all aspects (not just the NPC thing or the pantheon thing, but everything).
Second thought - ::Glances at shelf with 2e FR stuff from ebay, last two years of Dragon, and ever growing pulp sword and sorcery collection:: - I guess it did do some good.
I think there's an important distinction there. I'm tired of hearing people say these high level NPCs are problems in-and-of themselves--such statements are either mistaken or outright disingenuous.
If people keep coming away with that perception, then obviously something in the text leads them to conclude that. They've obviously received enough feedback in that regard for them to recognize that it's an issue.
If people keep coming away with that perception, then obviously something in the text leads them to conclude that. They've obviously received enough feedback in that regard for them to recognize that it's an issue.
The problem with that people is that they DON'T read said Sidebars to understand how it's supposed to use the high lvl NPCs. I've read it dozens of times not only in FR books but in core books too. Most of the people who complain about X or Y NPC it's because:
- They don't understand that just because they CAN do something they WILL do it (Elminster would never save the arse of a low lvl adventurer who got almost killed by his/her own stupidity)
- They never bothered understanding the balance of power in the setting, how character X wants to defeat character Y's plans while avoiding the attacs of character Z.
People who can't bother to learn about what they are playing shouldn't play, period. It would be the same if somebody tried to make a website without knowing Web Programming. He would never make it no matter how he lashes at the program.
The problem with that people is that they DON'T read said Sidebars to understand how it's supposed to use the high lvl NPCs. I've read it dozens of times not only in FR books but in core books too.
And I've read it plenty of times, too. But that doesn't change the perception people get from the Realms, since it seems to be prevalent enough to come to WotC's notice. If a little sidebar isn't cutting it, then they have to do something else to address what people see as an issue. The way they present some things makes some people ask "Why bother?" like the Simbul almost singlehandedly standing against the full forces of Thay.
I once had a friend who was a virtual compendium of Realmslore, and once when I was planning out a high-level campaign, he pointed out that if it was the Realms, not a single threat I introduced would have been ignored by Elminster and the Chosen because I tend to supply high-level campaigns with world-threatening enemies, the exact kind that the Chosen tend to tackle.
People who can't bother to learn about what they are playing shouldn't play, period.
If a man calls you a horse, you call him a jerk. If a man calls you a horse a second time, you punch him in the nose. If a man calls you a horse a third time, well... maybe it's time to go shopping for a saddle. These complaints about the Realm are not new and not isolated, so there really has to be some kind of issue.
It would be the same if somebody tried to make a website without knowing Web Programming.
So, an entertainment pastime should require as much training as any kind of programming? That's a poor game design philosophy for a game, and iconic setting, that are being geared to attract new people.
And I've read it plenty of times, too. But that doesn't change the perception people get from the Realms, since it seems to be prevalent enough to come to WotC's notice. If a little sidebar isn't cutting it, then they have to do something else to address what people see as an issue. The way they present some things makes some people ask "Why bother?" like the Simbul almost singlehandedly standing against the full forces of Thay.
The Symbul doesn't stands alone. There have been plenty times when she was almost killed in one of her rages. One of them is told in Silverfall.
I once had a friend who was a virtual compendium of Realmslore, and once when I was planning out a high-level campaign, he pointed out that if it was the Realms, not a single threat I introduced would have been ignored by Elminster and the Chosen because I tend to supply high-level campaigns with world-threatening enemies, the exact kind that the Chosen tend to tackle.
Theorical knowledge doesn't equals skill to weave a tale. You could have woven something that made imperative to your players to be the heroes. A quick example: one of your player's char is a blood descendant of X person who was the only one able to wield XYZ item that it's important to solve a problem. With that little hook your party is needed, without having to explain why the X High level NPC isn's "Saving the day"
If a man calls you a horse, you call him a jerk. If a man calls you a horse a second time, you punch him in the nose. If a man calls you a horse a third time, well... maybe it's time to go shopping for a saddle. These complaints about the Realm are not new and not isolated, so there really has to be some kind of issue.
If that man is as hard as a mule it's not my fault. I would tell him to see an occulist, because he is missing something.
So, an entertainment pastime should require as much training as any kind of programming? That's a poor game design philosophy for a game, and iconic setting, that are being geared to attract new people.
RPGs were originaly designed for players of a certain age and mentality. Not everybody can play an RPG just as not everybody can become the best in X, Y or Z discipline (be it a mental, social or physical one). For example I couldn't run for more than a minute without exausting myself, but I'm a good programer and storyteller. People should stop trying to be the best in everything and just concentrating on what they are gifted.
That is the reason I think that WoTC shouldn't try to sell the realms to everybody, they should try to make different settings for different groups of people. Players who love the depth of a setting are perfect for the realms, players who love Hack-n-Slash can play core, people who like the style of Eberron play Eberron, people who love to make massive battles should play on a setting that allows regular massive battles, and so on.
There are three things that can change for this problem to go away:
1. The people change - not going to happen.
2. The setting changes - which WotC decided to go with, unfortunately I think they put too much weight on this one.
3. The presentation changes - I think WotC should put more attention to this. We'll see in 4E if they have.
I've poked around some forums outside of here. There's more of a mixed reaction. Some good points pro-4E Realms people brought up that isn't all that different from opinions thrown around here are that something has to be done about the novels interaction with the game setting. Another common thing is to present a good picture of the basics first, the Heartlands, Waterdeep, Cormyr and the like (similar to 1e) and then gradually 'growing' the setting out again. With all these changes, if the presentation is still lacking, nothing would have changed (except the ire of some old fans).
But one of the big things unrelated to the setting, but contribute to the setting's image is fans acting too elitist, as if FR was some advanced setting that required special skill to use. I simply don't think that's true and the zeal with which some fans engage in discussions can be seen as off-putting because we do roughly represent who players will be playing with in the Realms.
RPGs were originaly designed for players of a certain age and mentality.
According to some of the old box sets, we're talking ages 10 and up.
Not everybody can play an RPG just as not everybody can become the best in X, Y or Z discipline (be it a mental, social or physical one).
Ah, the "Your IQ must be this high to play this game" requirement. If you notice the jumps in D&D's sales and popularity, they usually coincide with attempts by the owners to make it inclusive instead of exclusive.
People should stop trying to be the best in everything and just concentrating on what they are gifted.
So, instead of trying to appeal to more people to broaden the market, D&D should focus on exclusion to "keep out the riff-raff?"
That is the reason I think that WoTC shouldn't try to sell the realms to everybody, they should try to make different settings for different groups of people.
TSR did this, glutted the market, and produced products that would never make them a profit in a million years, even if they sold every copy, because the cost of producing the book exceeded the price charged for it.
Players who love the depth of a setting are perfect for the realms, players who love Hack-n-Slash can play core, people who like the style of Eberron play Eberron, people who love to make massive battles should play on a setting that allows regular massive battles, and so on.
Or they should make a setting inclusive and supportive of multiple playstyles.
Alediran, while I respect your support of the Realms, you're presenting yourself as a bit 'scary' in your recent posts. Mourn is talking about the perception, you're talking about actuality and how things should be. We're here because things obviously didn't go as they should be.
Yes, I know. It's because in everything I do I try to avoid the single perception of one thing and instead focus on every side. Even my friends go nuts when I start doing it.
There are three things that can change for this problem to go away:
1. The people change - not going to happen.
2. The setting changes - which WotC decided to go with, unfortunately I think they put too much weight on this one.
3. The presentation changes - I think WotC should put more attention to this. We'll see in 4E if they have.
I agree that it should be the third option. It's the easiest and cleanest (does that word exists?).
I've poked around some forums outside of here. There's more of a mixed reaction. Some good points pro-4E Realms people brought up that isn't all that different from opinions thrown around here are that something has to be done about the novels interaction with the game setting. Another common thing is to present a good picture of the basics first, the Heartlands, Waterdeep, Cormyr and the like (similar to 1e) and then gradually 'growing' the setting out again. With all these changes, if the presentation is still lacking, nothing would have changed (except the ire of some old fans).
My thoughts exactly.
But one of the big things unrelated to the setting, but contribute to the setting's image is fans acting too elitist, as if FR was some advanced setting that required special skill to use. I simply don't think that's true and the zeal with which some fans engage in discussions can be seen as off-putting because we do roughly represent who players will be playing with in the Realms.
I can only speak for myself. But the elitist part is just an act that I do on these boards. My players now almost nothing about the realms (take that everybody who thinks that you need to read dozens of books to play), one of them is even a new RPG player, and they still enjoy my sessions, little by little they learn. I overlook their errors (even the gross ones) and only made small remarks on things they should change to improve the game.
According to some of the old box sets, we're talking ages 10 and up.
I never said what age because I know many people who were remarkable at young age. And the mentality I was speaking was that of a curious kind, who want's to know more.
Ah, the "Your IQ must be this high to play this game" requirement. If you notice the jumps in D&D's sales and popularity, they usually coincide with attempts by the owners to make it inclusive instead of exclusive.
I don't mean the IQ (since IQ is not a good meassure of one's capacity). D&D jump in sale can be because of other factors, not only the attempts to make it inclusive. My country has only less than a decade of contact with RPGs. It means that D&D was known to more people around the world too.
So, instead of trying to appeal to more people to broaden the market, D&D should focus on exclusion to "keep out the riff-raff?"
Belive me, most RPG players are already initiated, and the rest are beeing initiated by those who already play (I was a rare case because I learned to play by myself), unless WoTC improves it's publicity campaign we are still the ones who create new players. The rest of the world doesn't cares about D&D because they consider it a nerdy game (in Spain there is even a huge stigma for RPG players, and in my country, Argentina, where most people are Soccer fanatics, mental games aren't popular. The riff-raff preffer popular things, that is why britney spears sells tens of millions of CDs, while Mozart doesn't. It's not Mozart's fault, it's the riff-raffs' because of their choice.
TSR did this, glutted the market, and produced products that would never make them a profit in a million years, even if they sold every copy, because the cost of producing the book exceeded the price charged for it.
TSR overdid it, if they concentrated in 3/4 settings instead of the many they made they could still be D&D owners.
Or they should make a setting inclusive and supportive of multiple playstyles.
That is the same as trying to make an Operative System to also be a game. It can't be done, a System (of anything you can think) needs a purpose and definition, when you try to get out of that purpose/definition one thing happens, the system start to work badly. It's one of the Golden Rules of System Engineering, you can't make one program that does everything, because it will do nothing.
I can only speak for myself. But the elitist part is just an act that I do on these boards. My players now almost nothing about the realms (take that everybody who thinks that you need to read dozens of books to play), one of them is even a new RPG player, and they still enjoy my sessions, little by little they learn. I overlook their errors (even the gross ones) and only made small remarks on things they should change to improve the game.
Unfortunately some Realms DMs are as nice about newbie mistakes towards the setting. This has become a bit of a stereotype over the years. While this is not indicative of every Realms DM, no need to make it seem like there are more of them than there are. ;)
Unfortunately some Realms DMs are as nice about newbie mistakes towards the setting. This has become a bit of a stereotype over the years. While this is not indicative of every Realms DM, no need to make it seem like there are more of them than there are. ;)
You catch more flies with honey than with acid. Making good players takes time and effort, making a bad player just takes one session where a bad DM uses every Good NPC to make the player's feel useless.
If done well it will change perception of the setting faster than anything. Not only did the setting lose some good aligned epic NPCs, if they died facing off against rivals or great evils, then it highlights that even epic characters are mortal; that they will have suitable rivals and threats in the Realms. So far that doesn't seem the case. The delivery needs extensive work and the designers need to stop with the irritating hints "ohhh, what we did with the Chosen, their fans will not like us." There are few things better than actual details to dispel rumors or convert the old fans, instead of designers voicing their own preconceived notions of portions of the fanbase.
Well, so far we've had Khelben die an epic death, Halaster unceremoniously kill himself forever one day, Mystra get knifed by Shar and Cyric, Cyric get imprisoned forever as a result, and Helm get stabbed in the face by Tyr for really, really stupid reasons. The deity stuff wasn't really given full development, but in my book they're batting 1 win, 2 losses, and 2 ties so far.
As for Drizzt on the cover of the FRCG; Drizzt appeared in the 2e campaign box set cover, so nothing new there.
You sure?
They have mentioned that Elminster will still be around in the 4e FR, though.
It's the first book inside that boxed set.
Or they should make a setting inclusive and supportive of multiple playstyles.
I agree this is probably the best approach...unfortunaly for us who like powrful good NPCs and lots of gods...and the rich deep history being relevant...we are pretty much left out in the cold.
Obviously Drizzt will stil have his scimitars. But what bonus will thye have now? In 3E they were +5 weapons, if I recall correctly. Since 4E deemphasizes magic items, or so we are told, will the bonus on these tiems go down, say to a +2 at most?
Regards.
Rich,
Obviously Drizzt will stil have his scimitars. But what bonus will thye have now? In 3E they were +5 weapons, if I recall correctly. Since 4E deemphasizes magic items, or so we are told, will the bonus on these tiems go down, say to a +2 at most?
Regards.
FYI, one's a +3 Frost Scimitar, and the other's a +2 Defending Scimitar.
FYI, one's a +3 Frost Scimitar, and the other's a +2 Defending Scimitar.
Whoops, my bad. I think I was rcalling the bg2 game, where he has +5 weapons. Still it would be nice to know what his weapons are in the new campaign setting, since he now has a buttload of new abilities, stances, maneuves, etc. If their bonus has stayed the same, we can pretty much assume thatmagic item twinkage remains the same.
Aledrian, do you know how many hacknslash campaigns I have heard about at my game store that are all based in FR? Tons over the years. I figure Ed put so many high lvl noteables in his game to quell some of the potential hacking in his game. Don't get snobby over a RPG. Eberyone deserves a shot at playing in the Realms.
Plus I always thought most people on these boards were smart enough to just use what they like and ignore the rest. There are some people out there and are not so free thinking and need things spoonfed to them. Those people also buy products so they are a viable resourse to WOTC. Many people I see complaining on these boards are probably smarter than me, so if I can juse use what I like and ignore the rest why can't the rest of you all? ;)
Anyway Rich, are the other continents that are undeveloped going to be used in 4E? Are the Sleeping Gods going to figure into those places? I mean why hasn't any real high leveled mage talked about them, or why hasn't anyone done any exploring there?
Give them time guys, besides everything has to die sometime.....even gods....With each new setting old gods were killed and some new ones were added, same thing with NPCS. And remember, it's YOUR Realms. If you want Elminster to be the allmighty Huge Heffner/Gandalf of the Realms he can still be.
I don't mean to butt in here but really all this complaining before you even KNOW the story/points in the new Realms is really annoying. This sounds like the World of Warcraft forums where they B*tch and moan about EVERY patch before it even comes out......
Except that we already know the bullet points of what is to come.
Give them time guys, besides everything has to die sometime.....even gods....With each new setting old gods were killed and some new ones were added, same thing with NPCS. And remember, it's YOUR Realms. If you want Elminster to be the allmighty Huge Heffner/Gandalf of the Realms he can still be.
I have no problem with a character dying, Khelben's death was a good one because he died completing his purpose. What 4ed is going to do (especialy if it has a 100 years time jump) is to masively destroy 80% of the existing characters (most of them are humans who will die of old age if the 100 year jump is made, without their stories completed, that is what is annoying most of us)
What 4ed is going to do (especialy if it has a 100 years time jump) is to masively destroy 80% of the existing characters (most of them are humans who will die of old age if the 100 year jump is made, without their stories completed, that is what is annoying most of us)
And that same thing, that the old stories end and new ones will be started fresh, will make it accessible to others of us.
I've played D&D for a long time. I've read FR, Dragonlance, and Ravenloft books over the years. I played the computer games from the old TSR Pool of Radiance onwards to Baldur's Gate 2. I've read several source books from all of these three in 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5. I've used many FR source books for ideas in my own homebrews.
From the books I have read and games I have played, I feel like I could do justice running a DL campaign and have done Ravenloft campaigns. I have never felt comfortable running a FR game. Ever.
The thought of is is so daunting to me because there is so much history, so many strong NPCs who are forces for good in the world. It's not that I think these NPCs are flat and boring - just the opposite! The Seven Sisters all have their own personalities and rich history, yes...the fact that I don't know enough about them means I feel like I cannot do a FR game justice (not because I feel they should be in every campaign, they might never show up ever, but it simply shows me my limited grasp of the world as a whole). The fact that they exist and are important to the world as a whole creates the road-block for me that prevents me running FR.
The very thing that makes FR appealing to you as a player keeps me from playing it. I'm sure that is what WotC found out 2 years ago, and I'm sure they found that it keeps new players who have never read the novels or palyed FR games from experience FR too. If you weren't in FR and didn't follow FR over the last 15 years, it simply feels to big to do justice.
I have played in a FR-based game for five years now. Before joing the group for the first time, I read the campaign guide front to back, read magic of FR, even pulled out some of my old 2nd edition sources and read those too just for background information...the DM made my character a wizard sent to Toril from another plane as a way of decribing my lack of real knowledge about the place. My character had studied it from afar, but never been there, and it totally fit the way I had to play because I had only ever seen a small fraction of the Realms. 3 campaigns and 5 years later, and they still need to explain things to me like what the High Moar looks like.
As a DM, knowing my knowledge is so limited and knowing if I want to prepare a campaign, I do not have time to go back and read all the FR books (and feel like if I pick up just a couple of the ones written in the last few years, I'll still be missing the rich history, so even the novels feels unaccessible to me - I've been gone from them for too long), I do not run FR in the group I DM for.
Once 4e hits, I'll be on more equal footing with everyone else. Everything I knew and everything they knew will be in the past, and from there we move forward together. That I don't know everything will still impact a game I run, yes, but it won't impact it as much. 4th Edition FR will have been accessible for me, and I might both run it as a campaign and might start up reading the books again.
Sorry for the wall of text.
This may be a loaded question (and all I'm asking for is opinion), but what do you think is the biggest and best change we will be seeing in the 4e Realms?
I know a few things have already been tossed around - in game, there's the deities being rearranged, the high-level npcs being mixed up, the Spellplauge. Metagame-wise, we have the setting being a little more cohesive for newer players, and a big cut-down on lore for older players to keep track of (whether they like it or not)/ . . . Or is it something we haven't seen yet?
No snarkiness intended, only curiosity.
Thanks!
. . .wall of text.
Well said, Iyshia, well said. I have often felt the same way when running Realms campaigns.
And that same thing, that the old stories end and new ones will be started fresh, will make it accessible to others of us.
The old story doesn't ends, it's left without a finnish.
I've played D&D for a long time. I've read FR, Dragonlance, and Ravenloft books over the years. I played the computer games from the old TSR Pool of Radiance onwards to Baldur's Gate 2. I've read several source books from all of these three in 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5. I've used many FR source books for ideas in my own homebrews.
I began to know the realms just five years ago. I only played NWN and NWN 2 and just recently was able to get most 2ed sourcebooks for FR.
From the books I have read and games I have played, I feel like I could do justice running a DL campaign and have done Ravenloft campaigns. I have never felt comfortable running a FR game. Ever.
Even with all my knowledge, most parts of the realms are still a mistery for me, what I do is plan an idea, see where it fits and learn about those particular places. If I do an adventure in the Silver Marches I only need to know about the Silver Marches which it isn't as much work as it would be to know all the realms (not even the oldest players know everything about the realms, they still learn new things every day, take it as you would take the real world, just because you don't know most places of earth doesn't means you can't live)
The thought of is is so daunting to me because there is so much history, so many strong NPCs who are forces for good in the world. It's not that I think these NPCs are flat and boring - just the opposite! The Seven Sisters all have their own personalities and rich history, yes...the fact that I don't know enough about them means I feel like I cannot do a FR game justice (not because I feel they should be in every campaign, they might never show up ever, but it simply shows me my limited grasp of the world as a whole). The fact that they exist and are important to the world as a whole creates the road-block for me that prevents me running FR.
Do what every one of us does. Start simple and buld from there. In my campaign (my first campaign both as a DM and in FR) I made lots of mistakes that I knew, that didn't impedded me to weave a tale, I simply took note of my mistakes so the next time I do better. You just need to let go of the fear and doubt, assume that you will make mistakes, even the best DMs do.
The very thing that makes FR appealing to you as a player keeps me from playing it. I'm sure that is what WotC found out 2 years ago, and I'm sure they found that it keeps new players who have never read the novels or palyed FR games from experience FR too. If you weren't in FR and didn't follow FR over the last 15 years, it simply feels to big to do justice.
I have only five years of experience with the realms, and only one as a player/dm (I have to play in my own campaign because almost nobody in Buenos Aires plays D&D regularly) and I have fun playing on it. When I started to learn how to create computer programs I also felt daunted by the complexity of what one can do and now I'm living of my effort. The key is to start simple and grow in complexity from there, it's the same philosophy you need to apply to almost every field of knowledge.
I have played in a FR-based game for five years now. Before joing the group for the first time, I read the campaign guide front to back, read magic of FR, even pulled out some of my old 2nd edition sources and read those too just for background information...the DM made my character a wizard sent to Toril from another plane as a way of decribing my lack of real knowledge about the place. My character had studied it from afar, but never been there, and it totally fit the way I had to play because I had only ever seen a small fraction of the Realms. 3 campaigns and 5 years later, and they still need to explain things to me like what the High Moar looks like.
I envy you, you have more gameplay time than me, you don't realize, but you know much about the realms, you just need to take a hallf full glass approach, recognize what you know and continue from there. For example you know the story of the BG games, I don't because I never played them. The hardest part of playing RPGs you already did, which is learn how to play an RPG, kowing the realms is just a matter of time and reading, and participating on these boards, I've learned more from the boards than from reading.
As a DM, knowing my knowledge is so limited and knowing if I want to prepare a campaign, I do not have time to go back and read all the FR books (and feel like if I pick up just a couple of the ones written in the last few years, I'll still be missing the rich history, so even the novels feels unaccessible to me - I've been gone from them for too long), I do not run FR in the group I DM for.
I've read few novels, the newest ones where The Last Mythal trilogy, that is why the boards are usefull, I get to learn about the important points of novels and sourcebooks without needing to read them all. What you also need to do is focus on smaller parts. The realms are very modular and with the wide space you have you can feel safe that while you play on one region the other regions usually don't affect your area much, if they do it's a good plot hook to move your game from one area to another (and you only need to learn about that area).
Once 4e hits, I'll be on more equal footing with everyone else. Everything I knew and everything they knew will be in the past, and from there we move forward together. That I don't know everything will still impact a game I run, yes, but it won't impact it as much. 4th Edition FR will have been accessible for me, and I might both run it as a campaign and might start up reading the books again.
It's actually the inverse situation, the past of the realms will still matter, the present is shaped by the past. The absence of the past is only an illusion, because players who know the realms before 4ed can still apply their knowledge to the game, it's past, but you only need to make Knowledge(History) trained in your character and you can use the past in the present, that will still give them an edge and for those who enjoy berating less learned players they still have the tools to say: this is happening because X, Y and Z did this, and so on.
I hope this answer gave you a better understanding on how to approach the Realms. Maybe after this post you feel a surge of inspiration and go to design an adventure in the Realms. I'll happily help you in whatever I can with my meager knowledge.
You are wrong. They are problems. For example, to me, and to lots of other people WotC has gotten feedback from. Drizzt brings in customers. The Seven Sisters, to many, are flavorless uber NPCs that do the opposite.
Stop letting your personal opinions cloud your reason. If you owned WotC, you'd understand. Instead, you're just one customer. You don't speak for us all.
I'll continue to post my opinions here. That's the whole point of being here--DUH! And I'm reporting your post for your (continued) rudeness and harassment. Don't respond to me at all if you are unable to be civil. Thank you.
By the way, Elminster is also complained about, yet he's sticking around--so obviously it has to do with what characters are selling, not just which ones are complained about. So I think YOU are the one who is wrong, there (and I love how you stick YOUR opinion in your post, then tell me not to. No, you don't tell me what to do here.).
The way they present some things makes some people ask "Why bother?" like the Simbul almost singlehandedly standing against the full forces of Thay.
Right, but it would have been nice if WotC had thought about this problem before calling for more and more novels featuring the Chosen of Mystra as major characters. Even Ed Greenwood has said that he would never had written any Elminster novels (and probably, no novels with the Seven Sisters as prominent characters, either) if he had never been asked to do so.
If a man calls you a horse, you call him a jerk. If a man calls you a horse a second time, you punch him in the nose. If a man calls you a horse a third time, well... maybe it's time to go shopping for a saddle.
I wouldn't do that.
I get what you're saying...but that isn't exactly the best analogy.
Do your PC's have those sorts of magic items? My players sure do. And guess what? My campaign is VERY lethal. Magic items don't make characters powerful or invincible. There's still a limited number of actions characters can take in a turn.
So Drizzt has +5 weapons. He SHOULD. He's 24th fricking level.
What Wizards NEEDS to dispense with more than they need to dispense with the Realms, or the Seven Sisters, or any of this other stuff and the changes that they made, is that they need to disabuse people of this idea:
The PC's are so special that they deserve special benefits.
Once there's no such thing as an NPC, and you just have CHARACTERS in a WORLD, you don't have these problems anymore. The Realms is an exercise in roleplaying and interactive character development, in tactical situations and storytelling. It is NOT about ego stroking, developing an aura of invincibility, or any of that other stuff. Someone really ought to reread that "A word to the mighty" Sidebar in the 3rd Ed FRCS.
So Drizzt has +5 weapons. He SHOULD. He's 24th fricking level.
Actually, just to nitpick, it's more like 16th/18th level.
According to their writeup, he's level 24.
You mean for 4th edition?
The old story doesn't ends, it's left without a finnish.
Unfortunatly, I think the only way you could truly end some the the old NPC's stories is to either kill them off, or move on. I for one, would rather have the storyline pushed forward a few years, knowing that some of the human characters may have lived out their lives in relative peace - or at least gone down struggling for their cause during the Spellplague.
Unfortunatly, I think the only way you could truly end some the the old NPC's stories is to either kill them off, or move on. I for one, would rather have the storyline pushed forward a few years, knowing that some of the human characters may have lived out their lives in relative peace - or at least gone down struggling for their cause during the Spellplague.
Yeah but the struggles of the gods should never end. Also sorry but I am not done with these stories...as in they had a start but really no middle and the ending atleast what we have seen so far look very badly done.
Also I really doubt that the new FR will sell well...just a gut feeling. The FR (as well as D&D) is hated by a certain percentage of gamers because it is very good...it seems that WotC is answearing their needs...me I doubt the people they are targeting is going to buy it.
You mean for 4th edition?
That would make him 6 levels behind godhood. Someone better notify RAS, his main character is about to replace Gwaeron Windstrom.:D
Also I really doubt that the new FR will sell well...just a gut feeling. The FR (as well as D&D) is hated by a certain percentage of gamers because it is very good...it seems that WotC is answearing their needs...me I doubt the people they are targeting is going to buy it.
I'm not sure I understand you John, you think FR and D&D is hated by some gamers because it's too good?
Am I misreading your quote?
You are correct, I could take the plunge and make the 'mistakes' and flesh out the FR as I see fit. I do understand your points completely.
But to me, fleshing the Realms out as I see fit doesn't mesh with it's beautifully and lovingly crafted history. As such a living and breathing realm, I feel like I cannot make impactful changes without challenging my player's beliefs and desires for the realms. And suddenly, what I am doing as a DM creates conflict with everything they know and love (and some of my players are avid fans of FR). "Thay takes Cormanthor and establishs and outpost in Myth Drannor? WTF? Why didn't anyone stop them? The Seven Sisters wouldn't let that happen! You aren't doing it right!"
And then, every time they pick up a book, they realize once more that the FR they play in is not the FR they read about and have come to love...so why play in FR at all?
I feel like, due to it's history and the love fans have for it, FR is too big for me to take an make mine the way I can with the smaller, less-fleshed out places. I don't know to make Waterdeep feel like Waterdeep or how to make the Simbul come across as the Simbul.
Will my players be upset if I don't get the feel of the Realms right? Probably not - we have been friends for a long time. But does that leave something lacking and defy the entire reason for playing in the FR in the first palce instead of a more generic or homebrewed world?
I think it does.
If I was not DMing for such huge FR fans, I would be more willing to attempt a stab at it. But as it is, there would be high expectations, and I don't feel that I can reach them with the knowledge I have of the Realms in it's current incarnation. Whether that is The Truth or not is another matter, but the feeling that the Realms are just that large and just that out of my scope makes me fear that challenge as a DM.
That is what I think WotC found. The fully fleshed out and powerful NPC inhabited world scares DMs more than the very generally, generically fleshed out world (especially when you have players who have been avid fans for decades now!).
But to me, fleshing the Realms out as I see fit doesn't mesh with it's beautifully and lovingly crafted history. As such a living and breathing realm, I feel like I cannot make impactful changes without challenging my player's beliefs and desires for the realms. And suddenly, what I am doing as a DM creates conflict with everything they know and love (and some of my players are avid fans of FR). "Thay takes Cormanthor and establishs and outpost in Myth Drannor? WTF? Why didn't anyone stop them? The Seven Sisters wouldn't let that happen! You aren't doing it right!"
You should establish that the Realms you are using is your Realms, and if your player don't like it, they can find a different game. Assuming, of course, your players really have a history of acting like that. If they don't, why not give them more credit than that?
And for the 100th or so time, the Chosen of Mystra are 9 or so people (give or take--their ranks are already depleted) out of millions, they can't stop every single villain in the Realms.
And for the 100th or so time, the Chosen of Mystra are 9 or so people (give or take--their ranks are already depleted) out of millions, they can't stop every single villain in the Realms.
Very true, but they aren't always perceived that way. I have met many players who refuse to play in the Realms because they feel like they're taking second stage to npcs - be it the Chosen, Harpers, Elminster, or even the deities who have been known to step in once in a while.
Now, whether that was their old DM's fault or the settings', the perception is still there. I think what Wizards is doing is good, as it will make the Realms seem more accessible to the next generation of Realms players, while still holding on to as much history as possible.
Very true, but they aren't always perceived that way. I have met many players who refuse to play in the Realms because they feel like they're taking second stage to npcs - be it the Chosen, Harpers, Elminster, or even the deities who have been known to step in once in a while.
Now, whether that was their old DM's fault or the settings', the perception is still there. I think what Wizards is doing is good, as it will make the Realms seem more accessible to the next generation of Realms players, while still holding on to as much history as possible.
Then what WoTC should do is change the perception of those people (and if they still refuse after seeing they were wrong then there is nothing WoTC can do to change those people). It'll give better results than destroying everything.
You should establish that the Realms you are using is your Realms, and if your player don't like it, they can find a different game. Assuming, of course, your players really have a history of acting like that. If they don't, why not give them more credit than that?
If am I not able to construct the Realms, why play in the FR setting at all and not just in the generic D&D world? My point is that I would like the be able to play the Realms as THE Realms (something I don't feel capable of doing). Instead, I make my own campaign setting, thus creating MY realm as I want.
If i told my players I wanted to do a FR campaign, would they be willing to follow me into it? Yes.
Would I feel like I am giving them the experience the realm disserves? No.
It's about my feelings as a DM, not theirs as players. Conversely, if they said they really wanted to try out a FR game next time, I'd be willing to go at it with them. Do I think I could the Realms justice in terms of flavor and depth? No.
And for the 100th or so time, the Chosen of Mystra are 9 or so people (give or take--their ranks are already depleted) out of millions, they can't stop every single villain in the Realms.
Again, something I only from posts here (and I would think Thay capturing of Myth Drannor would be worth of their attention). I don't even know who the Seven Sisters are (they were either not mentioned as such in the books I have read or did not made a lasting impression from the sources) let alone what they are capable of and what they would oppose. I have not read the novels about them, novels my players have read. This only furthers my point. I lack the information needed to make well-informed decisions to run this campaign, information that my player-base is not lacking.
Would the Seven Sisters even stand against such a move by Thay? If not they, who? The Knights of Myth Drannor? The Old Sage himself? Who in Rashemen would there be to stand against them? And if not these powerful NPCs, why would the PCs feel that they could?
If am I not able to construct the Realms, why play in the FR setting at all and not just in the generic D&D world? My point is that I would like the be able to play the Realms as THE Realms (something I don't feel capable of doing). Instead, I make my own campaign setting, thus creating MY realm as I want.
If i told my players I wanted to do a FR campaign, would they be willing to follow me into it? Yes.
Would I feel like I am giving them the experience the realm disserves? No.
It's about my feelings as a DM, not theirs as players. Conversely, if they said they really wanted to try out a FR game next time, I'd be willing to go at it with them. Do I think I could the Realms justice in terms of flavor and depth? No.
That's fair enough--you are entitled to play or DM however you want. I will respectfully point out, however, that the restriction you are putting on yourself (if I'm understanding you correctly) is self-inflicted, as the FRCS itself tells readers to "make the setting your own".
Again, something I only from posts here (and I would think Thay capturing of Myth Drannor would be worth of their attention). I don't even know who the Seven Sisters are (they were either not mentioned as such in the books I have read or did not made a lasting impression from the sources) let alone what they are capable of and what they would oppose. I have not read the novels about them, novels my players have read. This only furthers my point. I lack the information needed to make well-informed decisions to run this campaign, information that my player-base is not lacking.
Actually, I don't see why that's a bad thing at all, as that's all the more reason not to fret over these NPCs.
As for your questions...I don't want to get into a huge discussion about the Chosen of Mystra here. If you want, we can discuss it via PMs.The Drizzt piece is a placeholder for the catalog, we've actually got new art commissioned. It shows a shade knight flying on a wicked-looking dragon, wheeling over the towers of a dark fortress. Very nice piece.
My bad.
Here's the deal: For years now, every new Drizzt novel Bob Salvatore writes has hit the New York Times list (and hit higher just about each time). No secret sales info there, that's public knowledge. We'd be fools not to make use of that popularity.
So why do we like a character such as Drizzt, but want to move some of the Chosen off-stage? It's a fair question. After all, Drizzt is probably *perceived* in the audience at large as an uber-NPC just as much as Elminster or the Simbul, even though he's not really in their league. But as I said above, he is clearly one of the most popular things we've got going.
I'm hopeful that our new online initiative may make it possible for us to explore some material in areas we haven't ever gone before. We'll see how things begin to take shape as we get our Gleemax and DDi feet under us.
Anyway Rich, are the other continents that are undeveloped going to be used in 4E? Are the Sleeping Gods going to figure into those places? I mean why hasn't any real high leveled mage talked about them, or why hasn't anyone done any exploring there?
Sigh. It turns out I've got to eat some crow.
The Drizzt piece is a placeholder for the catalog, we've actually got new art commissioned. It shows a shade knight flying on a wicked-looking dragon, wheeling over the towers of a dark fortress. Very nice piece.
My bad.
Thanks for the answer.
Now all the hubhub regarding that Drizzt picture (that I've admittedly participated in) can die down.Sigh. It turns out I've got to eat some crow.
The Drizzt piece is a placeholder for the catalog, we've actually got new art commissioned. It shows a shade knight flying on a wicked-looking dragon, wheeling over the towers of a dark fortress. Very nice piece.
My bad.
I liked the Drizzt piece, but the one you describe sounds even nicer.
That's fair enough--you are entitled to play or DM however you want. I will respectfully point out, however, that the restriction you are putting on yourself (if I'm understanding you correctly) is self-inflicted, as the FRCS itself tells readers to "make the setting your own".
I am fully aware that i am restricting myself. D&D has always been about playing your game your way. But this is how I feel about FR, whether it makes sense or not. And this is something I will feel much less restricted on if/when the 4E changes are made.
My players may have a stronger knowledge on the rich history, but when 4E hits, we'll be on equal footing for the present.
Actually, I don't see why that's a bad thing at all, as that's all the more reason not to fret over these NPCs.
I wouldn't use them (I like making players the center of the story, after all, so while they may answer to a more powerful force, they are never over-shadowed by it), but I, like many others it seems, feel that their utter abscence makes the world I DM even less Faerunish. Sure the PCs may never meet Elminister, but he is always out there, changing the balance and altering the tide of histroy. If the all of these grave things happen and there is this sudden lack of power NPC interest, isn't that against the Realms feel?
I have totally side-tracked this forum, and I will stop now. I do appreciate both the consideration and respectful, understanding replies by my fellow posters. You have been very kind, and truely, that has made me feel more welcome in the FR setting than anything else. If WotC could go out to all individuals like me and have this kind of discussion, they might not feel the need to make the drastic changes that they are making to create a more accessible Realms for FR-fearful.
But as it is, most DMs who avoid the FR for the same reasons I have will feel more comfortable coming into it at the beginning of this up-coming new era rather than trying to break into the current one. For that, I thank both the Developers and the fans of FR. Your world is changing so that people like me can step into it. Don't think I don't realize it and respect the sacrifice (even if it was one you did not want to make).
Your world is changing so that people like me can step into it. Don't think I don't realize it and respect the sacrifice (even if it was one you did not want to make).
Thanks for the kind words.
Also, I sent you a PM.My players may have a stronger knowledge on the rich history, but when 4E hits, we'll be on equal footing for the present.
This is what you said, yes?
Let me explain to you how I feel about the idea of "Levellers." This is like socialism of the worst sort. This enforces the idea of the lowest common denominator on everyone and everything around you. This is the reason why we have a virtually disposable society right now. You pretty much just said "Thank you, you're all on my level now, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaa..."
Quite frankly, it's that sort of attitude that I find very frustrating. One of the wonderful things about the Realms was that people always dared to dream of it, and I think with that statement, that pretty much says something that's far sadder about the real world than it is about the Realms.
People don't dare to dream anymore. A lot of us did dare to dream. We put ten, fifteen, sometimes even twenty or more years into our Forgotten Realms Games.
Richness and depth don't need to be your enemies. Complexity is always rewarding when you seek it out. In the end, simplicity often collapses under the weight of it's own emptiness.
Dare to dream again. Don't be afraid of big pantheons or lots of detail about small shopkeepers. We'll never get it all one hundred percent straight. We're not meant to. Use what you like. But give those of us who like to use more of it the chance not to have sand kicked in our faces.
Thanks.
But as it is, most DMs who avoid the FR for the same reasons I have will feel more comfortable coming into it at the beginning of this up-coming new era rather than trying to break into the current one. For that, I thank both the Developers and the fans of FR. Your world is changing so that people like me can step into it. Don't think I don't realize it and respect the sacrifice (even if it was one you did not want to make).
Thanks for the courtesy.
If you don't want to work with the current detail in the realms though, there are several very vague points in its history that I don't care how long your players have been fans, they don't know much on that you could have attempted. I doubt that anyone can tell you a great deal for instance about the internal workings of Raumathyr or Narfell at their heights for instance. DMing in historic Faerun would have provided you a simple bypass to the complexity of modern Toril and given you a chance to try out the world. Sure those time periods were complex but no one has the details of all of Toril's history so you would be making up the background with only a few vague guidelines to hold to.
According to their writeup, he's level 24.
Which write-up? In the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, he's a Barbarian 10/Fighter 1/Ranger 5. His stat card from D&D Minis says the same (Both versions. From Archfiends and the Legends of Drizzt Scenario Pack). He's written up as such again here. So where's Drizzt written up as a Level 24 characte?
The Drizzt piece is a placeholder for the catalog, we've actually got new art commissioned. It shows a shade knight flying on a wicked-looking dragon, wheeling over the towers of a dark fortress. Very nice piece.
My bad.
Hooray! Best news I've heard all day.
ive played d&d for nearly 20 years now.I started with just generic games then moved into Dragonlance both as a player and a dm.I stopped playing that when the setting was "restarted" (sound familiar?) because quite frankly it was rubbish.Ive never been able to get back into it since.So from there I moved to FR again as a player and as a dm and do you know what one of the most exciting and fun parts of it was (and still is) was learning the history and the lore. I eargerly read and absorbed all the information I could but it never prevented me from playing the game beacasue there was too much of it, surely that is the most exciting part?
aside from taking a break from d&d to play and dm Vampire the Masquerade for a few years (until guess what they restarted it and got rid of all the exciting history and lore.....thats 2 out of 2 as the requiem is no where near as good....) the magority of my rping has been in the realms. And i still love all the hisory and lore and when all the 3e stuff came out i read all that as well becasue to me that is what makes the fr the fr.
Mostly I dm the realms and apart from Myrmeen Llhaal (and only as a speaking part!) I have never ever used any of the chosen, elminster, Drizzt, or any of the so called high level npcs that allegedgly cause all the problems. Why? because the PCs are the story I have never needed any of these characters to ever appear or be mentioned. and never has one of my players said "well why hasnt so and so done this already...?"
does it make me a bad dm as my players have never questioned anything about my realms even though there knowledge is as good as mine? does it make me a bad dm because ive neverhad to use high level npcs to save everything?
I personnaly dont think that either the history or the npcs prevents anyone from getting into the realms at all but hey who cares what I think.
h aving said that Ill check out 4e and 4e fr and keep what i like and ditch what i dont. I imagine my realmswill remain pretty much the same despite what the new cs says...
sorry if this is a bit random and going on a bit but im a bit tired.
Rich
I have been hearing news about alignment in 4th, and this brings up the question of alignment for 4th realms. It gives the idea that any creature with a firm alignment in the previous edition, might be more open to other alignments in the new edition.
My question is will this mean that any creature could have any alignment at all (like some people look like they think from what I read on the net) or would it be something like I think in the while any creature can have a different alignment, most will have alignment influencers on them.
Like Gold Dragons tend to be good/lawful and red dragons are evil/chaotic, yet it is possible for a Neutral gold dragon to exist (like in Dragons of Faerun). Or even an evil Angel Paragon or Good Archdevil to exist (Completely Unique, but possible). The real restruction being the storyline of your adventure.
It also brings up the adventures of Good heroes to free a evil creature from evil or an evil adventure who wishes to corrupt a good creature.
I hope this is okay and doesn't annoy anyone.
HV
Iyisha:
My players may have a stronger knowledge on the rich history, but when 4E hits, we'll be on equal footing for the present.
This is what you said, yes?
Let me explain to you how I feel about the idea of "Levellers." This is like socialism of the worst sort. This enforces the idea of the lowest common denominator on everyone and everything around you. This is the reason why we have a virtually disposable society right now. You pretty much just said "Thank you, you're all on my level now, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaa..."
Actually, I was trying to say. "Now that we are on the same level, I can try this with you." I wouldn't feel comfortable going into a black belt karate class trying to learn. Not only am I not getting it, but i am holding everyone else back. But I would take a beginning ballroom dancing class with those black belts if none of us knew how to dance. They might get it better than I do because of their karate knowledge (since they have more balance and grace than I), but at least our dancing knowledge base is the same.
I don't rejoice in the fact that my player's knowledge was suddenly laid-low. I do however acknowledge that I and the other non-FR fans in my group are not weak links.
Ebberron was a level playing field, and as such, it made money from my group when one of my players took a turn DMing an Ebberron game. We all felt comfortable starting there together.
Please do not think I am laughing at you for leveling.
Quite frankly, it's that sort of attitude that I find very frustrating. One of the wonderful things about the Realms was that people always dared to dream of it, and I think with that statement, that pretty much says something that's far sadder about the real world than it is about the Realms.
People don't dare to dream anymore. A lot of us did dare to dream. We put ten, fifteen, sometimes even twenty or more years into our Forgotten Realms Games.
Richness and depth don't need to be your enemies. Complexity is always rewarding when you seek it out. In the end, simplicity often collapses under the weight of it's own emptiness.
Dare to dream again. Don't be afraid of big pantheons or lots of detail about small shopkeepers. We'll never get it all one hundred percent straight. We're not meant to. Use what you like. But give those of us who like to use more of it the chance not to have sand kicked in our faces.
Thanks.
I'm really sorry you felt that way about my statement. Allow to put it this way.
Instead of breaking into FR, attempting to learn the history, the NPCs, and the catch up on 10 years of novels so that I do justice to this campaign setting, I made my own world.
I created a world in which dragon magic shattered a continent the dragons were trying to save, creating hundreds of islands, some at sea level, other floating in the skies. The rest of the world sank into the ocean, killing thousands, which in turn, killed all bu four of the gods.
I created a Shadow and Fey plane with their own rules and rulers (erriely like the up-coming Shadowfell and Feywild). Each of these plans have awesomely powerful creatures who are not gods (Vecna, for instance, lives in all of his glory on the Shadow, except he is not quite of god prowess).
I created racial varients to have a better flavor, and yet kept the old ones in case my PCs prefered tradition. I took rules from Dragon Magazine, I took some feats from FR and renamed them to fit the flavor (Luck of Heros became Born Under a Lucky Sign because I was using the cosmology rules and astrology is a big part of people's lives). I created new feats to allow for players to have past lives and have those come through, because those were important to flavor (a human could have an elf past life feat and therefore take elven PrCs and use Elf magic items).
Please don't think that those of us who find FR daunting don't dare to dream. And don't think that I would have wanted this for FR or ever asked WotC to make such a change for a player such as myself. I would have gladly continued onward with my own world building. But I would not have DMed FR. Ever. I doubt I would have gotten back into reading the novels, maybe one or two every so often.
This new change, however, has indeed leveled the field and make me, someone who has not kept up with FR as it has grown, feel welcome. And it will get me to read the new novels (I'm curious!), and those might well get me to play in FR. These changes make FR more accessible to those of us who don't play FR and to those new players just coming on to the D&D scene. This was WotC hope for the setting, which according to them, was starting to slump in sales.
People have been asking "why would WotC do this?" "How could the numerous high level NPCs/rich history roadblock players from FR?" "How can this new change bring people to the game?"
I have explained why it has kept me from playing FR and how it might get me to start in the new FR world and get me reading the new novels. Answering those questions was all I was ever trying to do (since people seemed not to believe WotC Developer's answers).
I hold the love all of you have for FR in the highest regard. I do not mean to mock or belittle that or the efforts all of you have put into growing your game over all of these years.
Lyshia
Which write-up? In the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, he's a Barbarian 10/Fighter 1/Ranger 5. His stat card from D&D Minis says the same (Both versions. From Archfiends and the Legends of Drizzt Scenario Pack). He's written up as such again here. So where's Drizzt written up as a Level 24 characte?
Those Forgotten Realms Settings are always amusing when it comes to characters who show up in various books. Drizzt especially. Assuming he was a fighter in the Underdark, a ranger on the surface and he took some levels as Barbarian in the Icewind Dale, would anyone care to explain how he, as a level 1 fighter, was able to kill several Hook Horrors or an Earth Elemental?:D
For me it is enough to know that character such as he are there, I don't care about their actual levels. He's called a Ranger, a ranger he is, not a barbarian/fighter/ranger. Those are the devils in the details.
I hate getting lost in the details when I want to enjoy a game.In regards to my previous post about the 2e box art, I stand corrected, it was indeed the Grand Tour of the Realms book inside the box that had Drizzt on the cover, but I guess they made a bigger impression on me than the actual box cover.
Rich are you able to tell us who the artist is? The cover art sounds fun if a bit niche, but maybe it takes cues from the 1e cover, that could be nice.
Come to think of it, is FR art and layout going to have a specific look in 4E? I felt that was one of the things FR lack, especially in contrast to Eberron's appearance of a unified art direction. Even though they shared many of the same artists, Eberron just felt more like one whole when it came to art.
I'm not sure I understand you John, you think FR and D&D is hated by some gamers because it's too good?
Am I misreading your quote?
mmm...perhaps I wasn't as clear. What I was saying is that disliking or liking a setting is entirely opinion based. For some people their opinion is the only right opinion and it angers them when others disagree...so they will tear down what the other person dislikes. Even if they 'get their way' they will still find something they dislike about it, because they have spent so long hating it is refexive. All they get is some sort of glee in destroying what other people liked. I have seen these people talk new gamers away from the FR...I have been mocked by them in the last few months, etc. heck I even see some still saying I still won't play because Elminster and Drizzt are still in...and 40 to 60 gods is too many...etc
I am not saying everybody who is for these changes are like this. But since I am a misthanthrope(so it might be a little high
) my guess it is about 50% to 80% of the people. Also the fact is people don't complain when they are happy with something I think WotC has gotten a very wrong feel for what people want and what keeps people out of the Realms.I hope I am wrong...I hope 4th edition will be good. I hope the New Realm's stories will get my interest...but from what I am loosing...I don't know if it is possible. Anyway time will tell.
But as it is, most DMs who avoid the FR for the same reasons I have will feel more comfortable coming into it at the beginning of this up-coming new era rather than trying to break into the current one. For that, I thank both the Developers and the fans of FR. Your world is changing so that people like me can step into it. Don't think I don't realize it and respect the sacrifice (even if it was one you did not want to make).
Well I hope you enjoy the New Realms...but it is loosing everything I ever liked about the Realms. Wish we could both enjoy the Realms.
I would like to ask a question on something that you said before. You said Eberron got alot of your groups money(personaly I liked both settings)...will it still if you also start running in the Realms? Or is it one or the other?
Perhaps we lie to ourselves since a long time, refusing to accept some realities. Hard fact. Things like a canon so hardened the gamer side of the things was forgotten.
Everything? It sounds more like fear than anything. Perhaps we should gives the authors and designers a chance before going all disapointed.
Perhaps we lie to ourselves since a long time, refusing to accept some realities. Hard fact. Things like a canon so hardened the gamer side of the things was forgotten.
No not fear...just what they have been saying. They are catering the game to a beginner level of game.
And I have never let canon get so hardened in my Realms. I think people get a wrong inpression on us who critizes the designers of the New FR. It was they who gived up on the Realms. We are just giving up on WotC. They still ave a shot...but with what has been done so far it is a very longshot.
I personally am very excited. Everything I have heard to date about 4e makes me want to play. Yes it hurts a little bit to see a realm and a game I love change, but hey, that's life. And if in the end it reinvigorates my love for it all over again, then I say job well done.
On to my question.
Will Elminster be present in 4e realms?
I honestly don't expect an answer until I crack open the new Realms Campaign Book, but I ask out of dire curiosity.
I would say that Ed Greenwood's first three glorious E novels (Making of a Mage, E in Myth Drannor and Temptation) are the sole reasons that I became interested in fantasy at all. It was only after these three that I discovered other writers like Tolken (I was intimidated as a young reader) and the wonderful game of D&D. Elminster to me is more than a fixture, he is a presence. Now I am not asking for E to stay as is, far from that. I leave that to more capable hands to decide. I just want to be considered one "Vote" for Elminster.
One of the things I love the most is having characters "bump" into him, almost like when movies directed by the same person often contain bits and pieces of their previous films. This subtle encounter reminds me of all the wondrous events and history E brings to the table. I rarely ever let the PC's interact in a major way (so not to steal any lime light) but its nice to know that there are characters you can call upon that instantly key in the players and let them know that whatever story they tell, it will be a part of something greater.
Saying that, I personally feel the Sage has passed his prime as a major character, as others may agree or disagree. I only ask to be considered as a fan who cares deeply about the hobby, and that the things that make the realms what they are be retained.
Thanks for reading and keep up the fabulous work. Rich and Co. You make this game so much more that just a business venture, and I thank you.
Sincerely
Corey
Everything? It sounds more like fear than anything. Perhaps we should gives the authors and designers a chance before going all disapointed.
So if someone comes with a can of garbage and asks you to eat it, you are going to do it before you get disappointed? Or are you going to say "this is garbage, I'm not going to eat that"?
If the large part of the things they changed to the realms is not appealing to me, why should I give the new edition a chance? It's my money and my spare time. I'm not going to waste it, just to satisfy their ego.
You know, Aztecs used to cut out people's hearts. That's the kind of sacrifice this is.
Oh, and as for making a sacrifice?
You know, Aztecs used to cut out people's hearts. That's the kind of sacrifice this is.
..... I'm sorry, but did he just compare an alteration to a game (albeit a great one) to the brutal murder of a human being by way of their heart being forcibly removed from their chest? .....
For the sake of not getting flagged by the Mods I will leave it at that...
Think they've stated quite plainly, can't recall where offhand though, that Drizz't and Elminster are both going to survive to 4e for sure, but that's about the only two who have been confirmed up til now as far as I know.
Sweet. Thanks for the post!
Wow, someone failed metaphor school.
Look... I'm not going to get sucked into a name calling match with you. Please take it elsewhere.
No problem. And don't mind Msatran, he gets a little emotional about 4e, and occassionally has poor taste in metaphors. You get used to him after a while, and beyond that, he has a lot of good points once you get past the vitriol. ;)
Thanks again Stigger. No offense taken. I probably shouldn't have commented in the first place.
I´m sorry, but I just don´t get your point. How can you now feel that you are at the same "entry level" as the rest of us? Although WotC felt the superfluos need to nuke Gods and high level NPC´s, it will *still* be the Forgotten Realms. If you play a campaign in Cormyr, Cormyr will *still* have its thousand years of history, only that now it will have a whole century ( give or take ) heaped on top.
So I really don´t get how nuking the existing Realms helps you in any way... the old history won´t be gone with the new edition.
Things change, I've already had one fantasy setting I adored ruined (Warcraft) so the changes to the Forgotten Realms isn't as shocking to me personally. I'll just adapt, after all it's only a game. The true fun is playing it with friends, not "gee the Simbul and Khelbin are dead now, guess I.." why does it matter? Everything must die sometime even gods.
We know so little what the new realms could be, why don't we WAIT and see what will happen instead of sounding like a bunch of WoW players whining about the next patch that will come out. You're all sounding like a relative just died here.
We know so little what the new realms could be, why don't we WAIT and see what will happen instead of sounding like a bunch of WoW players whining about the next patch that will come out. You're all sounding like a relative just died here.
The problem is that we see history being repeated again, and it will end the same way, just like Greyhawk when D&D changed to 2nd edition.
I'll tell you a story of my country. During the '80 my country finally could go back to democracy after decades of a military government that made life a living hell. The first democratic president had a good start, but at the end of the decade an hiperinflation was tearing down the economy, the president tried to apply price control over products, but that just made the inflation worse.
In this day inflation is again rising and the only thing the president is doing to "control" it is a price control, having experienced this before we already now that inflation will only continue to increase.
I wonder if people whined this much whne 1st edition rolled over to 2nd edition or when 2nd edition went to 3rd edition?
Sure . . . we just didn't have the internet to do so publicly.
During every edition change there have been people from every setting that said the new edition spells doom for their favored world. Sometimes they've been right, other times, not so much. We'll see how this one turns out. ;)
The people at the Burgerbraukeller thought the same thing, and look what Europe got.
Any time you use the disappointment of the masses to ride to power on a wave of excitement, something disastrous happens.
Ok, that's just insulting and totally off! I guess you don't really understand what you are actually comparing here, sorry but that's just idiotic.
For the rest of your rant (and ranting seems the only thing you're doing): We get it. The Realms are youre world and we all are just playing in it.
Well I hope you enjoy the New Realms...but it is loosing everything I ever liked about the Realms. Wish we could both enjoy the Realms.
I would like to ask a question on something that you said before. You said Eberron got alot of your groups money(personaly I liked both settings)...will it still if you also start running in the Realms? Or is it one or the other?
Where we play all depends on the DM. I am by default, but sometimes one of the players says, "I have a great idea that I would like to give a try," the group would pretty much back that decision.
I am currently DMing, but one of my players is taking over once the campaign is done. He is the FR fan (and is also in the FR game in which I am a player) and will probably use the Realms. We don't know if the current game will be over before 4E is released or even if we will switch to the 4E rules. We might start the FR campaign in 3.5 and attempt to convert over to 4E. Currently, most of us are excited for the release.
The one player who DMed Eberron has sais he is working on an idea for another Eberron game. Whether he switches to 4E or not is more up in the air (he's admittedly not excited about 4E so far). If he does switch and he does still want to run his Eberron campaign, we will still be supporting it.
So it is not one or the other for us, but most DMs have a preference. Despite having had one DM tackle 3.5 Dragonlance, another take Eberron, and me take a couple of different homebrews since 3.0 came out (and various homebrews in 2nd ed too), this group has never played a actual FR adventure. But one way or another, it looks like it is coming.
Ok, that's just insulting and totally off! I guess you don't really understand what you are actually comparing here, sorry but that's just idiotic.
Heya,
I know (being a german myself) that it's not so easy to stay calm when one reads really bad Nazi-comparisons when you're much better informed and have an inside view of german history. msatrans statement gave me the creeps too. I think he clearly doesn't know better and thus shouldn't be called an idiot because he didn't have the same curriculum at school but rather be informed of what he did;
and that was to compare the part of the crowd at these boards who aren't resisting the changes to the setting with the kind of Nazi-fanatics that formed the crowd that listened and cheered to Hitlers speeches in Munich during the rise of the Nazis. This is really way beyond what I would call a polite discourse.
By the way, I find all those "very funny" disgusting "spelling-nazi" pictures that are on certain threads at least equally bad, as they are actively painting Nazis as some comedians in funny uniforms. They were everything but.
I am resisting the changes too but think that moderation of the tone is in order. Who shouts all the time will not be heard anymore.
Oh, and Lyshia? That concept sounds really awesome. So why did you stop? Isn't it worth keeping?
We didn't. It's our current campaign world.
I'm not DMing the next campaign (and the player who is will be taking us to FR for the first time in this group's history), but DMing generally comes back to me. With all the free time I have not creating adventures, I hope to flesh out more of my world and work 4E into it. Since my cosmology pretty much matches most of what 4E is doing and there are hundreds of islands unexplored by the PCs, it's all an open slate and allows me to convert the whole world very easily. I need no new cataclysm to introduce new races...they just did not exist on the island the current adventure is mostly taking part on. Easy as pie.
That being said, of the last...3 or 4 campaigns I have run, they have all be slightly different homebrews. This is the most radical change with new races and new feats and rules and such. We often go for completely different themes when we play. This one is the Duke Campaign because the adventures are, for the most part, nobles in a kingdom under direction by the Duke.
Since I'll have time off from DMing, my next campaign might well be in The Floating Isles world I am creating. Even if it is, the one after that might in FR. My group likes to switch things up.
I almost ran an Underdark campaign (while I didn't read a lot of Drizzt books beyond the first two or three, I did read the Daughter of the Drow series and the 6-book War of the Spider Queen series, so I feel like I know a bit more about underneath Toril than the surface of it) instead of this current one, but then the Duke idea came about and the players opted for that instead.
The Underdark might very well be the next adventure I run, because it was a pretty exciting idea for my players to play underdark races and potentially be a bit evil and villainous for a change.
Where we play all depends on the DM. I am by default, but sometimes one of the players says, "I have a great idea that I would like to give a try," the group would pretty much back that decision.
I am currently DMing, but one of my players is taking over once the campaign is done. He is the FR fan (and is also in the FR game in which I am a player) and will probably use the Realms. We don't know if the current game will be over before 4E is released or even if we will switch to the 4E rules. We might start the FR campaign in 3.5 and attempt to convert over to 4E. Currently, most of us are excited for the release.
The one player who DMed Eberron has sais he is working on an idea for another Eberron game. Whether he switches to 4E or not is more up in the air (he's admittedly not excited about 4E so far). If he does switch and he does still want to run his Eberron campaign, we will still be supporting it.
So it is not one or the other for us, but most DMs have a preference. Despite having had one DM tackle 3.5 Dragonlance, another take Eberron, and me take a couple of different homebrews since 3.0 came out (and various homebrews in 2nd ed too), this group has never played a actual FR adventure. But one way or another, it looks like it is coming.
The you should consider yourself privileged to have such breadth of players that know different settings. That is what I mean to say that everybody should focus in the strenghts it has. One of your friends know the Realms, he should be the one making FR campaigns, other knows Eberron, you are the homebrew specialist.
I think that instead of trying to learn the FR at a level you feel comfortable to DM you should continue to DM homebrews and let the FR fan DM. I envy you that somebody else knows the realms and can DM. I've never been able to just be a player in FR, if I want to play I also have to DM. Only recently one of my players started studying the realms in more depth and I hope one day he DMs a campaign on the Realms so I can concentrate on being a player.
Also, stay on topic.
Way too much 'chatter' going on in this thread; I think the designers are missing questions because of all the discussion going on here. BTW, Chaos, is that Hugh Laurie/House as your Avatar? You just became my idol, dude! :D
Questions:
Rich, will the nine Hells be seperate in the Ethereal Sea? I think it might make sense for the layers of the Abyss to be so, and then be connected by gates, but by it's very nature the 'Hells' should be more organized. I would prefer one plane with nine layers, then nine seperate planes floating in the ether - Hell would lose a lot of it's flavor if you guys did that.
Will 4e be open source?
To Lyshia:
I´m sorry, but I just don´t get your point. How can you now feel that you are at the same "entry level" as the rest of us? Although WotC felt the superfluos need to nuke Gods and high level NPC´s, it will *still* be the Forgotten Realms. If you play a campaign in Cormyr, Cormyr will *still* have its thousand years of history, only that now it will have a whole century ( give or take ) heaped on top.
So I really don´t get how nuking the existing Realms helps you in any way... the old history won´t be gone with the new edition.
The old history isn't really the problem. I have been saying that the Realms have a rich history; maybe that is misleading in what my problem is. Yes, there is a lot of history there, but the ancient empires do not need to be in every game. I know nothing of the Sharn or the Netherese, but so what? My adventure does not need to include them, and not including them does not loose the FR feel or the cultures of the regions. The current times might have grown from the ancient empires, but the ancient histories are not the problem - the source book can cover all that I need to know about these as a player and as a DM.
I can probably list about 20 FR books I have read, most of them from 2nd edition time. And I played most of the computer games (the old SSI gold boxes to NWN, skipping only the latest Pools of Radiance game).
My problem: I have no idea what is going on in the Realms now.
It's the current events and history of the last 20 years of the realms that I know nothing about. I know nothing about the Time of Troubles or the Seven Sisters (as we have seen in my previous posts) or what is going on in Cormanthor these days or what happened to Tilverton and the Dragon Flight or whatever it was called. The details of current events and the NPCs shaping them are what make the Realms so rich. How many novels are there detailing the past 20 years of the realms? Even if I tried to run a game taking place 20 years in the past, I know so little of the world as a whole, information some of my players have.
If the players teleport to Silverymoon on a whim...what's that place like? I have no clue! They decide they want to head to Phlan...the last thing I knew of Phlan was what happened in the Pools of Darkness computer game from 1991! Yeah, as the DM, I can stop them, sure, but then I am corraling them to what I want. I can also say "hey, you know what? I don't know a damn thing about that place, so it's just a small town with some shops (one of them sells silver items and another sells minor magic stuff, I recall that from Pools of Radiance!) and stuff. Oh, and where is it again?"
How will this change? When the new setting comes out, it will be 100 years in the future. The entire landscape of the realms will change, from what I have heard from the spell plague and the death of the gods (of whom I know so very little). The current rivalries gone, the current powers tossed into turmoil, the current current-events no longer something of concern.
Sure, the ancient history will be there, and I will still only have a slight knowledge of it (which is not necessarily a bad thing) but I will at least be as up on the current climate of the Realms as everyone else, something that just a campaign source book can not do for me. If 4E comes out and it turns out Thay merged with Sembia to form some sort of wizard alliance, we will both know that at the same time. You will not have information regarding this merging from years of steadfast Realm Reading that I do not.
I will know just as much of what is happening "now" in the realms as you. I'll know just as much as what happened for the last 100 years as you. That is obviously something I cannot say now and it would show if I tried to run a FR game. The Time of Trouble will still have been important, but it will lack a great deal of importance when compared to the new spell plague and culling of the gods, and I will be on equal footing with you on those events.
Is it worth nuking the Realms for that? I don't know. I am the type of DM audience it sounds like these events are aimed at, but I am not someone who needed this to stay with 4E. It's not worth doing it for me, personally (so WotC, if you thought about me specifically, thanks, but it's cool as is!).
Does it help me create a more accurate modern FR for my players? Absolutely. And I'm sure that is why WotC is doing it. By ending all "current events" and advancing the time line 100 years, WotC is putting all DMs and players on a equal footing in terms of "what is going on in the Realms now? What do I need to know about that is happening NOW to make it feel like my players are there in the current era?"
I hope that makes sense. I understand the frustration, the idea that the old players are being sacrificed so that WotC can try to get new players in in a gambit that doesn't even make sense. Trust me, from this side of the fence, there move does make sense, but it risky.
I think they are hoping that curiousity will keep the Old Guard looking at FR during the transition and that the new world they are building up will be as rich and wonderful as it always was to keep you reading about the new plots and stories they create. They are also hoping that people who see a few hundred FR books on the shelf and think "How can I pick up one of those novels and have any idea what is going on?" will instead see the new line and think "Ah, I can start from here and follow along without being lost."
Edit: I do keep cluttering up this forum. Sorry. I'll stop now. If anyone wants to continue this conversation about how the changes make the Realm more accessible to non-FR DMs, feel free to PM me. I'm not advocating the change - please don't think I want this to happen to the Realms. Just know that I, as someone who does not play FR, have a different persective on how the current realms can be seen as "uninviting" to those who do not play in FR due to the number of books and gods and NPCs. As a DM, I like to emerse myself in the world I run; there is too much going on in FR in the current era for me to feel like I can do so.
I will know just as much of what is happening "now" in the realms as you. I'll know just as much as what happened for the last 100 years as you.
But you won't know what happened for the last 1000 years, or 10.000 years.
No matter how many years they advance the story, those things that happened thousand of years before still affect the present. For example: thanks to Coronal Eltargrim who oppened Myth Drannor to other races Khleben was born, The Harpers were created, Silverymoon was created. All things that still affect the year 1380
You're all sounding like a relative just died here.
You know, I actually DID lose my father, 5 years ago. I know what it's like. This is nothing.
Talk about horrible similies and metaphors running rampant in this thread. And msatran, I like you, but I agree that the real-world comparisons you drew were inappropriate.
This thread is in danger of being closed if we can't make it productive again. Let's stick to the topics. It's a role playing setting to ask questions not a place to draw real life comparisons to a game. It's also not within the code of conduct to name call and attack each other. The last few pages of this thread have gone way off topic and if not fixed we'll have to close it.
Sin
DM of Birthright and Ravenloft Currently...
How will this change? When the new setting comes out, it will be 100 years in the future.
Quick nitpick--this hasn't been confirmed yet.
Will there be colourful "realmsian" inns and taverns in the New Realms? As in Volo-colourful?
Cheers.
So what's the plan to handle this? Retcon or in-story reason? Thanks.
As I understand it from the Chris Perkins interview you guys have a pretty set schedule about when you are going to release what new information (such as the new date, details on the Spellplague, and such). Have you considered doing something like picking one day a week . . . like say Tuesday. And every Tuesday post a new tidbit of info on the realms. It would not always have to be something big necessarily but just something new about 4e realms that we don't know yet. Then every Tuesday (or whatever day) folk would visit wherever you released the info (here on the boards, or on the wotc main site, or wherever). It would garner some more attention for the realms, provide more subjects to converse about, and at least provide some constant string of new information for folks. For me, one of the hardest things about this whole transition to 4e realms is the very small amount of known info, even a little bit would be better than nothing. Just an idea.
I got another question, Rich. How will you handle Demigods in 4E who very clearly in the background had churches, clerics, and worshippers in prior editions? Will you retcon them as never having had those churches, clerics, and worshippers, or will there be an instory reason as to why they no longer possess them? Like maybe their faiths dying off, for instance? Or Ao forcing all the varying pantheons into one pantheon (Only one Portfolio per god, so they'd have to fight it out for the Portfolio. You can only share Portfolios if you're a Demigod, so the loser would probably be reduced to a Demigod)? Or maybe the Greater God they serve demoted them to a position where they can no longer accept worshippers or grant Cleric spells? With the Spellplague, I can see the latter happening. The Greater Gods deciding that they need to shore up their power by garnering as many worshippers as possible, and so demoting some of their servitor deities so that their worshippers will begin to worship them, instead. For instance, Oghma demoting Deneir to gain his followers, etc.
So what's the plan to handle this? Retcon or in-story reason? Thanks.
In my opinion, in-story is most often the best way.
I got another question, Rich. How will you handle Demigods in 4E who very clearly in the background had churches, clerics, and worshippers in prior editions? Will you retcon them as never having had those churches, clerics, and worshippers, or will there be an instory reason as to why they no longer possess them? Like maybe their faiths dying off, for instance? Or Ao forcing all the varying pantheons into one pantheon (Only one Portfolio per god, so they'd have to fight it out for the Portfolio. You can only share Portfolios if you're a Demigod, so the loser would probably be reduced to a Demigod)? Or maybe the Greater God they serve demoted them to a position where they can no longer accept worshippers or grant Cleric spells? With the Spellplague, I can see the latter happening. The Greater Gods deciding that they need to shore up their power by garnering as many worshippers as possible, and so demoting some of their servitor deities so that their worshippers will begin to worship them, instead. For instance, Oghma demoting Deneir to gain his followers, etc.
So what's the plan to handle this? Retcon or in-story reason? Thanks.
I do not think there will be any need for a retcon. There can still be multiple churches and those people will still be worshipping their god. It is a bit different in who gets that "faith juice" though. If a demigod is prayed to his/her "superior" would get all of the "faith juice" in return to protecting the demigod from the trauma of the Planes or some such thing. The Planesquake event will shake things up a bit. Only Greater powers will be able to hold things together so lesser and below powers will have to flock to the great one and probably give up a bit of their godhood for protection. Anyway that is how I figure it will go. A Retcon doesn't even have to be considered.
Rich, will the nine Hells be seperate in the Ethereal Sea? I think it might make sense for the layers of the Abyss to be so, and then be connected by gates, but by it's very nature the 'Hells' should be more organized. I would prefer one plane with nine layers, then nine seperate planes floating in the ether - Hell would lose a lot of it's flavor if you guys did that.
I got another question, Rich. How will you handle Demigods in 4E who very clearly in the background had churches, clerics, and worshippers in prior editions? Will you retcon them as never having had those churches, clerics, and worshippers, or will there be an instory reason as to why they no longer possess them? Like maybe their faiths dying off, for instance? Or Ao forcing all the varying pantheons into one pantheon (Only one Portfolio per god, so they'd have to fight it out for the Portfolio. You can only share Portfolios if you're a Demigod, so the loser would probably be reduced to a Demigod)? Or maybe the Greater God they serve demoted them to a position where they can no longer accept worshippers or grant Cleric spells? With the Spellplague, I can see the latter happening. The Greater Gods deciding that they need to shore up their power by garnering as many worshippers as possible, and so demoting some of their servitor deities so that their worshippers will begin to worship them, instead. For instance, Oghma demoting Deneir to gain his followers, etc.
So what's the plan to handle this? Retcon or in-story reason? Thanks.
Dear Mr. Baker,
Will there be colourful "realmsian" inns and taverns in the New Realms? As in Volo-colourful?
Cheers.
Rich I have a question for you.
As I understand it from the Chris Perkins interview you guys have a pretty set schedule about when you are going to release what new information (such as the new date, details on the Spellplague, and such). Have you considered doing something like picking one day a week . . . like say Tuesday. And every Tuesday post a new tidbit of info on the realms. It would not always have to be something big necessarily but just something new about 4e realms that we don't know yet. Then every Tuesday (or whatever day) folk would visit wherever you released the info (here on the boards, or on the wotc main site, or wherever). It would garner some more attention for the realms, provide more subjects to converse about, and at least provide some constant string of new information for folks. For me, one of the hardest things about this whole transition to 4e realms is the very small amount of known info, even a little bit would be better than nothing. Just an idea.
I think Rauric's got the right answer here. I'm not real anxious to say that the Spellplague and its consequences made demigods unable to sponsor clerics or major faiths, nor do I really want to just retcon it and say that demigods never headed up significant faiths. But I'm pretty sure we want to keep the number of Faerun-wide faiths at a more reasonable number than 120+. So maybe the right thing to do is a "mild" retcon on this score, suggesting that some demigods in the pre-Spellplague years have occasionally enjoyed local worship, but when they were doing so it was likely an affiliated greater god or lesser god who was really garnering the worship. It's hard to worship the Red Knight without tipping your cap to Tempus, I'd imagine. That would probably work for most of the faiths we'd like to let slide into obscurity.
It's actually what more lesser powers and demi-gods in the realms were during 2nd edition. For example Gwaeron is worshipped on the north but little or nothing on other regions. Perhaps the best you could do is to set the areas where many of those lesser divinities are worshipped, and have rules for divine agents of those gods. There is always the player who loves to make a follower of an obscure god, and it doesn't needs too much work. It's even better for most DMs because it gives more possible plot hooks.
Instead of sliding them into obscurity, you should make them more localy focused and give information of them on the regional book of the area they are active. It's what WW does in it's books, for example, one book that deals with the Ordo Dracul faction of Vampire: The Requiem has the information on the faction's special magic and in no other place. It's a good way to make them less central while still keeping them, because only a DM who is interested in the Silver Marches would have to know about Gwaeron.
Otherwise, I'd like the idea of approaching the deities in the manner Alediran suggested. In an ideal world, I'd like to see just the major 'adventurer' gods given much detail, with the rest given a sentence or two to give us the feel of them (and maybe a template to tell us how to detail those faiths ourselves. For me, knowing what deities are worshipped in a region tells me more about the culture living there than most other things. Cutting them down is going to take a lot of the nuance out of the setting I find. Really, I think it could give DMs far more ability to customize the setting, names and basic description, but letting us fill in the large blanks.
I know I've been remarkably anti-4e, but I've had something of an epiphany about things, and I have to admit I do agree that this has to happen for the setting to remain viable. I still don't like the method that you lot are choosing for its implementation, but I can work around that one on my own. My own perception is that you almost have to go a semi-Eberron route with things... which I don't think is a bad thing in this instance. If I'm following your logic behind the changes, the Realms are rooted in a different generation of game design logic, which is proving to be a detriment to updating and bringing it into line with the more 'modern' philosophy/view to gaming, and so if you want it to remain a viable setting that can 'compete' and not just cater to a very niche market.
For its day, the Realms were an incredibly high-magic setting, but that's not really holding true in the face of Eberron anymore. The rules on item creation alone almost demand a revision of the Realms so that it makes more sense. I get that. I can even make out some sense in wanting to abandon a lot of the baggage that's built up over the decades. What I can't see though is why it had to occur via some massive RSE that took away a lot of the core concepts (as I see them anyway) behind the Realms.
So I suppose what I'm asking, is are we going to get a more in-depth explanation of why these things were deemed necessary, the logic and reasoning behind them so to speak? Obviously that information isn't going to be forthcoming in the near term, but is the explanation coming at some point in the future? Not just the changes, but why these changes were decided upon... since right now it seems that there are a lot of hurt feelings on the anti-4e side of things, and I think that (relatively)in-depth explanation could go a long way to soothing that tension.
I think Rauric's got the right answer here. I'm not real anxious to say that the Spellplague and its consequences made demigods unable to sponsor clerics or major faiths, nor do I really want to just retcon it and say that demigods never headed up significant faiths. But I'm pretty sure we want to keep the number of Faerun-wide faiths at a more reasonable number than 120+. So maybe the right thing to do is a "mild" retcon on this score, suggesting that some demigods in the pre-Spellplague years have occasionally enjoyed local worship, but when they were doing so it was likely an affiliated greater god or lesser god who was really garnering the worship. It's hard to worship the Red Knight without tipping your cap to Tempus, I'd imagine. That would probably work for most of the faiths we'd like to let slide into obscurity.
I think this would be acceptable if done properly. I'm going to give it a chance personally. As long as they don't just retcon it completely, I'm fine with it. The two demigods I was really hoping to keep in were Jergal and Red Knight, though I REALLY was hoping Bhaal would be brought back as a Demigod hehe :P
I think Rauric's got the right answer here. I'm not real anxious to say that the Spellplague and its consequences made demigods unable to sponsor clerics or major faiths, nor do I really want to just retcon it and say that demigods never headed up significant faiths. But I'm pretty sure we want to keep the number of Faerun-wide faiths at a more reasonable number than 120+. So maybe the right thing to do is a "mild" retcon on this score, suggesting that some demigods in the pre-Spellplague years have occasionally enjoyed local worship, but when they were doing so it was likely an affiliated greater god or lesser god who was really garnering the worship. It's hard to worship the Red Knight without tipping your cap to Tempus, I'd imagine. That would probably work for most of the faiths we'd like to let slide into obscurity.
Thanks for the answer. And now I have another pair of questions.
How're you going to explain the rumored growth spurts of both elves and halflings? Or are the Realms versions going to retain the same sizes as they are currently?
Also, will there be rules in 4E for playing a Spellfire Wielder? And if so, will they appear in the initial book, or in a later supplement?
How're you going to explain the rumored growth spurts of both elves and halflings? Or are the Realms versions going to retain the same sizes as they are currently?
I sure hope they keep the sizes the same. It would be too weird to have them taller. Especially halfings!
I think that if there was another dedicated FR thread that we knew that at least one FR Designer visited and contributed to (preferably at least on a weekly basis, they are busy we know), then the "chatter" on this thread would die down and be used more for questions. But seeing that this is the only dedicated FR thread that we know of any of the FR Designers visits (albeit only one), then people will continue to "chatter" this thread. This is the only thread that we feel we have any voice that will be heard by the FR Design Team, no matter how small that voice may actually be.
myself and others have repeatedly gotten answers on other threads by George Krashos and Brian James, and occasionally other designers/authors 'rear their head' when a topic they are knowledgable in is being discussed.
They are there, and they ARE listening. They just don't respond to every little thing. Otherwise they would never get any work done. ;)
How're you going to explain the rumored growth spurts of both elves and halflings? Or are the Realms versions going to retain the same sizes as they are currently?
Well the elves of the FR were orginaly 6' tall on the average...so I am guessing they are going to do it the same way they shrunk them in 3rd. I actualy don't mind this change...as it is a actualy restoration of what was before.
Though the reasoning behind making halfling taller(i.e. because it is more 'realistic') sounds very weak.(Also are they going to be called 3 quarterings or is the average height of humans going to be 8' tall :D ) By that logic the giants have to be shorter because it is unrealistic for creaturte built like humaniods to be that tall.
So I am guessing that the demigods will be briefly mentioned then forgotten about?
It's hard to worship the Red Knight without tipping your cap to Tempus, I'd imagine. That would probably work for most of the faiths we'd like to let slide into obscurity.
Or maybe its always been the way that the god that said demigod worked for, granted spells to said demigods worshippers as a token of appreciation for the service rendered by said demigod. It would be a way to 1) Actually gather more faithful without actually seeming larger, and 2) Make sure that the demigod in question didn't run off at the earliest opportunity.
Case in point: Velsharoon in 3.x (and forgive me if I don't remember correctly) was serving Mystra I believe? That could be a case of Mystra holding such over him.
Just a thought. And it fits well with what Rauric wrote :D
)Though the reasoning behind making halfling taller(i.e. because it is more 'realistic') sounds very weak.(Also are they going to be called 3 quarterings or is the average height of humans going to be 8' tall :D ) By that logic the giants have to be shorter because it is unrealistic for creaturte built like humaniods to be that tall.
Speaking about realism in a fantasy setting is such an amusing matter.:D On that logic, dragons should not be able to fly, because their wings would be unable to keep their body mass in the air.
Also the magic system should be completely removed from the game, because it is unrealistic to say the least.:D
I am all for regional deities. I always believed that some deities are worshiped more in some areas. Tempus is worshiped by barbarians and those are mostly in the northern part of Faerun. Not to mention the older Mulhorandi deities. Those were restricted to one region. They were extended to other regions and move that increased the whole pantheon (Bast/Sharess comes in mind).
My guess on the demigod thing is that they may get more of a write up online and then a book in two years. Til then just figure whoever is marked as a demigod is still worshipped and revered in there prominent lands. Even if they died cleircs probably will still receive spells from someone (Greater God) so they will just assume their deity still exists. If your favorite deity dies, ask your DM to change that fact if it really matters to you. Most kindly Dms will probably comply with that request.
Rich, do the Sleeping Gods, Abier, and Aboleths all tie into each other?
We've been talking more about the Forgotten Realms 4e preview plans in the last couple of days, and I think you'll see something kicking off in January. (We all became very busy in the last couple of months, and launching the preview series in December just fell by the wayside.) I'll say more when we get our plans nailed down, but... I'd hope we can get the first formal preview piece posted by mid- to late-January.
Alright thanks for the answer.
About a month ago I asked a question on tying CRPGs into the storyline of Forgotten Realms between 3.X edition and 4th edition. At the time you were not familiar with the CRPG side, but mentioned that you would look into it. Of course, you are very busy working on the campaign setting, so I would not be surprised if you had not had the time to look into the matter or if it slipped your mind. Still, I think this would be interesting for WotC to consider and for us, gamers, to enjoy. I will summarize the idea again below:
The Forgotten Realms setting will undergo a great upheaval in the transition from the 3.X edition to 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Many things will be reorganized and a number of deities will fall.
I think this presents a golden opportunity to tie in a computer game (perhaps the next expansion of Neverwinter Nights 2 [I am assuming that the excellent Mask of the Betrayer sold well enough to justify another expansion) into the upheaval in FR, in such a way so that the story of the CRPG actually changes the setting. For example, the designers of the game could communicate with the designers in WotC, who would inform Obsidian (or Obsidian could suggest) that they need god X to be killed off, or ruler of country Y to be overthrown and the player could do these things in the game. Wouldn't it be nice to have players being able to affect our favorite setting in this manner? This is the best opportunity to do something like that, since the campaign setting is in such a state of flux that this would not upset the Forgotten Realms (or at least not beyond what is being done already). It may also soften the blow for those opposing some of the changes by empowering us to carry them out ourselves - that would make it psychologically much more satisfying.
I would love to be able to impact the Realms in this manner. Wouldn't you (you = other gamers)?
Mr. Baker,
About a month ago I asked a question on tying CRPGs into the storyline of Forgotten Realms between 3.X edition and 4th edition. At the time you were not familiar with the CRPG side, but mentioned that you would look into it. Of course, you are very busy working on the campaign setting, so I would not be surprised if you had not had the time to look into the matter or if it slipped your mind. Still, I think this would be interesting for WotC to consider and for us, gamers, to enjoy. I will summarize the idea again below:
The Forgotten Realms setting will undergo a great upheaval in the transition from the 3.X edition to 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Many things will be reorganized and a number of deities will fall.
I think this presents a golden opportunity to tie in a computer game (perhaps the next expansion of Neverwinter Nights 2 [I am assuming that the excellent Mask of the Betrayer sold well enough to justify another expansion) into the upheaval in FR, in such a way so that the story of the CRPG actually changes the setting. For example, the designers of the game could communicate with the designers in WotC, who would inform Obsidian (or Obsidian could suggest) that they need god X to be killed off, or ruler of country Y to be overthrown and the player could do these things in the game. Wouldn't it be nice to have players being able to affect our favorite setting in this manner? This is the best opportunity to do something like that, since the campaign setting is in such a state of flux that this would not upset the Forgotten Realms (or at least not beyond what is being done already). It may also soften the blow for those opposing some of the changes by empowering us to carry them out ourselves - that would make it psychologically much more satisfying.
I would love to be able to impact the Realms in this manner. Wouldn't you (you = other gamers)?
Except for the part where I kill Cyric in the CRPG and save Mystra...it won't make a difference. Personaly a CRPG will end in the way the designers needs it...heck most of the time it is regardless of your actual skill or intelligence or choice.
That's not empowerment. That's disempowerment. That effectively makes people complicit in changes they neither A) Like or B) Respect.
It would not empower us to change the direction of changes being made, but it would empower us to weave our own stories of how some of these changes happened. As an example, our character could be responsible for killing a god that is being retconned out of existence, or helping Tyr leave the Forgotten Realms multiverse, despite being instituted as a god there by AO and required to look after his worshippers...
Except for the part where I kill Cyric in the CRPG and save Mystra...it won't make a difference.
You know that won't happen, but that does not mean there are not other changes that we could not participate in and make a difference.
Personaly a CRPG will end in the way the designers needs it...heck most of the time it is regardless of your actual skill or intelligence or choice.
A CRPG is obviously made by designers, so it has limited outcomes, but playing through the outcomes gives us a personal stake/touch with the changes in question.
Besides, CRPGs still enable us to make choices. Because so much is being changed in the Realms, we could, for example, be given a choice of opposing and ultimately killing NPC X (whose story would otherwise remain untold) or whether to instead help NPC X get rid of his spellplague induced insanity, but the latter choice would leave him to live out the rest of his short human days without ever being able to use magic... (these are just examples, the point is that plenty of choices are possible due to the scale and scope of the changes in the offing).
Regarding halflings, it's pretty much true that we want them to be a bit bigger. The height and weight charts in 3rd Edition described a 3-year old human child. That's *tiny*. In Lord of the Rings, Pippin is described as being about the size of a 10-year old boy (admittedly, he is big for a hobbit thanks to Treebeard's draught). That's a lot more reasonable. Plus, it helps us to make better miniatures of halfling characters if they're about 2/3rd human height.
And yes, I think spellfire might make an appearance.
Thanks for the answer. And now I have another pair of questions.
How're you going to explain the rumored growth spurts of both elves and halflings? Or are the Realms versions going to retain the same sizes as they are currently?
Also, will there be rules in 4E for playing a Spellfire Wielder? And if so, will they appear in the initial book, or in a later supplement?
Mr. Baker,
About a month ago I asked a question on tying CRPGs into the storyline of Forgotten Realms between 3.X edition and 4th edition. At the time you were not familiar with the CRPG side, but mentioned that you would look into it. Of course, you are very busy working on the campaign setting, so I would not be surprised if you had not had the time to look into the matter or if it slipped your mind. Still, I think this would be interesting for WotC to consider and for us, gamers, to enjoy. I will summarize the idea again below:
The Forgotten Realms setting will undergo a great upheaval in the transition from the 3.X edition to 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Many things will be reorganized and a number of deities will fall.
I think this presents a golden opportunity to tie in a computer game (perhaps the next expansion of Neverwinter Nights 2 [I am assuming that the excellent Mask of the Betrayer sold well enough to justify another expansion) into the upheaval in FR, in such a way so that the story of the CRPG actually changes the setting. For example, the designers of the game could communicate with the designers in WotC, who would inform Obsidian (or Obsidian could suggest) that they need god X to be killed off, or ruler of country Y to be overthrown and the player could do these things in the game. Wouldn't it be nice to have players being able to affect our favorite setting in this manner? This is the best opportunity to do something like that, since the campaign setting is in such a state of flux that this would not upset the Forgotten Realms (or at least not beyond what is being done already). It may also soften the blow for those opposing some of the changes by empowering us to carry them out ourselves - that would make it psychologically much more satisfying.
I would love to be able to impact the Realms in this manner. Wouldn't you (you = other gamers)?
I'm still looking into it. We're sort of "between" titles on that front, so it's going to be a little ways off no matter what we do.
Of course: CRPGs take a long time to make, so it is no surprise that it would not come immediately.
I would like to see a CRPG title that really explores the Spellplague events (for instance), which we sort of want to treat as an event that's run its course in the 4e campaign setting.
That is precisely what I mean! It creates an extra bit of story/history, can be used to flesh out some of the events of the Spellplague or other happenings between the editions and can do so in an epic manner, since it will not mess with an established setting. I am positively excited now.
But that's just my opinion, and there are a few things to sort out. Our licensors (or licensees? I can never keep that straight) might have some other suggestions.
I believe they are your licensees and you (or rather, the WotC) are the licensor, but English is not my native tongue so I could be wrong.
When I know more, I'll say more.
Excellent! I am thrilled at the prospect and will eagerly but nonetheless patiently await any news on that front.
Rich,
I’m assuming the 4E FRCG will have a synopses of what occurred in the interim between Mystra’s death and the start of the first campaign year the FRCG is set in.
Do you know if WotC has any plans in the works to provide more in-depth information about the time leading up to, and during, the Spellplague?
I ask because I’m entertaining the idea of giving the Epic PCs in my game an opportunity to thwart Cyric’s attack on Mystra (should our campaign last that long). If they should fail, it’d be great to have an idea of the many catastrophic events that would initially occur.
As they’re Epic PCs, they just might have a chance to mitigate some of the disasters and even shape the future of the Realms after Mystra’s fall.
Thank you!
Of course: CRPGs take a long time to make, so it is no surprise that it would not come immediately.
If you are going to do this, then make it turned-based, not RTS, or even better, a hybrid where you can choose which style you prefer (I know I've played at least one game like that).
I think something along the lines of Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might and Magic, or even Lords of Magic would be awesome, with authentic FR nations and units. I could definately SO get into that.
In fact, you can even make it so folks could play against each other over the net - it might be another good move in your Digital Intiative.
You know - sometimes I wish Blizard had bought WotC instead of Hasbro; those guys know how to crank out awesome games.
I think something along the lines of Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might and Magic, or even Lords of Magic would be awesome, with authentic FR nations and units. I could definately SO get into that.
Seconded. When I first played AoW I immediately thought of the Realms, and that's never changed. There's no game (or game series) I invested more time into than AoW 1-3, and we've even used custom maps to illustrate or act out large-scale battles or military campaigns. The Weeping War, the Reclamation Wars, Obould's siege of Mithral Hall, the Sythilisian Empire among others. In short, I'd so be on board if a company (preferably by Triumph Studios) released a FR turn-based strategy game. On the other hand, AoW 3 suits me just fine, so I have all I need.
DB
So I am guessing that the demigods will be briefly mentioned then forgotten about?
Give them time guys, besides everything has to die sometime.....even gods....With each new setting old gods were killed and some new ones were added ~snip~
They're shoehorning 150+ deities into a pantheon that only handles 20-30. The final tally hasn't been delivered (they may not get it all done in one edition) but this is major. There's nothing gradual or appreciatable about that part.
They're shoehorning 150+ deities into a pantheon that only handles 20-30. The final tally hasn't been delivered (they may not get it all done in one edition) but this is major. There's nothing gradual or appreciatable about that part.
I thought that the 20-30 deities were of the lesser and greater status while the others would become demigods, die off, or become absorbed/aspects of other gods?
Further clarification: There will be lesser powers as well, but as has been suspected many (if not all) racial pantheons will be dissolved, with the main members being added to the 'main' pantheon.
Clarification. There will be 20-30 main/core/whatever gods. The rest will either be turned into servitor demipowers/mythological beings or they will get killed. Or they will have been retconned so that in reality elven deity X is really the name for human/FR deity god Y. To me the end result is the same.
Yup bad writing, game design...heck just a lousy idea.
Clarification. There will be 20-30 main/core/whatever gods. The rest will either be turned into servitor demipowers/mythological beings or they will get killed. Or they will have been retconned so that in reality elven deity X is really the name for human/FR deity god Y. To me the end result is the same.
Seek the Truth behind the Truth.
I got a question.
Will the 4th Edition Realms have more information about other parts of Toril besides Faerun, such as Kara-Tur and Maztica?
I thought Chris Perkins' interview on Gamer Zero mentioned there being more info on a broader portion of Abeir-Toril. Maybe not specifically on Al Qadim, etc., but more about the other continents.
Good, cause reading about just Faerun gets a little boring sometimes :P
Clarification. There will be 20-30 main/core/whatever gods. The rest will either be turned into servitor demipowers/mythological beings or they will get killed. Or they will have been retconned so that in reality elven deity X is really the name for human/FR deity god Y. To me the end result is the same.
Further clarification: There will be lesser powers as well, but as has been suspected many (if not all) racial pantheons will be dissolved, with the main members being added to the 'main' pantheon.
I tried finagling the deities around to fit the 20-30 rule, first I figured that the 20-30 means Realms on the Astral Sea, I got it to 17 including racial pantheons and the Mulhorandi pantheon.
In some of the Faerunian deities realms I doubled up on the Greater deities since some of them really don't fit with most of the Lesser or Demigods. Ubtao comes to mind. I was thinking of posting it somewhere for feedback and I probably will in the 4E FR threads.
So, to remain on topic:
Rich, can you give us a hint on the fate of Mulhorand?
I'm sure a couple of famous ones will be mentioned in the new FR Campaign Guide (the Yawning Portal, for instance), but not in Volo-like detail.
Well, as you want to reduce DM Prep time in 4e, I would prefer to have at least some taverns provided in great detail. It takes a lot of prep time for me to make up the menu of an Inn, think of the wines that are served there and so on.
The main problem about the realms is that all the information is scattered about so many books, of different editions, each containing only a few bits here and there. If you would provide all the information about one place at one spot it would be much easier for a DM to prepare a campaign there.
For me, the minimum information about a tavern would contain a floor plan, a menu, and the names of the most important NPCs which work there. A big plus would be information about regular visitors.
If you don't provide this, I will to make up everything myself which can be a lot of work.
I'm curious to know if Drizzt is now going to be about the same size as his dwarven companion, Bruenor.
I just noticed you cowrote Red Hand of Doom Rich. This is a great adventure and a big hit with players. We need more of this type of adventure for FR. The reason people are a ton of threads on RHOD on the Adventure threads and not other FR adventures is because they all kinda blew. Sorry it is true. That is why there are a whole slew of RHOD threads and not as many FR threads. You guys put out a good adventure that can be placed into any campaign that will be talked about when people mention 3.5 E. I am not using the whole thing but many fragments of the story is being placed into my Eberron campaign. Anyway thanks for the great ideas. ;)
Yup bad writing, game design...heck just a lousy idea.
Hey, I am going to sound as tired, old, and redundant as you are sounding about this topic these days by saying it sounds like a good time to me. Again most people I know that haved stayed away from the Realms for the last few years will pick up the 4E version and they want minimal god stuff, at least in the initial sourcebook. I think more about the current Faiths in FR will be dealt with in Web articles and sourcebooks, but the Campaign book will just show the Core Greater gods and their involvement in the current Realms. I am sure the Pantheon will be talked about more sometime in the future, those books always sell. ;)
People on these boards have to realize they are probably part of a small niche that the marketing people look at. Sorry to burst your egos but that is most likely the case. Everyone always wants to think they are the center the the universe and their opinions are the best and "rightest". It just aint so folks. I could be totally wrong as well, but I do not have access to WOTC marketing research so I can only really guess and offer opinions.
Rich, I know you might not be able to answer this, but are Drow "growing" along with the elves, dwarves, and halflings?
I'm curious to know if Drizzt is now going to be about the same size as his dwarven companion, Bruenor.
Aren't elves taller than dwarves???
With Cyric being under House Arrest, does this mean that his followers will no longer be able to communicate with him? Because if that is part of the punishment then I give a big thumbs up to you designers. Knowing humans/dwarves/and elves, a thousand years is a long time, even by most elven standards. This would cause Cyric to lose everything he worked for, and best case scenario he comes out of this a demigod because of the attrition rate he will suffer with his clerics. And worst case scenario, he will be forgotten and cease to exist. So is this what the House Arrest meant?
Hey, I am going to sound as tired, old, and redundant as you are sounding about this topic these days by saying it sounds like a good time to me. Again most people I know that haved stayed away from the Realms for the last few years will pick up the 4E version and they want minimal god stuff, at least in the initial sourcebook. I think more about the current Faiths in FR will be dealt with in Web articles and sourcebooks, but the Campaign book will just show the Core Greater gods and their involvement in the current Realms. I am sure the Pantheon will be talked about more sometime in the future, those books always sell. ;)
And I will say that people played in the Realms because of that rich and diverse pantheon.(Neither one of us knows which is a majority). But you people got your small pantheon in Ebberron...where can I go for a large and diverse pantheon now?
People on these boards have to realize they are probably part of a small niche that the marketing people look at. Sorry to burst your egos but that is most likely the case. Everyone always wants to think they are the center the the universe and their opinions are the best and "rightest". It just aint so folks. I could be totally wrong as well, but I do not have access to WOTC marketing research so I can only really guess and offer opinions.
Sorry but when did I said my opinion was the majority opinion? I haven't said one way or the other, because as pointed out we can't know who opinions is the correct one. Heck WotC marketing research might be completely wrong. Bussiness history is full of examples of marketing research being completely wrong before. ( Ever heard of New Coke?). We( and I mean no one) won't know till they finaly release 4th edition and the New Realms how it is going to go.
Rich, would you say Thay will get a major retooling during 4E?
And I will say that people played in the Realms because of that rich and diverse pantheon.(Neither one of us knows which is a majority). But you people got your small pantheon in Ebberron...where can I go for a large and diverse pantheon now?
This is (currently) my biggest problem with the 4e Realms. Especially since they are talking about making racial deities aspects of and/or parts of human pantheons. It is also something that they cannot explain away bad planning with a good story (which they may be able to do with the murders of Mystra and Helm, but we have yet to see them do). Any worshiper of a racial deity who becomes an aspect of a human deity will not be happy when said deity's human followers tell said worshipers that their racial deity is only an aspect of their human deity. (Was that too convoluted to follow?) This concept seems to me like they are promoting a human supremacist Realms. If (and right now that is a big "if") I decide to move onto the 4e Realms because they explain the events that occurred at the end of the GHotR in a way that makes sense and is in character for the characters involved (including deity characters), than the mutilation of the racial pantheons will be something I will not adopt with the "new" Realms.
This is (currently) my biggest problem with the 4e Realms. Especially since they are talking about making racial deities aspects of and/or parts of human pantheons. It is also something that they cannot explain away bad planning with a good story (which they may be able to do with the murders of Mystra and Helm, but we have yet to see them do). Any worshiper of a racial deity who becomes an aspect of a human deity will not be happy when said deity's human followers tell said worshipers that their racial deity is only an aspect of their human deity. (Was that too convoluted to follow?) This concept seems to me like they are promoting a human supremacist Realms. If (and right now that is a big "if") I decide to move onto the 4e Realms because they explain the events that occurred at the end of the GHotR in a way that makes sense and is in character for the characters involved (including deity characters), than the mutilation of the racial pantheons will be something I will not adopt with the "new" Realms.
Again, just keep the non-human pantheons around. Just because WOTC plans on changing them doesn't mean you really have to. :D
Again, just keep the non-human pantheons around. Just because WOTC plans on changing them doesn't mean you really have to. :D
Sure...I plan to staying with 3.5 if I can't get a Cleric of those gods who'll bite the dust to work mechanicaly as well as flavor wise(The reason why I liked 3.5 was because most of the time mechanics reflected flavor and vice versa).
So again I'll ask Mr. Baker,
Will the demigods(or servitor gods) be just mentioned and forgotten, or will they be developed more?
How flexable are the rules in 4th edition to remake clerics of gods you guys are killing off or making into demigods?
We're talking about making the effort of creating 120 deities from scratch and then studying them to make sure they're all balanced.
That isn't funny.
We don't know all of the 4E cleric/god mechanics yet so we don't know if having a cleric serving a demigod will be much different than serving the Greater god. It may be very easy.
Rich, please no more gods as characters in Novels. 2nd and 3rd edition are gone and done with, I would love this concept to bite the dust as well.
Aren't elves taller than dwarves???
Elves are taller than dwarves, yes. But drow aren't considered "elves" anymore. They are a seperate fey race. We know that dwarves are getting taller in 4e, but we've not been told anything about drow. In 3e, drow are the shortest of the elven subraces.
So if drow aren't growing, but dwarves are... Then I guess drow will be the new duergar! :D Skinny, dark-skinned, evil dwarves!
Regarding the trimming of the pantheon... let me see if I can shed some light on our thinking. Imagine that we had every Realms DM make a list of every deity *significant* in their game. That is, every deity chosen by a cleric PC as their patron deity, every deity whose clerics and servants the PCs fought, and every deity whose NPC clerics or servants played a useful part in the game. I think that list in the typical Realms campaign is about 15 deities long. Maybe you've had 5-7 PC cleric deities, maybe you've trashed the temples of 4-6 evil deities, and maybe you've gotten advice or help from the clerics of 3-5 other deities. How many more deities do you *need* to run a good game? At what point do you have deities you're never going to use in your game?
So let's say we ask those DMs to rank the 20 deities (I'll be generous) most important in their version of the setting, and we compared the lists across all FR DMs everywhere. I'd bet those "Top 20" lists include, on average, 85% similarity, and it's only 2-4 minor deities rounding things out that make one DM's Top 20 vary from another DM's Top 20. I think that what we're really arguing about here is an individual DM's ability to compose his or her own "demi-pantheon" or subset of the deities he or she wants to feature in the game. And I think those demi-pantheons are overwhelmingly similar across the broad playing base of the game. If I'm right about that, we're better off to identify the deities that are on most people's list and pay attention to them.
Do the deity count -- How many deities really matter in your home game? If someone can honestly say more than 30, I'll be quite surprised.
The gods are pretty much already developed right? If they are made into demigods what really does that change? You already have tons of lore on them to run them effectivley even after 4E.
We don't know all of the 4E cleric/god mechanics yet so we don't know if having a cleric serving a demigod will be much different than serving the Greater god. It may be very easy.
Rich, please no more gods as characters in Novels. 2nd and 3rd edition are gone and done with, I would love this concept to bite the dust as well.
Or players go to the other extreme with choosing deities that have a formal structure which many of my players feels entitles them to "automatic access" to knowledge of the deity and his/her influence/history across the realms.
I for instance like Gwareon Windstorm yet no one has ever chosen him as a deity over the years that I've Dm'd and I've always assumed that just as players do, so do the common folk of faerun thus a deity like Gwareon eventually fades into obscurity.
I think the Times of Trouble write up describing the activities of various deities was meant to bring about a resurgence of those faiths and now with news of some of these deities exiting stage left it just throws things off from a gamers viewpoint.
Just my 2 cents.
Well, I sure don't plan to use gods as characters in any books I write. I can't speak for all the Realms authors (some of them are working on very different storylines than I am, after all) but I'd just as soon avoid that.
Regarding the trimming of the pantheon... let me see if I can shed some light on our thinking. Imagine that we had every Realms DM make a list of every deity *significant* in their game. That is, every deity chosen by a cleric PC as their patron deity, every deity whose clerics and servants the PCs fought, and every deity whose NPC clerics or servants played a useful part in the game. I think that list in the typical Realms campaign is about 15 deities long. Maybe you've had 5-7 PC cleric deities, maybe you've trashed the temples of 4-6 evil deities, and maybe you've gotten advice or help from the clerics of 3-5 other deities. How many more deities do you *need* to run a good game? At what point do you have deities you're never going to use in your game?
So let's say we ask those DMs to rank the 20 deities (I'll be generous) most important in their version of the setting, and we compared the lists across all FR DMs everywhere. I'd bet those "Top 20" lists include, on average, 85% similarity, and it's only 2-4 minor deities rounding things out that make one DM's Top 20 vary from another DM's Top 20. I think that what we're really arguing about here is an individual DM's ability to compose his or her own "demi-pantheon" or subset of the deities he or she wants to feature in the game. And I think those demi-pantheons are overwhelmingly similar across the broad playing base of the game. If I'm right about that, we're better off to identify the deities that are on most people's list and pay attention to them.
Do the deity count -- How many deities really matter in your home game? If someone can honestly say more than 30, I'll be quite surprised.
Hi Rich,
Thank you for responding to my earlier post.
I have used well over 30 deities in the 15+ years that I've played in the Realms. It's easy to do when you run multiple games. I think I may use more of the deities than other people because I like to run race themed games. For example I am running an Elf themed game in the High Forest and a Drow themed game in Cormanthor. I also have an old evil campaign on the northern shore of the Lake of Steam that I wanted to return to. I'm currently using most of the Elven Pantheon and half of the Drow Pantheon. I am also using half of the Orc Pantheon for clerics of various Orc tribes in High Forest. Instead of listing all the gods that I have used or am using I'll just list the gods that the change to 4e has already effected. These are gods in my current game that are dead or changed.
Sehanine Moonbow
Talos
Velsharoon
Mystra
Azuth
Savras
the Triad
Tyr
Helm
Kiaransalee
Vhaeraun
I also like using many demi-gods that have clerics now, but either won't have clerics in 4e or may be dead in 4e. I'll list a few of them. I also think that many of the gods that I use in the racial pantheons will be dead, aspects of human gods, or not have clerics. I'll list a few of them too.
Eilistraee (even if she survives LP I don't like her changes)
Deneir (I don't think he'll have clerics anymore)
Garagos (likely dead)
Lurue (likely dead)
Shaundakul (likely dead)
Aerdrie Faenya
Hanali Celanil
Labelas Enoreth
Rillifane Rallathil
Shevarash
Solonor Thelandira
Shargaas
Yurtrus
I listed the elven gods because I think Corellon will be the only Elf god in the Realms that can have clerics. I also think Gruumsh will be the only Orc god with clerics.
I didn't list them to be a smart ass and I know that I don't represent a large portion of Realms fans. I did this so you could see that using 4e would be a real problem for my style of play. I use many clerics of obscure Realms gods as central figures in my games.
Regarding the trimming of the pantheon... let me see if I can shed some light on our thinking. Imagine that we had every Realms DM make a list of every deity *significant* in their game. That is, every deity chosen by a cleric PC as their patron deity, every deity whose clerics and servants the PCs fought, and every deity whose NPC clerics or servants played a useful part in the game. I think that list in the typical Realms campaign is about 15 deities long. Maybe you've had 5-7 PC cleric deities, maybe you've trashed the temples of 4-6 evil deities, and maybe you've gotten advice or help from the clerics of 3-5 other deities. How many more deities do you *need* to run a good game? At what point do you have deities you're never going to use in your game?
In the twenty years of running a game I have used all of them multiple times. But I admitt my group might be odd in that we have manage to run a ongoing, living game that long.
But I'll point out the above describes a single campaign's worth. I am guessing people will get tired at just the same 15 after awhile. Also since you are catering to the game to people who play a campaign in less then year I am guessing people will wear out the gods you do have in short oder.
So let's say we ask those DMs to rank the 20 deities (I'll be generous) most important in their version of the setting, and we compared the lists across all FR DMs everywhere. I'd bet those "Top 20" lists include, on average, 85% similarity, and it's only 2-4 minor deities rounding things out that make one DM's Top 20 vary from another DM's Top 20. I think that what we're really arguing about here is an individual DM's ability to compose his or her own "demi-pantheon" or subset of the deities he or she wants to feature in the game. And I think those demi-pantheons are overwhelmingly similar across the broad playing base of the game. If I'm right about that, we're better off to identify the deities that are on most people's list and pay attention to them.
Sure so when are you going to start asking people? Also I don't think those list are going to be all that similar. I also happen to think those minor deities are going to be actualy alot more popular then you might think. As they are more likely to get ignored by the authors. By the way that means we can play out game without author fiat messing it up.
Do the deity count -- How many deities really matter in your home game? If someone can honestly say more than 30, I'll be quite surprised.
Well get surprised because in the game I play in we easily double that number. And in about another 5 years we do so again.
What I don't get is why you guys feel you must remove options for DMs and players? I mean if a DM only want to have 15 deities why can't he just rule so and so gos are it?
I though 4th edition was going to be about increasing options?
What I don't get is why you guys feel you must remove options for DMs and players? I mean if a DM only want to have 15 deities why can't he just rule so and so gos are it?
I though 4th edition was going to be about increasing options?
Agreed. As I said earlier at Candlekeep, this trimming of the pantheons feels like a very unnecessary "breast reduction" operation: you're about to ruin something big and beautiful.
There, I said it.
I think what Rich said was right as far as the general rules go. However, the Realms, partially because of it's breadth of deities, lends itself to, and attracts players and DMs who want to do deity-centric games. For this reason, while the normal rule for Realms games is that only 20 to 30 gods are used normally in any meaningful capacity, that does not account for the many, many games out there that focus more on the various churches and deities. Personally, the gods are one of the things that have always made the Realms the Realms to me, however I can definitely see where they are coming from when it comes to the number of gods. I think that the sheer number of gods were very overwhelming, and they could get use from better organization and source books detailing the gods so that it is more readily accessible as it is, a number of pantheons and regional gods. I've heard that the 2ed book was better as far as this is concerned, but I've never seen it, so all I have to go by is Faiths and Pantheons. I also realize many people are losing favorite gods, or are greatly concerned about the mechanics involved with demi-gods and clerics. However, we don't know how this will work yet, so any doom-saying regarding mechanics in this area are premature.
Sorry for the run-up, but I wanted to explain where I was coming from with this question. Rich, if I remember right, you said there were no plans to make any books about the FR gods. So is the Realms staying a campaign world that attracts and supports deity-centric campaigning, or is the attrition of the pantheons going to truly limit the scope of the game in that aspect?
Do the deity count -- How many deities really matter in your home game? If someone can honestly say more than 30, I'll be quite surprised.
Good point. I've had to kind of work at it to show off the flavor of the various deities in my game (Waterdeep is good for that).
So, based on your criteria I'd say there are about (counting Orcus, here) 15 deities that get regular face time in my campaign, with that number fluctuating downward if play moves away from population centers.
In the later case, there's the patron faiths of the PCs in my game plus one or two deities at most whose followers act as antagonists.
Other (friendly) faiths come into play only if resurrections are needed.
:::::
I'm looking forward to the idea of Demigods in service to higher powers....I hope this structure finds its way into the arrangment of the Faiths in Faerûn itself.
It'd be neat to see demigods having mostly paladin followers that do the dirty work of goodly aligned faiths, with the lesser powers counting even numbers of paladins, clerics and divine champions/zealots/seakers amongst their numbers, while the higher powers have a worshipping population composed almost exclusively of true, high level clerics.
I just wonder who is going to do all the re-writing of what happens to the long tradition of Tyran-led Whaterdavian justice, not to mention the many followers of Tyr in and near Waterdeep, once Torm takes over.
;)
Let's see, let me just run down a list of PC clerics deity choice in my game.
Meilikki
Silvanus
Corellon Larethian
Solonor Thelandira (More popular than Corellon)
Tymora
Lathander
Amaunator (Yeah, I count this one separately, because you need a feat to take him)
Deneir
Llira
Milil
Eilistraee
Moradin (1)
Clangeddin (The single most popular dwarven god choice, by far)
Dumathoin
Marthammor Duin
Gorm (God is dead, PC is screwed, will be angry)
Helm (God is dead, GMPC is screwed, GM is a little cranky but as campaign is currently on hiatus, don't really care, as cool as the character and her hat collection were.)
Illmater (This deity has like 6 PC worshippers, go figure)
Torm
Selune
Azuth (I think more PC's worship Mystra and Azuth than any other deity combination put together.)
Sune Firehair
The Red Knight
Sharess
Anhur
Kossuth
And that's just the CLERICS.
Once you get to the actual worshippers, the list doubles or even triples. I already have people coming to me and saying "Mike, I'm !#$%!ed, what do I do?" And I really don't have a good answer for them. It's not fair or right for me to say "I don't have a good answer," but the feeling of twisting in the wind is one that I know well, and so needless to say, I'm very unhappy with the cheesy pantheon condensation.
- Sun Elf Air Wizard who follows Aerdrie Faenya
- Moon Elf Arcane Trickster who follows Erevan Illesere
- Wood Elf druid who follows Rillifane Ralathir
- Sun Elf Champion of Corellon Larethian
- Moon Elf Arcane Archer (who retired) who followed Solonor Thelandira
- Avariel Cleric of Aerdrie Faenya (also retired)
- Drow Cleric of Eilistraee
By making the Elven pantheon "aspects" (*goes to vomit*) of lousy N'Tel'Quess gods the flavor of the Seldarine is lost, if you need to trim down gods, do it, but don't cut the racial pantheons. Human gods are secondary to the demi-humans, no self-respecting elf or dwarf would worship an aspect (not even the full deity) of a human god.
Antagonists gods I already had (we're only in the begining and this campaign wasn't designed as deity-centric):
- Malar
- Shar (and she lost because she is the lady of loss)
- Kiaransalee
- Gruumsh
- Ghaunadar
Future enemy gods and powers
- Malkizid
- Tiamat
- Lolth (who will be reduced to Intermediate status again, thanks to the players)
- Selvetarm
- Vhaeraun
- Talos
- Umberlee (during the first trip to Evermeet)
Other gods that made an appearance:
- Mystra (one of the PCs follow her)
- Azuth
- Sehanine Moonbow
- Mielikki
- Chauntea
- Lathander
- Gwaeron Windstorm
- Tymora
- Kelemvor (background appearance, one of my players did a little trip to the land of the dead, to rescue the soul of a friend who was captured by Tana'ri)
- Deneir (during a visit to Silverymoon's library)
For a mortal-centric campaign, there are lots of gods who appeared or will appear. The count is 28.
My last campaign might have used 10 gods total, and only 5 were really "important" to the game. I agree with Rich that I think a small niche of gamers will be affected by this change. We will see a bunch of online complaints about it by the usual suspects and a few other stragglers but I really do not think they represent the masses. Most people from the store Igo to didn't even know these boards existed or care about them. Most had played in the Realms at one point in there gaming "carreer". I think people like them and the Borders and Amazon players are what WOTC is looking to try to gain as consumers.
I think that alot of the people here complaining are smart enough to fix what they do not like in a short manner of time. If you have been gaming for so long house ruling should be no problem and you are pretty used to it. When you game for so long sometime whatever the game company does won't satisfy you, you have your ways and are set in them.
Rich, any word on using Demigods and what they are up to in Web Articles? Maybe if you give some distressed players a slight glimmer of hope on the god topic they will calm a bit for a few rounds. Heh. Seriously though, Web Articles seems like the best place to handle Demigods and how t ohandle them. Unless they will be handled slightly in the main book.
I think that alot of the people here complaining are smart enough to fix what they do not like in a short manner of time. If you have been gaming for so long house ruling should be no problem and you are pretty used to it. When you game for so long sometime whatever the game company does won't satisfy you, you have your ways and are set in them.
It's easier to destroy than create. If WotC gives us all FR gods ready to use we don't need to spend what little time we have of our lives to recreate 90% of the gods. If the gods are there to use, those DMs who want to use them have them. Those who don't want to use them will not. It's easy as that.
If you managed to use them now i don't see how you would have a hard time using them in 4E. It's not like you'd have to create them out of nothing - they're still in your old books (Faith & Avatars and Powers & Pantheons mainly, which i'm sure you all posses
)For beginners and Realms dabblers, heck even for me, a trimmed pantheon can be a huge help when you want to now the names and places of all the gods in your campaign. So, i'm looking forward to it.
Guys, 60 % of the gods you claim to have used where not supported in 3rd Edition in any mechanical way (be it through feats, spells or prestige classes).
If you managed to use them now i don't see how you would have a hard time using them in 4E. It's not like you'd have to create them out of nothing - they're still in your old books (Faith & Avatars and Powers & Pantheons mainly, which i'm shure you all posses
For beginners and Realms dabblers, heck even for me, a trimmed pantheon can be a huge help when you want to now the names and places of all the gods in your campaign. So, i'm looking forward to it.
/agree
By making the Elven pantheon "aspects" (*goes to vomit*) of lousy N'Tel'Quess gods the flavor of the Seldarine is lost, if you need to trim down gods, do it, but don't cut the racial pantheons. Human gods are secondary to the demi-humans, no self-respecting elf or dwarf would worship an aspect (not even the full deity) of a human god.
So how do they know and why does it matter? If an elven cleric worships Sehanine, prays to Sehanine, and gets their prayers answered, what makes you think that the character would believe they are astually being answered by Selune? Even if they do believe the two gods have some sort of connection, it's perfectly plausible that the elf in question would believe that humans are worshipping Sehanine in her guise as Selune rather than the other way around. This already happens - Kalreshaar is an aspect of Meilikki who's been part of the lore since at least 2nd edition (Demihuman Deities). And Ed Greenwood has said that most of what people believe about the deities is conjectural, and not necessarily rooted in objective fact. So let your players know that these are human beliefs, that are obviously in error, and something all true elves regard as funny.
Regarding the trimming of the pantheon... let me see if I can shed some light on our thinking. Imagine that we had every Realms DM make a list of every deity *significant* in their game. That is, every deity chosen by a cleric PC as their patron deity, every deity whose clerics and servants the PCs fought, and every deity whose NPC clerics or servants played a useful part in the game. I think that list in the typical Realms campaign is about 15 deities long. Maybe you've had 5-7 PC cleric deities, maybe you've trashed the temples of 4-6 evil deities, and maybe you've gotten advice or help from the clerics of 3-5 other deities. How many more deities do you *need* to run a good game?
I see where you're going with this. Then again, I could ask: How many feudal Realms do you need for a good game? Isn't Cormyr enough? Why don't we nuke Tethyr and Damara, for example? How many merchant cities do you need - you know, the ones the FRCS is brimming over with, the ones which don't really differ all that much? How many different Dales do you need? The bottom line is, they're all pretty similar anyway, right? Why the countless prestige classes when the core classes cover enough terrain to allow you to do all the basics? Why all those evil organizations? What are the Iron Throne or the Shadow Thieves good for, for example? Why don't we just say the Zhents went international and be done with it?
It's about options. Present a whole bunch of deities who are not just there because someone thought up a portfolio, put a name to it and called it a day; deities whose portrayal differs depending on the region and culture; deities who are the center of religions that actually make sense - and you've got a sandbox that has something for everyone. So maybe not all DMs use all of them, but at least they have the choice. My campaign features Eldath as Umberlee's rival goddess of the depths, as Steven Schend portrayed her in the Sea of Fallen Stars accessory. It features Shiallia and Lurue, because I tried to turn their religions into something not superfluous (from a designer's point of view); on the contrary, I found a way to give them an actual impact on everyday life. Savras is the center of a very important sub-plot. Jergal, Garagos, Sharess, Gargauth, Valkur, Azuth - they're all there. Half of the Seldarine and all the Morndinsamman have been featured in my current campaign (started in 2001), with the elemental gods just waiting right around the corner because I need an alternative for the Egyptian gods. Not (only) because the PCs fought or were assisted by the clerics of all these deities, but because they're realities for the PCs, because the PCs think and talk about them and wonder how what they're doing will look in their eyes. The thing is: My campaign isn't even deity-centric, as someone has put it. Said deities are just a very important part of life.
It's a very old comparison, but it still applies: The Greeks and the Romans didn't need such a multitude of gods either. Still they revered so many of them, and these gods stood for different things, depending on who revered them and where - and their pantheons are much more interesting than most fantasy RPG pantheons I've come across. FR took a different approach. You gave me the options, I deleted some of them, heavily altered others, but I had something to work with, something to inject life into. I've never used Eilistraee and I'm not planning to, and I certainly won't use Qilue because she disrupts even my suspension of disbelief. I've altered Mulhorand beyond recognition because I don't like RL copy-and-paste countries. For various reasons I've changed around almost every aspect of the Realms to varying degrees. Still I'm glad I have the option whether or not (and how) to include the official suggestions in my campaign. The captions "Primary deities" and "Secondary deities (optional)" would do just fine. That being said, I don't mind campaigns that only feature Tempus, Cyric, Lathander and some other divine bigwigs - but I mind being told that's all I need.
Taking options away with the explanation that we supposedly don't need them doesn't make sense to me. If that's your reasoning, crop the map, delete the redundant countries, cities, organizations, races and classes, and let's get back to basics. If you stick to this explanation - new players feel intimidated when there's a wealth of lore to draw of -, it's easy to assume we won't be seeing sourcebooks dealing with cultures and interesting locales. What do we have to expect from the New Realms if lore is to be avoided? Even more write-ups of dungeons, ruins, enemy stats and wilderness encounter charts? What books do you want to sell at all? You criticize 3.5 for being overly complicated because of the glut of new rules in every single splatbook - of course that's true, but does that mean you don't want to sell these splatbooks all over again? You criticize the Realms because you think they're too detailed - I disagree, they're not detailed enough, and 3e hasn't even attempted to remedy this, but does that mean that you don't want to sell regional sourcebooks with actual lore in them? What do you want to sell? Adventures?
Do the deity count -- How many deities really matter in your home game? If someone can honestly say more than 30, I'll be quite surprised.
More than thirty? Easily. (Honestly.)
DB
It's easier to destroy than create. If WotC gives us all FR gods ready to use we don't need to spend what little time we have of our lives to recreate 90% of the gods. If the gods are there to use, those DMs who want to use them have them. Those who don't want to use them will not. It's easy as that.
They are placing only the gods that they feel are essential into the 4E book. This is to attract people who thought there were too many gods probably. The other gods may still be around but in a smaller capacity. Many may be left out possibly. It really should not take too long to put the ones you need back into the "official" setting. We don't 100% know until it all comes out but I do not forsee too much effort.
The designers probablly are guessing that the old school canon players are smart enough to handle a little bit more work. Most 20 year games have a ton of House Rule stuff already and the gamers are used to it so they (WOTC) feel they (the Old School players) are mature and intellegent enough to handle the change and redo what they did not like. Y'know, what they have been doing for years. I already have several ideas for the keeping gods around that died and not using the Spell Plague. Done. Simple. As long as my game is fun my playes will be cool with everything else.
Most 20 year games have a ton of House Rule stuff already and the gamers are used to it so they (WOTC) feel they (the Old School players) are mature and intellegent enough to handle the change and redo what they did not like. Y'know, what they have been doing for years.
Well, there is a difference. The mechanical stuff doesn't interest me at all, so no problems there, at least not for me. (IMHO the gods have been handled way too mechanically anyway.) I won't be along for the 4e ride, so this doesn't concern me. But judging by the announcements, new players will have to refer to the 2e material, just as they had to with 3e, because WotC's output was slow and sparse, and I don't see that changing because they apparently neither want more rules nor more lore. (Wow, say that three times in quick succession.) The thing is, the 4e Realms will match badly with the 2e material. How is that supposed to not confuse new players? And what if they wonder why WotC didn't use what they had instead of, well, simplifying things for the newbies?
DB
So how do they know and why does it matter? If an elven cleric worships Sehanine, prays to Sehanine, and gets their prayers answered, what makes you think that the character would believe they are astually being answered by Selune? Even if they do believe the two gods have some sort of connection, it's perfectly plausible that the elf in question would believe that humans are worshipping Sehanine in her guise as Selune rather than the other way around. This already happens - Kalreshaar is an aspect of Meilikki who's been part of the lore since at least 2nd edition (Demihuman Deities). And Ed Greenwood has said that most of what people believe about the deities is conjectural, and not necessarily rooted in objective fact. So let your players know that these are human beliefs, that are obviously in error, and something all true elves regard as funny.
Because the Seldarine are multisphric gods and Selune isn't. They are complete separate entities (they even live in different planes), Kharleshaar is a particular case (as an exception is good and gives options, but making it the rule cheapens it). Ed Greenwod refered to that knowledge of gods before TSR added the racial pantheons.
So basically you could just keep the elf gods right?
Not just the Seldarine, but the other racial pantheons too. Many feel that they overlap with other gods, but that is only because they can't see the unique approach this gods have to their portfolios (which is something I would gladly see go, this portfolios mechanic is what gives the impression of overlaping deities).
If I'm right about that, we're better off to identify the deities that are on most people's list and pay attention to them.
Yes. But why delete all the others rather than just ignore them until they became relevant, as the 1987 campaign set did, with just over 30? You don't address this central point. Is the difficulty of explaining ('lecturing' in Bakerspeak) that DMs don't need to be familiar with the lizardman pantheon to run the Realms really commensurate with culling a dozen popular and well-developed Faerûnian deities well integrated with society, almost every demigod, and almost all extra-Faerûnian and nonhuman religion?
Yes, a given campaign 'needs' about that number. But why should all campaigns be the same? As I read them, threads show amply that people's favourite gods are quite diverse. You don't 'need' more than one country, sketchy details, and surely a DM can make up all the NPCs she needs. So I fail to understand your 'need' point, unless it's part of some unexplained new minimalist philosophy, which would be, needless to say, alien to the Realms'.
And this goes more generally. Though I'm looking forward to Ed's material on the other continents -- the one definite, nonspeculative reason to get the book for those of us who trust Ed's Realms work but not Bruce Cordell's -- I'd have narrowed and deepened the focus of the new setting book, rather than trying to cover a depleted and simplified version of the whole world.
Most new players will just probably want what is in the 4E product perhaps?
Some of them, most certainly. But most? How many groups are content with having only the CS? That's the point - those who are are free to not purchase supplements. If the basics are all they're looking for because they want to make something of their own devising, great. But then there are those who want a detailed setting. As far as that's concerned, WotC doesn't need to change as much as they think they can get away with in order to sell more regional sourcebooks, for example. Their 3e track record wasn't exactly mind-blowing in this regard, so they'd have a lot of catching up to do either way.
IMHO the problem lies with the novels, not with the all of a sudden unwieldy and overly complex setting. There are other settings with a metaplot - a metaplot that's developed in adventures tailored to the task. The Realms' metaplot has been advanced by novels, so when you wanted to be up to date on canon you had to purchase them - because actual sourcebooks were few and far between - and laboriously collect the information you were looking for because it was scattered all over the place. Browsing an indexed *cough* hint *cough* sourcebook is a little easier when you're looking for specific information on a subject; browsing a novel isn't. Just look at the countless "Where can I find information about (...) / In which novel did they describe (place) / I don't have time to read the novels - how did (event) come to pass / In which year did novel X take place?" threads. Maybe that's where the perception that it's hard to keep up to date on current events is coming from. Now we're promised novels that don't deal with Realms-wide events for a change. Fine - so why reinvent a setting that fills a certain niche? Why push it into a niche other settings are filling quite nicely? I consider the wealth of material a plus, something very, very few other settings have. Instead of trying to invalidate this material - at least for gaming purposes -, maybe WotC should structure this information in an easy-to-use manner at long last. That's what I think they should have done ages ago anyway. I can live without "Complete Mage umpteen" featuring new spells and PrCs - how about compilations of OOP information from old supplements and novels in definitive sourcebooks? It's interesting that GHotR is a fan project, and that we had to wait for the end of the Old Realms to get something like this, isn't it? Other companies can afford this, but it isn't profitable enough for WotC?
DB
Even if I never looked at the old edition stuff I own I still don't need a god book to run a relegion or Pantheon propely.
I thought most gods would be ignored until later supplements.
I'll be happy to have got the wrong end of the stick, if so.
Rich, two more things I'm wondering about.
I'm disappointed that Wizards missed celebrating both the 40th anniversary of the Realms and the 20th of the published Realms (though you are celebrating Drizzt's).
Well, I sure don't plan to use gods as characters in any books I write. I can't speak for all the Realms authors (some of them are working on very different storylines than I am, after all) but I'd just as soon avoid that.
This I'm glad to hear. Can you comment on why you decided to write the gods in the Grand History addendum as the petty superpowered people of the Avatar novels, rather than as they are in the rest of Realmslore?
That implies a real shakeup in the Red Wizard "table of organization," and I believe Richard Byer's Thay trilogy is touching on that.
Rich on threads in the 4E section of the boards there are rumors that schools of magic are out, now i know there is currently a Thay trilogy being published but can you at least hint how this is going to affect Red Wizards. Dose WOTC plan to at least give them group of talent trees to make up for no more specialist wizards?
I believe that FR is a campaign setting where the gods (and their clerics) are more important and more integrated into the storyline than the average D&D world. I think that's going to remain true. There's a lot more cachet to being a cleric of Tempus or Torm than being a cleric of Dol Dorn, for instance. I also think that will remain equally true if we have a pantheon of 30-ish greater and lesser gods, compared to 120-ish. Some posters on the forum will doubtless disagree...
The question is in bold and italics at the end of the post for replying ease.
I think what Rich said was right as far as the general rules go. However, the Realms, partially because of it's breadth of deities, lends itself to, and attracts players and DMs who want to do deity-centric games. For this reason, while the normal rule for Realms games is that only 20 to 30 gods are used normally in any meaningful capacity, that does not account for the many, many games out there that focus more on the various churches and deities. Personally, the gods are one of the things that have always made the Realms the Realms to me, however I can definitely see where they are coming from when it comes to the number of gods. I think that the sheer number of gods were very overwhelming, and they could get use from better organization and source books detailing the gods so that it is more readily accessible as it is, a number of pantheons and regional gods. I've heard that the 2ed book was better as far as this is concerned, but I've never seen it, so all I have to go by is Faiths and Pantheons. I also realize many people are losing favorite gods, or are greatly concerned about the mechanics involved with demi-gods and clerics. However, we don't know how this will work yet, so any doom-saying regarding mechanics in this area are premature.
Sorry for the run-up, but I wanted to explain where I was coming from with this question. Rich, if I remember right, you said there were no plans to make any books about the FR gods. So is the Realms staying a campaign world that attracts and supports deity-centric campaigning, or is the attrition of the pantheons going to truly limit the scope of the game in that aspect?
I'll be happy to have got the wrong end of the stick, if so.
Rich, two more things I'm wondering about.
I'm disappointed that Wizards missed celebrating both the 40th anniversary of the Realms and the 20th of the published Realms (though you are celebrating Drizzt's).This I'm glad to hear. Can you comment on why you decided to write the gods in the Grand History addendum as the petty superpowered people of the Avatar novels, rather than as they are in the rest of Realmslore?
I've always expected that a god who was once mortal will tend to act like his old self more or less only now he has alot more power. Cyric is still the same old bastard that is selfish and hate filled. Mystra/Midnight is close to the same, only Kelemvor really changed but that was only after he was doing a sucky job as God of Death. I'de imagine other gods would be the same.
Yup, the novels as canon are a bit of an annoyance. IMO they will do web articles about Demigods and things like that. Perhaps they will do another god book with more indepth knowledge.
No, unfortunately Mr. Baker said they won't. That's why I see a lot of what I perceive as missed opportunities here.
I already own 2Es and 3E gods books and now realize I do not need any more god books to run a FR game properly. Even if I never looked at the old edition stuff I own I still don't need a god book to run a relegion or Pantheon propely.
Of course I'm not talking about lists and names of temples, charts of ecclesiastical titles, temple floor plans or NPC stats. I'm talking about an insight into the inner workings of the churches, more detailed ideologies, how a faithful of [insert deity] views certain concepts, where the money comes from and how it's spent, how the priests of a deity with a very narrow dogma get Joe Farmer to attend the service regularly, how Joe Farmer perceives the various faiths. Customs, rituals, prayers, that kind of stuff. I love coming up with all this, but my fantasy is just that - a single person's fantasy. I love to work with the ideas of others, too, preferably those of imaginative Realms authors, and I'm sad to see that although Volo's Guides are a fan favorite, something in their vein hasn't seen publication for years - and won't, if I understand the official responses correctly.
DB
There's a lot more cachet to being a cleric of Tempus or Torm...
:D Don't mind me. :D
Anyway, a couple more questions.
1) Are Drow getting taller in the 4E Realms, too?
2) Will the surviving Chosen of Mystra still have all the abilities of a Chosen of Mystra? Elminster, for instance. Will he still have Silver Fire and other related Chosen of Mystra abilities, or do all the Chosen of Mystra lose those abilities with her death?
3) Will Chosen in general still exist in the Realms? Like the Chosen of Bane, for instance. Speaking of which, will Fzoul be in the 4E Realms, or is he gone?
4) Will Kelemvor remain as he is in the 4E Realms?
Thanks.
Mystra/Midnight is close to the same . . .
The former mortal Midnight is a small part of Mystra's divine spiritual body, like the submerged pilot of a massively greater consciousness. We have a good picture of this in some of Ed Greenwood's fiction. The superpowered mortals portrayal is only in the Avatar novels, and was previously understood as a literary device, like the misportrayal of Storm and other known characters.
The former mortal Midnight is a small part of Mystra's divine spiritual body, like the submerged pilot of a massively greater consciousness. We have a good picture of this in some of Ed Greenwood's fiction. The superpowered mortals portrayal is only in the Avatar novels, and was previously understood as a literary device, like the misportrayal of Storm and other known characters.
But she is still there! And I know her TRUE name bwahaha! Ariel Manx! HEY! Maybe that's how Cyric owned her, he knows her true name! Of course....she knows his too I guess....drats!
Rich, I think you should cover the Lesser gods in an online supplement/article that comes out the same month FR 4E does, or at least a month or two later.
Basically a small list of deities that now have over deities could be covered. Maybe a few months of articles if necessary.
Good idea Ren!
Guys, 60 % of the gods you claim to have used where not supported in 3rd Edition in any mechanical way (be it through feats, spells or prestige classes).
If you managed to use them now i don't see how you would have a hard time using them in 4E. It's not like you'd have to create them out of nothing - they're still in your old books (Faith & Avatars and Powers & Pantheons mainly, which i'm sure you all posses
For beginners and Realms dabblers, heck even for me, a trimmed pantheon can be a huge help when you want to now the names and places of all the gods in your campaign. So, i'm looking forward to it.
Actualy alot of gods did recieve mechanical support via the Initiate feats.
And sure I just spent three years filling in the gods to do just that. Why spend another 3+ years doing it again in a completely new system? When it seems that system is going to be completely different from the previous one? Balance becomes a issue.
If they want to release a short list of deities that is fine for beginners and dabblers(or even for you) that is fine, but I just don't see the need to totaly remove these gods completely or reduce their status.
A Question For R. Barker: So why is removing options and diversity a good thing for the Realms?
Maybe they will do the inner working of certain faiths online if they never appeared in the 4E book. Plus alot of those inner workings are detailed in other editions. Plus gamers have good imaginations?
So now we are going to have to pay 10$ to 15$ per month to play in the Realms the way we want to?
1) I don't think so. I'd imagine we would leave them about where they were in the Races of Faerun tables.
2) I doubt it. I think that Mystra's death likely brings an end to most of the special abilities conferred by her on the Chosen.
3) Not sure, I'll have to confer with my colleagues. Certainly nothing like the Chosen of Mystra will resurface. Fzoul remains, but in something of a new role; can't say more than that for now.
4) Yes, I think Kelemvor is staying mostly the same.
:D Don't mind me. :D
Anyway, a couple more questions.
1) Are Drow getting taller in the 4E Realms, too?
2) Will the surviving Chosen of Mystra still have all the abilities of a Chosen of Mystra? Elminster, for instance. Will he still have Silver Fire and other related Chosen of Mystra abilities, or do all the Chosen of Mystra lose those abilities with her death?
3) Will Chosen in general still exist in the Realms? Like the Chosen of Bane, for instance. Speaking of which, will Fzoul be in the 4E Realms, or is he gone?
4) Will Kelemvor remain as he is in the 4E Realms?
Thanks.
2) I doubt it. I think that Mystra's death likely brings an end to most of the special abilities conferred by her on the Chosen.
If the Chosen of Mystra no longer have the powers of a Chosen, and if there is a reasonably long time jump between the 3E and 4E Realms (Like the rumored 100 years), then how will Elminster and any other surviving Chosen live past that time period? I was under the impression that Elminster's immortality was a result of his status as a Chosen of Mystra. Without that immortality, wouldn't he have only a very short lifespan left to him?
Thanks for the answers. Although this brings up some new questions.
If the Chosen of Mystra no longer have the powers of a Chosen, and if there is a reasonably long time jump between the 3E and 4E Realms (Like the rumored 100 years), then how will Elminster and any other surviving Chosen live past that time period? I was under the impression that Elminster's immortality was a result of his status as a Chosen of Mystra. Without that immortality, wouldn't he have only a very short lifespan left to him?
Well before 3rd edition there was other ways to extend your lifespan without resorting to evil. So they are ways to be really longed lived without being a Chosen.
Or he might become a lich.(j/k I hope)
* There's not as much common experience of the Realms out there in the audience as we'd like to see. Somebody playing a Halruaa campaign is engaged with an entirely different fantasy than somebody playing a Silver Marches game. Which is the Realms?
* We can cover a narrower scope of material in more depth.
* New players will have an easier time accessing the setting if it's got a tighter focus.
* Some of the diversity is frankly bad diversity. The Realms was treated as the "kitchen sink" for a few years back there in the early 90's, and so we bolted on pastiches of Cortez, Genghis Khan, Eskimos, Egyptians, and what-have-you. Each diluted the vision of the Realms.
* You've never tried to engage a moviemaker or computer game producer with the setting; I've seen those conversations a time or two. It's harder than it looks, partly because the Realms tries to be all things to all people. It's better to be the best thing to some people.
Here's a funny story from the early days of the Realms 3e work. Our brand team tried to come up with a marketing-speak hook to describe the setting. All they could get all parties to agree on was "The Forgotten Realms is a world where heroes fight evil." I pointed out that their statement was just as accurate in describing the world of Spider Man as the Forgotten Realms.
A Question For R. Barker: So why is removing options and diversity a good thing for the Realms?
Well, off the top of my head:* There's not as much common experience of the Realms out there in the audience as we'd like to see. Somebody playing a Halruaa campaign is engaged with an entirely different fantasy than somebody playing a Silver Marches game. Which is the Realms?
You mean sorta of like traveling between lets say Canda and China. This just added a realistic feel to the Realms. It is still the same wortld after all. Does this mean there will be less cultural diversity as well in the New Realms?* We can cover a narrower scope of material in more depth.
Though sometime covering material in greater depth means stiffling player and DM creativity. As I said I know player picks some gods just because they aren't going to appear in a novel.* New players will have an easier time accessing the setting if it's got a tighter focus.
Some player will, other actualy like the freedom a diversity of choice will allow for.* Some of the diversity is frankly bad diversity. The Realms was treated as the "kitchen sink" for a few years back there in the early 90's, and so we bolted on pastiches of Cortez, Genghis Khan, Eskimos, Egyptians, and what-have-you. Each diluted the vision of the Realms.
I agree to a certain point on this...the Cortez, Genghis Kan and the Eskimos were added badly. Though the interloper deities I liked very much and the Egyptian was interesting(and were ther before the 90's )* You've never tried to engage a moviemaker or computer game producer with the setting; I've seen those conversations a time or two. It's harder than it looks, partly because the Realms tries to be all things to all people. It's better to be the best thing to some people.
No I can' say I have...though considering the quality of the D&D movie...I don't think they will be knocking on your door anytime soon.Here's a funny story from the early days of the Realms 3e work. Our brand team tried to come up with a marketing-speak hook to describe the setting. All they could get all parties to agree on was "The Forgotten Realms is a world where heroes fight evil." I pointed out that their statement was just as accurate in describing the world of Spider Man as the Forgotten Realms.
Really...mmm... a marketing-speak hook for the Realms. I would have put it," FR where the only limits are your imagination". But that is just me I guess. (Yeah I know this can be and might have been used for D&D as a whole),
So you are going to be the best for some people. I can understand that. So is there plans to create a rich and diverse campaign setting for the old FR fans who liked the Old Realms?
P.S: I think Rauric had a very good idea with the bold question part.
Have you (the 4e Realms Design Team) considered that maybe part of what makes the Realms feel "real" (which is the most often stated reply as to why people love the Realms on this thread) is all the diversity that can be found there? Has the idea that Halruaa and the Silver Marches are very different but are still parts of the Realms may be what draws the "old guard" of the Realms to the Realms? So far it seems as though you (the 4e Realms Design Team) have not even taken that this make be true into account.
I understand your (perceived) need to simplify the Realms for the purpose to introduce it to new players and DMs. I even understand why the first two books you would publish for the 4e Realms would be simplified in such a manner. However, I do not see why you cannot publish 4e Realms supplements that maintain the diversity of the Realms. As I mentioned before, why don't you publish the 20-30 major deities (and I really think you should keep it closer to 30 rather than 20) in the 4e FRCG (and/or FRPG) and then publish a later guide that covers the various servitor deities for human and racial pantheons. And please, please, do not make racial deities aspects of human deities.
* There's not as much common experience of the Realms out there in the audience as we'd like to see. Somebody playing a Halruaa campaign is engaged with an entirely different fantasy than somebody playing a Silver Marches game. Which is the Realms?
* We can cover a narrower scope of material in more depth.
* New players will have an easier time accessing the setting if it's got a tighter focus.
* Some of the diversity is frankly bad diversity. The Realms was treated as the "kitchen sink" for a few years back there in the early 90's, and so we bolted on pastiches of Cortez, Genghis Khan, Eskimos, Egyptians, and what-have-you. Each diluted the vision of the Realms.
* You've never tried to engage a moviemaker or computer game producer with the setting; I've seen those conversations a time or two. It's harder than it looks, partly because the Realms tries to be all things to all people. It's better to be the best thing to some people.
It appears half-orcs are out of the PHB, dose this mean we will see them in the realms core book since the halfs-orcs of Darma seem to be developing their own racial history?
So you are going to be the best for some people. I can understand that. So is there plans to create a rich and diverse campaign setting for the old FR fans who liked the Old Realms?
they actually have. It's called Forgotten Realms 1st to 3rd Edition. :D Seriously why would you want another campaign setting if you love everything about the old Realms? You already have your über-detailed and for newbies utterly unaccesible Realms. Everything you want from the Realms has been done (and why would you need reprints of the same flavor you've already got?) - how about now giving another approach a chance?
And of course there will be some cultural diversity, just not so much of the cultural absurdity of the real-world parallels.
Really...mmm... a marketing-speak hook for the Realms. I would have put it," FR where the only limits are your imagination". But that is just me I guess. (Yeah I know this can be and might have been used for D&D as a whole),
yeah, that's exactly what they were trying to avoid.
And you're right, some will never be satisfied. But 'Eberboning' the pantheons in such a sharp manner isn't close to reasonable. If we're pleasantly surprised, yay yippee.
You bring up good points about how many settings or historical cultural 'flavors' were pastiched onto the greater weave of the Realms. Cleaning that part is something I think is a good idea.
Everything you want from the Realms has been done . . .
If this isn't a joke, you've been misinformed. Most of the existing, never mind the wished-for, lore on magic, how governments, trade, guilds and priesthoods work, on basic details of history and culture, has not been published, nor have the stories of most of the Realms' legendary heroes and villains been told.
If this isn't a joke, you've been misinformed. Most of the existing, never mind the wished-for, lore on magic, how governments, trade, guilds and priesthoods work, on basic details of history and culture, has not been published, nor have the stories of most of the Realms' legendary heroes and villains been told.
Damnit. He's right.
Especially the stuff on magic.
Oh the fun that could be had with the 3E rules and a tome of pure lore on FR magic of all types....
Well, off the top of my head:
* There's not as much common experience of the Realms out there in the audience as we'd like to see. Somebody playing a Halruaa campaign is engaged with an entirely different fantasy than somebody playing a Silver Marches game. Which is the Realms?
* We can cover a narrower scope of material in more depth.
* New players will have an easier time accessing the setting if it's got a tighter focus.
* Some of the diversity is frankly bad diversity. The Realms was treated as the "kitchen sink" for a few years back there in the early 90's, and so we bolted on pastiches of Cortez, Genghis Khan, Eskimos, Egyptians, and what-have-you. Each diluted the vision of the Realms.
* You've never tried to engage a moviemaker or computer game producer with the setting; I've seen those conversations a time or two. It's harder than it looks, partly because the Realms tries to be all things to all people. It's better to be the best thing to some people.
Here's a funny story from the early days of the Realms 3e work. Our brand team tried to come up with a marketing-speak hook to describe the setting. All they could get all parties to agree on was "The Forgotten Realms is a world where heroes fight evil." I pointed out that their statement was just as accurate in describing the world of Spider Man as the Forgotten Realms.
Does that mean Halrauu is gonna go boom?
It sounds like 4e is the end of high fantasy. The Realms was the last high fantasy setting and now it's getting "simplified."
You make it sound like diversity in the setting is a terrible thing. That's why I fell in love with the Realms in the first place. If diversity is so bad why not dump the Realms entirely and only publish one setting? Why have multiple class options? Why not just make everything about D&D one size fits all? Your choices are Rogue, cleric, wizard, and fighter. Nothing else. No need for a dozen splat books with new class options.
The point of all my rantings is... You moved in the exact opposite direction with character options. When 4e first comes out you will put out one book with a few class options. Then you will release splat books with more class options that make it more complicated right. Each splat book will make putting together a character a little more complicated for those who choose to use them. Why couldn't you do the same thing with the Realms? Put out a simplified version of the pantheons in the campaign setting and let those who choose to get the more complicated buy more source books?
they actually have. It's called Forgotten Realms 1st to 3rd Edition. :D Seriously why would you want another campaign setting if you love everything about the old Realms? You already have your über-detailed and for newbies utterly unaccesible Realms. Everything you want from the Realms has been done (and why would you need reprints of the same flavor you've already got?) - how about now giving another approach a chance?
And of course there will be some cultural diversity, just not so much of the cultural absurdity of the real-world parallels.
Um actualy the ongoing living FR game I play in gets new players all the time(maybe calling them newbies drives then away? Hint: No one likes to be called a newbie).
The rich diversity (I am actualy for more diversity not uber-details) of the Realms is like the ocean...you can have just as much fun with just using the surface, though it is nice to also have depth to explore.
Hey maybe I just want realistic growth based on something other then what would be 'cool' and author fiat...
As far as the common experience of the Realms, how's that going to happen? If there was some sense of reality there would be a difference between place A, B, and C. So I don't mind if Halruaa's a tad different--of course it's essentially torched now due to Mystra's death assuming an invasion, just have to see what grows back.
As far as the common experience of the Realms, how's that going to happen? If there was some sense of reality there would be a difference between place A, B, and C. So I don't mind if Halruaa's a tad different--of course it's essentially torched now due to Mystra's death assuming an invasion, just have to see what grows back.
Exactly, that is why I like the 4ed FR even less. I tried many times to make a setting as deep as the realms but always failed to give it that feeling, I know the problem, it was trying to give a "theme" to the whole setting instead of giving it smaller themes on many areas.
It's better to be the best thing to some people.
At last now we know the new WotC design philosophy. Better the best for some and nothing for the rest than having a niche for (allmost) everybody. This is pretty the opposite of what 3.5 was...
Brave new world
At last now we know the new WotC design philosophy. Better the best for some and nothing for the rest than having a niche for (allmost) everybody. This is pretty the opposite of what 3.5 was...
Brave new world
They are thinking to the future. Players who played the game for 20 years should be happy with that. But when 4E is going to be released all the 12 year old players of WoW are going to clean the shelves in the stores buying the new rules.:D
Because, it is well known the popularity of the setting among the future players. If the old players get lost in the process, well, though luck to them. The future belongs to Harry Potter fans, who are going to use in the realms as characters wizards running around with wands and yelling "Shazam!".:D
And now comes the real question for Mr Baker: Aren't you afraid that with the new setting you are going to lose more players than gain new ones? By making so many modifications to the setting you are actually cutting all the bridges behind you without actually knowing for sure what awaits you in the future.
Anyway there are alot of different types of fans ofthe Realms out there to think of, just not the Pro 4E Anti 4E folks.
Rich, I don't know about you but the asprine isn't cutting it for me...
Well, it seems to be true that hyper-specialization is becoming a very serious trend. One just has to look at academia to see that one. I remember back in my HS days when someone said that being well rounded was the way to go, but nowadays it seems that the first slots go to the folks who specialize in a particular field over the well rounded types, at least from what I've read. I suppose that's the thought that's guiding the new Realms... if so, I don't think I have much interest in it, as I'm still one of those horrible generalists.
I'm a generalist too (I even play only generalist wizards), and that is why settings with a theme (EB for example) don't atttract me as more generic worlds (Star Wars can be very generic if you want, there are so many planetary systems that you can make even a high fantasy planet in the galaxy or Eberron on another) because I can run any kind of adventure I can.
-Political: Cormyr, Waterdeep, Halruaa, Thay.
-Hack-n-Slash: you don't even need a setting.
-Exploration: nothing better than all those ruins of the past with weird magical effects.
-Heroes of battle style: Seiveril's Crusade (I'm using if for chapter 4th of my campaign), the war between Unther and Mulhorand.
-Drama: not my kind of campaign but pretty much anywere is possible in the realms.
The earth doesn't have a global theme, every region has it's own problems, languages (another excelent point of the realms, to have many human languages instead of just one generic language) and personality. Could you give a "theme" to earth our could you not?
The earth doesn't have a global theme, every region has it's own problems, languages (another excelent point of the realms, to have many human languages instead of just one generic language) and personality. Could you give a "theme" to earth our could you not?
Well it's much easier to design for the standardized default role player than for the bunch of totally different people with unbelievable strong opinions that we are today. So maybe D&D 4th is just a evolutionary step forward. The unfit(ting) players have to go the way of the Dodo.
[edit] It just occured to me, that while they are borrowing a lot from other MMOs, why haven't they looked a little better at the world of WoW. This is a brilliant and diverse setting with lots of very different themes in one world. (I love Undercity^^)
Well it's much easier to design for the standardized default role player than for the bunch of totally different people with unbelievable strong opinions that we are today. So maybe D&D 4th is just a evolutionary step forward. The unfit(ting) players have to go the way of the Dodo.
Except that the Realms already are an excelent generic setting and they don't have to do anything to change it. Making specific settings is bad bussines choice because you reduce your marketing target. Even the most obtuse marketting person knows that you have to increase your target, not reduce it. If you make a setting that catters the kind of person that likes Eberron, and then you have another setting who wants to do the same you are competing with yourself.
[edit] It just occured to me, that while they are borrowing a lot from other MMOs, why haven't they looked a little better at the world of WoW. This is a brilliant and diverse setting with lots of very different themes in one world. (I love Undercity^^)
The theme of WoW is: the forces of destruction are on the verge of destroying the planet of Azeroth, only powerfull heroes can defend the world because there aren't heroes to defend it (sounds like what the FR are going to become)
The theme of WoW is: the forces of destruction are on the verge of destroying the planet of Azeroth, only powerfull heroes can defend the world because there aren't heroes to defend it (sounds like what the FR are going to become)
Well that is a pretty broad theme, and if the FR theme is similarily broad I would be fine with it. But it seems that they seem to "streamline" the differences between the different nations, faiths, races and whatever to be very... uh... similar.
They seem to remove a lot of depth from the setting and the result will be pretty shallow and even more uh... platitudinous than the current realms are.
and for newbies utterly unaccesible Realms.
Not true. Perhaps you should have said "A richly detailed and exciting place to explore"? Or maybe thats just my opinion.When I was a "newbie" there was lots of the things you have mentioned and i certainly didnt find it "unaccesible" and im certain that many others didnt. I feel a question coming on.......
Rich how are you going to change the way that 4e Realms grows compared to 2nd and 3rd so that it remains accesible for new players for the forseeable future?
Rich
Well that is a pretty broad theme, and if the FR theme is similarily broad I would be fine with it. But it seems that they seem to "streamline" the differences between the different nations, faiths, races and whatever to be very... uh... similar.
Except that the forces of evil are: Undead/Demons (and the demons have lost much power)
They seem to remove a lot of depth from the setting and the result will be pretty shallow and even more uh... platitudinous than the current realms are.
Instead of the ocean, the realms will become a glass of water.
I just picked up the Races and Classes book and I've been enjoying it. In one of your essays you say you made a list of all playable 3.5 ed races and seperated them into (paraphrasing) must-haves, needs-works, and no-ways. I don't suppose you'd be willing to share your list of no-ways would you? I'd love to see how it compares to my mental list.
Thanks!
If this isn't a joke, you've been misinformed. Most of the existing, never mind the wished-for, lore on magic, how governments, trade, guilds and priesthoods work, on basic details of history and culture, has not been published, nor have the stories of most of the Realms' legendary heroes and villains been told.
My bad.
maybe calling them newbies drives then away? Hint: No one likes to be called a newbie).
lol :D
The rich diversity (I am actualy for more diversity not uber-details) of the Realms is like the ocean...you can have just as much fun with just using the surface, though it is nice to also have depth to explore.
And that depth is not going away, the setting still has a rich history and you're welcome to put as much as you want of that in your campaign. It will be as relevant as you choose it to be. I love arguing in circles, don't you? :P
Hey maybe I just want realistic growth based on something other then what would be 'cool' and author fiat...
uh, the Realms can be called a lot of things but i don't think 'realistic' is among those. If you like realistic grown setting you might want to take a look at Harn. ^^ You don't even know what this 'coolness' of the new Realms is, so why be so negative?
But it seems that they seem to "streamline" the differences between the different nations, faiths, races and whatever to be very... uh... similar.
Huh, were did you get that from? I don't think their goal is to make all nations, faiths, races and whatever more or less the same. I think they want to trimm the blending fat so that there is more distinction and uniqueness to the strengths of the setting.
Huh, were did you get that from? I don't think their goal is to make all nations, faiths, races and whatever more or less the same. I think they want to trimm the blending fat so that there is more distinction and uniqueness to the strengths of the setting.
From this answer by Richard Baker:
* There's not as much common experience of the Realms out there in the audience as we'd like to see. Somebody playing a Halruaa campaign is engaged with an entirely different fantasy than somebody playing a Silver Marches game. Which is the Realms?
Which I would respond: both are part of the realms, just as both Occident and Orient are part of the world. They are different but they are joined. Or another example: which is human, male or female?
The setting could have done without WoW in my opinion, though the game was fun for those three years I played it.....
Poll Question:
How do you feel about the changes mentioned at the end of the Grand History of the Realms?
Results:
I hate the changes! What the hell were they thinking? [45%] 69 votes
I dislike them, but I could live with them if they are presented in a manner that makes sense. [26%] 39 votes
I like the changes, but have some reservations about what they entail. [12%] 18 votes
I like the changes and I feel very positive about the direction being taken with the update. [12%] 18 votes
I don''t care either way. (Please mention reason in a post.) [5%] 8 votes
IMO there are alot of people who will buy the initial book because it has FR are it. They are true FR junkies that may not even read the online info about the setting or just don't care how the Realms are different, just as long as it is different. We cannot forget them in the equation. ~ snip~ [/b]
I won't discount that. In fact the first book will be deemed a great success because people will want to give it a try. Even the people who hate what they've heard/read so far. But if what they get isn't fulfilling, will the others that come afterward sell just as well? Will they feel like buying books #2 and #3 afterward?
Once people have a taste there will be a judgement call. And there's that question, will it sell as well among potential new recruits or will they go "Eh, still Forgotten Realms, not my style"...? Will the older gamers look at it and and say, "It's not the Forgotten Realms I know" and put it back on the shelf?
What a rip for the FRDT if they do all these changes to get rid of the misperceptions among non-FR gamers and in the end it doesn't make a noticeable long-term dent in those who made their mind up about FR long ago. I'll have to wonder who or what will leave the stage then. Another pillar or the whole foundation?
(You can probably save the bold for highlighting a "summary" question at the end of a long preamble -- a little of this goes a long ways...)
Hey Rich, I notice that alot of the changes are being made to make the game more "accessable" to new players. So it is sorta like basic D&D. Are you guys going to come out with Advance D&D and a more advanced setting for more experienced players?
Ultimately, a big revision is a calculated gamble. Given everything I know (and I'm not at liberty to share all of what I know, which is one reason why I may seem more sanguine about the whole thing than some folks here think I should be), I think it will work. But I'm human, and I might be wrong.
They are thinking to the future. Players who played the game for 20 years should be happy with that. But when 4E is going to be released all the 12 year old players of WoW are going to clean the shelves in the stores buying the new rules.:D
Because, it is well known the popularity of the setting among the future players. If the old players get lost in the process, well, though luck to them. The future belongs to Harry Potter fans, who are going to use in the realms as characters wizards running around with wands and yelling "Shazam!".:D
And now comes the real question for Mr Baker: Aren't you afraid that with the new setting you are going to lose more players than gain new ones? By making so many modifications to the setting you are actually cutting all the bridges behind you without actually knowing for sure what awaits you in the future.
(I wonder why I thought aarakocras were medium? I guess I've seen a couple of aarakocra PCs, that must be it.)
So, a "none" in traction means we have no particular pressure to get them into 4e in a hurry.
Aarakocrabird man Medium
Asherati sand swimmer None
Aventi Atlanteans Low
Azurin incarnum human None
Bariaur good ram-centaurs Low
Bhuka desert goblinoid None
Bugbear bugbear Medium
Buomman silent monk humans None
Catfolk cat people None
Rich,
I just picked up the Races and Classes book and I've been enjoying it. In one of your essays you say you made a list of all playable 3.5 ed races and seperated them into (paraphrasing) must-haves, needs-works, and no-ways. I don't suppose you'd be willing to share your list of no-ways would you? I'd love to see how it compares to my mental list.
Thanks!
Agreed. As I said earlier at Candlekeep, this trimming of the pantheons feels like a very unnecessary "breast reduction" operation: you're about to ruin something big and beautiful.
I don't necessarily agree with the metaphor I do concur with the sentiment. Frankly, the explanation as to why you're removing deities makes zero sense. What you are doing is explaining why removing all of these gods won't significantly impact most campaigns. That is not a logical reason by any stretch of the imagination.
And by the way, the Realms is both Halruaa and the Silver Marches
Well, sure, of course I'm worried about that. Maybe we're making Star Trek: Next Generation, and we're going to send the setting on a great 7-year run (or however long TNG lasted) that makes it more popular than ever. Or maybe we're making New Coke. We're trying like heck to shoot for the former rather than the latter, but it's not like the New Coke guys set out to create a disaster. They thought they had good reasons for doing what they did, too.
Ultimately, a big revision is a calculated gamble. Given everything I know (and I'm not at liberty to share all of what I know, which is one reason why I may seem more sanguine about the whole thing than some folks here think I should be), I think it will work. But I'm human, and I might be wrong.
What happens if you are? Will the Realms just go away or will it get this nonsense fixed?
I don't necessarily agree with your premise, but: Nope.
(You can probably save the bold for highlighting a "summary" question at the end of a long preamble -- a little of this goes a long ways...)
Really everything I have read so far seem to indicated so. Maybe I misread Chris Perkins comments and stuff...
about making everything more accessible to new players...?Anyway I saw that you mentioned New Coke in another post...so do you guys have a back up plan? If things turned out like New Coke? Also considering that New Coke tasted alot like Pepsi...I am thinking large portion of that company did think it would meet will failure as I noticed they came out quickly with Classic Coke.
Personaly to make a safer bet I would have had the Spell Plague thing happen about 500 years in the future just in case if it bombs you can still do Classic FR.
uh, the Realms can be called a lot of things but i don't think 'realistic' is among those. If you like realistic grown setting you might want to take a look at Harn. ^^ You don't even know what this 'coolness' of the new Realms is, so why be so negative?
I know the old 'coolness' of it is leaving in very ugly and brutal ways...
Also the Realms were realistic because it had a diversity of cultures, religion, and it atleast inititaly treated the concepts of magic, gods actualy answearing prayers, multiple intelligent races, etc(I.E. the fantasy elements) in a realistic way. Sure it has been heading down hill steadily since the ToT came out...but it was still there...now I seeing it leaving.
Do you plan to podcast the Realms seminar at Gencon next year? I can't make it, but I would like to watch. Are you still planning to yell Richard Baker must be stopped during your own speech?
P.S. Please try to avoid the burning end of the torches and the pointy end of the pitchforks at Gencon. :P
For anyone who is interested, here are the results of my poll on Candlekeep after ten weeks (Votes counted so far - 152):
Poll Question:
How do you feel about the changes mentioned at the end of the Grand History of the Realms?
Results:
I hate the changes! What the hell were they thinking? [45%] 69 votes
I dislike them, but I could live with them if they are presented in a manner that makes sense. [26%] 39 votes
I like the changes, but have some reservations about what they entail. [12%] 18 votes
I like the changes and I feel very positive about the direction being taken with the update. [12%] 18 votes
I don''t care either way. (Please mention reason in a post.) [5%] 8 votes
Sorry to break it to you..
But internet polls are worthless. For many reasons, it had been explained a few times. They are meaningles at the end.
Sorry. It sucks. Deal with it. The thing is, if they had presented us with changes that were logically explained and didn't feel like a Zhentish Halberdier shoving an awl pike up my a**, then maybe there wouldn't be so much anger.
See, it all boils down to this:
NO RSE! NO RSE! NO RSE!
Every time things get too cosmic, it's bad. Look at what happened to Marvel and DC comics. Look at what happened here. Look at what happened with Big O, or Neon Genesis Evangelion. The Realms was about characters, and places, locations, and landscape.
If you BLEEP with the cosmos, you BLEEP the world up.
Lurue for new goddess of magic, as she was the original one that Ed envisioned. That I could live with, but at this point, it would still like being told my game sucks, my players all suck too, and I'm not welcome.
That's why I don't like these changes. They don't embrace the existing players.
I would like to see more about their haunts and glades or maybe a centralized kingdom that can be reached by other places in Faerun.
Rich, Big question here: What about Portals and Gates after the Spellplague? Will they be gone, disabled for a time, able to be fixed if broken? Will they be untouched? It won't impact me much one way or the other because If as a DM I need one I will figure out a way to get it to my players, I am just curious.
Maybe we're making Star Trek: Next Generation...
Yeah, caffeine free Klingons, contests about who is better in citing Lipton Tea Bags, an unsurpassed density of pseudo-scientific fallacies, the most important skill becomes "open hailing frequencies", and the best thing ever: Wesley Crusher. I loved Next Generation...
Ok, TNG wasn't that bad. But I still prefer TOS ;)
So and now I have a question: Will the Forgotten Realms stay a big place where I as a DM find a spot for my players to play any campaign we want, or will the Forgotten Realms become one unified chunk with one unified theme? If it becomes the latter, what will be that theme?
Yeah, caffeine free Klingons, contests about who is better in citing Lipton Tea Bags, an unsurpassed density of pseudo-scientific fallacies, the most important skill becomes "open hailing frequencies", and the best thing ever: Wesley Crusher. I loved Next Generation...
Ok, TNG wasn't that bad. But I still prefer TOS ;)
DeepSpace Nine was #1. Then STNG. The next one should be a special ops version IMO. All people care about anymore is space battles and Backlath duels anyway.;)
All people care about anymore is space battles and Backlath duels anyway.;)
Sounds like what 4ed it going to be :D
Thanks Rich! The only surprise to me was catfolk. They certainly seem to have their fans around here!
I kind of wonder about this too. Of course, it's a little more complex than that.
Are there a hell of a lot of D&D players who want to play, for lack of a better word, catgirls? In my experience with exactly how popular topics on that subject are on the Races board, yes. There's probably a larger, silent group who would take this option if it was available as well, but don't feel the need to press for it.
Did anyone really like the 3.5e Catfolk specifically? No, not so much. They were another terrible LA +1 race that, while sufficiently statistically superior to not be LA +0, were boring and not usually worth losing a level over.
Sorry to break it to you..
But internet polls are worthless. For many reasons, it had been explained a few times. They are meaningles at the end.
You and WotC can ignore it all you want. I think it has more bearing than you give it credence. Maybe you are right. Maybe I am. Freedom of speech baby!
For anyone who is interested...
I believe that you fall into the disinterested group.
But internet polls tend to reflect the views of the general populace in landslide reactions, and that's what you've got there.
It's probably representative enough of the committed Realms fans, Candlekeep.com being the most 'inside' of Realms sites, much less so of the current and certainly potential Realms market as a whole.
Rich, I don't understand your Halruaa comment, unless you're going to make everywhere culturally uniform subarctic town-studded wilderness. As for the struggle to find the Realms' unique selling point, won't that be much harder if you force it to mirror all the new norms of D&D? (And easier, of course, if you let the Realms' virtues shine without the chain of clever gimmickry that's obscured them for 20 years and don't just give up on describing how the setting works.)
Your company's silence on the anniversaries remains perplexing.
Act? No, not really. It's a cartoon. I don't expect Realms gnomes to sit down for TV interviews or talk about which book they get to appear in.
@ Rich Baker: What can you tell us about Gnomes in 4E FR? Are they going to look and act like that ridiculous creature we saw in the Tielfing/Gnome Flash cartoon?
"The Anti 4E Realms posters MUST be stopped"!!!
Just kidding Ladies and Gentlemen!:D
I kind of wonder about this too. Of course, it's a little more complex than that.
Are there a hell of a lot of D&D players who want to play, for lack of a better word, catgirls? In my experience with exactly how popular topics on that subject are on the Races board, yes. There's probably a larger, silent group who would take this option if it was available as well, but don't feel the need to press for it.
Did anyone really like the 3.5e Catfolk specifically? No, not so much. They were another terrible LA +1 race that, while sufficiently statistically superior to not be LA +0, were boring and not usually worth losing a level over.
You won't see much attention given to goliath homelands or characters in the 2008 Realms releases, but we're thinking of earmarking a spot or two for later, so that when the core game does come out with goliaths, you know where in Faerun they're from.
Rich will Half Giants and or Goliaths make it into the 4E Realms? I have been a good little poster, so please could you answer this little question. If not I understand, Thank you anyway Kind Sir.
"The Anti 4E Realms posters MUST be stopped"!!!
Just kidding Ladies and Gentlemen!:D
Goliaths, probably yes. Half-giants, not so sure. We think that goliaths and half-giants hold down some pretty similar territory, and it's not clear that there should be two character races there or one well-defined one. In that contest, we think goliaths probably win.
You won't see much attention given to goliath homelands or characters in the 2008 Realms releases, but we're thinking of earmarking a spot or two for later, so that when the core game does come out with goliaths, you know where in Faerun they're from.
Thank you for the Reply Rich.
Also Wizards Presents: Races and Classes, has me excited about the 4E Ruleset!
:lightbulb :evillaugh :angelhide 
Here's an example: In the Dragonlance setting, it's a sure bet that every player who's played in that setting has fought draconians at some point. It's a common experience all Dragonlance players share and can compare. In core D&D, adventures like Tomb of Horrors used to be a common experience; everybody played it at some point. (These days, something like Forge of Fury might be a better bet.) In the Birthright setting, you ruled kingdoms. In Planescape, you went to Sigil. Those are common experiences of those settings.
Halruaa was just an example I used of a game that would look and feel like it belonged to a totally different "IP" than the more center-of-the-road FR games. (Halruaa looks more like Eberron than it does Forgotten Realms, in my opinion.) We'd like more Realms games to share the Waterdeep-Silver Marches-Cormyr-Dalelands experience, because those areas are really the heart of the Realms and share the strongest elements of Ed's original vision for the setting. I'd like to encourage people to play there, instead of running Lost World games down in Chult or magical Three Musketeers games in Halruaa. Could the world still include such places? Sure. But it's not really part of the common Realms experience.
It's probably representative enough of the committed Realms fans, Candlekeep.com being the most 'inside' of Realms sites, much less so of the current and certainly potential Realms market as a whole.
Rich, I don't understand your Halruaa comment, unless you're going to make everywhere culturally uniform subarctic town-studded wilderness. As for the struggle to find the Realms' unique selling point, won't that be much harder if you force it to mirror all the new norms of D&D? (And easier, of course, if you let the Realms' virtues shine without the chain of clever gimmickry that's obscured them for 20 years and don't just give up on describing how the setting works.)
Your company's silence on the anniversaries remains perplexing.
Here's an example: In the Dragonlance setting, it's a sure bet that every player who's played in that setting has fought draconians at some point. It's a common experience all Dragonlance players share and can compare. In core D&D, adventures like Tomb of Horrors used to be a common experience; everybody played it at some point. (These days, something like Forge of Fury might be a better bet.) In the Birthright setting, you ruled kingdoms. In Planescape, you went to Sigil. Those are common experiences of those settings.
Halruaa was just an example I used of a game that would look and feel like it belonged to a totally different "IP" than the more center-of-the-road FR games. (Halruaa looks more like Eberron than it does Forgotten Realms, in my opinion.) We'd like more Realms games to share the Waterdeep-Silver Marches-Cormyr-Dalelands experience, because those areas are really the heart of the Realms and share the strongest elements of Ed's original vision for the setting. I'd like to encourage people to play there, instead of running Lost World games down in Chult or magical Three Musketeers games in Halruaa. Could the world still include such places? Sure. But it's not really part of the common Realms experience.
Actualy part of my FR experience was exploring and traveling to strange lands...I guess that has no place anymore. Playing somebody say from the Dalelands in the South or exploring Chult.
And here I thought Ed's intent on the Realms was what you made it to be the experience he wanted for people(meaning the players). Also I was hoping that D&D outgrew the one gimmick campaign setting...and the focus on one playing style.
Also I guess since this is the design philosphy I hope it doesn't spread to Ebberron as I would like more infomation on Xen'Drik, Salorna and the other continents....
Mr. Baker can you please stop saying the Realms and 4th ed. D&D is for everyone as the more I read this the more I feel I am being left out. You should pass it on up the chain. Lets be honest...I want to give 4th edition the chance but the more I read I am wondering if we(meaning I and the design team) have ever played the same game. So is there anything that you can say no matter how general that would make a old time player like me atleast interested?
Mr. Baker can you please stop saying the Realms and 4th ed. D&D is for everyone as the more I read this the more I feel I am being left out. You should pass it on up the chain. Lets be honest...I want to give 4th edition the chance but the more I read I am wondering if we(meaning I and the design team) have ever played the same game. So is there anything that you can say no matter how general that would make a old time player like me atleast interested?
I echo this plea.
You and WotC can ignore it all you want. I think it has more bearing than you give it credence. Maybe you are right. Maybe I am. Freedom of speech baby!
I believe that you fall into the disinterested group.
Anyone can post in it, a few times, the results can be manipulated, AND they represented a ... 'select' group of population, who is not representative of the whole. Candlekeep, by example, is a group more biased toward old-school and leaning on the ani-side.
Statisticaly, that represent only Candlekeep, not gamers as a whole. Or not every FR fan.
This is useless and interested. Deny as much as you want, statisticaly, internet polls (like petitions) are worthless. Someone else would say it better than me, simply so.
Please tell me that you're not referring to any surveys on ENWorld or any other gaming site. Those surveys are worse than worthless. They're misleading. They are a self-selecting sample of a minority of board dwellers who just happen to feel strongly enough about whatever the survey is about to actually take part in it. Depending what site you go to, you could get a survey that shows that most of the voters want to be fire engines. - Doc_Klueless
they actually have. It's called Forgotten Realms 1st to 3rd Edition. :D Seriously why would you want another campaign setting if you love everything about the old Realms? You already have your über-detailed and for newbies utterly unaccesible Realms. Everything you want from the Realms has been done (and why would you need reprints of the same flavor you've already got?)...
Not true. There's is plenty about the setting that has never been detailed.
Just sayin'
Here's an example: In the Dragonlance setting, it's a sure bet that every player who's played in that setting has fought draconians at some point. It's a common experience all Dragonlance players share and can compare. In core D&D, adventures like Tomb of Horrors used to be a common experience; everybody played it at some point. (These days, something like Forge of Fury might be a better bet.) In the Birthright setting, you ruled kingdoms. In Planescape, you went to Sigil. Those are common experiences of those settings.
Halruaa was just an example I used of a game that would look and feel like it belonged to a totally different "IP" than the more center-of-the-road FR games. (Halruaa looks more like Eberron than it does Forgotten Realms, in my opinion.) We'd like more Realms games to share the Waterdeep-Silver Marches-Cormyr-Dalelands experience, because those areas are really the heart of the Realms and share the strongest elements of Ed's original vision for the setting. I'd like to encourage people to play there, instead of running Lost World games down in Chult or magical Three Musketeers games in Halruaa. Could the world still include such places? Sure. But it's not really part of the common Realms experience.
The problem with that approach (and the reason why Dragonlance felt out of favor as a setting) is that you are limitting the options of the realms. The beauty of the setting is the possibility of playing any kind of adventure in the same world, there are many advantages to this, one of them is that you can design a campaign that focuses on different kinds of adventures. This extends the usefull life of PCs because just by beeing in the same world you don't need any contrived reason to justify the change. My current campaign went from the prelude where my players battled the orcs of Sons of Gruumsh to the Silver Marches where they fought Sharrans on a detectivesque chapter, to travelling the Underdark in City of the Spider Queen, to fight the dragons during the Year of Rogue Dragons, to become part of Seiveril's Crusade (an excelent background to use Heroes of Battle).
Thanks to the huge net of portals around Faerûn you don't even need to plan for days of travell if you don't want to wait. Halruaa is an excelent area to play intrigue and High Magic at it's fullest. Silver Marches has the frontier sense. Rashemen is a spiritual land, and I could go on forever. Everything is the Realms. If you are familiar with World of Darkness then you can see how each part of the realms enrichess the others. Without Werewolves the vampires wouldn't have the same feeling when they are in wild areas, or humanity would be poorer without those few who understand the truth about reality.
Not true. There's is plenty about the setting that has never been detailed.
Just sayin'
Note that a good lot of that is the uncharted regions - perhaps willingly left blank for an Eberron-like Dm's fiat, and places called 'add-ons'.
Just saying.
Well it's much easier to design for the standardized default role player than for the bunch of totally different people with unbelievable strong opinions that we are today. So maybe D&D 4th is just a evolutionary step forward. The unfit(ting) players have to go the way of the Dodo.
Not to be mean, but I think this equating of roleplaying games with scientific evolution is highly inappropriate.
Note that a good lot of that is the uncharted regions - perhaps willingly left blank for an Eberron-like Dm's fiat, and places called 'add-ons'.
Just saying.
Are you implying something?
If you are, I don't get it.
The problem with that approach (and the reason why Dragonlance felt out of favor as a setting) is that you are limitting the options of the realms. The beauty of the setting is the possibility of playing any kind of adventure in the same world, there are many advantages to this, one of them is that you can design a campaign that focuses on different kinds of adventures.
While I agree with Rich that not all diversity is "good diversity", I would like to echo these particular statements. Part of the fun, for me, is getting to visit all different types of locales and not seeing the same vistas all the time.
The problem with that approach (and the reason why Dragonlance felt out of favor as a setting) is that you are limitting the options of the realms. The beauty of the setting is the possibility of playing any kind of adventure in the same world, there are many advantages to this ~snip~
Thanks to the huge net of portals around Faerûn you don't even need to plan for days of travell if you don't want to wait. Halruaa is an excelent area to play intrigue and High Magic at it's fullest. Silver Marches has the frontier sense. Rashemen is a spiritual land, and I could go on forever. Everything is the Realms. If you are familiar with World of Darkness then you can see how each part of the realms enrichess the others. Without Werewolves the vampires wouldn't have the same feeling when they are in wild areas, or humanity would be poorer without those few who understand the truth about reality.
Here's what I'm getting: the unavoidable point that it's hard to sell FR as something worth doing outside of the RPG industry (i.e., films & video games) without it being more focused so as to make it more easily grasped by those in charge and thus better monetized as a result, not just for the non-FR people they'd like to bring in. It's already been said that sales haven't been as great as desired, so there's the writing on the wall.
So it isn't to their advantage to have FR playable in multiple fashions, there must be a commonality, a 'hook'. Even though draconians--as an example--immensely bored me in Dragonlance after a while, as far as 'hooks' go. (And even though the DL pantheon was immensely boring because it was so compact, yet another reason why I chose FR over DL in the long run.)
Of course, irony of ironies, we'll have dragonborn in the 4e Realms. And a compact pantheon.
Firstly, would Dragon and Dungeon Magazine be interested in articles and adventures relating to the 'Classic' Realms?
Secondly, would third party groups be allowed to do some work on the 'Classic' Realms and give the work away online?
Anyway, come on guys. Let's be civil on this thread. Even if you don't like Rich's answers, he's doing us a service by coming here and answering them. Also, let's try keeping discussion on this thread to a minimum. It's hard finding the questions and answers among all the other posts. Perhaps create a new thread?
Who's trolling, you dimwit? This thread is intended for discussions, and I'm discussing my opinions. If you have a problem with that then don't view this thread anymore, or place me on ignore. If you want to be condescending towards me, then do it in PM. You're on the line of flaming me, so cool off and let me discuss my opinions, as all my opinions are valid and my sources are taken from Rich Baker's quotes himself. 4ED is a joke and if you can't handle the majority of Realms fans thinking likewise then go to another forum.
The DIE 4E drivel is spamming. You do it on every thread over and over. It is spamming. Plus name calling and being mean to others is against boards policy. REPORTED. Try being a nicer human being in the future please. ;)
Rich, asprine or whiskey?
Are you implying something?
If you are, I don't get it.
Can they covers much more new grounds, reallY? Much is eitheir the disliked 'tackled on' things, the distant continents (albeit I'd love it myself) or some places willingly left blank or not very detailed - like sembia of old and those border kingdoms.
It's one of the big why the big changes, really... Does fans want again the same places covered?
Can they covers much more new grounds, reallY? Much is eitheir the disliked 'tackled on' things, the distant continents (albeit I'd love it myself) or some places willingly left blank or not very detailed - like sembia of old and those border kingdoms.
It's one of the big why the big changes, really... Does fans want again the same places covered?
I'd love a new book on the Lands of Intrigue (Amn, Tethyr, Calimshan). Nothing new since 2nd ed.
I'd love a new book on the Lands of Intrigue (Amn, Tethyr, Calimshan). Nothing new since 2nd ed.
I agree completely, but don't forget the Lake of Steam. I like to think of it as the Moonsea of the south. ;)
I have to disagree with you on Dragonlance, As person that played in the world yes you fought draconains but, I don't believe it was a shared experience, as say an adventure in Grey hawk or Mystara at the time. Simply because of the flavor and uniqueness of the world and settings.
Please let me know what you think on this thought. I've stated this somewhere else on the forums, that Dragonlance shot itself in the foot, when it went to the fifth age card game, and discarded the gods for a new magic and game system. Now I'm not sure if you were at TSR at the time, most likely you were, and I believe they damaged a vibrant campaign setting which could have gone further on the thought they could push there game with a complete new system and major changes in the setting. This came back ans booted them in the rear. It also didn't help that if you read the books the whole campaign was wrapped up for you and left no room for the D.M to write or create new stories.
How do you write for A to B If those issues have been taken care of already?
This is kind of the same argument many in the forums have brought up about the realms.
I disagree with many on that subject, because the books seem more likely to give a snap shot of the world, and don't center on one major epic event, like Dragonlance does.
Do you believe the realms will suffer from this same design philosophy?
I can understand your design philo on the god issue. The gods have been akin to mortals since the (Basic Immortal Sets) heck some of my companions once battled and slew an aspect of Iuz in GreyHawk, so killing them off is nothing new. I disagree on how you go about it. Its one thing for a god to kill another god, that pretty boring and leaves nothing to the imagination, it another thing for mortal heroes to do it.
Now if that was the adventure for the spellplauge I think things might have been more interesting, and as a game mechanic more fun for player who now become gods by either killer Mystra or Helping her and adds to the game as a whole. As a D.M. I would find that most interesting if Tyr was killed and replaced by Hergrin Stormwind rider of evil.
Again I disagree with many people who say Mystra and the chosen are so powerful. As a story tool there supposed to be they're facing epic stuff, their epic heroes; as a game tool they shouldn't be.
They are NPC and any D.M. worth his salt understands this.
Mystra, after reading the Annoited Elminster is surely Ed's favorite god, and the essence of many of his stories, in which he writes. In many ways he sets up Mystra, magic and the weave like the force is set up in Star-wars.
Do you think the realms can be the realms with out those elements(Mystra, the chosen, Epic heros)? Would starwars be starwars with out the force?
I'm a Graphic designer, writer, and wannabe game designer, so I can understand the struggles you go through trying to put this new edition together. One of you college didn't leave us much joy in his speech, especially about nuking the gods and the chosen.
If your going to kill them off let them at least go heroically, I think he came off just a little to joy happy. In Races and Classes he even goes as far as calling out the Drow and Drizzt, and pushing the Tieflings, it almost scary how it seems he kind of has it out for the realms.
Now not having played a realms game in about a year in a half, have the new designers had a chance to look over the old lore for the game, so they knew what to put in the new campaign book? Or at least be familiar with the setting? If the mentality of the designers is that the campaign has to much history to jump into, would it not be easier,to create a small synopsis of the realms in Forgotten Realm adventures modules and campaign like second edition did, so new players can catch up?
Instead of thinking new players can't play an advanced game do you think a simplified history of the realms might work? Something that doesn't overpower the new game?
One of the smartest things the 2nd ed of the realms did was have two separate books, of info so you could separate the lore and how to run the realms. 3d mashed everything together making it harder to separate and dissect.
I believe if you put the realms lore from 3rd edition out there with fourth edition rules, anybody could run the game.
In many ways I don't think it is the setting more on how the rules where presented in the core game itself. (AoO, the text in which the book was to small and to close together, and was written in a legalise type style and felt like a text book instead of a game) Was it a step up from 2nd ed, Hell yeaH!!! But again that what fourth is about right?
As for Halruaa I will disagree with you. Eberron looks more like Halruaa than it does the other way around. It the same old question...who came first the chicken or the egg? It may seem apart in many ways, but because it has a long standing in the lore perhaps instead of getting rid of it why not have the nation influence other parts of the world, especially with the return of the shades. Now more than ever Halruaa would be involved in the world knowing that a new Nethril would be running around that could unbalance the power in Faerun.
[Do you think the design philo should be instead of making the other parts similar to Cormyr, Silver Marches, or Waterdeep, in this new edition we should see how the other parts of faerun effect the above stated countries?
We keep hearing these nations are out of place, but perhaps it how they need to interact. This is the reason I believe the time of troubles, the rise of the shades, and other events are important because, the world doesn't exist in a bottle, and things that effect Cormyr, should effect the Moonshae isles, Damara and Vassa, Halruaa.
One last Question.
For the anniversary of the realms, would you think of putting out a collectible limited edition of the Realms based on Ed's latest campaign? Something akin to the gray box set. With two statutes of Elminster and Storm SilverHand crafted by bowen sculptures as book holders, with 4Edition lore?
Lol okay that was a long shot a future Christmas purchase, but I would throw down some serious loot for that, and if it was signed in gold leaf lol, it would be a wrap, lol.
Thanks Mr.Baker for your time again.
Have a happy Christmas and New years.
sweet water and light laughter, to you and yours.
Spirit Hawkfellow
http://grandrealm.pbwiki.com/
The other countries/regions should be mentioned but leave those areas for the DM to fill out. Most of my campaigns have happened around the dales/moonsea area.
Looking forward to it.
@ Rich Baker: What can you tell us about Gnomes in 4E FR? Are they going to look and act like that ridiculous creature we saw in the Tielfing/Gnome Flash cartoon?
I think I missed this cartoon. Could any please post a link to this? Thanks!
I think I missed this cartoon. Could any please post a link to this? Thanks!
Here you go!
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/toon/20071219a
By the way, here's a drawing a poster named Klaus over at ENWorld cooked up based on the Gnome from that video. Odds are, the Monster Manual version will look more like this.
Here the guy does some free artwork and he can't even get some decent publicity out of it?
PS. I bought two or three of the counter collections based on his work, excellent stuff.
At least give a link to the guy's website: http://www.enworld.org/Pozas/
I didn't know the guy had a website.
Here the guy does some free artwork and he can't even get some decent publicity out of it?
It's not as if I posted it uncredited.I'd like to encourage people to play there, instead of running Lost World games down in Chult or magical Three Musketeers games in Halruaa.
Why? I don't understand why you would care to influence how people play their campaigns.
With the focus narrowing to the Dalelands/Heartlands/Cormyr/etc, will we see any new major dungeons (on the scale of Undermountain or so!) open up in these areas?
I understand that the megadungeon and 'campaign-dungeon' aren't everyones cuppatea, but at least a few of us would be interested to see a new, large, Realms-centric dungeon area open up. Perhaps areas that were 'rent-asunder in the Spellplague'? Things like that?
Thanks!
Regarding the "commonality of experience" thing: I'll reiterate that it is only *one* of the *possible* reasons why a less-diverse setting is better than a more-diverse setting. John Kretzer asked me what possible advantages the one might have over the other, and I listed a few that occurred to me. It's not our primary reason for making the changes we're making, and should not be treated as such. You guys are putting a little too much weight on a tangential answer here.
That in mind, I'm skipping the first question and moving on to the second: Can the Realms be the Realms without Mystra and her Chosen? I think the answer is yes. The notion of magic is what's akin to the Force, and of course there's still going to be magic in the Realms.
As far as new designers doing their homework -- yes, they are. Just the other day Chris Sims was telling me about what he's up to in the Underdark, and we were talking about the 3e Underdark book (which was some prettty good lore, IMHO). We've had similar conversations about different corners of Faerun many times. And we've also got folks such as Ed Greenwood, Brian James, and Eric Boyd working on 4e Realms products.
Hi Mr Baker, Just here to put my two cents in and ask a couple of questions.
I have to disagree with you on Dragonlance, As person that played in the world yes you fought draconains but, I don't believe it was a shared experience, as say an adventure in Grey hawk or Mystara at the time. Simply because of the flavor and uniqueness of the world and settings.
Please let me know what you think on this thought. I've stated this somewhere else on the forums, that Dragonlance shot itself in the foot, when it went to the fifth age card game, and discarded the gods for a new magic and game system. Now I'm not sure if you were at TSR at the time, most likely you were, and I believe they damaged a vibrant campaign setting which could have gone further on the thought they could push there game with a complete new system and major changes in the setting. This came back ans booted them in the rear. It also didn't help that if you read the books the whole campaign was wrapped up for you and left no room for the D.M to write or create new stories.
How do you write for A to B If those issues have been taken care of already?
This is kind of the same argument many in the forums have brought up about the realms.
I disagree with many on that subject, because the books seem more likely to give a snap shot of the world, and don't center on one major epic event, like Dragonlance does.
Do you believe the realms will suffer from this same design philosophy?
I can understand your design philo on the god issue. The gods have been akin to mortals since the (Basic Immortal Sets) heck some of my companions once battled and slew an aspect of Iuz in GreyHawk, so killing them off is nothing new. I disagree on how you go about it. Its one thing for a god to kill another god, that pretty boring and leaves nothing to the imagination, it another thing for mortal heroes to do it.
Now if that was the adventure for the spellplauge I think things might have been more interesting, and as a game mechanic more fun for player who now become gods by either killer Mystra or Helping her and adds to the game as a whole. As a D.M. I would find that most interesting if Tyr was killed and replaced by Hergrin Stormwind rider of evil.
Again I disagree with many people who say Mystra and the chosen are so powerful. As a story tool there supposed to be they're facing epic stuff, their epic heroes; as a game tool they shouldn't be.
They are NPC and any D.M. worth his salt understands this.
Mystra, after reading the Annoited Elminster is surely Ed's favorite god, and the essence of many of his stories, in which he writes. In many ways he sets up Mystra, magic and the weave like the force is set up in Star-wars.
Do you think the realms can be the realms with out those elements(Mystra, the chosen, Epic heros)? Would starwars be starwars with out the force?
I'm a Graphic designer, writer, and wannabe game designer, so I can understand the struggles you go through trying to put this new edition together. One of you college didn't leave us much joy in his speech, especially about nuking the gods and the chosen.
If your going to kill them off let them at least go heroically, I think he came off just a little to joy happy. In Races and Classes he even goes as far as calling out the Drow and Drizzt, and pushing the Tieflings, it almost scary how it seems he kind of has it out for the realms.
Now not having played a realms game in about a year in a half, have the new designers had a chance to look over the old lore for the game, so they knew what to put in the new campaign book? Or at least be familiar with the setting? If the mentality of the designers is that the campaign has to much history to jump into, would it not be easier,to create a small synopsis of the realms in Forgotten Realm adventures modules and campaign like second edition did, so new players can catch up?
Instead of thinking new players can't play an advanced game do you think a simplified history of the realms might work? Something that doesn't overpower the new game?
One of the smartest things the 2nd ed of the realms did was have two separate books, of info so you could separate the lore and how to run the realms. 3d mashed everything together making it harder to separate and dissect.
I believe if you put the realms lore from 3rd edition out there with fourth edition rules, anybody could run the game.
In many ways I don't think it is the setting more on how the rules where presented in the core game itself. (AoO, the text in which the book was to small and to close together, and was written in a legalise type style and felt like a text book instead of a game) Was it a step up from 2nd ed, Hell yeaH!!! But again that what fourth is about right?
As for Halruaa I will disagree with you. Eberron looks more like Halruaa than it does the other way around. It the same old question...who came first the chicken or the egg? It may seem apart in many ways, but because it has a long standing in the lore perhaps instead of getting rid of it why not have the nation influence other parts of the world, especially with the return of the shades. Now more than ever Halruaa would be involved in the world knowing that a new Nethril would be running around that could unbalance the power in Faerun.
[Do you think the design philo should be instead of making the other parts similar to Cormyr, Silver Marches, or Waterdeep, in this new edition we should see how the other parts of faerun effect the above stated countries?
We keep hearing these nations are out of place, but perhaps it how they need to interact. This is the reason I believe the time of troubles, the rise of the shades, and other events are important because, the world doesn't exist in a bottle, and things that effect Cormyr, should effect the Moonshae isles, Damara and Vassa, Halruaa.
One last Question.
For the anniversary of the realms, would you think of putting out a collectible limited edition of the Realms based on Ed's latest campaign? Something akin to the gray box set. With two statutes of Elminster and Storm SilverHand crafted by bowen sculptures as book holders, with 4Edition lore?
Lol okay that was a long shot a future Christmas purchase, but I would throw down some serious loot for that, and if it was signed in gold leaf lol, it would be a wrap, lol.
Thanks Mr.Baker for your time again.
Have a happy Christmas and New years.
sweet water and light laughter, to you and yours.
Spirit Hawkfellow
http://grandrealm.pbwiki.com/
Well, you'd have to ask the guys at Dragon and Dungeon. There are submission guidelines posted on our website. But you'd really have to knock their socks off with a 3e proposal, so I don't think it's very likely.
Regarding third party work on the Realms, you should direct that question to Scott Rouse, our D&D business manager. But again, I don't see that we gain much by putting any kind of official stamp of approval on that sort of work by someone else.
Two Questions Rich.
Firstly, would Dragon and Dungeon Magazine be interested in articles and adventures relating to the 'Classic' Realms?
Secondly, would third party groups be allowed to do some work on the 'Classic' Realms and give the work away online?
Anyway, come on guys. Let's be civil on this thread. Even if you don't like Rich's answers, he's doing us a service by coming here and answering them. Also, let's try keeping discussion on this thread to a minimum. It's hard finding the questions and answers among all the other posts. Perhaps create a new thread?
Wizards of the Coast will be knocking off for our holiday break this afternoon, and we won't be back until after New Year's. I think it's a good time to let this thread lie quiet for a few days anyway, so your questions may not get answered for a little while.
Have a great holiday and a merry Christmas!
Have a great holiday and a merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays to you as well
Idle speculation? You nimrod, It's a fact that they are going to retcon the demi-human deities in FR. Rich Baker himself quoted some of the changes to this a few pages ago. Before you write your foot in your mouth on this thread, you should seriously know what you're talking about before bashing someone, like you did to me. You obviously know nothing about this matter.
LOL! Did you just call someone a nimrod? What is this, the 1980s?
FR is more than a risen to deity human, some ubernpc, etc...
Here you go!
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/toon/20071219a
By the way, here's a drawing a poster named Klaus over at ENWorld cooked up based on the Gnome from that video. Odds are, the Monster Manual version will look more like this.
Thanks!
What annoy me is that the FR is seemingly redducted then at some details - that without them, iT's not FR anymore.
FR is more than a risen to deity human, some ubernpc, etc...
Yes, it is more than that. Its a sum total of all of its constituent parts, which includes those deities and NPCs. Take those away, and you can't help but change flavor and character of the setting. We could even go the other way with that and say that a setting is more than just a collection of maps, nations, cities, and geography.
Those things just define it with boundaries and description, but its those NPCs and Deities that give it character and definition. You can of course add and subtract things, and still maintain the setting, but that works best when done in small measures. as it allows us time to digest and reconcile the changes a little at a time, letting us find a place for them in how the Realms works. Taking away a large amount of what we know of the Realms, and then slapping something new down in its place doesn't really allow us much time to digest the changes easily, or find a way to fit them into our concepts of the Realms as a whole, because all of our points of reference are suddenly gone.
You may see that as a good thing, and have it works for you. That's not true of everyone though, and you might consider showing a bit more respect for those of us who don't see things as brightly as you do Ubber.
So... my question to Mr. Baker then would be what steps are the developers and designers considering taking to ease the shock for those of us who aren't adapting well to the new changes?
Now I'm not asking for a detailed plan for the future Realms, as I'm sure that's probably stepping on others toes as well as NDAs and such. What I'm asking is if the developers/designers are ever planning on letting us in on the reasonings and rationales behind the new Realms, beyond it 'seeming like a good idea at the time' sorts of answers we've been getting. I can understand that that's probably the best that can be done until we see the new Realms on the shelves of the LGS, as you don't want to spoil too much, but is this something we can look forward to?
You may see that as a good thing, and have it works for you. That's not true of everyone though, and you might consider showing a bit more respect for those of us who don't see things as brightly as you do Ubber.
I would just ignore Ubbergeek....the people who are for the changes got him...people who are not to thrill with the changes so far get GEV..:D
As I said before Karsus or Sigger for the anti-4E council! Their gripes are easy on the eyes and not at all redudnant or whiney. ;)
Let's all breathe and relax through the Holidays eh folks? Wheeeeeeew. Breaaaaathe! Ahhhhh. Good times.
Is he so offensive that I can't read through his stuff? Not most of the time.
The problem is, you can't read emotion in a text based environment most of the time, and the tendency is to read that emotion into the text rather than scanning for the content.
Well, the problem is that it's too easy to be offended nowadays, so people don't read for content, they only read for emotion. Is Mr. Miscellany offensive? Sure!
Is he so offensive that I can't read through his stuff? Not most of the time.
The problem is, you can't read emotion in a text based environment most of the time, and the tendency is to read that emotion into the text rather than scanning for the content.
Well said Msatran!
Well, the problem is that it's too easy to be offended nowadays, so people don't read for content, they only read for emotion. Is Mr. Miscellany offensive? Sure!
Is he so offensive that I can't read through his stuff? Not most of the time.
The problem is, you can't read emotion in a text based environment most of the time, and the tendency is to read that emotion into the text rather than scanning for the content.
Even if I think your over the top MS I do not think I have seen you really namecall anyone like GEV has, so kudos for you. I appreciate that. EDIT. I am trying to take my own advice from the post above.
Not true. (I know your joking btw). I don't agree with Ubber's way of just posting reactionary responses. He never really posts 1st always just responds to something he does not like. He is different than a MR. Misc or a Gray. Anyone who is behind a GEV is well...
Thank you for realizing that was a joke. After the 'Drizzt Do'Urden must die' thread I didn't know if you had a sense of humor. ;)
As I said before Karsus or Sigger for the anti-4E council! Their gripes are easy on the eyes and not at all redudnant or whiney. ;)
Except they aren'y against 4th edition per se. Now I am against the whole thing so far. All I want is to see something that I can work with even slightly or something I actualy consider a improvement.
Let's all breathe and relax through the Holidays eh folks? Wheeeeeeew. Breaaaaathe! Ahhhhh. Good times.
Good advice...and who know maybe Santa will bring news about 4th edition that I can get behind.
Anyway Merry X-Mas and happy New Years to one and all.
Even if I think your nuts MS I do not think I have seen you really namecall anyone like GEV has, so kudos for you. I appreciate that. EDIT. I am trying to take my own advice from the post above.
Yeah, nice edit there Rauric.
I better not say anything else or you may "Report" me again. Sigh. It turns out I've got to eat some crow.
The Drizzt piece is a placeholder for the catalog, we've actually got new art commissioned. It shows a shade knight flying on a wicked-looking dragon, wheeling over the towers of a dark fortress. Very nice piece.
My bad.
Hey Rich...
How about some spoiler artwork?
It is Christmas time... :P
The worker elves are in formation, learning to use their slings with more accuracy...
And Rudolph's got five battallions of flying reindeer behind him.
Why?
To...Get...WOTC!
This time...It's Personal.
I can see it as a movie poster now. Just don't have Danny Devito or Arnold Schwarzeneggar in it. :D
Question, since we were at it those days...
If you use the common 'default' races of both PoL and FR.... Will you assignate the Elves and Eladrins to subraces like Eberron did to the common elf, or there is another plan? And what of the dwarves and others?
I means, like Elf for Wood/Wild elves, Eladrin for SUn/Moon, etc.
Hope my question was clear enough.
As I said before Karsus or Sigger for the anti-4E council! Their gripes are easy on the eyes and not at all redudnant or whiney. ;)
:: Sigh ::
-Again, the mantle of leadership is thrust upon me. :P
-As John said, I'm not against 4e, per se. Do I like some of the changes being made to the rules? A few, but there are more that I dislike than like. But, since I'm not planning on switching to 4e, it doesn't matter that much to me.
-Now, regarding the changes to the Realms. These, I do not like- at least, in the way they are being presented to us, thus far, and how far "extreme" the designers are taking things.
Question, since we were at it those days...
If you use the common 'default' races of both PoL and FR.... Will you assignate the Elves and Eladrins to subraces like Eberron did to the common elf, or there is another plan? And what of the dwarves and others?
I means, like Elf for Wood/Wild elves, Eladrin for SUn/Moon, etc.
-Rich already answered this, partially. Sun Elves will be given the Eladrin stats, but will still be known in the Realms as Sun Elves. Rulewise, they are becoming 'Eladrin', but lorewise, Sun Elves are still Elves.
-Presumably, the same will be done to Moon Elves, and Star Elves- rulewise, they'll become Eladrin, but they'll continue to be known as Moon Elves and Star Elves. Wood Elves are the only candidates I see as fitting the '4e Elf' bill. Maybe Lythari, if you want to peg them with the 'Lycanthrope' template, if there are such things as templates in 4e.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20071221
It shows 3 distinct races, and we know Corellon and Lolth will survive and there was issues with Sehanine. Could Sehanine be the new God of the Elves, with Corellon and Lolth being for Eladrin and Drow respectively?
If that is the case, then Sehanine is going to change drastically in portfolio atleast. Enough so that Selune and Sehanine aren't the same (or maybe Selune is an aspect of Sehanine, and Shar an aspect of Lolth, or vice versa for humans, but its the same beings.)
Just a few thoughts in this holiday season :D
Do I get a little passionate sometimes? Sure!
Do I get cranky with Rich? Sure!
But calling people names is not an effective means of winning an argument. You will never sway people to your cause by using hate speech. You CAN say their idea is bad in passionate language. You can use oratorical techniques like repetition, raising your voice, lowering your voice, and moving your limbs to indicate the strength of your words.
Eliminating the voice and the body from the equation produces a number of problems, which is why a lot of people say that in the classic debate between Nixon and John F. Kennedy, who won the debate depended on the medium you perceived the debate in. Virtually everyone who watched the debate on TV said that Kennedy won. Virtually everyone who listened to the debate on the radio said that Nixon won.
Why?
Because Nixon was a grumpy looking big nosed man with a powerful voice that belied the fact that he naturally looked sinister.
So on TV, Nixon looked evil, and Kennedy looked young and handsome.
But with only their voices present, Nixon's voice was more authoritative than Kennedy's, and all you've done is eliminated the physical component.
Now, let's reduce the entire equation to basic text. Now, you effectively have an empty conveyance that is ripe for reading into things, and therefore, creating colossal misreadings, misunderstandings, and people who are angry at each other.
So even if I'm ANGRY enough to say something that I don't mean, it's taken out of context because the internet is developing it's own way of reading that has nothing to do with reading text correctly.
:lightbulb Plus, anyone who is trained to read properly (Graduate students in close reading fields like history and literature), writers (But not technical writers), or teachers, suffers the onus of having to learn to re-read one's text for accidental internetisms and grammar mistakes as well.
Plus, many internetisms ALLOW for deliberate grammar mistakes, thus adding to the confusion.
It shows 3 distinct races, and we know Corellon and Lolth will survive and there was issues with Sehanine. Could Sehanine be the new God of the Elves, with Corellon and Lolth being for Eladrin and Drow respectively?
-Goddess. ;)
Die 4ED DIE!!! lol. Ohh no... will I be "reported" again?
-Being confrotational like that, maybe.
-Being confrotational like that, maybe.
Or not following COC and start namecalling and being rude.
@ Richard Baker. Will the FR elves still have their weapon proficiency with bows and a longsword?
-4e "Elves" (Wood Elves) seem to be nature oriented, and I am 95% sure they retain the archery affinities.
its the melee part that im wondering about.
even a hand axe would do.
even though i much prefer swords
Or not following COC and start namecalling and being rude.
Do you even know how many people are name calling and being rude on these boards every day? Even you're guilty of that Rauric, though you usually edit your comments in retrospect. And my Die 4ED DIE comment above was a friendly jab at your "spamming" remark, and the fact that you report anything and everything you find "offensive". You should calm down on that because it will find a way to burn you in return.
I try to reread my posts and make changes because I REALIZE that I have been rude and made a mistake. I know this happens and fix it and then appologize. I really don't want to fight on the net, just throw some ideas around. If I did something wrong and a Mod tells me to stop I will rearead my post and fix it and watch myself. I am human and make mistakes, just like everyone else. The past is the past but we can always better ourselves by not repeating our mistakes. ;)
So Forum friends with different opinions then? Though Reporting everything against CoC you read isn't good for anyone, including yourself. If the WizO's receive too many reports over little offenses (which can be ignored), then they will have no choice but to enforce fascist "martial law" and become Big Brother to every post in every thread in every sub-forum. Nobody wants that.
So forum friends with different stalwart opinions then?
Man, everyone on here's opinions seem different than mine. Maybe a lurker or two feels like I do. Seeing things differently is AOK, being nasty and blasting each other is no tso cool. I will just ask someone to tone it down next time instead of reporting them.
Perfect! And if you ask them to tone it down and they keep on offending you, then place them on your ignore list. I myself break CoC from time to time, but then, so does everyone who posts here. Like you said, we're all human. Or are we? lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7bFtvsYcnQ
DB
As I said before Karsus or Sigger for the anti-4E council! Their gripes are easy on the eyes and not at all redudnant or whiney. ;)
But they aren't necessarily anti-4E rules, they just aren't keen on the changes to the Realms setting.
There's a difference.
Well, the problem is that it's too easy to be offended nowadays, so people don't read for content, they only read for emotion.
But there are some people who obviously DO try to bait other posters into an argument.
But there are some people who obviously DO try to bait other posters into an argument.
Heh. The anti-4E might be too harsh I guess. My biggest 4E gripe is all my old game mechanic books being useless to me. I am pretty pro-4E though since everything I hear about it I like for the most part. I would change some of the FR stuff around though.
Green Elven Vampire, screaming "Die 4th edition Die!" every few posts isn't going to make it happen man....Here, listen to this and see if it doesn't make you feel better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7bFtvsYcnQ
Didn't know it was supposed to make it happen. And I don't write that every few posts.
YMMV.;)
Heh. The anti-4E might be too harsh I guess.
It was, but I'll say I didn't necessarily have you in mind when I wrote that.
My biggest 4E gripe is all my old game mechanic books being useless to me. I am pretty pro-4E though since everything I hear about it I like for the most part. I would change some of the FR stuff around though.
I am very much looking forward to the CORE setting for 4E (although, I hope it has an alternate name besides "the core setting"). The changes for the Realms? Not so much.
It was, but I'll say I didn't necessarily have you in mind when I wrote that.
I am very much looking forward to the CORE setting for 4E (although, I hope it has an alternate name besides "the core setting"). The changes for the Realms? Not so much.
Gotcha. I guess I was lumping certain dislikes together. I know you were talking about someone else when it came to baiting. Making off the wall stements all the time just seems like a cry for attention. "Look at my post, it is the most outrageous thing ever!" The bad thing is that people that do that probably have alot of interesting things to post but it all gets lost in the bluster.
Okay. In the Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition preview book it says that the child of anything and a tiefling is a tiefling.
However, according to the FR 11 Dwarves Deep supplement, the child of anything and a dwarf is a dwarf.
So if you have a dwarf/tiefling romance, what is it?
I think it's a dwarf. Moradin is more powerful than a bunch of devils.
So if you have a dwarf/tiefling romance, what is it?
A republican.:D
I am very much looking forward to the CORE setting for 4E (although, I hope it has an alternate name besides "the core setting").
How about 'The World of D&D'? That's the label Greyhawk got stuck with sometimes. ;)
I have a real question for once:
Okay. In the Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition preview book it says that the child of anything and a tiefling is a tiefling.
However, according to the FR 11 Dwarves Deep supplement, the child of anything and a dwarf is a dwarf.
So if you have a dwarf/tiefling romance, what is it?
I think it's a dwarf. Moradin is more powerful than a bunch of devils.
From what I've gleaned in 4E you could argue the result would be a Duergar.
I have a real question for once:
Okay. In the Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition preview book it says that the child of anything and a tiefling is a tiefling.
However, according to the FR 11 Dwarves Deep supplement, the child of anything and a dwarf is a dwarf.
So if you have a dwarf/tiefling romance, what is it?
I think it's a dwarf. Moradin is more powerful than a bunch of devils.
I think we just cured the problem with gnomes
How about 'The World of D&D'? That's the label Greyhawk got stuck with sometimes. ;)
That sucks too.
If you are going to put a lot of effort creating a world (and that's what they seem to be doing for the core world), at least give it a proper, REAL name!That sucks too.
How about "Steve"?
How about "Steve"?
How about "Eric N'Jorl, son of Hrothgar, brother of Hagnor Priest of Leosowater, slayer of Gudmund the Powerful . . . . . "
Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm
I am very much looking forward to the CORE setting for 4E (although, I hope it has an alternate name besides "the core setting").
Me too. For something that's only supposed to be window dressing for the rule books, it certainly sounds interesting.
Me too. For something that's only supposed to be window dressing for the rule books, it certainly sounds interesting.
Unfortuanly I think it is going to be more then window dressing...and I haven't seen anything I like...a few things I can work with but not too many.
You could name it...
Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm
:OMG!Dwarf + tiefling = hairy little devil.
Dwarfling:D
Me too. For something that's only supposed to be window dressing for the rule books, it certainly sounds interesting.
Hmm, perhaps I'll tell them directly that this setting sounds like it deserves more than that.
Who would have thought some of us old grognards would like the 4E rules and hate the lore for FR?
Indeed. Life's funny like that.
Who would have thought some of us old grognards would like the 4E rules and hate the lore for FR?
Yup.
I really like most of what I'm hearing about the rules but the more I hear about this new 'specialized' FR setting, the less I like it.
I just waded through the last six pages of garbage (this thread moves way too quickly), and the one thing that sticks in my mind are the comments about the gods -
When picking a deity for his cleric, I had to allow my son to choose a core god (Kord), because NO FR god suited him. Ergo, 150+ deities wasn't nearly enough. ;)
When picking a deity for his cleric, I had to allow my son to choose a core god (Kord), because NO FR god suited him. Ergo, 150+ deities wasn't nearly enough. ;)
Kord worked, but Tempus didn't? May I ask what his problem was with Tempus that Kord fixed?
This question is for Mr. Baker but I embrace the input by my fellow members of course. When a persons alignment changes how are they made aware that they can no longer summon a particular monster/Ally any longer, does the spell simply fail or does a creature of appropiate alignment appear? I also noticed that CN has almost no options in the lower lvl summon spells so what can a CN nueutral character summon if he/she chooses to use this spell?
Thanks all and happy holidays.
4E Neutral......... for now.
Kord worked, but Tempus didn't? May I ask what his problem was with Tempus that Kord fixed?
Kord and Tempus are quite different...
Kord is the CG intermediate god of strength, athletics, sports, brawling, and courage.
Tempus is the CN greater god of war, battle, and warriors.
Tempus = God of War
Kord = God of Jocks
Hello All,
This question is for Mr. Baker but I embrace the input by my fellow members of course. When a persons alignment changes how are they made aware that they can no longer summon a particular monster/Ally any longer, does the spell simply fail or does a creature of appropiate alignment appear? I also noticed that CN has almost no options in the lower lvl summon spells so what can a CN nueutral character summon if he/she chooses to use this spell?
Thanks all and happy holidays.
4E Neutral......... for now.
Welllll...
it seems that alot of those type powers/spell are being put on hiatus till a class that specializes in them comes along. Detects, protections and auras are being set by the wayside, summons are being reserved for a Summoner class.
Bel
I personally think that the 3 part adventure mods that came out this last year, should have been about the attacks on the Weave. And how Mystra changes the Weave, how Mystra changes the Weave, and elevates her Chosen in to her own Pantheon. I would so play a Cleric of Storm, Dove, old girl in Silverymoon, that crazy chick in Aglarond, and last but not least that HOT DROW BABE.:D
Thank you for any and all replies.
I was referring to 3.5 ruling, and I wasn't really clear either now that I've reread it. What I was wondering is if PC Jay who was LG has eventually become NG and therefore his choice of summoning monsters changes, when he attempts to that celestial owl is he aware during summoning that something is "different"? Or is he simply like, "Owl atta.....what the.....!" as he stares at a giant fire beetle waving it's antenna about.
The one step rule still applies to summoning, so if X pc changed from LG to NG he can still summon a LG creature.
Kord worked, but Tempus didn't? May I ask what his problem was with Tempus that Kord fixed?
Strangely enough, he was a Dwarf besides...
But he was a city-Dwarf, not one who grew up in a Dwarven Realm, so he wanted a human deity, and Kord suited his light-hearted, devil-may-care brawling attitude. I simply said he grew up in GH, and plane-traveled to FR, bringing his religion with him.
And besides, NO FR god gives the domains of Strength AND Good... ;)
He was VERY picky about what domains he wanted to get... which brings me to my question -
QUESTION:
Will the trimming of the Pantheon now result in far fewer choices Domain-wise? Or will Domains no longer even matter in 4e?
And besides, NO FR god gives the domains of Strength AND Good... ;)
-Lathander. Wait...you were being facecious?
I know Strength was DEFINATELY one of them, but perhaps the other was luck? I don't have his Char sheet handy, but I know the two he wanted couldn't be gotten with any FR deity.
My and a friend are arguing about it. I dont think its possible but he states that in epic you can craft any spell to do anything.
This is a very silly question but would it be possible in any level/setting of DnD including epic to create a spell that could cause the sun to go Supernova? Or to travel back in time millions of years?
My and a friend are arguing about it. I dont think its possible but he states that in epic you can craft any spell to do anything.
Your friend is right...you can create a epic spell to do those things(probably at really high epic level), but the DM always has the right to say no.
If a mage can do THAT, anything is possible.
Also, time travel is certainly possible, and there were even rules for it in 2e.
There are also at least two time-gates that I know of in canon, one leading to Toril's past, and one leading to Earth's.
Really vague I know, but I can't recall the name and don't want to go look it up. :D
Didn't someone recently 'darken' Toril by placing a Tear of Selune in front of the sun, causing a permanent eclipse?
If a mage can do THAT, anything is possible.
The mage in question would have caused an eclipse with an effect equal to holding a dinner plate over his face...
Didn't someone recently 'darken' Toril by placing a Tear of Selune in front of the sun, causing a permanent eclipse?
If a mage can do THAT, anything is possible.
Yes and his name was The Sojurner. Its detailed in "The Erevis Cale Trilogy". It was an eclipse of a part of the Sea of Fallen Stars. All so The Sojurner could walk during the day. Archmages when will they ever learn?:D
Archmages when will thet ever learn?:D
-Good question.
-Though, simply making an eclipse wasn't hurting anyone. It was all of the fallout, and the aftermath, that did.
-Good question.
-Though, simply making an eclipse wasn't hurting anyone. It was all of the fallout, and the aftermath, that did.
Right!!!;) Also his little underlings(all archmages have little annoying underlings dont they?) tore alot of stuff up, leading to the final book in the series. The Sojurner didnt want to hurt anybody, he just wanted to walk outside one last time before he died. But those who got in his underlings way, well that is a different story(they got hurt).:D
That island in the Pirate Isles was supposed to be riddled with time-gates, wasn't it?
Really vague I know, but I can't recall the name and don't want to go look it up. :D
Lurath. :D
It leads back to the time of the Dragonlords, when the Great Dragon Alhazmabad ruled the region that is now the Inner Sea.
That means it also leads back to the time BEFORE the timeline split, into the pre-Sunder Toril and Post-Sunder version. Since the Elven spell reached backwards in time, probably to a time BEFORE the far end of the portal, then the prehistoric world PCs can visit may actually be the alternate timeline version, with the proto-continent still whole.
There are quite a few 'fun' islands in the Sea of Fallen Stars - enough to base an entire campaign around.
Right!!!;) Also his little underlings(all archmages have little annoying underlings dont they?) tore alot of stuff up, leading to the final book in the series. The Sojurner didnt want to hurt anybody, he just wanted to walk outside one last time before he died. But those who got in his underlings way, well that is a different story(they got hurt).:D
Uh, with all due respect you're making the Sojourner sound much more benevolent than he actually was.
I think it's more accurate to say that his mentality was more like "I'm so powerful I can do whatever the hell I want. I'm not going to go out of my way to hurt anyone, but I will if it suits my purposes, and that's just too bad for whomever I impress my will upon."
I thought he was one of the most disgusting villains I'd ever read about. And apparently the protagonist (Cale) agreed with me! And the Sojourner DID hurt and kill people by himself, not just through his underlings.
Many 'normal' folks in Realms would consider Elminster a 'good guy', but I'm sure there are plenty of would-be tyrants that consider the old goat the consumate 'evil'. How about in Hell? If being diabolically evil is the norm there, didn't that make El the 'evil intruder', from the devil's point of view?
Remember, I am the ultimate defender of Monster Rights, and 'good & evil' is all a matter of perspective. ;)
The Sojourner was not a normal person, he was some odd gith if I recall.
I didn't say 'human', I said 'person' - I assume that if it speaks and is somewhat intelligent, it is a person, no matter what shape or lineage said creature may have.
The fact still remains, a mage CAN do those things. If you want another example, Karsus STOLE Mystra's Power, which is control of the Weave, which basically placed a mortal in a position over other god's abilities to interact with their worshippers (grant spells).
My whole point is that ANYTHING is possible within the scope of the rules and the setting.
I think it's more accurate to say that his mentality was more like "I'm so powerful I can do whatever the hell I want. I'm not going to go out of my way to hurt anyone, but I will if it suits my purposes, and that's just too bad for whomever I impress my will upon."
-Nietzsche would have been so proud.
Back to the matter at hand, epic magic clearly has it's limitations as one would just make an epic version of a wish/miracle spell and that would be that.
Nietzsche would have been so proud.
Probably not.
He was AGAINST Nazi-like totalitarianism, remember? His primary belief was the idea that conflict results in improvement and pleasure. Really, he's more a Dualist from the Planescape Sects.
Probably not.
-The Sojourner was about "getting what he wanted" without the moral contrants of...the multiverse prohibiting him from doing so. The Sojourner never wanted to rule, to conquer, etc.
Uh, with all due respect you're making the Sojourner sound much more benevolent than he actually was.
True...consider me chastised for my insolence, My Lady.
I think it's more accurate to say that his mentality was more like "I'm so powerful I can do whatever the hell I want. I'm not going to go out of my way to hurt anyone, but I will if it suits my purposes, and that's just too bad for whomever I impress my will upon."
Well that was what his underlings were for. I saw him as a Mafia boss. The ends justified the means, right?
I thought he was one of the most disgusting villains I'd ever read about. And apparently the protagonist (Cale) agreed with me! And the Sojourner DID hurt and kill people by himself, not just through his underlings.
Yes he was a very disgusting villain. Yet he was a very compelling antagonist in the story that Paul S. Kemp told.
Show
When I realized that the whole Trilogy was about his desire to walk outside during the day, well I was speechless!!!
ShowWhen I realized that the whole Trilogy was about his desire to walk outside during the day, well I was speechless!!!
When I played in an evil game I played an honorable killer that was a Thayan Knight. I wouldn't mess with women or children no matter what my masters told me. I would torture and hurt anyone else, but those two other groups were off limits. Plus I loved my family and friends very much. I think when you make a villain a bit more human it makes them more interesting.
Umm, I recall a 'feature' of being a Thayan Knight was that they'd fail saves against mind-affecting spells cast by their masters. Correct? So if the master didn't see it your way he/she could've dominated your character into doing just that.
But I do agree, when villians are more human it adds a certain depth.
Umm, I recall a 'feature' of being a Thayan Knight was that they'd fail saves against mind-affecting spells cast by their masters. Correct? So if the master didn't see it your way he/she could've dominated your character into doing just that.
But I do agree, when villians are more human it adds a certain depth.
My superiors never gave me that order. They just wanted me to mess everyone else up. Thankfully most of the Reds I met were not people that wanted women and children hurt. ;)
The Sojourner was about "getting what he wanted" without the moral contrants of...the multiverse prohibiting him from doing so. The Sojourner never wanted to rule, to conquer, etc.
There are a number of degrees of amorality - Nietzsche never argued that ETHICS were an illusion. He also believed that getting what you wanted was ultimately boring, and led to discontent - I attended a pretty significant seminar about Nietzsche's ideal "happiness" last semester. It rocked.
<3 Nietzsche. You nutty Syphilis-ridden German.
-At first, I was like, "Aw, come on!". But, after I finished the book, and thought about it, I was like, "You know what? That's pretty awesome, actually".
Yes how many authors do that in a story line. To me The Sojurner seemed kinda ambiguous(sp) morally. Could be good one minute, very evil the next. I asked Paul about him in that thread that was going awhile back. He said he modeled him after Nietzsche some what. Cant seem to find that thread now.
-I think someone has stated that somewhere or other. There's so many different sources of information at this point, it's sometimes annoying.
Thats why I am asking Rich. Will Yugoloths and Slaadi be in 4E?
True...consider me chastised for my insolence, My Lady.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far.
Well that was what his underlings were for. I saw him as a Mafia boss. The ends justified the means, right?
Like I said, he did kill some beings all by himself.
Certain demons, certain angels, and all the inhabitants of one of the Towers of the Eclipse.Question:
Will you be doing an anthology based on the effects of the Spellplague?
Such a thing would not only go a long way to helping people make the transition, but it would also line WotC's pockets with much cash (which is always a good thing).
At least one book, filled with short stories about the various NPCs/novel characters and written by some of FR's renowned authors would be a great way of wrapping up "the end of an era". We want to know what happened to all of them, and their stories, not just short blurbs in a history book or CG.
Oh... and have Ed write the one about the sisters and Elminster - anything less would be viewed as an afront by fans. They are Ed's creations, and only HE should be able to send them off into the endless night.
There are a number of degrees of amorality - Nietzsche never argued that ETHICS were an illusion.
I guess he would have disagreed with the Sojourner, then, because it was stated more than once that the Sojourner believed morals and ethics were illusions that he didn't need to impose on himself. And he didn't.
We have one vote, and a mighty one it is!
What could possibly be better, then one (or better yet, SEVERAL) books containing stories by most of the old gaurd, coupled with those written by some of the newer authors?
Lets find out what happened to all the 'small' folks of the Realms - not just the heavyweights!
Why, I'd even have Margaret Weiss write one, with either a DL tie-in, or perhaps let her tell the story of the Saurials (I think that may be appropriate). Also, consider Christie Golden for ANYTHING about the Orcs. She has written for both the Warcraft and Star Trek franchises, and her insights about Orcs and their behaviour could go a long way to helping some FR fans understand the true nature of Orcs. She should definately do an FR story about them. :D
I have four tieflings in my gameworld. For only ONE of them does the shift not matter.
There are THREE Half Dragons. Are they going to explode in a cloud of backstory too?
Suddenly, Dwarf women are beardless. They've had beards for 20 years.
I think the only race in my Realms game that didn't get highjacked and tourniqueted while their body parts were thrown into a wood chipper was the human.
Dragonborn ARE stupid, Wizards of the Coast!
Tieflings NEED pants!
The Astral Sea is a cornhole job!
Killing Mystra IS the second worst idea ever...
And that's because the Spellplague is THE DUMBEST IDEA I'VE EVER SEEN. I could believe "Ao says the gods suck, go walk Toril."
I could believe the Shadow Weave, even if it was stupid.
But this combination of cuckoo events needs a retcon so badly that the gods themselves should rain anvils on the people who thought of it.
I pray for the return of Murdane, Goddess of Logic, to kick the new Realms Design Team in the head.
THIS WORLD HAS NO !@#$@!ing Ecology. I've said this before a million times. You can either play a D+D game with broken economics or broken ecology. And if you break the ecology, you can't play any wilderness based class, so guess which one I choose every time.
I have four tieflings in my gameworld. For only ONE of them does the shift not matter.
In what way do the changes to Tieflings matter? Is it a question of appearance? Because you can still say they look however you like without affecting gameplay in the slightest. In Ravenloft, for instance, you've got an NPC who, mechanically, is a Half-Orc, but who actually looks a whole lot more like a Rakshasa. In comparison to that, how difficult would it be to have Tieflings which look however you want them to look?
There are THREE Half Dragons. Are they going to explode in a cloud of backstory too?
Have you seen anything at all to suggest that Half-Dragons will no longer exist?
Suddenly, Dwarf women are beardless. They've had beards for 20 years.
Haven't they been beardless since 3E?
In what way do the changes to Tieflings matter? Is it a question of appearance? Because you can still say they look however you like without affecting gameplay in the slightest. In Ravenloft, for instance, you've got an NPC who, mechanically, is a Half-Orc, but who actually looks a whole lot more like a Rakshasa. In comparison to that, how difficult would it be to have Tieflings which look however you want them to look?
Have you seen anything at all to suggest that Half-Dragons will no longer exist?
Haven't they been beardless since 3E?
Oy, don't even bother anymore. ;)
It can be smoothe for people who don't take RPGs too seriously I believe. Other who are really hung up on lore and continuity will be put off. Simple as that. I think the casual gamer will be fine by the whole deal. Again I think there are more casual than hardcore gamers in RPGs.By casual I mean people who may buy many of the books but don't get really "into" the game like a small segment of the population do. Kinda like a Stoyteller VS. Beer & Preztles thing.
Like I said, he did kill some beings all by himself.
Well the Demons don't get any of my sympathy(They would do the same thing in a heartbeat). The Angels, do get some sympathy. Those in the Tower, well they got off lightly IMHO. They did have a pretty bad day huh? He was pretty ruthless, which rocked. Lets us know that the Sojurner wasn't playing around.
The Sojourner sounds like the PERFECT villain! They shouldn't be silly, speech-making, mustache-twirling lunatics given to maniacal laughter. The perfect foe is one that does not consider himself or his actions evil.
I thought that "Darken Ralh" from Terry Godkind's Novel "The Wizards First Rule" was awesome. The guy was so EVIL, he thought he was good. God how I HATED that villain. Its the only book out of that series that I have read so far. Plan on reading the rest some day.
Darken Rahl WAS a hero, in a way... just keep reading the series. ;)
Show
There were much worse things then him out there, that he was keeping at bay.
They go downhill from there, but I have read them ALL, which is more then I can say for FR books...
When you consider that Terry Goodkind was more or less using the series as a vessel to portray his political/cultural philosophy, he reached his actual "climax" in Faith of the Fallen. According to my friends that read the books after that, it appears he doesn't know quite what to do afterwards and spends a lot of time covering the same ground and repeating himself. Oh yeah, the first book is the best, but the next few aren't that bad. I hear after a while they do get that bad however.
I still read the series though, for the same reason I keep going back to Wheel of Time - I just want it to end already. I'm tired of the heroes of both those series keep having to rise to new challenges and fight the good fight. I think they all deserve a few years... or centuries... off.
They need a well-earned rest.
Also, in both those series, I still pick-up little thing I might use in my game, like the people who are 'immune' to magic (Naked Empire). Magic simply does not exist for them; they'd make a helluva a group of Mage-Killers!
In what way do the changes to Tieflings matter? Is it a question of appearance? Because you can still say they look however you like without affecting gameplay in the slightest. In Ravenloft, for instance, you've got an NPC who, mechanically, is a Half-Orc, but who actually looks a whole lot more like a Rakshasa. In comparison to that, how difficult would it be to have Tieflings which look however you want them to look?
Tiefling are completely different in 4th edition then they are now. They are not fiendish descendent, they are now cursed humens.
Also why do they have dinosaurs tails? If they wanted a more diabolic look what a more traditional diabolic tail.
Why did they design such impracticle weapons? The racial weapons don't really impress me...most are just the same weapons...just extremely 'stylized'.
There really was not anything wrong with the old flavor. It has been attracting people for over 30 years.
In my opinion what they are doing is like taking Drizzt...and turning him into a human.
I juast hope they come out with support for the old flavor. If not I don't think a lot of games will be converting.
The problem is that this seems to encourage bad DMing on the part of Dungeon Masters. No DM worth his salt would tell his player that his character suddenly became a tofu monster. And that's really what's being done here.
It's great if you as a DM never allowed Tieflings before. But that's simply not the case in the Realms. You can't change the flavor without radically changing people's previous IC actions and IC decisions, and that's neither fair to the players or to the DM.
The problem with the 4th edition flavor is that it is best described by an old russian joke.
There is a man standing on a soapbox, preaching to the crowd of people in the streets. He says "Comes the Revolution, there will be wine flowing in the streets!"
A man calls out from the crowd. "But I don't like wine!"
"Yes!" howls a second man! "I love beer! What about beer?"
The man on the soapbox gives the two an evil leer. "Comes the Revolution, you'll LIKE WINE!"
Don't want to argue this in perpetuity.
Yup. Ya can't really win, or even try and make them see your side just a little. If it is in a book they must use it. That is all.
Rich, If FR will use the new tieflings what will be done about the old version? Will the new version be called tieflings, be another version of tieflings? Will both versions be able to exist? It is a rather interesting question. I do not think it will break a campaign since I can always use my imagination to cook something up if a player dislikes it, I was just wondering what the official answer will be. If the reason you cannot answer is because of NDA then please just say so. Hope you had a good holiday. ;)
BTW: For the FR experts: does it mesh with the new year in the Realms' calendar?
Yup. Ya can't really win, or even try and make them see your side just a little. If it is in a book they must use it. That is all.
Interestingly that can apply to all perspectives.
-Does the Realms calandar mesh with ours? Yes, yes it does. See the FRCS.
Oh Snap!!!
Does that mean we're all going to get a hundred years older in August?
Oh Snap!!!
Does that mean we're all going to get a hundred years older in August?
-Well, in terms of months and all, it meshed. Presumably it will in 4e Realms.
Yup. Ya can't really win, or even try and make them see your side just a little. If it is in a book they must use it. That is all.
2 things
1)If you are not going to use a book why buy it? Also if a new player joins the game...do you think he'll join after being told that 120$ spent on the 4th edition core books is useless?
2) Greenknight( and almost everybody else on that side) aren't really trying to see the other side at all either. I'll say there is alot of that going on.
A question for Richard Baker: What type of books will we see alot of? Modules, Splat books, etc. from 4th edition? Also is there any plans to support the older flavor of D&D? I.E the great wheel? The demons & and devils? etc
2) Greenknight( and almost everybody else on that side) aren't really trying to see the other side at all either. I'll say there is alot of that going on.
The difference is that I'm not inventing things to complain about. Like Tiefling backgrounds. There has been no indication whatsoever that the core background will apply in any way, shape, or form, to the Realms (Nevermind that the Tiefling background in core is very campaign specific, being tied directly to a country in the core setting). So why complain about it? It's not as if there's a shortage of things to complain about. Is it really necessary to manufacture things to complain about?
Tieflings straight from the core books appear different then older versions. Will this be the case of 4E FR tieflings? I don't know, neither books has come out yet.
Half-dragons are wiped away from existence? I don't know the books havn't come out yet.
A rumor I heard is that things may happen in Anchorome... Any word on it, without breaking the surprise or any NDA?
and...
Gnomes in the Campaign Setting book or some add-on after? (if it's published before the book who is to contain Core ones, and if there is changes of course.)
Being upset about something that has happened is understandable to me, but complaining about something that comes from what you fear "may" happen is just silly. IMO.
The difference is that I'm not inventing things to complain about. Like Tiefling backgrounds. There has been no indication whatsoever that the core background will apply in any way, shape, or form, to the Realms (Nevermind that the Tiefling background in core is very campaign specific, being tied directly to a country in the core setting). So why complain about it? It's not as if there's a shortage of things to complain about. Is it really necessary to manufacture things to complain about?
Instead of arguing on this thread about what Tiefling will be like in the Realms just ask the designers.
Happy New Year Rich,
Will Tieflings in the Realms be descendants of demons/devils or will they be cursed humans?
Instead of arguing on this thread about what Tiefling will be like in the Realms just ask the designers.
Happy New Year Rich,
Will Tieflings in the Realms be descendants of demons/devils or will they be cursed humans?
Emminently reasonable solution.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Rich. A couple more questions for you for when you get back.
1) Will the Moonstars continue to exist in the 4E Realms? If not, will they die out or rejoin the Harpers?
2) Will Sememmon still be alive in the 4E Realms?
3) We've heard about Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. Will the FRCG feature new Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies? Will Prestige Classes like the Harper Scout, Purple Dragon Knight and Red Wizard of Thay be converted to Paragon Paths in the FRCG?
4) There've been rumors about a Necromancer class, a Conjurer class, etc being released eventually. Will the write-up on Red Wizards in 4E take this possibility into account, or will the Red Wizards see a different organization in 4E? One not based on schools of magic?
Thanks a bunch, Rich. Hope you enjoyed your vacation.
4) There've been rumors about a Necromancer class, a Conjurer class, etc being released eventually. Will the write-up on Red Wizards in 4E take this possibility into account, or will the Red Wizards see a different organization in 4E? One not based on schools of magic?
Probably a local Tradition, if this game mechanic exist for real....
Red Wizards would be.... very specialised mages. Maybe a Wizard with Fire focus? 'red', 'Azuth', all that....
Probably a local Tradition, if this game mechanic exist for real....
I just realized that the "rumors about a Necromancer class, a Conjurer class, etc" came from this very thread. Whoops. ;) Man, one of these days I'm gonna have to copy and paste every single question and answer asked here to insure that I'm not forgetting about something previously asked.
Still, that doesn't negate the question. Namely will the possible existence of an Illusionist class, Necromancer class, etc impact the write-up of the Red Wizards, allowing for their organization to remain relatively the same, or will they see a new organization structure which isn't built around "schools of magic"?
The complaints are unwarrented though because they are just specualtion IMO. I can understand complaining about the gods, the RSE, and the NPCs deaths. They are real things that have been confirmed. John and MS act as if the tiefling and half-dragon "information" they throw out there is somehow real. It is not. It is their fears of what may occur. They portray it as a factual thing though and complain as if it was real.
Being upset about something that has happened is understandable to me, but complaining about something that comes from what you fear "may" happen is just silly. IMO.
Those forum members can speak for themselves in regards to the validity of their concerns or their exact stances on these issues. Just saying, whatever it may be, now is probably the best time to voice anything, be it criticism (hopefully constructive), regular comments, or simple praise.
I'm not too keen on the clutter chatter myself. So I'll stop myself here with apologies for clogging up some of this thread.
Actually I do have a question:
Rich, do you know if D&DI will have any support for PBEM (Play by E-Mail) style games?
If you guys make boat-loads of cash off of previews, will you just continue to produce them and never get around to any real rules?
Now, I know what you're all thinking - I'm just being a jerk again, but I do have a precedent for what I'm asking.
I worked in the food service industry for several years, and learned something interesting. If you order alcoholic beverages when you go out for dinner, your food will take longer.
Thats a fact - they do it on purpose, because they know you will drink until you get your food. Once you get your food, you will stop drinking and eat - and the restaurant makes WAY more money off of the drinks then they do the food.
A friend of mine told me he went out to one of those Sports Bar places and him and his buddies ordered beers and some burgers. Then they ordered more beers, and then more... it took an hour and a half for them to get their food, and the manager was very apologetic.
I can tell you right now, the manager was full of s__t! I've seen this done, time and again - its an old trick.
And thats why I asked the question I just did...
There's no "Pot-O-Gold at the end of the Rainbow kiddies, just a pile of horse manure and empty promises.
I'm not talking about WotC here, I'm talking about life in general. However, I can apply my own life experiences to the things I see around me, and ask LEGITIMATE questions.
What I asked above is something to consider - the designers may not even have any say over it. If some big-wig over at Hasbro sees that they made a ton of money off of a preview, then you know that the question will be raised at the next board meeting "How many of these 'previews' do you think we can get away with?"
Its not insulting, it's big business. Every company does these things - I could write a book about how easily all of us are ripped off every day, and I'm talking about everything from store purchases to gasoline.
Case in point - I had a friend years ago that work for Hess gasoline. In NY state at that time, when the station's gas tanks were inspected, the standards allowed up to a 10% 'Hydro level' (water contamination) when inspecting the tanks for seepage. The station was found to have only about a 4% Hydro level. Guess what? The owner had my friend throw a garden hose into the tank until the 10% legal limit was reached!!!
I'm not pointing fingers at WotC, everyone in business does these things. I'm just wondering if the new PHB will be delayed because of these previews.
You see, I'm upset about it, because I am EAGERLY AWAITING the REAL rules, and am looking forward to spending my hard-earned money on them. I want to give WotC my money for something I feel is tangible, and from what I'm hearing, will be money well spent.
I'm tired of all the guessing games, as are we ALL; I want something concrete in my hands, and I want it ON SCHEDULE. If the PHB is released on time, then I WILL offer a full apology to Rich and company, IN PERSON, at Gencon.
Is that good enough for you?
I've been around the block several times over, and it is my nature to be a bit jaded. One thing you can always expect from me though - honesty. I calls 'em like I sees 'em, even if it offends people I like. That doesn't mean I'm always right either, and I know that, but I am - as many of you know - VERY opinionated. ;)
Also, consider Christie Golden for ANYTHING about the Orcs. She has written for both the Warcraft and Star Trek franchises, and her insights about Orcs and their behaviour could go a long way to helping some FR fans understand the true nature of Orcs. She should definately do an FR story about them. :D
She has also written for Ravenloft (Vampire of the Mists which began in Waterdeep and tied in many of the "Realms of" anthologies) and at least couple of books in her own world that I really liked (King's Man and Thief and Instrument of Fate). Anyway, I totally agree that the Spellplague needs to be covered in short stories/novels/et cetera. I really like the idea of an anthology covering how it effected various parts of Toril.
She already did FR stuff? That's wonderful!
I must rush out right now and order them from Border's!!!
I actually got all teary-eyed at the end of Lord of the Clans; when a writer can draw someone into the story that well, she deserves to have a place of honor in my collection.
And here's the kicker - I usually don't like female authors, BECAUSE they get too emotional. But to have her write a Spellplague-era story about Obould's Kingdom would be TRULY AWESOME.
In any event, I put in a vote to get into touch with Christie Golden for FR novels!
Half orcs have a tough life. Make it part of your roleplaying experience. Don't bring it into the real world, and just play the game.
Everything is so politically correct nowadays that people don't develop coping mechanisms anymore, and therefore, people get on the learning curve, and crash into the retaining wall.
No one wants to learn anything or work for anything, they all want pushbutton logic and easy gameplay. That may be great for new players, but it also increases the swiftness with which skilled players will break the game.
Christie Golden is not the be all and the end all. This edition comes too soon and with too many negative changes.
I think that changing orcs in any way is ridiculous. People whine about half-orcs being children of ****, IMHO, so what?
Half orcs have a tough life. Make it part of your roleplaying experience. Don't bring it into the real world, and just play the game.
Everything is so politically correct nowadays that people don't develop coping mechanisms anymore, and therefore, people get on the learning curve, and crash into the retaining wall.
There are other rationales of course: Orc and human tribes exchanging brides to cement alliances or long-term truces, 2nd/3rd generation half-orcs, all kinds of things. (It was like with half-elves in DL, always the moany half-elf born of a crime. Got old way too quickly.)
The US and GB fought against each other several times, and then a century later the US was her staunchest ally. The same could be said of France and GB (or anyone and GB :P ). The point is, people change in a hundred years - maybe not Elves or dwarves, but short-lived races like humans and Orcs get over things pretty quickly.
I think that changing orcs in any way is ridiculous. People whine about half-orcs being children of ****, IMHO, so what?
Half orcs have a tough life. Make it part of your roleplaying experience. Don't bring it into the real world, and just play the game.
Everything is so politically correct nowadays that people don't develop coping mechanisms anymore, and therefore, people get on the learning curve, and crash into the retaining wall.
No one wants to learn anything or work for anything, they all want pushbutton logic and easy gameplay. That may be great for new players, but it also increases the swiftness with which skilled players will break the game.
Christie Golden is not the be all and the end all. This edition comes too soon and with too many negative changes.
Geeez... and they call me Mr. Negative-pants.
I still think 4e has a chance to please me, truth be known. I really don't feel it will, but it might, so I will wait and see. The rules, on the other hand, I am dying to get my hands on.
Here's why I am griping these days - Gencon was 'point A'; the release of the new edition is 'point B'. I'm not particularly fond of the road we were forced down to get from 'point A' to 'point B', and that is the reason for my CURRENT state of disillusionment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the editions themselves at this point.
Anchorome: Yeah, there's going to be just a bit of info on Anchorome. It's in the material that Ed's working on. He asked if he could do a bit about it, and we said sure. It's not going to be a lot of material, but it's authentic, brand-new Ed, and we're happy to have it.
Gnomes aren't going to be covered as a PC race in the FR Campaign Guide or Player's Guide (there's material in the Monster Manual for that, however). Some gnome settlements are mentioned in the FRCG, so it's not like we're throwing them out of the setting. For example, I couldn't imagine the Underdark without the svirfneblin. Gnomes are still there, just not in the spotlight.
Oi... Two questions.
A rumor I heard is that things may happen in Anchorome... Any word on it, without breaking the surprise or any NDA?
and...
Gnomes in the Campaign Setting book or some add-on after? (if it's published before the book who is to contain Core ones, and if there is changes of course.)
As an aside, I don't think those explanations are mutually exclusive. Couldn't you have a race of folks descended from humans who, er, had relations with devils? I'd expect that every tiefling has hint of devilish blood in him somewhere, even if it's many generations back.
Instead of arguing on this thread about what Tiefling will be like in the Realms just ask the designers.
Happy New Year Rich,
Will Tieflings in the Realms be descendants of demons/devils or will they be cursed humans?
1) No, I think with Khelben's end, the Moonstars are heading for a reunion with the Harpers.
2) Can't say yet.
3) The FR Campaign Guide won't feature paragon paths and epic destinies, but the FR Player's Guide will. I think you'll see Harpers, Purple Dragons, and Red Wizards (maaaybe, not sure they're good PC options) covered that way.
4) The Red Wizards are getting shaken up; Richard Byers' new Thay series is all over that, and I can't say much without giving up spoilers for the novels. Clearly Szass Tam thinks Necromancy should be in charge of all the others, through.
An aside on this one: Even though we want wizards to have a little less "concept sprawl" into all forms of arcane magic, that doesn't mean that every necromancy, enchantment, or illusion spell will be stripped out of their spell lists. Your core D&D wizard will still have a smattering of classic enchantments, like Sleep and Charm Person and Hold Monster. Ditto with classic illusions and classic necromancy spells. You won't be able to really build a specialist Enchanter, but you can still build a wizard with a couple of handy enchantments.
Emminently reasonable solution.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Rich. A couple more questions for you for when you get back.
1) Will the Moonstars continue to exist in the 4E Realms? If not, will they die out or rejoin the Harpers?
2) Will Sememmon still be alive in the 4E Realms?
3) We've heard about Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. Will the FRCG feature new Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies? Will Prestige Classes like the Harper Scout, Purple Dragon Knight and Red Wizard of Thay be converted to Paragon Paths in the FRCG?
4) There've been rumors about a Necromancer class, a Conjurer class, etc being released eventually. Will the write-up on Red Wizards in 4E take this possibility into account, or will the Red Wizards see a different organization in 4E? One not based on schools of magic?
Thanks a bunch, Rich. Hope you enjoyed your vacation.
Those forum members can speak for themselves in regards to the validity of their concerns or their exact stances on these issues. Just saying, whatever it may be, now is probably the best time to voice anything, be it criticism (hopefully constructive), regular comments, or simple praise.
I'm not too keen on the clutter chatter myself. So I'll stop myself here with apologies for clogging up some of this thread.
Actually I do have a question:
Rich, do you know if D&DI will have any support for PBEM (Play by E-Mail) style games?
And thank you for answering all of these questions for us. ;)
The wheels are turning on the 2008 product schedule, Markus. We can't add more previews now, and we've got commitments to deliver product on time. So we can't push back the Player's Handbook now without serious consequences--nor do we feel that we would want or need to.
Question
If you guys make boat-loads of cash off of previews, will you just continue to produce them and never get around to any real rules?
Now, I know what you're all thinking - I'm just being a jerk again, but I do have a precedent for what I'm asking.
I worked in the food service industry for several years, and learned something interesting. If you order alcoholic beverages when you go out for dinner, your food will take longer.
Thats a fact - they do it on purpose, because they know you will drink until you get your food. Once you get your food, you will stop drinking and eat - and the restaurant makes WAY more money off of the drinks then they do the food.
A friend of mine told me he went out to one of those Sports Bar places and him and his buddies ordered beers and some burgers. Then they ordered more beers, and then more... it took an hour and a half for them to get their food, and the manager was very apologetic.
I can tell you right now, the manager was full of s__t! I've seen this done, time and again - its an old trick.
And thats why I asked the question I just did...
I appreciate your quick response and candor. I hope you understand it is my personal desire to get the rules into my grubby little hands as quickly as possible that is making me act this way.
And I am sure you, better then I, know how big companies can be when it comes to meeting the 'bottom line'. ;)
See people? I can be civil when I want to be. :P
Will the artwork from the preview book be posted in the art section here at WotC site, or will you wait until most of them appear in the final release version in the 4e sourcebooks?
I ask this because I enjoy making the Avatars for this site, and I'd like to have first crack at creating some 4e ones. :D
Gnomes aren't going to be covered as a PC race in the FR Campaign Guide or Player's Guide (there's material in the Monster Manual for that, however).
1) This may sound like a broken record, but is that to say gnomes aren't getting anything rules-wise for PC use other than what's in MM? In other words, will any and all FR-specific racial feats etc. in the (initial) 4E Realms be only geared toward the major PC races, or is there at least the odd bone thrown in for the margin folk as well?
2) Also concerning margin races, would it be far off to expect rare subraces like avariels and aquatic elves to be presented as "add-ons" to standard elves, in a similar manner to how dragonborn can supposedly "buy" wings as a racial feat?
3) Finally, are there any plans to tie saurials to FR dragonborn?
Any two questions:
1) What type of books will we see alot of? Modules, Splat books, etc. from 4th edition?
2) Also is there any plans to support the older flavor of D&D? I.E the great wheel? The old demons & and devils? etc.
Again thank you for putting with our questions.
(at a pre-premiere , in Virginia and by Ed Greenwood)
(Had to say it, but he is the 'Cher' of the Realms.)
My question isn't really about the Realms, but about the "core" setting. The more I've heard about the "core" world that's being created, the more I like it! There's some speculation on the 4E boards about whether or not it's going to be an actual setting, though--it seems to me that it would be (with the ruins of an "empire of Nerath" and such). Is it? I certainly hope so. Also, if it's going to be an actual setting, is it going to have a more interesting name than "the core setting", "the PoL setting" or "the World of D&D"? Calling an apparently neat, well-crafted world "the core setting" is pretty lame.
Hey Rich, I have another question. I was thinking of writing it like THIS, but I figured that would just be obnoxious.
You're absolutely right. That IS obnoxious. :P Good question, though. I'm definitely interested in hearing more about the core setting.
But seriously, good question.
I wouldn't mind if it went back to being Mystara (hint, hint).
In general, we're not going to provide a lot of support for marginal races in our printed product. We might be able to give them some more attention on D&D Insider. I wouldn't expect to see avariels or aquatic elves touched on in the FR Player's Guide.
Sorry, no immediate plans on the saurials as PCs. They're really something different from the dragonborn.
Hello Mr. Baker, welcome back and stuff... I have a few more questions about races:
1) This may sound like a broken record, but is that to say gnomes aren't getting anything rules-wise for PC use other than what's in MM? In other words, will any and all FR-specific racial feats etc. in the (initial) 4E Realms be only geared toward the major PC races, or is there at least the odd bone thrown in for the margin folk as well?
2) Also concerning margin races, would it be far off to expect rare subraces like avariels and aquatic elves to be presented as "add-ons" to standard elves, in a similar manner to how dragonborn can supposedly "buy" wings as a racial feat?
3) Finally, are there any plans to tie saurials to FR dragonborn?
Is there any truth to the rumour that Elminster is being killed-off?
(at a pre-premiere , in Virginia and by Ed Greenwood)
I can't say too much about our product schedule beyond the middle of '08, just because it's company policy to avoid talking about products that have not yet appeared in our catalog. Speaking very broadly, you'll see a product mix that is a little heavier on adventures and a little lighter on "splat books" early on in 4e.
Regarding the "older flavor" -- no, not really. We've made a decision to make a wider thematic separation between demons and devils (for example), so we're not going to produce material showing you how to keep 'em the way they were. I don't doubt that many folks on line will come up with alternative "4e conversions" for some of these things to suit their own tastes. They're welcome to do so. As far as the Great Wheel, you can actually accommodate the outer planes within the new Astral Sea notion quite well, with very little change. Our take on the Inner Planes and the Ethereal Plane is definitely different, though.
Hey Rich happy New years. Hope you and your family had a happy holiday.
Any two questions:
1) What type of books will we see alot of? Modules, Splat books, etc. from 4th edition?
2) Also is there any plans to support the older flavor of D&D? I.E the great wheel? The old demons & and devils? etc.
Again thank you for putting with our questions.
We're not actually building a world out of the "core" setting. In a sense, the core setting is simply a collection of proper names, artifacts, and legends we expect many generic D&D games to share. This has always been true to some degree; even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye, that the drow fought the other elves and were driven underground, that Acererak the lich created a Tomb of Horrors somewhere on the planet, or that the Rod of Seven Parts was lying around someplace waiting to be found.
The big new thing in the "fluff" of 4e D&D is that we're not tethering these names and stories to the world of Greyhawk; we've created a new skeleton of linked assumptions (proper names, artifacts, stories) to anchor the fluff of the "implied" setting. Since we're telling a story that tieflings are the descendants of a ruling elite from a human empire that made pacts with devils, we might as well attach a "placeholder" name to it. Some DMs will use the name Bael Turath; other DMs will make up their own infernal empire. But "Bael Turath" looks nice than "[insert your chosen name here]".
Now, for my own part, I favor the idea of sketching a simple map of that setting and thinking up a name for it. But many of my colleagues feel that doing so would simply replicate the Greyhawk phenomenon, and make it harder for DMs who build their own worlds to use the material we're creating. (So far, I've lost that argument; hey, it happens!) The idea is to create just enough flavor to have interesting proper names and links for DMs to pick up and use, without dictating how their worlds have to go together.
All of that is not really relevant to the Forgotten Realms, of course; the Realms is an example of a specific world that is not beholden to core stories, names, or flavor. So there isn't a Bael Turath in Toril's past... but we do suggest that ancient Narfell might have been the place where tieflings first appeared in Faerun.
Does that help to clarify what we're doing with the "core setting?"
Hey Rich, I have another question. I was thinking of writing it like THIS, but I figured that would just be obnoxious.
My question isn't really about the Realms, but about the "core" setting. The more I've heard about the "core" world that's being created, the more I like it! There's some speculation on the 4E boards about whether or not it's going to be an actual setting, though--it seems to me that it would be (with the ruins of an "empire of Nerath" and such). Is it? I certainly hope so. Also, if it's going to be an actual setting, is it going to have a more interesting name than "the core setting", "the PoL setting" or "the World of D&D"? Calling an apparently neat, well-crafted world "the core setting" is pretty lame.
Now, if you're talking Delgado plus some pitching, well, maybe that's something to think about...
-I have a question, Rich. Want to trade Howard for Delgado? I'll even throw in Anderson Hernandez, to play short when Rollins isn't around.
Quick question on a 3.5 issue. A while back it was mentioned that there was to be a web enhacement for the Mysteries of Moonsea book. I can't seem to find this on the Wizards site. Will this ever see the light of day or will the details of the mini adventure in Phlan now be incorperated into some 4E product.
Paul
-I know that you were involved in Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave and Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land, since your name is on the cover. How much were you involved in the production of Anauroch: The Empire of Shade. I am asking because I want to understand why exactly it is that the Shadovar were able to enter into Windsong Tower and take the Nether Scrolls stored within fairly easily, when it took Malkizid, a Demon far greater in strength than any individual Shadovar, thousands of years, only to result in failure.
Can you give us a hint of what's going to happen with the Genasi, Aasimar and the core race offshoots (like avariel and urdinnir [sp?]) introduced in Races of Faerun?
Thanks.
-I am asking because I want to understand why exactly it is that the Shadovar were able to enter into Windsong Tower and take the Nether Scrolls stored within fairly easily, when it took Malkizid, a Demon far greater in strength than any individual Shadovar, thousands of years, only to result in failure.
Ummmm... they asked nicely?
Quick question on a 3.5 issue. A while back it was mentioned that there was to be a web enhacement for the Mysteries of Moonsea book. I can't seem to find this on the Wizards site. Will this ever see the light of day or will the details of the mini adventure in Phlan now be incorperated into some 4E product.
Good Question - I was wondering about this myself. It was brougt up before, and Rich had promised to 'look into it', I believe.
We're not actually building a world out of the "core" setting. In a sense, the core setting is simply a collection of proper names, artifacts, and legends we expect many generic D&D games to share. This has always been true to some degree; even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye, that the drow fought the other elves and were driven underground, that Acererak the lich created a Tomb of Horrors somewhere on the planet, or that the Rod of Seven Parts was lying around someplace waiting to be found.
I think this is a good thing - if you guys aren't going to take Greyhawk seriously and produce new material for it, then just let it RIP.
I remember the thing I liked about the 1e Book of Artifacts is that individual entries could be used in ANY campaign world, even though they had their own (self-enclosed) lore wrapped around them. Or the approach that was used with many of the old Dungeon adventures - a little bit of background and a local info that could be inserted almost anywhere. I think this harkens more back to the 1e days, and its a good thing, really. The more generic the 'core' lore is, the more useful it becomes to DMs for their own campaigns.
I don't doubt that many folks on line will come up with alternative "4e conversions" for some of these things to suit their own tastes. They're welcome to do so.
This is exactly what many of us plan to do, since a lot of fans of FR want to use the new rules, but not move their campaign forward. I'm glad to see you expect and support this - might I suggest a new FR forum for just that when the new rules become available?
Question:
I know that Ed G. will be giving the rest of Toril some coverage, which is probably the happiest news any of us FR fans have heard in awhile. What I want to know is about the rest of the SAME continent (land mass) that Faerûn is on. I noticed that Kara-Tur actually got a lot of love in the GHotR, including new lore, so I was wondering if this was a forshadowing on WotC's part of bringing the Oriental Realms more firmly back into the fold?
Also, there was nary a mention of Zakhara, yet it too is connected directly to the Realms. Does this mean that we will see some K-T stuff in the new setting, but the Land of Fate is out?
The more generic the 'core' lore is, the more useful it becomes to DMs for their own campaigns.
-I agree, which is why I am against the "pseudosetting" of 3e, and now, 4e.
Also, now that magic will be based on 'traditions', some of those 'traditions' will need a least a spoonful of lore behind them (like what we saw in Eytan's articles). Having generic lore doesn't take from the game, as long as it's not connected to a setting. Once you do that, people using other settings won't want it.
Thats how it worked in 1e, and is was fine, believe me.
You guys need to stop being such Grognards. :P
Does that help to clarify what we're doing with the "core setting?"
Yes it does, thank you!
And the "Utter East" (the southeast at the corner of Al-Quadim and Kara-tur and around, if I got it well) region as worked on personaly by Markus et all.... Will it see some material, too?
That said, I don't believe we're going to knock Kara-Tur or Zakhara off the world map. They'll still be there... just not in the spotlight. If we do anything on these areas, it'll probably be in the form of DDi articles.
Question:
I know that Ed G. will be giving the rest of Toril some coverage, which is probably the happiest news any of us FR fans have heard in awhile. What I want to know is about the rest of the SAME continent (land mass) that Faerûn is on. I noticed that Kara-Tur actually got a lot of love in the GHotR, including new lore, so I was wondering if this was a forshadowing on WotC's part of bringing the Oriental Realms more firmly back into the fold?
Also, there was nary a mention of Zakhara, yet it too is connected directly to the Realms. Does this mean that we will see some K-T stuff in the new setting, but the Land of Fate is out?
Kind of like Markus's question, but...
And the "Utter East" (the southeast at the corner of Al-Quadim and Kara-tur and around, if I got it well) region as worked on personaly by Markus et all.... Will it see some material, too?
You didn't mention Maztica, yet you alluded to a 'notable exception'. Maztica is everyone's LEAST favorite extra-Faerûnian region, so it's probably getting the "Big Makeover" in 4e. It would make sense, since the largest cultural changes would have taken place there in the last century (if a century it will be).
Not a fan of Maztica the way it was already done, so I won't miss it if it becomes something else in 4e. Hopefully we will see some of those DI articles about Kara-Tur, Zakhara, the Utter East, etc... those areas are far too interesting to just forget about.
The motto of the new setting should be "Don't ignore it, go explore it!"
Now, if you guys could only find a willing someone who happens to be an expert on the "other Realms"... ;)
Suggestion:
Having perused R&C, I see you're having trouble defining Gnomes. Might I suggest Frost Gnomes? I was just looking through The Horde stuff and realized there is a Gnome settlement on the small island in the middle of the Great Ice Sea (Yal Tengri). Since the map was rotated in 3e, this makes The Great Spire the northern-most known settlment of any intelligent race. Gnomes are often depicted with googles these days, because of their association with metalworking/engineering. Maybe the Googles are for skiing? :D
Dwarves may live in mountains, but Gnomes can live on the tops!
Anyhow, I just thought it might be a different and creative take on them, with ice-fishing, Kayaks, and snow-shoes... all that Inuit-type stuff. In canon, the smaller cousins of the Eastern Dwarves (the Korobokuru) are known as the Ishikorobokuru, and they are nearly identical to Gnomes, and they already live in the cold, northern wastes, usually dwelling amongst the Glaciers atop the mountains of the Ama Basin.
And besides, how can you resist "Gnome, Alaska"? :P
Seriously... think about it... now you can get rid of both the silly Arctic Dwarves and the derivitive Iulutiuns and replace them with something really cool.
Aren't they cute?I must add that your colleagues are right, the map is too much detail, even the little map of what is around the city, just put the name and the general flavour
Now, for my own part, I favor the idea of sketching a simple map of that setting and thinking up a name for it. But many of my colleagues feel that doing so would simply replicate the Greyhawk phenomenon, and make it harder for DMs who build their own worlds to use the material we're creating. (So far, I've lost that argument; hey, it happens!) The idea is to create just enough flavor to have interesting proper names and links for DMs to pick up and use, without dictating how their worlds have to go together.
Dear Mr. Baker, this is my question.
Will there be a book detailing the gods in 4th Edition Forgotten Realms? I only ask this because of the very big change you guys are making to the whole system and the likelyhood of you not spending much space in the Campaign book to detail them all. If you are not doing this could you explain why as I'm sure people would buy them and money is a good thing right?
Now, for my own part, I favor the idea of sketching a simple map of that setting and thinking up a name for it. But many of my colleagues feel that doing so would simply replicate the Greyhawk phenomenon, and make it harder for DMs who build their own worlds to use the material we're creating. (So far, I've lost that argument; hey, it happens!) The idea is to create just enough flavor to have interesting proper names and links for DMs to pick up and use, without dictating how their worlds have to go together.
Rich,
Why not have the best of both worlds?
You, Mearls and Andy (for instance) could each come up with a short (say, 10-page) guide to your versions of the Points of Light setting, and they could be made available through DI, Dragon or Dungeon. That way you can give DMs three (still sketchy) settings to build on, and you wouldn't be crystallizing the core setting (since you have 3 versions of it). Kinda like "designers' homebrews".
The big new thing in the "fluff" of 4e D&D is that we're not tethering these names and stories to the world of Greyhawk; we've created a new skeleton of linked assumptions (proper names, artifacts, stories) to anchor the fluff of the "implied" setting. Since we're telling a story that tieflings are the descendants of a ruling elite from a human empire that made pacts with devils, we might as well attach a "placeholder" name to it. Some DMs will use the name Bael Turath; other DMs will make up their own infernal empire. But "Bael Turath" looks nice than "[insert your chosen name here]".
I strongly disagree with this assertion, and by implication with a lot the 4e design philosophy. It is MUCH better to have "Insert Your Name Here" than a given name, as the former more-or-less swats new DM's upside the head and says "Your job is to be creative! Get creating!", and the latter encourages laziness and makes new DMs (who might not be aware of the awesome power they hold) leery of walking too far away from the "official" setting.
You have, in 4e, gone beyond an implied setting to an official one; Greyhawk was a problem in 3e, but less so, because it was very clearly an example setting, a way of doing things shown as a guide, but not integrated as tightly into the rules.
(FYI, my first AD&D game didn't have Gruumsh, partially because I started playing years before Deities&Demigods came out...I did use the Great Wheel, mostly because when you've got *infinite* planes, you don't feel constrained to use any particular description of any one part...)
Personally, I think the best thing to do for flavor text for races is:
a)No "official" connections between races. This makes it harder to drop a race, or change the relationships. "How much race 'a' likes race 'b'" fluff is useful, but it should be predicated on their current personalities and environments, not on any presumed past history which only straitjackets a DM.
b)Two sample origins/backgrounds for each race, showing how the same set of game stats can arise from highly variant cultures/histories. This very explicitly sends the message that there's more than one way to do things.
Obviously, this shouldn't be the case in a setting book, but core books should (IMO) be all about providing the tools (and the inspiration) to roll your own setting, with the bare minimum of "assumed" setting involved. Sure, setting fluff has been there since 1st edition AD&D, but so have gnomes, and look what happened to them. :D
(Oh, BTW..."pacts" with devils? Yeah, I'll bet it was, know what I mean, wink wink nudge nudge say no more...)
Rich,
Why not have the best of both worlds?
You, Mearls and Andy (for instance) could each come up with a short (say, 10-page) guide to your versions of the Points of Light setting, and they could be made available through DI, Dragon or Dungeon. That way you can give DMs three (still sketchy) settings to build on, and you wouldn't be crystallizing the core setting (since you have 3 versions of it). Kinda like "designers' homebrews".
I like it.
Showing multiple versions of a thing really helps newbie DMs overcome their fear of not being "right" or "official", and it's a good guide to creative thinking -- "Given the same set of core assumptions, how many different worlds can we build?"
The 3e Manual Of The Planes, which provided raw tools for defining planes, and then several sample cosmologies, is a good example of Getting It Right.
Sorry if this has already been answered.
Dear Mr. Baker, this is my question.
Will there be a book detailing the gods in 4th Edition Forgotten Realms? I only ask this because of the very big change you guys are making to the whole system and the likelyhood of you not spending much space in the Campaign book to detail them all. If you are not doing this could you explain why as I'm sure people would buy them and money is a good thing right?
No, NO, and NO.
This question has been asked innumerable times already, and no 'god-book' is planned. The changes to the Pantheon(s) will be covered by the FRCG. Any more in-depth information we may need can be had from older sources.
Now, onto other matters -
Rich, I think that NOT having any official setting/map attached to the core rules is better then the half-___ed job that was done with GH in 3e. I like the idea of you and other designers 'sketching' what you guys think it might be like, but I would prefer to see that in an inter-active forum. Perhaps if you guys simply give your own personal ideas in the campaign Workshop forum, and then everyone else can add in their own as well. In this way, people can share ideas, without being hamstrung by them.
Also, adding a wee bit of flavor to things is fine. I've been playing since the beginning of D&D, and a lot of those spell names and artifacts opened up my imagination, not limited it.
I'll field this one Rich - I feel I "owe you one". ;)
No, NO, and NO.
This question has been asked innumerable times already, and no 'god-book' is planned. The changes to the Pantheon(s) will be covered by the FRCG. Any more in-depth information we may need can be had from older sources.
Now, onto other matters -
Rich, I think that NOT having any official setting/map attached to the core rules is better then the half-___ed job that was done with GH in 3e. I like the idea of you and other designers 'sketching' what you guys think it might be like, but I would prefer to see that in an inter-active forum. Perhaps if you guys simply give your own personal ideas in the campaign Workshop forum, and then everyone else can add in their own as well. In this way, people can share ideas, without being hamstrung by them.
Also, adding a wee bit of flavor to things is fine. I've been playing since the beginning of D&D, and a lot of those spell names and artifacts opened up my imagination, not limited it.
Well you know what? That SUCKS!
NeXt
Well you know what? That SUCKS!
Yes... yes it does. However, a lot of people weren't too happy with the 'stat blocks' for gods in F&P, and since the nitty-griity details were already done in 2e, the designers didn't feel there was a need.
I'm not saying I'm agreeing with any of that, I was just saving 'the team' from having to answer again.
What I think we DO truly need, is a book detailing the faiths surrounding these new 'mini-Pantheons'. Each Greater god seems to be set-up like a seperate religion, with 'Saints' (demi-gods) serving them. Saints have been canonical in both FR and GH, so broadening that to include all of the gods isn't that far a leap, IMO. I think the stream-lining is more along the lines of defining proper roles for the two tiers of powers now. Ergo, a book about that, or perhaps detailing one or two in each supplement, would go a long way in making us feel better in the 'New Cosmic Order'.
Yes... yes it does. However, a lot of people weren't too happy with the 'stat blocks' for gods in F&P, and since the nitty-griity details were already done in 2e, the designers didn't feel there was a need.
I'm not saying I'm agreeing with any of that, I was just saving 'the team' from having to answer again.
What I think we DO truly need, is a book detailing the faiths surrounding these new 'mini-Pantheons'. Each Greater god seems to be set-up like a seperate religion, with 'Saints' (demi-gods) serving them. Saints have been canonical in both FR and GH, so broadening that to include all of the gods isn't that far a leap, IMO. I think the stream-lining is more along the lines of defining proper roles for the two tiers of powers now. Ergo, a book about that, or perhaps detailing one or two in each supplement, would go a long way in making us feel better in the 'New Cosmic Order'.
Markus that's exactly what I ment by a new deity book. I don't care about god stats or whatever. They can include aspect or avatar stats if they wanted or whatever. It's just I doubt that they can explain all the new stuff they have done to the gods in the small space they are giving them in the new campaign guide.
If Ed Greenwood is writing 50,000 words, thats slightly less then a third of the proposed page count. Now, Ed's stuff is just supposed to be about areas outside of Faerun, so how the hell are they going to fit the entire 4e Realms into the rest of that book?!
It makes no sense to me what-so-ever. If the book is really only going to have 320(?) pgs, then I think it will be highly inadequate, without even seeing it.
BTW, thats a hell of a lot less pages - about 2/3 - of the other major settings Campaign Guides. FR is starting to have that 'Designer Label' quality about it - "Less is More". So why should we pay top dollar, when 'brand X' gives us so much more?
But, I promised myself and others I will not bash, and instead wait and see the wonder and miracle that will be 4e FR. ;)
Personally, I don't see how they can possibly include everything they need to in the new campaign guide, not just the gods.
If Ed Greenwood is writing 50,000 words, thats slightly less then a third of the proposed page count. Now, Ed's stuff is just supposed to be about areas outside of Faerun, so how the hell are they going to fit the entire 4e Realms into the rest of that book?!
It makes no sense to me what-so-ever. If the book is really only going to have 320(?) pgs, then I think it will be highly inadequate, without even seeing it.
BTW, thats a hell of a lot less pages - about 2/3 - of the other major settings Campaign Guides. FR is starting to have that 'Designer Label' quality about it - "Less is More". So why should we pay top dollar, when 'brand X' gives us so much more?
But, I promised myself and others I will not bash, and instead wait and see the wonder and miracle that will be 4e FR. ;)
What you don't realize is that the new FRCS is 5 feet by 5 feet, and the writing is really, really tiny.
What you don't realize is that the new FRCS is 5 feet by 5 feet, and the writing is really, really tiny.
-Heh. A toast to that!
Personally, I don't see how they can possibly include everything they need to in the new campaign guide, not just the gods.
If Ed Greenwood is writing 50,000 words, thats slightly less then a third of the proposed page count. Now, Ed's stuff is just supposed to be about areas outside of Faerun, so how the hell are they going to fit the entire 4e Realms into the rest of that book?!
You do realize just because a author is contracted to write x number of words doesn't mean the publisher as to use them all. They might even break them up into various souce books.
Personally, I don't see how they can possibly include everything they need to in the new campaign guide, not just the gods.
If Ed Greenwood is writing 50,000 words, thats slightly less then a third of the proposed page count. Now, Ed's stuff is just supposed to be about areas outside of Faerun, so how the hell are they going to fit the entire 4e Realms into the rest of that book?!
It makes no sense to me what-so-ever. If the book is really only going to have 320(?) pgs, then I think it will be highly inadequate, without even seeing it.
BTW, thats a hell of a lot less pages - about 2/3 - of the other major settings Campaign Guides. FR is starting to have that 'Designer Label' quality about it - "Less is More". So why should we pay top dollar, when 'brand X' gives us so much more?
Hi Markus (and all),
Whatever the page length, it won't have enough info for all us Realms fans!
Still, I think I read that the new FRCS will be crunch-light, and when combined with the promised shorter 4e NPC & monster stat-blocks, that means more juicy lore that can be fit in 320 pages!
Lastly, out of curiosity, what other major settings are you referring to which get 320/0.67 page books on them?
Shilo
Whatever the page length, it won't have enough info for all us Realms fans!
True, but the last one was 320 pgs, and barely contained everything it needed to. With all the changes to the Realms, and the other areas being covered, that means skimping quite a bit and giving us even smaller entries then we had in the 3e book, which was merely 'adequate'.
Still, I think I read that the new FRCS will be crunch-light, and when combined with the promised shorter 4e NPC & monster stat-blocks, that means more juicy lore that can be fit in 320 pages!
The last one was 320 pages and was also very crunch-light, and didn't need to cover the huge differences to the setting that 4e seems to imply. I actually editted my post because I thought the page count was slightly more then was stated, so that now Ed's contributions are closer to 25%. Even so, thats a full 1/4 of the Tome that will cover areas OUTSIDE of Faerûn? Unless I'm mistaken, and Ed's doing ALL the geographic entries (which would be cool).
Lastly, out of curiosity, what other major settings are you referring to which get 320/0.67 page books on them?
When I wrote that, I was going by 288 pgs we were promised. I need to re-edit it again; it's actually 32 pgs less then I was complaining about.
Warcraft RPG - 400 pgs
Iron Kingdoms - 400 pgs
Arcana Evolved - 432 pgs
I could keep going... so you still think 288 pgs to cover an entire planet's geography, Cosmology, and history (including all the dramatic changes between 3e and 4e), will be enough?
I sure hope so. I do plan to buy it, but it will decide for me if I make any future FR purchases. I just hope it knocks our socks off...
Question: I know this has been stated before, but now I'm getting different numbers from other sources - How many pages will the FRCG have?
Question: I know this has been stated before, but now I'm getting different numbers from other sources - How many pages will the FRCG have?
-288.
Hardcover: 288 pages
Publisher: Wizards of the Coast (August 19, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0786949244
ISBN-13: 978-0786949243
Shipping Information: View shipping rates and policies
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #35,318 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)
Question:
Are creature types going to remain mostly unchanged in 4e, or will there be some new system in place form determining what effects who?
I ask this because Tieflings were considered Outsiders in 3e, but their new incarnation makes them out to be more 'Monstrous Humanoid'.
even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye
For what its worth, the earliest reference to that appears to be in 2nd edition's Monster Mythology.
In first edition the orcs have a tale that Corellon tried to put out Gruumsh's single eye but missed.
The Cyclopses, for their part, worshipped a two-eyed god...
Go figure...
That means the canon lore concerning the Seldarine is different in GH, but then again, it always was - Lolth was part of the Pantheon, and there was only Four members, one for each subrace (Sashelas and Rillifane).
Hmmmm... sounds like 4e, or the latest DotU.
Rich,
Why not have the best of both worlds?
You, Mearls and Andy (for instance) could each come up with a short (say, 10-page) guide to your versions of the Points of Light setting, and they could be made available through DI, Dragon or Dungeon. That way you can give DMs three (still sketchy) settings to build on, and you wouldn't be crystallizing the core setting (since you have 3 versions of it). Kinda like "designers' homebrews".
Consider me among those who like this idea, or something similar.
Remember when 3E was just coming out and it was emphasized that a Rogue (which had a name change from "Thief") did NOT necessarily have to be a lying, thieving, trouble-making scoundrel? The rogue could be a diplomat, for example, or even someone who was specialized at catching thieves. I liked that, because it expanded the perceived role of the rogue class.
So, when I was reading the rogue section of Races and Classes, I was rather disappointed to find little (if any!) mention of rogues who weren't thieves or trouble-makers. The article, as I recall it, focused solely on rogues stealing, getting into trouble, and generally being untrustworthy. Now don't get me wrong, like many people I enjoy playing those types of characters, and I'm aware that the abilities of the rogue are pretty well-tailored for the shadiest characters. But do rogues ALL have to be thieves and ne'er-do-wells? I don't think so, and I was wondering if 4E rogues are consciously being moved away from the 3E design principle of "not all Rogues are Thieves". Or, did the Rogue article simply not give us the full picture of things?
Hi, Dark Wizard. I'm not sure about PBEM. Most of our work on the virtual gaming table is really oriented toward "live" play -- we're building tools like chat channels to support that. But I'm not really the guy to ask about that. Chris Perkins could tell you more.
Thanks for the answer, Rich.
I figured live play would be the standard, I guess pbem is a bit outdated in most regards. However, it's sometimes hard to get together at the same time (or for a good chunk of time), even over the internet. A "pause and continue" system in addition to live play might help keep things rolling even on off time.
Even at a reduced pace games run all the time - all day, every day. Most Instant Messengers have similar features. I used to play in a number of PBEMs up until a few years ago when it seemed the formerly massive number of them dwindled a bit (maybe I just can't find them anymore). I was hoping D&DI would provide a good, well organized, official replacement for the games I played that were strung together through various email lists and lots of notes on my hard drive.
One thing I will say: In general, we want more powers to affect more creatures. Saying that a PC race (or a bipedal, intelligent monster, for that matter) isn't a "person" because of some pretty arcane typing rules is something we're moving away from.
Since the Karsmeister answered that one, I have another...
Question:
Are creature types going to remain mostly unchanged in 4e, or will there be some new system in place form determining what effects who?
I ask this because Tieflings were considered Outsiders in 3e, but their new incarnation makes them out to be more 'Monstrous Humanoid'.
Question for Rich. We've heard that Drow will be a fleshed out player race in the Forgotten Realms Player Guide. Will there be any other fully fleshed out PC races in the FRPG? For example, will Genasi have racial write-ups? How about Aasimar? Will any other race aside from them have PC write-ups? Thanks.
OK, now I have yet another question!
Remember when 3E was just coming out and it was emphasized that a Rogue (which had a name change from "Thief") did NOT necessarily have to be a lying, thieving, trouble-making scoundrel? The rogue could be a diplomat, for example, or even someone who was specialized at catching thieves. I liked that, because it expanded the perceived role of the rogue class.
So, when I was reading the rogue section of Races and Classes, I was rather disappointed to find little (if any!) mention of rogues who weren't thieves or trouble-makers. The article, as I recall it, focused solely on rogues stealing, getting into trouble, and generally being untrustworthy. Now don't get me wrong, like many people I enjoy playing those types of characters, and I'm aware that the abilities of the rogue are pretty well-tailored for the shadiest characters. But do rogues ALL have to be thieves and ne'er-do-wells? I don't think so, and I was wondering if 4E rogues are consciously being moved away from the 3E design principle of "not all Rogues are Thieves". Or, did the Rogue article simply not give us the full picture of things?
-How are these claims quantified? I've been playing D&D for about six or seven years now, and I've been an active member of these boards for about the same amount of time. I have yet to be a part of, or even hear a mention of, any kind of information gathering process- polls, surveys, and so on. To do market research on the Forgotten Realms, one would, obviously, need the feedback of a Forgotten Realms fan. Where better to find Forgotten Realms fans than on the official Wizards of the Coast message boards. However, again, I have yet to even see any kind of feedback gathering mechanism, asides for the sales of sourcebooks- most of which do not deal with the 'neglected' areas in question, anyway.
-I thank you for your response ahead of time.
Half-orcs are a bit tricky, because they imply a very ugly backstory that we frankly don't want to dwell on very much. I think it's possible to posit a better backstory, like "long ago a god of evil mixed the races of orcs and humans, and to this day atavistic throwbacks are born to each from time to time." We'll see where we get to on that score when we get serious about updating the half-orc. So far we've just had other fish to fry first.
Oh, and regardless of what core D&D does with half-orcs, they've got to be in the Realms at least as a NPC race (or "playable monster" race); they've been in Faerun in 3e and earlier editions, and we wouldn't retcon them out of existence.
so we know whats up with gnomes and drow, Rich whats the status for 1/2 orc's in 4th ed, it's all kind of vague so far. thank you in advance:D
The impression in get is that, while we don't use an actual setting, we give enough info that is of no use (and contradictory to) the background in any *actual* setting.
I.e. i hope half-orcs in the realms are not suddenly going to be a special race that the gods thought up... (better to just let them come from Thesk).
I think the rogue article didn't give you the full picture of things. We're pretty happy with the idea that "rogue" might mean more than "thief," and we haven't consciously set out to change that. We might have simply fallen into old habits when writing that one article.
I'm very happy to hear that. Thanks.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215889
Yes, there's another PC race fleshed-out in the FRPG. It'll have drow and Race X with full PH-style writeups.
I guess that means that not all the player races detailed in the 3E FRCS will make it into the 4E FRPG. So like the Gnome, will those races (Whether they be Genasi, Aasimar, etc) have basic write-ups in the Monster Manual, at least? It'd be nice if all the player races described in the 3E FRCS have some form of write-up making them playable right away, even if it isn't a full PH-style writeup. Thanks, Rich.
It may be me but it seems a lot easier if one doesn't try to explain a race's origin.
The impression in get is that, while we don't use an actual setting, we give enough info that is of no use (and contradictory to) the background in any *actual* setting.
I.e. i hope half-orcs in the realms are not suddenly going to be a special race that the gods thought up... (better to just let them come from Thesk).
-I agree, which is why I don't agree with a pseudosetting (3e, or 4e). Although, as they did in the Monster Manuals, it'd be cool to have "In the Realms", "In Eberron", and such sidebars, to ease the transition.
Rich, A thread was made on ENWorld to thank you for all the questions you answer.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215889
-What the hell? They're stealing our lines! I told msatran he should copyright that phrase...;)
We've got a new typing system, but I won't go into detail yet. I don't want to scoop some of our Monster Manual preview material.
Ahhhh, okay... Thanks for the answer.
Sadly, I must agree with you as far as the 3e 'typing' system goes. Although I thought 3e's ability to 'quantify' everything was inspirational, the holes in it became more noticeable as time went on.
Monsters are people?
I think you guys may have been listening to ME too much.
Glad you are not back-peddling with the Rogue - he is much more well-rounded as is, and turning him into a Bilbo-like thief would be taking a giant step backward.
Racial Origins: Rich, have you read RAS's infamous Prologue? He covers the bases rather well for 4e half-Orcs. In the past, they may have been the accidental result of less-then-amicable couplings (like that? ;) ), but I think a lot of those Farmer's wives were just using that as an excuse after the kid was born...
Green-skin fever, and all that, Naw mean? :P
Anyhow, that was then, and this is now. If the setting is being moved way forward, which in all likelyhood it appears to be, then the emergence of an Orc Kingdom will lead to more and more human-Orc relations. By the time the Orc King takes place, there could very well be entire villages of Horcs - this is nothing new, and RAS has developed Palishuk into something already along those lines in 3e.
BTW, I have a story about the early Spellplague years, that would work into much of what I just said. I wrote the outline with 4e and the online Dragon in mind, but they only want articles, not fiction. You will be needing stories like that, to turn FR fans from still thinking of Orcs as monsters. I'd like to recommend Christie Golden once again for doing any stories about that subject matter - she has experience with it and is quite good. Consider her at least for a Spellplague Anthology, would you please?
I guess that means that not all the player races detailed in the 3E FRCS will make it into the 4E FRPG. So like the Gnome, will those races (Whether they be Genasi, Aasimar, etc) have basic write-ups in the Monster Manual, at least? It'd be nice if all the player races described in the 3E FRCS have some form of write-up making them playable right away, even if it isn't a full PH-style writeup. Thanks, Rich.
-I think that it will be the Genasi. One Race, 4 different racial paths one could take, maybe, grasping at straws.;)
Seriously, if we are able to take more then one path (like multi-classing in 3e), then a Genasi would be able to obtain conflicting abilities, I would imagine.
I think they need to keep them seperate, or at least keep a bunch of restrictions on them regarding 'paths'.
Not that I allow ANY Planetouched PCs IMG.
If a Fire Genasi and a Water Genasi had a child, would it just be a bucket of Steam?
Seriously, if we are able to take more then one path (like multi-classing in 3e), then a Genasi would be able to obtain conflicting abilities, I would imagine.
I think they need to keep them seperate, or at least keep a bunch of restrictions on them regarding 'paths'.
Not that I allow ANY Planetouched PCs IMG.
-Maybe at first level you choose which type of Genasi. Then you pick from that types talents and feats? We will know in August. :P
-I think that it will be the Genasi. One Race, 4 different racial paths one could take, maybe, grasping at straws.;)
I'm hoping for Aasimar, myself. Like Markus said, Genasi make more sense as four separate races.
But then again, the Tieflings background has changed so who knows?
They may even be seperating the Fiendish offspring in 4e (because of the new, widening 'gap' between Demons and devils), and we could see Cambions split off for Tannari (or Baatezu, which would make more sense in 4e, but would in-validate some 3e lore).
Yeah - I think if they were going to just bunch them together, they would have done it to them all under the heading "Planetouched", as they tried to do in 3e. Then we wouldn't be getting the Tiefling, but rather a Native Outsider with SIX different paths to take.
But then again, the Tieflings background has changed so who knows?
They may even be seperating the Fiendish offspring in 4e (because of the new, widening 'gap' between Demons and devils), and we could see Cambions split off for Tannari (or Baatezu, which would make more sense in 4e, but would in-validate some 3e lore).
-True, but we are talking about 4E.;) Look at what is happening with the Elves. 1E to 3.5E many different races, 4E now all rolled into what 3 races. YMMV.
But then again, the Tieflings background has changed so who knows?
Only in core. Rich has said that Tieflings are still the same in the Realms. What's true in Races of Faerun is still true in the 4E Realms.
Ergo causing BOTH sets of lore to be mutually viable.
Also, bear in mind that as he answers our questions, he himself isn't working on parts of the FRCG, and he has freely admitted that he does not know everything about the coming setting himself.
But he also said it would be fairly easy to make use of the lore in 4e FR, by saying that they are the decendents of certain Narfellians...
Ergo causing BOTH sets of lore to be mutually viable.
So there're more options. What's the downside, here?
Also, bear in mind that as he answers our questions, he himself isn't working on parts of the FRCG, and he has freely admitted that he does not know everything about the coming setting himself.
One would think that he'd know what he's talking about on questions he's answering.
So there're more options. What's the downside, here?
Never said there was...
I was just sayin'...
One would think that he'd know what he's talking about on questions he's answering.
Not neccessarily - if you look back through the thread, he has apologized at least once for being mis-informed (the cover of the FRCG, I believe).
He may be many things, but Rich has never claimed to be all-knowing. ;)
But he also said it would be fairly easy to make use of the lore in 4e FR, by saying that they are the decendents of certain Narfellians...
Ergo causing BOTH sets of lore to be mutually viable.
Also, bear in mind that as he answers our questions, he himself isn't working on parts of the FRCG, and he has freely admitted that he does not know everything about the coming setting himself.
There may be two kinds of tieflings popping up in the Realms. One could be a straight race with lore similar to the Core Book and others could be the ones everyone are familiar with.
Fans don't dislike NEW lore, they just hate when old lore changes. ;)
Never said there was...
I was just sayin'...
Ah, sorry. Sounded like you were complaining, which left me scratching my head, as I didn't see anything to complain about.
Not neccessarily - if you look back through the thread, he has apologized at least once for being mis-informed (the cover of the FRCG, I believe).
That's not the same thing, though. That was the apparent cover of the FRCG, and he gave an argument as to why that would be. He wasn't the one who said that Drizzt would be on the cover, but rather, responding to a decision which he thought others had made.
Whatever...
;)
Personally I like the new take on the Tieflings, so I don't even know why you're are disagreeing with me here?
In fact, I've been saying all along I like most of what I'm hearing about the rules
Okay... he's Omnipotent...
Whatever...
;)
I'm just pointing out that the guy wouldn't be answering questions unless he actually knew what he was talking about (If he didn't, then it'd pretty much defeat the whole purpose of this thread, wouldn't it?). And the one time he was wrong was on a subject which wasn't under his purview, but which he corrected, anyway.
I'm pointing that out because I've had enough of people making up things to complain about. The last thing we need, now, is for people to start complaining about some imagined thing, have Rich shoot it down, only for others to come back and say "Well, Rich doesn't know what he's actually talking about..."
Personally I like the new take on the Tieflings, so I don't even know why you're are disagreeing with me here?
In fact, I've been saying all along I like most of what I'm hearing about the rules
As I said, it sounded as if you were complaining, and as I said, I wasn't sure exactly what it was you were complaining about, as I didn't see a downside, there. Sorry if it sounded like I was picking a fight with you, though. I didn't mean it to come out that way.
I cant keep up with this. STOP. thanks. ;)
Half-orcs are a bit tricky, because they imply a very ugly backstory that we frankly don't want to dwell on very much. I think it's possible to posit a better backstory, like "long ago a god of evil mixed the races of orcs and humans, and to this day atavistic throwbacks are born to each from time to time." We'll see where we get to on that score when we get serious about updating the half-orc. So far we've just had other fish to fry first.
If you're uncomfortable with **** as a backstory why not just make them true to their original inspiration, the cross-bred "Uruk-Hai" from Tolkein? Give them a new name, make them a new freestanding race, and just say they're often called "half-orcs" due to their lineage.
It also makes more sense that way because it's the Uruk-Hai, not orcs per se, that are supposed to be very strong. I always thought that if a half-orc has a +2 str, a full orc ought to have a +4, but then, that's not the way I think of orcs.
If you're uncomfortable with **** as a backstory why not just make them true to their original inspiration, the cross-bred "Uruk-Hai" from Tolkein? Give them a new name, make them a new freestanding race, and just say they're often called "half-orcs" due to their lineage.
It also makes more sense that way because it's the Uruk-Hai, not orcs per se, that are supposed to be very strong. I always thought that if a half-orc has a +2 str, a full orc ought to have a +4, but then, that's not the way I think of orcs.
Did you ever consider that the human females might have forced the orc males? I mean the Seven Sisters for example could do that no problam with the kind of power they wield.
Did you ever consider that the human females might have forced the orc males?
-
I mean the Seven Sisters for example could do that no problam with the kind of power they wield.
-I would volunteer for that so it wouldn't be called **** per se.:D
A woman forcing herself on a man? That's still ****, as far as I know.
But I agree that half-orcs don't need to have dubious origins. Aren't the half-orcs of Eberron different in that respect? Or, maybe in some settings a human/orc relationship wouldn't be seen as something yucky (especially if orcs themselves are tweaked around a bit).
I don't know having a very powerful wizard who can reduce you to ashes with her gaze try to "romance" you is a very fragile situation. What if she goes psycho because you looked at someone else and turns you into a pig or something....
-I was talking about all Seven of them at the same time.;)
-I said nothing about romancing them either.:P
:D
But I agree that half-orcs don't need to have dubious origins. Aren't the half-orcs of Eberron different in that respect? Or, maybe in some settings a human/orc relationship wouldn't be seen as something yucky (especially if orcs themselves are tweaked around a bit).
That's probably one of the reasons why they introduced the Kingdom of Many-Arrows, and had a specific scene involving an Orc female marrying a Human in The Orc King. To make origins for Half-Orcs in the Realms more varied than simply "Orcs raided my home village and raped my mother".
Half-orcs are a bit tricky, because they imply a very ugly backstory that we frankly don't want to dwell on very much. I think it's possible to posit a better backstory, like "long ago a god of evil mixed the races of orcs and humans, and to this day atavistic throwbacks are born to each from time to time." We'll see where we get to on that score when we get serious about updating the half-orc. So far we've just had other fish to fry first.
Wow that is weak! "Oh no, such a thing is to dark for happy little fantasy!" Face it, Orcs are evil! They are not nice people! They take what they want and they never ask! Such thing happen and it should not be rejected because method of their conscription turns some peoples stomach. That Evil God idea not just sounds stupid, it a cheep trick. It reminds me of someone's lame PC "Some women look past the physical appearance of an Orc and find a soft-side with in then" story to their existence.
Well, that my 2cp!
Wow that is weak! "Oh no, such a thing is to dark for happy little fantasy!" Face it, Orcs are evil! They are not nice people! They take what they want and they never ask! Such thing happen and it should not be rejected because method of their conscription turns some peoples stomach. That Evil God idea not just sounds stupid, it a cheep trick. It reminds me of someone's lame PC "Some women look past the physical appearance of an Orc and find a soft-side with in then" story to their existence.
Well, that my 2cp!
I'm a little suprised that the idea of **** being the basis of a character race has even one strident defender.
I'm a little suprised that the idea of **** being the basis of a character race has even one strident defender.
-Of some? Yes, that I agree with. Of all? No. This is why I don't think there should be pseudolore saying anything, one way or another. We all know what Half-Orcs are- beings with Orc and Human heritage. There's no need to write some pseudolore, backing one way or another. Leave that up to the character, the DM, and the setting.
I don't know where you people are getting your information from anyway - many primitive tribes in The North have lived alongside Orc tribes, and have intermingled with them, since time immemorial.
Remember, up until about 10,000 years ago, humans were considered beasts by the other races, right along with the Orcs. In some areas, they STILL are.
If you're uncomfortable with **** as a backstory why not just make them true to their original inspiration, the cross-bred "Uruk-Hai" from Tolkein? Give them a new name, make them a new freestanding race, and just say they're often called "half-orcs" due to their lineage.
It also makes more sense that way because it's the Uruk-Hai, not orcs per se, that are supposed to be very strong. I always thought that if a half-orc has a +2 str, a full orc ought to have a +4, but then, that's not the way I think of orcs.
Ummm...Uruk-Hai were the 'bigger, badder' Orcs that were later bread by Saruman. It was never said WHAT he used to do it with, but he also created a superior Ogre race as well - the Olog-Hai. Both were smarter AND stronger then their typical cousins, and usually uglier.
I don't believe they had a drop of human blood in them, though.
AFAIK, Tolkien never got into detail about how the half-orcs came about, but they basically looked just like very ugly humans. Since the D&D Orcs have come a long way since their 'piggy' days, the Half-Orcs have become more human looking in D&D as well, with some of them even being described as 'beautiful' (Arrayan).
Well, they're not in the Player's Handbook. I'd hope to have them available on DDi pretty soon after the PH hits, though, since players out there with half-orc characters are going to want to be able to convert or re-create their character concept, as the case may be.
So then i take it that 1/2 orc's do not appear in the MM as a playable race, perhaps not at all.
Half-orcs are a bit tricky, because they imply a very ugly back story that we frankly don't want to dwell on very much. I think it's possible to posit a better back story, like "long ago a god of evil mixed the races of orcs and humans, and to this day atavistic throwbacks are born to each from time to time." We'll see where we get to on that score when we get serious about updating the half-orc. So far we've just had other fish to fry first.
boy, aren't we PC, lets see using your fluff, tieflings in a push to expand there empire enter into a demonic inspired magical breeding programs to create a race of warrior slaves to feed the Bael Turath war machin. with the fall of Bael Turath hundreds of thousands of 1/2 orc slaves tasted freedom for the first time. settling in to the fringes of city's, towns and carving out lives in the wild and inkept places. surviving three strength, bravery and determination.
Oh, and regardless of what core D&D does with half-orcs, they've got to be in the Realms at least as a NPC race (or "playable monster" race); they've been in Faerun in 3e and earlier editions, and we wouldn't retcon them out of existence.
thats nice of you, how about 30 years of core D&D ! it's not like WotC hasn't helped perpetual very ugly back story, I was gladded by a 1/2 orc master of a ship makers guild in Saltmarsh but that is a notable exception in 3rd ed. At the vary least you could have come out and and been clear from the start.
Wow that is weak! "Oh no, such a thing is to dark for happy little fantasy!" Face it, Orcs are evil! They are not nice people! They take what they want and they never ask! Such thing happen and it should not be rejected because method of their conscription turns some peoples stomach.
Umm, so babies are drafted into being half-orcs?
That's probably one of the reasons why they introduced the Kingdom of Many-Arrows, and had a specific scene involving an Orc female marrying a Human in The Orc King.
No real need to though. Thesk (provided it still exists in 4th ed Realms) has numerous orcs and half-orcs who are pretty well integrated and accepted by the human populace, iirc.
No real need to though. Thesk (provided it still exists in 4th ed Realms) has numerous orcs and half-orcs who are pretty well integrated and accepted by the human populace, iirc.
Also the Odonti(sp?). Good aligned orcs.
I am sure D&D wants to try and clean up the whole " I am this race and I was probably born out of ****". The company is run by Hasbro and I am sure it wants to try and clean up some of the old moral loose ends of TSR and Gygax.
Plus the concept of a race being just evil because is dead. It died sometime during 2e I think, maybe sooner. You can run them that way to be sure though Malc. That is the beauty of RPGs. That whole imagination thingy.:D
Rich, Genasi? They were pushed in 3E so I am hoping you guys keep them around. Especially with the Planes RSE that will be happening, maybe they can play an even larger part in Realms history.
I'm a little suprised that the idea of **** being the basis of a character race has even one strident defender.
There's a difference between "Defending" something and "accepting it because the base race is completely evil and worships an evil god."
D+D can't be all butterflies and flowers. Some things have to be HARSH. People get KILLED on battlefields. They're taking the risk and the racism out of the game, and people have forgotten (And or lost the ability to) differentiate between what happens in the fantasy world and what happens in the real world.
If you can't handle that evil does evil things, and every so often they have spawn of evil things, well, maybe you shouldn't be playing D+D.
Is the goal of the PC's to prevent such things in most good heroic fantasy games? Yes.
But I want you to ask yourself which is worse.
A) A race whose origins are largely conceived in **** and forced sex (The 3e Half Orc)
or
B) A race whose origins are largely conceived in worship of evil extraplanar creatures, sacrifice of sentient creatures, and dismemberment of persons, the preservation of their bodily fluids for human consumption, etc. (The 4e Tiefling)
So who's more "redeemable" from this perspective. The 3e Half-orc, or the 4e Tiefling? Completely debatable, isn't it?
That's why this is stupid. It's simply kowtowing to one attitude (The Feminist Movement) over another (The Religious Right)
In terms of the fantasy genre, who cares? Zeus raped people all the time. He was a horny god who lived on Mount Olympus and apparently wasn't satisfied with Hera, and you know, if I had Hera, I'd be pretty happy, so that makes him a jackass. I'll tempered? Sure. But she's faithful, beautiful, and a goddess, so that's three points in her favor.
If you think that this stuff is condonable in the real world, and that you can get away with it because D+D says it's what happened, then guess what. That shows an unrealistic awareness of your surroundings, a lack of awareness as regards fact versus fiction, and a total failure to comprehend "Fantasy World" vs. Real World.
In the real world, if you do the things that Zeus, or that Half-orcs do, you get arrested, and oh, boy, do you belong there. In the real world, these things are absolutely, 100 percent not condonable. But a fantasy game has to be based around medieval fantastic constructs. Sometimes that's going to mean drawing on real world mythology and fantastic literature.
Bad things happen in backstory. Deal with it.
And now the Many Arrow Kingdom. ;)
Plus the concept of a race being just evil because is dead.
Uh . . . Drow?
Uh . . . Drow?
There are drow that follow the Dark Maiden. I also bet you there are many drow that run towards the neutral angle and just go along with everyone else because to do otherwise would lead to their deaths.
Obviously bad things can happen. D&D is trying to get away from the racism angle a little because it has been 30 some years and players have matured during that time. At least some have. They are trying to get away from Tolkien a bit and give monsters a chance. Nothing is wrong with that. Plus there can always be groups and societies of beings that are shaped by an evil god or government. Nothing is stopping you from using the races the way you want to.
The road to the Nine Hells is paved with good intentions. (Okay, I added a D&D twist, but you get the idea.)
The fact that Elminster and Drizzt survive are not enough "points of light" to sell me on the new direction they are taking the campaign setting. All I know, is that I and a lot the Realms "Old Guard" (or Grognards if you prefer) were extremely likely to buy the 4e FRCG (and probably the FRPG too!)before we heard about the "fun new direction" that they 4e FR design team was taking the "new" Realms. And now most of us are on the wait and see bit. I am not sure if they realize that we will give the 4e Realms one chance (probably by reviewing the FRCG in our local game or book store) before we give up on the new version of the campaign setting all together. And I want the 4e Realms to survive. So they better be cooking up a damn good book to introduce us to the "new" Realms.
It seems that alot of people who disliked the idea of 4e have gone and bought the "sampler" book that came out last month. If they hate the idea why did they buy it?
-A lot of people don't like what's going on, but want to. I mean, I'm not too enthused that there won't be any more sourcebooks for me to use, or that after a while, I won't exactly know just what's going on in novels. I'd like to like 4e, but there's justs stuff about it that I can't. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the same boat, and many of these people got this book.
Rich, I appologize if any of this has been asked before, but can you please give us any info on what the origin of arcane and divine magic users powers will be in the 4E Realms?
My understanding is that the Weave was the source of all magic in Faerun, and that with Mystra dead it has unraveled completely. Several years and a number of newly insane mages later and we have wizards walking around apparently casting spells like nothing has happened. Apparently this is true of the divine casters as well.
OK, I'm making light of the situation somewhat - clearly things have changed. I'm unclear on a few points though, and I'm hoping you can shed some light on them.
1) Is magic still the same as before? By this I mean: does it still bear some relationship with the weave even though it no longer functions the same as before. In other words - do mages who lived through the whole spellplague (elves, undead, otherwise immortal, etc) have any kind of continuity of power, or did everyone at the top now have to start from square one again? Is magical lore from before the spellplague still applicable in any way?
2) Is there still a divine connection with all magic? Mystra is dead, but we don't know if there is another god of magic now or whether magic is completely unregulated by the powers that be.
3) Do gods now grant their divine spells through some other medium, or do clerics now have a Big Red Telephone Line directly to their gods when it comes to the granting of their powers?
4)Is the Shadow Weave still around? If not, what happened to it? Perhaps it's now the primary source of power for everyone....?
5)The City of Shade was made into a floating fortress some time before the discovery of the Shadow Weave. When the Weave unravels and magic fails or becomes unpredictable, does it plummet from the skies and become the worlds largest and most lethal ammusement ride?
4)Is the Shadow Weave still around? If not, what happened to it? Perhaps it's now the primary source of power for everyone....?
-The Shadow Weave was reretconned to be a part of the Weave, but inaccessable to Mystra, and under the stewardship of Shar. Thus, when Mystra dies, and the Weave unravels, the Shadow Weave will unravel as well.
Here's the way Ed G. explained it to me years ago: The Weave is an interface. It's the conduit through which the spellcaster accesses the raw potential of magic lurking in every atom of the cosmos. When the interface is removed, magic doesn't die--it's still locked up in everything around you. It's one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Electromagnetics, strong force, weak force, gravity, and magic. Well, I might be exaggerating a bit; it's not clear to me that things like atoms or radio waves or the nuclear strong force exist in a world composed of the classic elements. But I digress.
In the absence of the interface they're used to (the Weave), spellcasters in the Realms have to learn new methods for accessing magic. I expect that brilliant archmages (and the more clever gods) probably figure out a "workaround" in a matter of days. But in some places, it might be years before someone manages to reinvent spellcasting.
Regarding clerics, we do have an answer that I'm not at liberty to share just yet. More on that later. Regarding the Shadow Weave, we'll be looking to evolve that concept to match the Shadow power source hinted at in the preview books. Again, more detail on that later.
Finally, a note about the City of Shade... the Spellplague flowed "around" places with big, powerful, pervasive magical effects. So places with mythals (and Shade, which has something just as strong as a mythal) were sheltered to some degree from the ravages of the Spellplague. Secondary effects (like archmages going mad) did damage some of these places, but they generally made out OK.
Back on topic.....
Rich, I appologize if any of this has been asked before, but can you please give us any info on what the origin of arcane and divine magic users powers will be in the 4E Realms?
My understanding is that the Weave was the source of all magic in Faerun, and that with Mystra dead it has unraveled completely. Several years and a number of newly insane mages later and we have wizards walking around apparently casting spells like nothing has happened. Apparently this is true of the divine casters as well.
OK, I'm making light of the situation somewhat - clearly things have changed. I'm unclear on a few points though, and I'm hoping you can shed some light on them.
1) Is magic still the same as before? By this I mean: does it still bear some relationship with the weave even though it no longer functions the same as before. In other words - do mages who lived through the whole spellplague (elves, undead, otherwise immortal, etc) have any kind of continuity of power, or did everyone at the top now have to start from square one again? Is magical lore from before the spellplague still applicable in any way?
2) Is there still a divine connection with all magic? Mystra is dead, but we don't know if there is another god of magic now or whether magic is completely unregulated by the powers that be.
3) Do gods now grant their divine spells through some other medium, or do clerics now have a Big Red Telephone Line directly to their gods when it comes to the granting of their powers?
4)Is the Shadow Weave still around? If not, what happened to it? Perhaps it's now the primary source of power for everyone....?
5)The City of Shade was made into a floating fortress some time before the discovery of the Shadow Weave. When the Weave unravels and magic fails or becomes unpredictable, does it plummet from the skies and become the worlds largest and most lethal ammusement ride?
-The Shadow Weave was reretconned to be a part of the Weave, but inaccessable to Mystra, and under the stewardship of Shar. Thus, when Mystra dies, and the Weave unravels, the Shadow Weave will unravel as well.
Thank god.
Hello All,
This question is for Mr. Baker but I embrace the input by my fellow members of course. When a persons alignment changes how are they made aware that they can no longer summon a particular monster/Ally any longer, does the spell simply fail or does a creature of appropiate alignment appear? I also noticed that CN has almost no options in the lower lvl summon spells so what can a CN nueutral character summon if he/she chooses to use this spell?
Thanks all and happy holidays.
4E Neutral......... for now.
According to the preview book, there won't be summon spells- unless they choose to put it out in a supplement.
It seems that alot of people who disliked the idea of 4e have gone and bought the "sampler" book that came out last month. If they hate the idea why did they buy it?
I don't know if you're talking about me, but if you are, I would like to inform you that I like and am interested in the new 4E concepts and rules. That's not the same thing as being turned off by the changes for the new Realms setting. Races and Classes is a preview for the 4E core rules, not any particular setting.
Good questions, Landro.
Here's the way Ed G. explained it to me years ago: The Weave is an interface. It's the conduit through which the spellcaster accesses the raw potential of magic lurking in every atom of the cosmos. When the interface is removed, magic doesn't die--it's still locked up in everything around you. It's one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Electromagnetics, strong force, weak force, gravity, and magic. Well, I might be exaggerating a bit; it's not clear to me that things like atoms or radio waves or the nuclear strong force exist in a world composed of the classic elements. But I digress.
In the absence of the interface they're used to (the Weave), spellcasters in the Realms have to learn new methods for accessing magic. I expect that brilliant archmages (and the more clever gods) probably figure out a "workaround" in a matter of days. But in some places, it might be years before someone manages to reinvent spellcasting.
Regarding clerics, we do have an answer that I'm not at liberty to share just yet. More on that later. Regarding the Shadow Weave, we'll be looking to evolve that concept to match the Shadow power source hinted at in the preview books. Again, more detail on that later.
Finally, a note about the City of Shade... the Spellplague flowed "around" places with big, powerful, pervasive magical effects. So places with mythals (and Shade, which has something just as strong as a mythal) were sheltered to some degree from the ravages of the Spellplague. Secondary effects (like archmages going mad) did damage some of these places, but they generally made out OK.
Thanks for the prompt reply Rich! I really wasn't expecting one at 1:30am
Although it may well be simple lack of sleep.... can I take your silence on the matter to mean that something is in store regarding the regulation or control of magic as a whole?
Can we expect some new sucker to take up the Defence Against the Dark A..... um, I mean position of God of Magic? Have the gods finally realized the role is indeed cursed and nobody wants it? Is there something different the designers have in mind that you're unable to share with us yet?
And by the same extension, not everyone who is looking forward to 4e is loving everything they are hearing about the setting - 4e Rules and 4e FR are mutually exclusive in many people's minds.
Also, it's pretty obvious that the various planes will work as power sources - Shadowfel, Feywild, Elemental, etc..., ergo, you can extrapolate that divine domains will work much the same way, and empower the spells of priests following the various deities dwelling therein.
I wonder if we'll get a Scarlet Witch-esque Chaos Magic
So no more Shadoweave, but Shadoweave users will be pretty much the same in 4e, using the Shadowfel power source instead.
Personally, I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing what they do with the Feywild Power Source.
Also, it's pretty obvious that the vatrious planes will work as power sources - Shadowfel, Feywild, Elemental, etc...
So no more Shadoweave, but Shadoweave users will be pretty much the same in 4e, using the Shadowfel power source instead.
Personally, I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing what they do with the Feywild Power Source.
-Check this out MarkusTay63.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215979
Show
#12
wartorn
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Last Seen: Today (04:48 AM)
Posts: 12
So here is a quick rundown of the table of contents which gives a pretty good idea of what's in the book.
D&D and the Birth of a New Edition (2 pages)
The Process of Re-Cration (4 pages)
Sections about reimagining monsters for 4e
The Setting of D&D (4 pages)
Sections about the Points of Light setting, and how it came about
The New Cosmology (2 pages)
Sections about an overview of the new cosmology and the end of the great wheel
The World (8 pages)
Includes sections Fallen Empires, Locations of Note, The End of Human Dominion
Dragons (6 pages)
Giants (2 pages)
The Underdark (4 pages)
The Feywild (8 pages)
The ShadowFell (8 pages)
Art Gallery (1 page)
The Elemental Chaos (12 pages)
Includes sections on Elementals, Locations of Note, and the Abyss
The Astral Sea (10 pages)
Includes sections on The Gods, Angels, Devils
The Far Realm (6 pages)
Sections on Aberrant Creatures and Mind Flayers
Staff Thoughts on 4th Edition (13 pages)
Sections about... lots of things
The Next Word (1 page)
A few words about what's coming
wartorn
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Last Seen: Today (04:48 AM)
Posts: 12
So here is a quick rundown of the table of contents which gives a pretty good idea of what's in the book.
D&D and the Birth of a New Edition (2 pages)
The Process of Re-Cration (4 pages)
Sections about reimagining monsters for 4e
The Setting of D&D (4 pages)
Sections about the Points of Light setting, and how it came about
The New Cosmology (2 pages)
Sections about an overview of the new cosmology and the end of the great wheel
The World (8 pages)
Includes sections Fallen Empires, Locations of Note, The End of Human Dominion
Dragons (6 pages)
Giants (2 pages)
The Underdark (4 pages)
The Feywild (8 pages)
The ShadowFell (8 pages)
Art Gallery (1 page)
The Elemental Chaos (12 pages)
Includes sections on Elementals, Locations of Note, and the Abyss
The Astral Sea (10 pages)
Includes sections on The Gods, Angels, Devils
The Far Realm (6 pages)
Sections on Aberrant Creatures and Mind Flayers
Staff Thoughts on 4th Edition (13 pages)
Sections about... lots of things
The Next Word (1 page)
A few words about what's coming
almost interesting enough to buy... almost. ;)
Thanks for the link - that book sounds far more interesting then R&C...
almost interesting enough to buy... almost. ;)
-Just don't ruff neck some 16 year old in the Book Store when you read it ok.;)
Worked out better anyway - when I went there the second time I was able to grab a table and sit down with a cup of coffeee...
and coffee is the only thing I enjoy nearly as much as D&D stufff. ;)
On Topic:
The stuff in the W&M preview book is really wetting my apetite for some 4e adventuring - the stuff about the Giants really has my curiousity piqued.
Question:
After seeing some of what people are writing in reviews of that book, there is some question now as to what will be the Warlock's 'power choices' - there were four, but now there appear to be only three. Can we get some sort of confirmation on this?
I wonder if we'll get a Scarlet Witch-esque Chaos Magic
It seems that alot of people who disliked the idea of 4e have gone and bought the "sampler" book that came out last month. If they hate the idea why did they buy it? Because many gamers cannot help but buy books, even if they are pretty sure they will hate it. They need to know. Know what? Who knows, they just need to buy something and be "In the know" along with other people I guess. Or they wish to finish a collection, or they just want solid info so they can have anotheryear of posting complaints on these forums. ;) Who knows?
Some of us got to read it for free at our local gaming store. ;) :P
I game with the owner and he won't change editions either (he plays core). There are regulars that are looking forward to 4e, but they all play core. None of the Realms fans are switching editions.
I'm still surprised people paid $ 20.00 for it though. It was less informative than the web. I learned a lot more info about 4e from threads than I did from that book.
Finally, a note about the City of Shade... the Spellplague flowed "around" places with big, powerful, pervasive magical effects. So places with mythals (and Shade, which has something just as strong as a mythal) were sheltered to some degree from the ravages of the Spellplague. Secondary effects (like archmages going mad) did damage some of these places, but they generally made out OK.
lets see... silverymoon, evereska, waterdeep , myth dranor , evermeet , halruua ( ?) are still there
other places , with powerful ,pervasive magical effects? tha arcane tower in luskan maybe?
ltha arcane tower in luskan maybe?
Drizzt said Luskan was gone.
Drizzt said Luskan was gone.
-The Host Tower could still theoretically be standing, though. In my opinion, though, not likely, especially with potential 'mad Archwizards'.
Will the old great wheel cosmology have a spellplague-like device to elegantly change it too?
Drizzt said Luskan was gone.
-You say that like it's a bad thing?:P
Will the old great wheel cosmology have a spellplague-like device to elegantly change it too?
From a thread discussing the new preview book Worlds & Monsters -
So here is a quick rundown of the table of contents which gives a pretty good idea of what's in the book.
D&D and the Birth of a New Edition (2 pages)
The Process of Re-Cration (4 pages)
Sections about reimagining monsters for 4e
The Setting of D&D (4 pages)
Sections about the Points of Light setting, and how it came about
The New Cosmology (2 pages)
Sections about an overview of the new cosmology and the end of the great wheel
The World (8 pages)
Includes sections Fallen Empires, Locations of Note, The End of Human Dominion
Dragons (6 pages)
Giants (2 pages)
The Underdark (4 pages)
The Feywild (8 pages)
The ShadowFell (8 pages)
Art Gallery (1 page)
The Elemental Chaos (12 pages)
Includes sections on Elementals, Locations of Note, and the Abyss
The Astral Sea (10 pages)
Includes sections on The Gods, Angels, Devils
The Far Realm (6 pages)
Sections on Aberrant Creatures and Mind Flayers
Staff Thoughts on 4th Edition (13 pages)
Sections about... lots of things
The Next Word (1 page)
A few words about what's coming
Accent mine. ;)
1) Will Paladins still have some of their classic abilities in 4E? For instance, we know they're keeping their Smites. How about...
A) Immunity to Fear?
B) Aura of Courage?
C) Divine Grace?
D) Divine Health?
E) Lay on Hands?
Are any of those sticking around? And could you tell us which, if any, are staying?
2) We've heard that their Pokemounts are gone (According to Bruce Cordell here). Are Special Mounts gone altogether, or will Paladins still have some form of Special Mount ability (divine connection with an animal mount, boosting the mounts stats, that sort of thing)?
3) Will Paladins (and Monks) still have similar multiclass restrictions like in 3E, or will they finally be done away with?
And now for a couple Realms specific questions.
4) What's the fate of Tantras in 4E. Any plans for it?
5) Will there be anything on the Order of the Golden Lions in the initial Realms books, or any other Paladin Orders?
Thanks a bunch, Rich.
Has anyone at WotC ever thought about writing a trilogy about the fall of Myth Drannor? I would love to read more about Garnet, Flar, the Weeping War, the "Nameless Chosen," and the Army of Darkness. I think a good author would have many "known" heroes to work with and could create some "un-known" heroes. I love reading the Fall of Myth Drannor accessory from 2e and I think the accounts of some of the battles would be very useful.
Maybe you and Ed could work on the trilogy in your spare time. ;)
I'm afraid I can't say too much yet on the paladin. I've been getting quoted over at ENWorld a bunch lately and I'm getting nervous about being too out on front with some of my info. I don't want to get in trouble for spilling the beans! But I will try to address a couple of your Q's, here...
We're leaning toward making paladin mounts optional, not a built-in part of the class. So you might gain access to a cool mount by deciding to take the right paragon path or spending the appropriate feat. Paladin players who don't want the complexity of a mount can avoid it easily enough, but those who do want the mount can still make the decisions to get a unique mount.
Paladin multiclassing restrictions are gone.
Funny you should mention Tantras; I touch on it just a bit in my novel Swordmage, in that it's the last place my protagonist was before the book starts. With the growing shade influence in Sembia, the cities of the Vast are becoming home to a number of Sembian houses-in-exile; consequently, they're doing pretty well and are starting to acquire a Casablanca-like "this is where everybody meets" feel to them.
I'm on a bit of a Paladin kick, today, sorry. Hope you can answer some of these questions, Rich, as some of them are pretty much generic D&D, and not Realms specific.
1) Will Paladins still have some of their classic abilities in 4E? For instance, we know they're keeping their Smites. How about...
A) Immunity to Fear?
B) Aura of Courage?
C) Divine Grace?
D) Divine Health?
E) Lay on Hands?
Are any of those sticking around? And could you tell us which, if any, are staying?
2) We've heard that their Pokemounts are gone (According to Bruce Cordell here). Are Special Mounts gone altogether, or will Paladins still have some form of Special Mount ability (divine connection with an animal mount, boosting the mounts stats, that sort of thing)?
3) Will Paladins (and Monks) still have similar multiclass restrictions like in 3E, or will they finally be done away with?
And now for a couple Realms specific questions.
4) What's the fate of Tantras in 4E. Any plans for it?
5) Will there be anything on the Order of the Golden Lions in the initial Realms books, or any other Paladin Orders?
Thanks a bunch, Rich.
I know that I looked quite carefully at the "Fall of Myth Drannor" 2e product to make sure I knew what was going on where and when. My prologues in "The Last Mythal" are snapshots of the city's last days. I wanted to show how folks who were "really there" would have perceived some of the events without the patina of history and legend that Fall of Myth Drannor paints over them. So Fflar is tired, hot, wounded, and heartsick with worry about his family when he goes out to meet Aulmpiter (sp?). The reality isn't quite as clean as the myth makes it out to be.
In any event, I've sworn off writing about elves for a long time. One trilogy about 'em is enough for now. I appreciate your vote of confidence, though!
Hi Rich,
Has anyone at WotC ever thought about writing a trilogy about the fall of Myth Drannor? I would love to read more about Garnet, Flar, the Weeping War, the "Nameless Chosen," and the Army of Darkness. I think a good author would have many "known" heroes to work with and could create some "un-known" heroes. I love reading the Fall of Myth Drannor accessory from 2e and I think the accounts of some of the battles would be very useful.
Maybe you and Ed could work on the trilogy in your spare time. ;)
Funny you should mention Tantras; I touch on it just a bit in my novel Swordmage, in that it's the last place my protagonist was before the book starts. With the growing shade influence in Sembia, the cities of the Vast are becoming home to a number of Sembian houses-in-exile; consequently, they're doing pretty well and are starting to acquire a Casablanca-like "this is where everybody meets" feel to them.
Wow, that sounds pretty interesting!
Incidentally... any chance you can suggest to the LFR folks to assign The Vast to the Southeast US Region (Along with maybe the Moonsea and Dalelands)? ;)
Speaking of The Vast, how's Raven's Bluff doing in the 4E Realms?
Well, I'm sure somebody must have thought about it. You're certainly right that all the ingredients of an epic trilogy (albeit a tragic one) are there to be used.
I know that I looked quite carefully at the "Fall of Myth Drannor" 2e product to make sure I knew what was going on where and when. My prologues in "The Last Mythal" are snapshots of the city's last days. I wanted to show how folks who were "really there" would have perceived some of the events without the patina of history and legend that Fall of Myth Drannor paints over them. So Fflar is tired, hot, wounded, and heartsick with worry about his family when he goes out to meet Aulmpiter (sp?). The reality isn't quite as clean as the myth makes it out to be.
In any event, I've sworn off writing about elves for a long time. One trilogy about 'em is enough for now. I appreciate your vote of confidence, though!
Thanks for the quick response. I would love to read more about the Weeping War. I hope that someone decides to write the story.
This brings up another question. How do you guys decide who writes what stories?
Nothing is stopping you from using the races the way you want to.
Actually DMs who insist I use the races as they are in the source material DO stop me. Oh, I can make them however I want when I DM, but not when Im playing, which is the time when what they are really matters to me. I cant play a teifling with the 3e flavor in a 4e game whos DM wants teiflings to be as the 4e PHB says they are. For the record I completely despise the 4e teifling.
I like a lot of what Im seeing about 4e mechanics, but everytime I read anything about the fluff in core or especially the realms I get more and more disgusted with the whole thing.
Funny you should mention Tantras; I touch on it just a bit in my novel Swordmage, in that it's the last place my protagonist was before the book starts. With the growing shade influence in Sembia, the cities of the Vast are becoming home to a number of Sembian houses-in-exile; consequently, they're doing pretty well and are starting to acquire a Casablanca-like "this is where everybody meets" feel to them.
That sounds very interesting.
Will the Vast be one of those "forgotten realms" to be covered in 4E?
The paladin info seems alright as well. Many paladin options were along this direction for pretty much the entirety of 3e anyway.
Actually DMs who insist I use the races as they are in the source material DO stop me. Oh, I can make them however I want when I DM, but not when Im playing, which is the time when what they are really matters to me. I cant play a teifling with the 3e flavor in a 4e game whos DM wants teiflings to be as the 4e PHB says they are. For the record I completely despise the 4e teifling.
I like a lot of what Im seeing about 4e mechanics, but everytime I read anything about the fluff in core or especially the realms I get more and more disgusted with the whole thing.
Well it seems there may be two types of tieflings in FR so hoepfully that works fo ya.
Actually DMs who insist I use the races as they are in the source material DO stop me. Oh, I can make them however I want when I DM, but not when Im playing, which is the time when what they are really matters to me. I cant play a teifling with the 3e flavor in a 4e game whos DM wants teiflings to be as the 4e PHB says they are. For the record I completely despise the 4e teifling.
I like a lot of what Im seeing about 4e mechanics, but everytime I read anything about the fluff in core or especially the realms I get more and more disgusted with the whole thing.
Play with different DMs.
If you're a relatively unproven author, you'll probably be slotted for a book in a series--like "The Cities" or "The Rogues." You'll be asked to submit a proposal that fits the topic of the series, and you may be asked to hit some other desired goal. So, when I wrote City of Ravens, I was given the job of "write a book for our new Cities series, and oh yeah, we made a promise the RPGA a while back, so whaddya think about setting it in Raven's Bluff?"
If you've proven yourself enough to get a trilogy, you're probably going to be handed a theme to work under too. So for example, Richard Byers was given the job to write a "RSE" trilogy themed around the Year of Rogue Dragons. (RSE means Realm-Shaking Event; the biggest story in the year for the setting.) Likewise, I was handed the job of writing a "RSE" trilogy touching on the Year of Risen Elfkin. I had a few chats with Phil about possibilities for an epic trilogy featuring elves, and we settled on the Return, which became the Last Mythal trilogy. Ironically enough, when we actually went to anchor it in the timeline, we realized that it had to take place in the Year of Lightning Storms. Go figure.
Every now and then, a proven author is basically invited to do what he or she wants. Bob Salvatore gets this treatment; what he wants to do with Drizzt and the gang, he gets to do, and our Book team offers just a bit of advice and coordination with other efforts. I've been fortunate enough to get that sort of liberty with my new series Blades of the Moonsea. Other than showcasing the post-Spellplague Realms, the storyline and characters were pretty much up to me.
Sometimes we get proposals from authors we haven't worked with before, and Phil and his team look for a way to work those in. There are many special cases and other considerations, but hopefully that gives you some idea of how that decision is made.
Thanks for the quick response. I would love to read more about the Weeping War. I hope that someone decides to write the story.
This brings up another question. How do you guys decide who writes what stories?
I see from Worlds & Monsters that Angels work for all gods now; does this mean that like Paladins, Angels can now be of ANY Alignment?!
Are there any plans for iconic D&D charactersconcepts, like the elven bladesinger or the dwarven battlerager, perhaps as paragon or epic paths?
What will happend with magic items or artifacts during the spellplague?
Are Forgotten Realms races different from the core races, in terms of age, outlook etc.?
I am not a big fan of teleportation. I think it can mess with a game. I like the idea of riding horses, taking a ship or even using skyships as a means of transportation. I heard teleport is going to be a non-combat ritual spell. How will that work for planar beings who used to have the Teleport at will ability?
I just may make it that in my game the Plague messed up teleport spells in general and people are better off using Gates or Portals.
In effect we'll be "taking 10 on our saves", which is OK, I guess, but it does seem to take some of the excitement out of the process. It will take away from the doldrums of the crit fails, but will also take away the excitement of busting out that 18 or Nat 20 against the Dread Necromancer's evil spell. I've heard stories about campaigns where a player spiked a 20 on a crucial save and then went on to do something special. I'm willing to bet that there aren't many stories about how high their characters AC was in a critical battle, (and probably none at all outside of the character optimization boards).
Rich, I have a Teleportation question.
I am not a big fan of teleportation. I think it can mess with a game. I like the idea of riding horses, taking a ship or even using skyships as a means of transportation. I heard teleport is going to be a non-combat ritual spell. How will that work for planar beings who used to have the Teleport at will ability?
I just may make it that in my game the Plague messed up teleport spells in general and people are better off using Gates or Portals.
I really like this idea.
I'm not a fan of long-distance teleportation spells myself either. I find that they reduce the opportunities for adventure and story telling, and that they rob the game of a certain epic feeling sometimes.
I also feel that they allow the PC's too much access to resources. I prefer as a PC to feel that I'm "on my own" rather than having an entire city to supply me whenever I need something. Poping back to town to buy a set of cold iron arrowheads for an encounter I just found out was coming up seems like cheating to me.
Question:
I see from Worlds & Monsters that Angels work for all gods now; does this mean that like Paladins, Angels can now be of ANY Alignment?!
You've never heard of fallen angels before? Evil angels aren't something new, hell does Satan ring a bell?
You've never heard of fallen angels before? Evil angels aren't something new, hell does Satan ring a bell?
I was thinking the same thing.
I'm pretty sure we already have those in D&D.
So devils are still whollly evil, and demons are diabolically so, but Angels and Paladins swing both ways? I'm wondering about the balance of 'Points of Light' at this point....
Ummmm... once an Angel has fallen, we call them a devil.
I'm pretty sure we already have those in D&D.
So devils are still whollly evil, and demons are diabolically so, but Angels and Paladins swing both ways? I'm wondering about the balance of 'Points of Light' at this point....
-If angels can be evil, can devils be good? Makes you wonder...
Now mind you, I found the original "Rich Baker must be stopped" comments amusing (amused more at the people call it, than to actually support it), but I have to agree that trying to start such rumors is a bit mean spirited, and more than slightly juvenile. I was wandering if you had any comments about it.
thanks for your hard work and patience.
PS. my girlfriend (the non imaginary one) loved your rendition of Araevin and Fflar from last mythal.
Hey rich, this is going to be slightly off the topic, but I was surfing around the site and came across a nasty rumor (as if there were not enough on the net to begin with), for the particulars I submit this link: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=215909
Now mind you, I found the original "Rich Baker must be stopped" comments amusing (amused more at the people call it, than to actually support it), but I have to agree that trying to start such rumors is a bit mean spirited, and more than slightly juvenile. I was wandering if you had any comments about it.
thanks for your hard work and patience.
-Uh, if you didn't notice, that thread was under the 'Humor' section. ;)
-Uh, if you didn't notice, that thread was under the 'Humor' section. ;)
And I would still like to know if he had any comments about it. Many a person had and made fun at his expence, I for one want to hear his angle.
And I would still like to know if he had any comments about it. Many a person had and made fun at his expence, I for one want to hear his angle.
-In the context of him being fired, it's humor, obviously.
-Uh, if you didn't notice, that thread was under the 'Humor' section. ;)
As much as I enjoy poking fun at Rich along with all my fellow 'whiners', I didn't find that Enworld thread in the least bit funny.
And obviously, neither did their mods.
Now this, on the other hand, is obviously humor -
- Official NASA photos don't lie!
:D
Question:
Is the amount of 'chatter' in this thread amusing you, or would you like us to stop?
As much as I enjoy poking fun at Rich along with all my fellow 'whiners', I didn't find that Enworld thread in the least bit funny.
-I don't find it funny either. Again, that's our phrase, and no one else's.
Have you folks considered using Cthulhu? Whether Cthulhu is public domain or not, I don't know. But if the Cthulhu Mythos are, have you folks thought about tossing Cthulhu into 4E? Apparently, given reports I've read about Worlds & Monsters, the Far Realm is a part of the cosmology (alongside the Elemental Chaos, Astral Sea, Shadowfell, and Feywild). And when I think Far Realm, I can't help but think Cthulhu. So how about it, Rich? Did you ever consider using Cthulhu?
Except...teleportation magic is part-and-parcel of fantasy. It's been around. So while I think it's great if demons/devils can't use it to pop around whilly-nilly (despite an alternative 'port ability will be provided, I bet), I do like the idea of it still existing in the general sense. There are time when riding horsies back and forth from A to B is boring and needless. Making teleportation a ritual magic makes it more sensible.
Teleport is going to be turned into a ritual spell, which takes more time to cast than a normal one. You'll still be able to do it, but not 'instantly'.
And my question is on a similar subject, is the FRCG (or the PGtF) going to contain rules for some of the specifically FR type rituals, such as raising Mythals, or is that something we can't expect to see immediately?
also, is there any chance of Araevin getting the art blade, considering the shear amount of grief he went through, and the amount of prooving he has already done, I atleast feel it would be a fair conselation prize.
Araevin doesn't have the personality to be the Spell-Major. And he is one of the new Grand Mages (the position that Ualair the Silent had). To be the Spell-Major you need to be commited to Cormanthor (something that Araevin isn't, because as soon as he finished recreating the Mythal, he left Myth Drannor).
Spell-Majors never were High Mages.
And now for a question from way out of left field, and straight out of a whole other sport incompatible with the one we're currently playing.
Have you folks considered using Cthulhu? Whether Cthulhu is public domain or not, I don't know. But if the Cthulhu Mythos are, have you folks thought about tossing Cthulhu into 4E? Apparently, given reports I've read about Worlds & Monsters, the Far Realm is a part of the cosmology (alongside the Elemental Chaos, Astral Sea, Shadowfell, and Feywild). And when I think Far Realm, I can't help but think Cthulhu. So how about it, Rich? Did you ever consider using Cthulhu?
Stuart Gorton said at a screening of Reanimator that the reason he uses so much Lovecraft stuff is that it is public domain. Some of the mythos precedes Lovercraft so it should be at least partly public domain.
Where Cthulhu is concerned, it's a bit ambiguous - modern writers can use whatever they want of Lovecraft's original stories, and build upon them, but they avoid using each other's material, because then you are stepping on someone else's intellectual property. Thats kind of a legal nightmare, and I'm not sure how Chaosium gets around all that - perhaps with seperate licenses - but there really is NO reason to bring Cthulhu into the Realms.
4e is partly about moving away from stuff 'brought in' from elsewhere, like the Egyptian Pantheon and other RW analogies. To borrow so heavily from another setting would tarnish FR's flavor forever.
Also, its far easier (and cheaper ;) ) for the designers to come-up with their own 'pseudo-natural' stuff, rather then just copy someone else's. Its easier to shoe-horn it into existing lore (The Far Realms), then trying to tie disparate cosmologies together.
And besides, they've already re-created Cthulhu - his name is Pandorym. :coolcthul
Question:
Wondering about metals in 4e - from what I understand, Adamantine is described as an "easily Enchantable" metal in the new rules? Isn't this moving away from the older concept of it? I thought Mithral and Adamantine were like opposites - with Mithral being the magical, easily enchantable metal, and Adamantine being the magic-resistant one. You know, one's 'light', the other 'dark', one is favored by Elves, the other by Drow, etc, etc...
also, is there any chance of Araevin getting the art blade, considering the shear amount of grief he went through, and the amount of prooving he has already done, I atleast feel it would be a fair conselation prize.
It's not enough that he became the Grand Mage of Cormanthyr? At least, that's what I recall happened.
My basic thought about magic items and the Spellplague is this: What we call "use-activated" items--things like swords, cloaks, boots, etc.--continue working just fine. The Weave was used in their making in order to "plug them in" to the world's raw universal magical emanations, after which they don't really require continuing Weave interaction. So items like that survive the Spellplague just fine. Things we call "spell trigger" items (wands, staves) *do* interact with the Weave every time you use them, and don't work the way they used to. Our ulterior motive there is simply that wands and staves are becoming the wizard's "weapons," so a wizard might have a +3 wand the same way the fighter has a +3 sword. I'd guess that most old wands go defunct or explode during the Spellplague, and pretty soon after the Spellplague hits most casters are building new wands and staves that can interact with the raw magic of the world without a Weave.
Regarding Realms races, yes, they can be different from the core, usually because they're more detailed and grounded in a specific backstory and history. So we know that eladrins in the Realms think of themselves as sun elves, moon elves, etc., and that many of them live in specific places such as Myth Drannor, Evereska, or Evermeet. In 3E sun elves certainly lived longer than the typical D&D elf, at least according to the tables in Races of Faerun. We wouldn't change that.
Hallo Rich
Are there any plans for iconic D&D charactersconcepts, like the elven bladesinger or the dwarven battlerager, perhaps as paragon or epic paths?
What will happend with magic items or artifacts during the spellplague?
Are Forgotten Realms races different from the core races, in terms of age, outlook etc.?
Rich, I have a Teleportation question.
I am not a big fan of teleportation. I think it can mess with a game. I like the idea of riding horses, taking a ship or even using skyships as a means of transportation. I heard teleport is going to be a non-combat ritual spell. How will that work for planar beings who used to have the Teleport at will ability?
I just may make it that in my game the Plague messed up teleport spells in general and people are better off using Gates or Portals.
I'd sort of appreciate it if folks didn't go starting Rich-lost-his-job rumors, mostly because I know a lot of people in the business and I'd hate for someone to stumble over a rumor and get concerned on my behalf. For what it's worth I regard unemployment with some amount of anxiety, and any laughs I get out of such humor are a little weak and nervous. But it doesn't bug me enough to want to ban it.
I do find the "Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!" thing bemusing, especially when it escalates to Chuck Norrising. So far it seems to be mostly in good fun (sorry for those of you who said it and really meant it!), so if you're having fun, well, knock yourself out.
As Oscar Wilde said: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Or something like that.
As much as I enjoy poking fun at Rich along with all my fellow 'whiners', I didn't find that Enworld thread in the least bit funny.
And obviously, neither did their mods.
Now this, on the other hand, is obviously humor -
- Official NASA photos don't lie!
:D
Question:
Is the amount of 'chatter' in this thread amusing you, or would you like us to stop?
I do find the "Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!" thing bemusing, especially when it escalates to Chuck Norrising. So far it seems to be mostly in good fun (sorry for those of you who said it and really meant it!), so if you're having fun, well, knock yourself out.
Please don't encourage them!
These 'jokes' tend to flood otherwise perfectly good threads and make them unreadable. For example, just a few days back somebody started a thread on ENWorld to thank you for answering all these querries and a few of us wanted to join in, but the thread was quickly swamped with "Richard Baker Must Be Stopped!" posts and lost its original meaning. In any case: Thank you for answering so many of our question! Frankly, I think the effort you put into answering questions is nothing short of exemplary.
I was just wondering if you knew whether or not there are going to be any 4th edition P.C games made in the style of NWN or Baldur's Gate? Because they were one of the things that got a lot of my friends that play into P&P RPing in the first place.
someone who could even draw a 3e map of the region....
If I'm not mistaken the entire Bladesinger idea was from a character created by R.A. Salvatore in which the main character (the original owner of Drizzts panther) was a spellcaster that cast spells while using TWO weapons. Please ask whoever designs this "paragon path" keep that in mind for this version of the Bladesinger. Thx
That's not correct. The original Bladesinger was the Elf class (it wasn't a race) from first edition that learned both spells and combat abilities (if you don't belive me, get the D&D game for MAME and play the elf)
The bladesinger style requires one free hand to cast spells (that's why a TWO bladed Bladesinger is impossible unless it wants to nullify it's spellcasting ability).
but there really is NO reason to bring Cthulhu into the Realms.
I was asking about the possibility of Cthulhu being in core, and not the Realms, actually.
With the D20 Cthulhu game, and the ability to travel to other worlds via the Plane of Shadows (now the Shadowfell), its not like he wasn't already there... in the wings... waiting... :88E:
i.e. Are dwarves/halfings/elves all still exactly the same size they were, or are they changing to match the new core sizes?
The bladesinger style requires one free hand to cast spells (that's why a TWO bladed Bladesinger is impossible unless it wants to nullify it's spellcasting ability).
There is a feat called somatic weaponry; allowes for using weaponarms for somatic components. The daggerspell mage allowes for somatics with two daggers too. Also a twobladed sword can be held in one hand while casting. Dont limit your self! ;)
Rich, are two weapon fighters going to be a viable style of combat? Are rangers still going to be traditional masters of two weapon combat?
If only they could find someone who knows kara-Tur like the back of his hand, and could write half-way decent...
someone who could even draw a 3e map of the region....
-To sleep, perchance to dream...
There is a feat called somatic weaponry; allowes for using weaponarms for somatic components. The daggerspell mage allowes for somatics with two daggers too. Also a twobladed sword can be held in one hand while casting. Dont limit your self! ;)
Exactly. I always imagined bladesingers as knowing alternative means to work mystic gestures while wielding blade(s) in hand. Sort of the ultimate elven warrior-wizard.
Why was it necessary to transform the Realms into
Mad Max Beyond The Forgotten Realms?
If I want post apocalyptic roleplay, I'll crack open Hero System's Post Apocalyptic Hero, or watch Fist of the North Star, Thundarr the Barbarian, or Mad Max.
How is this Dungeons and Dragons?
So Rich, now that the proverbial
has hit the fan, does it stink in the Forgotten Realms Design Team offices?Oh, and in a non-sarcastic manner, I have to echo the "Why?"
If I want post apocalyptic roleplay, I'll crack open Hero System's Post Apocalyptic Hero, or watch Fist of the North Star, Thundarr the Barbarian, or Mad Max.
How is this Dungeons and Dragons?
Do you really think so?
I LOVED Thundarr the Barbarian!!! And Ookla the Mok (who becomes an Alaghi in 4e). If its really like THAT, I might just want to play in it. :P
Now it all makes sense - they break the moon into two pieces, one for Selune, and the other for Sehanine!
Brilliant!
Rich, don't take the flammes too personaly.
LORD DELTA
I will quipe in that Dark Sun worked finely, and is foundly remembered.
Ummmm... so did/does Mystara...
Whats that got to do with anything?
And I wasn't being sarcastic, I really like the idea of breaking FR's moon into two pieces. :D
LOOK! Selune's even got a few new tears. :P
Ummmm... so did/does Mystara...
Whats that got to do with anything?
And I wasn't being sarcastic, I really like the idea of breaking FR's moon into two pieces. :D
Is that the Ark? :D
WHY?
Why not?
Greenknight, it was about the post-apocalypse thing. Dark Sun IS the D&D Mad Max, after all...
I wished I had a question to ask... but my head is realing at the moment.
Well, a question.
To be frank - WHY the places who fared better well, did fare better, exactly? Why the North, the Coast, Cormyr, etc? Any quick non-NDA explanations possible?
Not trying to be negative, neutral curiosity here.
I loves Hokuto, so I guess I would have LOVED Dark Sun had I been offered to game in... *shrugs*
Well, a question.
To be frank - WHY the places who fared better well, did fare better, exactly? Why the North, the Coast, Cormyr, etc? Any quick non-NDA explanations possible?
Not trying to be negative, neutral curiosity here.
As another poster said elsewhere, they passed their Fort Saves Vs. Spellplague. :P
"The Spellplague left the cities of the Sword Coast almost unscathed. Perhaps it was attenuated by the lingering high magic of ancient Illefarn, perhaps it was deflected by the efforts of mighty heroes, or perhaps sheer chance steered the magical contagion away from the Sea of Swords; however it happened, the Sword Coast looks much as it did a hundred years ago. "
Accent mine - I think they plan on leaving the 'why' part open-ended.
Its better that way, so we can come up with our own backstories and adventures.
There's a difference between "Defending" something and "accepting it because the base race is completely evil and worships an evil god."
D+D can't be all butterflies and flowers. Some things have to be HARSH. People get KILLED on battlefields. They're taking the risk and the racism out of the game, and people have forgotten (And or lost the ability to) differentiate between what happens in the fantasy world and what happens in the real world.
If you can't handle that evil does evil things, and every so often they have spawn of evil things, well, maybe you shouldn't be playing D+D.
Is the goal of the PC's to prevent such things in most good heroic fantasy games? Yes.
But I want you to ask yourself which is worse.
A) A race whose origins are largely conceived in **** and forced sex (The 3e Half Orc)
or
B) A race whose origins are largely conceived in worship of evil extraplanar creatures, sacrifice of sentient creatures, and dismemberment of persons, the preservation of their bodily fluids for human consumption, etc. (The 4e Tiefling)
So who's more "redeemable" from this perspective. The 3e Half-orc, or the 4e Tiefling? Completely debatable, isn't it?
That's why this is stupid. It's simply kowtowing to one attitude (The Feminist Movement) over another (The Religious Right)
In terms of the fantasy genre, who cares? Zeus raped people all the time. He was a horny god who lived on Mount Olympus and apparently wasn't satisfied with Hera, and you know, if I had Hera, I'd be pretty happy, so that makes him a jackass. I'll tempered? Sure. But she's faithful, beautiful, and a goddess, so that's three points in her favor.
If you think that this stuff is condonable in the real world, and that you can get away with it because D+D says it's what happened, then guess what. That shows an unrealistic awareness of your surroundings, a lack of awareness as regards fact versus fiction, and a total failure to comprehend "Fantasy World" vs. Real World.
In the real world, if you do the things that Zeus, or that Half-orcs do, you get arrested, and oh, boy, do you belong there. In the real world, these things are absolutely, 100 percent not condonable. But a fantasy game has to be based around medieval fantastic constructs. Sometimes that's going to mean drawing on real world mythology and fantastic literature.
Bad things happen in backstory. Deal with it.
Crossbreeding slave races happens all the time in fantasy gaming worlds, and in fantasy novels. It's a staple, and half-orcs need be no different. Put them fertile orc females to use making a slave race that is a bit more clever then normal!
And I have to comment on Zeus: Hera was all of those nice things, and she was also his sister. I'd be looking far afield, too. And Zeus is powerful, handsome, and passionate...with a hefty modifier to his bluff check. How could a fair maiden say no?
==Aelryinth
One reminder why D&D have problems getting female players....
**** is reality, where satanic cults aren't. One is anyway religious debate issues, where the other is nasty violence.
-Last time I checked, Satanic cults espoused some pretty bad ideals as well. Just saying...
-Last time I checked, Satanic cults espoused some pretty bad ideals as well. Just saying...
Which cults? The whole satanic cults scare was a religious-right driven moral panick, with no real motive, there was no big anti-christian wave.
Beside, knowing 1-2 satanists, I can tell you that it's not quite what it's though... it's much an ATHEISTS religious/spiritual way (many don't even really believes in Them) based on a mix of gnostism, libertine/Do What You Like ideals and a nietszchean philosophy - at least, the serious satanism. Hardly the blood-drinking freaks from the media.
Heck, we have now a satanist MAYOR in Quebec... The controversial mayor of Huntingtow. The guy is frankly a conservative prick but not a psycho. He even is an ecolo of sort... very recently banned plastic bags in shops.
Which cults?
-The ones that adopt black cats on Halloween, and then mutilate them, the ones that light things on fire, the ones that generally cause trouble as rabble-rousers...
Beside, knowing 1-2 satanists, I can tell you that it's not quite what it's though... it's much an ATHEISTS religious/spiritual way (many don't even really believes in Them) based on a mix of gnostism, libertine/Do What You Like ideals and a nietszchean philosophy - at least, the serious satanism. Hardly the blood-drinking freaks from the media.
-The fact that is acknowledges and embraces the entire Christian dogma of G-d, with the Devil being his chief foe makes it a theistic religion. Let's not start talking about religion, though.
Not like they really believe it much, as a group, more like they are against the christian bits than the Lord per se But yes, back to topic.
And Ubbergeek, any cult is bad. The type of cult is actually irrelevant. May I remind you that a long time ago for you, but within my lifetime, there was a gentleman named Jim Jones. But the type of crime that a cult commits, be it dismemberment, human sacrifice, or feeding three hundred people poisoned Kool Aid doesn't matter.
Your logic is irrefutably flawed. The violation of bodies is dehumanizing, whether it contains the dehumanizing element of sexuality (Half-Orcs), the dehumanizing element of brainwashing followed by drinking poisoned kool aid (Jim Jones), or the violation of bodies with a real transfer of fantastic power at the end (Tieflings).
I present to you that you may wish to reevaluate the situations in your life that make all of us socially constructed creatures. You're treading on very dangerous ground.
-The ones that adopt black cats on Halloween, and then mutilate them, the ones that light things on fire, the ones that generally cause trouble as rabble-rousers....
...And then you wake up in a bathtub full of ice with stiches on your side.
I stopped drinking Kool-Aid after that...
There are as many differnt branches of Paganism/Satanism/Wicca, as there are Christian sects, and some are good, some are bad, and some are out-right evil - just like the Christian sects.
There are no 'good' or 'bad' religions, only 'good' or 'bad' people, and if you choose to blindly follow one of them, then you're an idiot. One should ALWAYS question authority - seeking answers is part of the learning process, not blind acceptance.
I'm being too serious for too long now... I need to go make a joke ... somewhere...
Exactly how much of this 'levels design stuff' is based off old D@D? It looks like you could just turn around and call levels 1-10 'basic', 11-20 'Expert and Companion levels' and 21+ "Masters levels". Your themes for the old D@D line are basically spot on...even your the flavor for the Paragon module being written, the author is trying to go from 'random dungeon' to 'calling in the experts', and at later levels, being the kingdom shakers.
It certainly looks as if you are bringing back some of the broader, campaign shaping themes of the Basic D@D game...and I am by no means saying that that is a bad thing.
===Aelryinth
The feminists have A VASTLY better point. **** is reality, where satanic cults aren't. One is anyway religious debate issues, where the other is nasty violence.
One reminder why D&D have problems getting female players....
The word '****' keeps getting thrown around, when its entirely possible that the women were also willing participants...this is not a conquest/subjugation thing, it's entirely possible that the female orcs who volunteered for their part in this operation were treated far, far better then they would be in the barbaric tribes dominated by their male kin.
Oh, but we always have to believe it's the female humans being victimized by brutish orcs in a war/battle setting, not an exchange of casual affairs over time and the convergence of hybrids who breed true.
Gygax generally assumed a violent birth, because all his orcs were L/C Evil. However, half-orcs were still accepted in orc tribes...but likely in any kind of free human society would have been killed at birth, if possible. So, the original origins of the half-orc would be based on the totally Evil society in which just about all of them were raised.
Also note, original orcs were NOT as physically powerful as humans...they were just totally Evil.
===Aelryinth
Yeah, I'm going to echo LK's question.
Why was it necessary to transform the Realms into
Mad Max Beyond The Forgotten Realms?
If I want post apocalyptic roleplay, I'll crack open Hero System's Post Apocalyptic Hero, or watch Fist of the North Star, Thundarr the Barbarian, or Mad Max.
How is this Dungeons and Dragons?
I want to know it too. Because yuo've just lost a lot of customers in Latin America (I'm their link to WoTC official word in Argentina).
Yeah, I'm going to echo LK's question.
Why was it necessary to transform the Realms into
Mad Max Beyond The Forgotten Realms?
If I want post apocalyptic roleplay, I'll crack open Hero System's Post Apocalyptic Hero, or watch Fist of the North Star, Thundarr the Barbarian, or Mad Max.
How is this Dungeons and Dragons?
Read the thread. Rich has answered that question a lot of times before. Asking the same thing again and again gets tiresome really fast don't you agree? ;)
And the new Realms won't be post apocalyptic in the same sense as Mad Max, they have recovered from a great disaster that changed a lot of things, but a some places have found a new stability or regained their old. I'm willing to bet that there are still many places of high culture (unlike Mad Max or most post apocalyptic settings where there are only shattered primitive cultures).
Just sayin' is all
How is this Dungeons and Dragons?
You slap the D&D logo on it - suddenly it's Dungeons & Dragons. Easy.
I want to know it too. Because yuo've just lost a lot of customers in Latin America (I'm their link to WoTC official word in Argentina).
So you decide what other people are allowed to buy?
DB
So you decide what other people are allowed to buy?
No, I inform them and everybody hated it.
Read the thread. Rich has answered that question a lot of times before. Asking the same thing again and again gets tiresome really fast don't you agree? ;)
And the new Realms won't be post apocalyptic in the same sense as Mad Max, they have recovered from a great disaster that changed a lot of things, but a some places have found a new stability or regained their old. I'm willing to bet that there are still many places of high culture (unlike Mad Max or most post apocalyptic settings where there are only shattered primitive cultures).
No, it doesn't, because we have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. We've just been told that pretty much, every PC we've ever played in the Forgotten Realms, every game we've ever run, is a complete, utter, and abject FAILURE. That's right. Our players, and their games, have been MEANINGLESS because they had absolutely NO ability to PREVENT something like this from happening, however small.
How is THAT Dungeons and Dragons? That's just kicking sand in the face of old school gamers.
The recovery
A) Doesn't happen with the aid of the PC's.
B) Contains retarded dimensional cosmic nonsense involving Dragonborn, the STUPIDEST race ever to come out of Wizards creativity drawer. What's wrong with ordinary lizardfolk? Oh, wait, that's right, you didn't READ Serpent Kingdoms, or maybe you did and were afraid.
C) Amn covets the Moonshaes? WHY? This is not a viable product market for Amn. Are you telling me that these merchants need Mcmansions for their summer homes?
D) Baldurs Gate is now the biggest city in the Realms? And the Flaming Fists just casually allowed all these people to spring up. Did Eltan explode? Military organizations like this do not simply collapse.
E) In case you haven't noticed, some of us REALLY don't like the idea of "Let's have another dimensional crisis, it's a great idea."
F) The fact that we pretty much are forced to 1) Never play a game in the Realms again, or 2) Leave all our old characters behind and say "Those were the days" unless you were an elf, then your PC's still alive, well...Wizards has pretty much convinced me that they don't want the fans to stay.
I hear Paizo has this marvelous world called Golarion. I hear that there's some other interesting material out there. Maybe they care about their customer base more than Wizards does.
Real life must be really bad for some of you folk if you need this game world so much. Just saying. FR is all about drastic change. TSR did a number on Eds world. This is nothing new. Plus the small number of people on the boards here means nothing in consumers. No matter what you all think.Which is pretty much what the British FR-RPGA community did en-mass when the Sarbreenar affair went down. When you don't like the way a company has been handling something you care about, you move on; you don't continue to hand them money.
There are a lot of really good settings out there, and I can't even chose just one. Thats why I'll probably create my own horrible mish-mosh of pasted together ideas, but at least it will be my problem, and nobody elses.
So you decide what other people are allowed to buy?
When you are the one translating all the information, it is VERY easy to put your own spin on it.
Hell, I do it ALL THE TIME... and thats with folks who speak the language! :D
I was really looking forward to going to Gencon this year and meeting a lot of the people from these boards - designers and fans alike.
But now I'm not so sure - it may get ugly.
And truth be told, I wish everyone would stop complaining about it - its not going to change a thing, and just keeps stirring the pot. If you don't like it, stick with the old material. If you like it, then buy into 4e - no ones twisting any arms here.
No, it doesn't, because we have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
No, you didn't get an answer you liked. There is a difference.
Melodrama over a game.
No, but I know several esteemed members on Candlekeep who have said they won't buy any 4E FR products. In "real life", I can give you over twenty names of fellow gamers I personally know, who were originally excited about 4E, but after reading the online articles and taking a peek at the stuff in 'Races and Classes' and 'Worlds and Monsters' they've decided to keep playing 3E until 5E comes out. Yes, this is a "small number of D&D fans", but in the end these "drops of water" may form into a pretty large "ocean" or "sea", hey?
They've lost -
France
Argentina
Great Britain...
I wonder if they have one of those NORAD-like world maps at WotC HQ, and right now lights are blinking off all over the Earth. :P
sorry... I have an over-active imagination.
No, but I know several esteemed members on Candlekeep who have said they won't buy any 4E FR products. In "real life", I can give you over twenty names of fellow gamers I personally know, who were originally excited about 4E, but after reading the online articles and taking a peek at the stuff in 'Races and Classes' and 'Worlds and Monsters' they've decided to keep playing 3E until 5E comes out. Yes, this a "small number", but in the end these "drops of water" may form together a large "sea", hey?
Weird, I personally know four hundred twenty six gamers that were going to drop D & D but were so bowled over by the preview material that they decided to buy everying 4E related. With such disparate personal experiences I wonder if WOTC isn't better off using such untested business tools like "market research". It is a little out their, but the tried and true "What the dudes hanging out at the Android's Dungeon think" method doesn't appear to be working.
The problem most of us are having is with the new FR, and can best be summed up by a quote from Jurassic Park -
Dr. Ian Malcolm: You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!
Against, authors and designers, don't take it personaly.
That's what this looks like to me. I'm AFRAID to burn the 4e FRCS now. I'm worried I might stink up the neighborhood.
Also, I feel it will help me greatly in converting my 3e realms to the 4e Rules, which I actually like.
So, it does have its merits, if not for what it is designed for. ;)
Melodrama over a game.
1. For people who have played in the Realms for 20 or so years, this is tough. If you had a hobby for that long and then you feel someone has ruined it. Its sad. Will we be able to sleep. sure. Will I express my annoyance at this. sure.
2. the small number of people on the Boards may be a microcomism of the WoTC consumer though. Not saying it is, but it could reflect the opinions of the Realms fans in general.
1. For people who have played in the Realms for 20 or so years, this is tough. If you had a hobby for that long and then you feel someone has ruined it. Its sad. Will we be able to sleep. sure. Will I express my annoyance at this. sure.
2. the small number of people on the Boards may be a microcomism of the WoTC consumer though. Not saying it is, but it could reflect the opinions of the Realms fans in general.
Well I do get how if you are never going to pick up an FR product anymore things are sad for you. If you looked foward to new products but you hate the new direction then you are in a tough predicament. Trying to be a little sensitive now in light of my last few posts. I can see the other angles that people are coming from now. I just react poorly to certain types of posts I guess. Sorry if my opinions came off as uber-snarky.
No, I inform them and everybody hated it.
The whole country? You've got feedback from every single gamer there, and they all said they hated it? I find that hard to believe.
Tell, me, Ubbergeek. Would you buy a product that came in a box made from dried dung? Would you let that touch your fingers?
That's what this looks like to me. I'm AFRAID to burn the 4e FRCS now. I'm worried I might stink up the neighborhood.
Oh, the hyperbole... Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's horrible.
If you add up the figures of all the people who under no circumstances whatsoever will even consider buying the 4e FRCS, listed by our esteemed fellow posters, I guess less people will buy it than there have been FR players in the first place :D
DB
The article actually gave a very plausible in-game explanation, and then discarded it. A real pity (there is so much you could do with Tiamat and the dragonborn if you have this tie-in). I'm curious to know what the motivation is. It sounds like a opportunity lost.
My question: what was the designers' reason to have dragonborn come from another world, rather than tie them to Realms history (Unther/Tiamat connection)?
The article actually gave a very plausible in-game explanation, and then discarded it. A real pity (there is so much you could do with Tiamat and the dragonborn if you have this tie-in). I'm curious to know what the motivation is. It sounds like a opportunity lost.
Or maybe they wanted to rid the gamers of preconscieved notions on how dragonborn should be or their lore or where they came from? Beyond changing things that already exist, something new has to be created as well...something that hasn't existed before.
Whether you like it, or not...that's a personal preference.
Weird, I personally know four hundred twenty six gamers that were going to drop D & D but were so bowled over by the preview material that they decided to buy everying 4E related.
-Four twenty six sure is a big number...
With such disparate personal experiences I wonder if WOTC isn't better off using such untested business tools like "market research".
-I've asked what kinds of business methods are used, in this thread, actually, but was not answered yet. Inquiring minds want to know.
Beyond changing things that already exist, something new has to be created as well...something that hasn't existed before.
That could be a reason but you can create something new from something old. And they actually do introduce new stuff: the changing lands are already said to contain new monsters.
I think I can (ab)use the origins explained now in my own plot ideas, so it won't turn out bad for me. But I do wonder why they choose this route. I am seriously interested in how the designers judge ideas and make decisions.
That could be a reason but you can create something new from something old. And they actually do introduce new stuff: the changing lands are already said to contain new monsters.
I think I can (ab)use the origins explained now in my own plot ideas, so it won't turn out bad for me. But I do wonder why they choose this route. I am seriously interested in how the designers judge ideas and make decisions.
I am curious too about their decisions to in light of the fact they were dumping on Unther and Mulhondri as transplanted cultures. Now they have replaced it with another one.
Also a question for Rich: Will there be a Wizards preview book for the FR or Eberron?
And I think Mulhorand still exists (?), but that deduction is merely based on the article not mentioning it at all.
In believe Rich already said there won't be any more preview books.
Then let Mr. Baker answear it...I don't mind discussion but can we aviod answearing question posed to Mr. Baker directly.
And I think Mulhorand still exists (?), but that deduction is merely based on the article not mentioning it at all.
We will see...though they have said in the past they disliked the transplanted cultures...like Mulhorand and Unther, and others.(Which insome cases I agree with). So they are getting rid of one and replacing it with another...
So they are getting rid of one and replacing it with another...
Transplanting races from one fantasy world to another fantasy world isn't quite the same as transplanting people from real-world Earth to the Realms.
Besides, this wouldn't be the first time races from other worlds have been transplanted to the Realms. A good chunk of Faerun is descended from similar transplants (although unlike the Dragonborn, I don't think they brought their cities with them), including elves.
The whole country? You've got feedback from every single gamer there, and they all said they hated it? I find that hard to believe.
Argentina's RPG market is not as big as USA, it only has two big cities where they are played and I'm member of the most important boards. I'm the only argentinian who reads this boards (except for my brother), and I'm responsible to comment the changes about the setting. There are 3 FR DMs in Buenos Aires and I know the other two.
Weird, I personally know four hundred twenty six gamers that were going to drop D & D but were so bowled over by the preview material that they decided to buy everying 4E related. With such disparate personal experiences I wonder if WOTC isn't better off using such untested business tools like "market research". It is a little out their, but the tried and true "What the dudes hanging out at the Android's Dungeon think" method doesn't appear to be working.
I'd really like to know which methods they've used in the Market Research, because it's not just about *conducting* it -- the target group, location and *how* it's done matter actually a lot. Hypothetically speaking, I assume that they interview a lot of people personally (especially at CONs), but here's the thing: most people don't behave naturally or answer honestly when they are interviewed face-to-face by an interviewer who also has a personal interest/motivation in it (i.e. they can be "identified" or feel social pressure). In such situations, most people (myself included) would often either give vague and inconsequential answers or those that they know will please the interviewer ("Uh, that 'Marco Volo'-series is... I don't know, I heard some people say they liked it and I just might run it someday if I just have the right sort of campaign idea."). Compare this to giving feedback to your teacher in front of the class. Or, even if you can give feedback in writing, would you be honest in your critique if you know that your teacher will recognize you by your style? How about if some tall and strong-looking FR fan approached you and said: "I'm gonna seriously kill anyone who claims to like 4E FR... by the way, how do you feel about it?" -- would you answer him honestly, if you saw that he's actually serious about his threat?
However, if they've conducted some research in ways which have not had any kind of "social pressure", such as by using completely "anonymous" forms (either at CONs or via Internet), it's makes a survey much more reliable.
With more then two dozen reptilian races in place in FR, what is the point of adding yet another one? I have no idea, with all the 'primal chaos' unleashed with the Spellplague, why you couldn't have taken an EXISTING race and made it fit the new Dragonborn.
Khastas, Lizard Kings, Saurials, Tren & Trogs, Nagas and Sarrukh, etc, etc - all of which could have mutated into, or created, this 'new' species.
Or this could have been a direct result of Sammaster's tampering with the Dracorage Mythal...
So many CANON ways of fitting them in... wasted.
My question: what was the designers' reason to have dragonborn come from another world, rather than tie them to Realms history (Unther/Tiamat connection)?.
Because if they did that (Tiamet/Takhisis), it would be Dragonlance.
Not that it isn't already, but they don't want to be so obvious about it.
Also, then they would have a hard time explaining their hatred of Dragons, which is the ONE AND ONLY difference between them and Draconians.
The undoing of several nonhuman pantheons and the cutback on the number of deities of Faerun will cause innumerable inconsistancies in the history of Faerun. Will the FRCS explain these changes in lore with detail? Or will a future product. What is your current plan regarding this.
Just to be clear, though: Tymanther is not a piece of Krynn, and dragonborn are not draconians.
My question: what was the designers' reason to have dragonborn come from another world, rather than tie them to Realms history (Unther/Tiamat connection)?
The article actually gave a very plausible in-game explanation, and then discarded it. A real pity (there is so much you could do with Tiamat and the dragonborn if you have this tie-in). I'm curious to know what the motivation is. It sounds like a opportunity lost.
I am curious too about their decisions to in light of the fact they were dumping on Unther and Mulhondri as transplanted cultures. Now they have replaced it with another one.
Also a question for Rich: Will there be a Wizards preview book for the FR or Eberron?
Question for Mr. Richard Baker
The undoing of several nonhuman pantheons and the cutback on the number of deities of Faerun will cause innumerable inconsistancies in the history of Faerun. Will the FRCS explain these changes in lore with detail? Or will a future product. What is your current plan regarding this.
Most of the pantheon changes we've got in mind take place "in continuity" and are explained in the new FR Campaign Guide. In other words, events that take place between the current year of the setting and the year of the new setting explain almost all of the changes. There might be a couple of exceptions, but we're trying to avoid "retcon" wherever possible. (Halfling height is an example of retcon we likely wouldn't avoid, because I don't think I can convince you all that the Spellplague made halflings grow 6 inches all across Faerun. Better to say they were always that tall, and move on.)
Ahh, thank you very much. It makes me feel MUCH better when I know at least there are in-game explanations to the discrepencies which occur with edition change.
(I sort of feel that I've been explaining the why for a while now. I haven't touched on *every* factor in our reasoning because some of these are things I shouldn't discuss outside the office. When Bill writes his piece, he may be able to shed a little more light on matters.)
As far as why certain places were highlighted in this specific article...I will point out that folks here in this thread begged me to tell them about a) someplace that hasn't been "ruined"; b) someplace where people are better off in the new edition than the old; and c) something entirely new. Hence my decision to tell you a little bit about the Sword Coast, Cormyr, and Tymanther.
Remember, it's a preview. You've only seen half of the story on Tymanther (in that the question of *where* they came from and why they appeared is deliberately avoided). There's more coming.
I got a question about this. In the prologue to The Orc King, Drizzt talked about "the discordant and disastrous joining of two worlds". Is this what he was referring to?
I've asked what kinds of business methods are used, in this thread, actually, but was not answered yet. Inquiring minds want to know.
A business that doesn't want to share their trade secrets with the public? Weird.
Well I do get how if you are never going to pick up an FR product anymore things are sad for you. If you looked foward to new products but you hate the new direction then you are in a tough predicament. Trying to be a little sensitive now in light of my last few posts. I can see the other angles that people are coming from now. I just react poorly to certain types of posts I guess. Sorry if my opinions came off as uber-snarky.
s'ok. We all have our take on things and yours is just as valid as mine for sure. I was just trying to explain why I'm annoyed by this and why I think its a very bad decision
We've just been told that pretty much, every PC we've ever played in the Forgotten Realms, every game we've ever run, is a complete, utter, and abject FAILURE. That's right. Our players, and their games, have been MEANINGLESS because they had absolutely NO ability to PREVENT something like this from happening, however small.
Lies, lies and more lies.
Is there a quote to back up your fabrications?
Didn't think so.
* You've never tried to engage a moviemaker or computer game producer with the setting; I've seen those conversations a time or two. It's harder than it looks...
Rich,
Who at WotC deals with movie makers? I would have assumed that HPG handled all those sorts of things. (Hasbro Properties Group)
Lies, lies and more lies.
Is there a quote to back up your fabrications?
Didn't think so.
do you know of any PC that prevented the Spellplague? Well?
Didn't think so
do you know of any PC that prevented the Spellplague? Well? Didn't think so
oooohh, you really got me there.
Do you know of any rule in any game edition keeping a DM from deciding what to use and what not to?
Do you know of anything that stops DMs from continuing to run their 3E games in perpetuity, regardless of what 4E does?
No?
I'm considering the possibility of giving the (Epic) characters in my game a shot at thwarting Cyric....thank god Msatran's claims are little more than lies, else I'd not be able to do this.
Because if that is not what he is saying, then he is agreeing with msatran that everything the PCs do in our current campaigns just became completely meaningless, since the future is set in stone.
You really can't have your cake and eat it too, and you really can't camplain CONSTANTLY about the constant complaining. In fact, until this new lore was released, the whining had practically ground to a standstill, with just a couple of people continuing to push it. The last two weeks, the ONLY whining I remember seeing was by people complaining about all the naysaying, which was no longer happening at any appreciable level.
Of course NOW, the floodgates have once again opened up.
I don't like the new setting, I won't use the new setting, but I will continue to love the Realms. After all, isn't that why we are all here? ;)
Of course NOW, the floodgates have once again opened up.
And this time it's worse, because WoTC proved we were right. I'm just hoping this blows in their faces and they don't sell anything past the CS.
This is an 'all or nothing' scenario, I'm thinking, and the designers have gone "all in", with the river card about to be flipped....
I'm afraid, my friend, that that would spell the end of the Realms for good.
This is an 'all or nothing' scenario, I'm thinking, and the designers have gone "all in", with the river card about to be flipped....
And they'll get nothing. Which will be good for us. I'm begining to sharp my "I told you so" finger.
I would politely ask that you seriously consider trimming your signature, or stuffing it into a spoiler tag or something. It's a bit... tedious that your posts take up an entire screen when they are only 1 line long. :D
Maybe, what he is saying, is that if one of our groups of PCs does something amazing in our home game, and STOPS the Spellplague, it would force WotC to change the future and wrap it around what happened.
Because if that is not what he is saying, then he is agreeing with msatran that everything the PCs do in our current campaigns just became completely meaningless, since the future is set in stone.
You really can't have your cake and eat it too, and you really can't camplain CONSTANTLY about the constant complaining. In fact, until this new lore was released, the whining had practically ground to a standstill, with just a couple of people continuing to push it. The last two weeks, the ONLY whining I remember seeing was by people complaining about all the naysaying, which was no longer happening at any appreciable level.
Of course NOW, the floodgates have once again opened up.
I don't like the new setting, I won't use the new setting, but I will continue to love the Realms. After all, isn't that why we are all here? ;)
I bow to you superior wisdom.
However, I will be more willing to give the new setting a chance by buying the CS and seeing what it's got. If it disappoints me, I'm going homebrew.
I will however, continue to avidly pursue the novels (which most of the time I just read in Barnes and Nobles anyway)
Remember, it's a preview. You've only seen half of the story on Tymanther (in that the question of *where* they came from and why they appeared is deliberately avoided). There's more coming.
Just to be clear, though: Tymanther is not a piece of Krynn, and dragonborn are not draconians.
-Could it be Abeir?
Oh, and one more thing I'll add: I believe that Bill Slavicsek is planning to address the "Why?" question in his Ampersand column. I'm not sure exactly when that will be, but I think it'll be sometime in the next couple of weeks.
(I sort of feel that I've been explaining the why for a while now. I haven't touched on *every* factor in our reasoning because some of these are things I shouldn't discuss outside the office. When Bill writes his piece, he may be able to shed a little more light on matters.)
As far as why certain places were highlighted in this specific article...I will point out that folks here in this thread begged me to tell them about a) someplace that hasn't been "ruined"; b) someplace where people are better off in the new edition than the old; and c) something entirely new. Hence my decision to tell you a little bit about the Sword Coast, Cormyr, and Tymanther.
-Thanks Rich, but you still need to be stopped!!!;) :P :D
-I am joking ok
LORD DELTA:fight!:
oooohh, you really got me there.
Do you know of any rule in any game edition keeping a DM from deciding what to use and what not to?
Do you know of anything that stops DMs from continuing to run their 3E games in perpetuity, regardless of what 4E does?
No?
I'm considering the possibility of giving the (Epic) characters in my game a shot at thwarting Cyric....thank god Msatran's claims are little more than lies, else I'd not be able to do this.
-I've told you this in another thread, and I'll repeat myself. It's his perogative to follow the canon as closely as he wants, just like it's yours not to. If his campaign has a rule where every month that passes is a year in the Realms, or whatever, he is invariably going to campaign until 1385 DR. He can complain all he wants about it.
Had to say it. Heh.
It was a good article in general. I prefer lizardfolk to dragonborn however.
Hello Rich,
I have two questions for you:
1) You mentioned that the 'old Forgotten Realms' was too disparate a setting. The way you described it was that it was impossible to summarize in one sentence what made the 'old FR' unique. I would probably have said something like, "Forgotten Realms is a setting defined by unparalleled diversity that is deeply rooted in history and lore". I suppose that means that the "old Realms" could be defined precisely by lacking a narrower focus, which may or may not be an acceptable way to define a setting. This leads me to the question that stems from the above paragraph. Could you please give us a one sentence (or a very short) statement on what focus defines the 'new Realms"?
2) I am just wondering if there is any news on the computer game front, particularly a game tied to the world-shaking events that will shape the "new FR". I don't really expect that there is more information - it has only been a month or so since I last asked and there were the holidays in the interim, but I am excited by the prospect and one never knows what could have precipitated.
Thank you, Rich, for answering all of these questions for us. You are truly a paragon* of communication.
*I suppose to be epic, you would need to live online. ;)
I'm really looking forward to 4e Forgotten Realms! I'm interested in whether the Far Realm will make an appearance in the Realms in this edition and whether alienist-style casters will be playable in the setting. Maybe something like a warlock pact with the Aboleths (who may be rising?)
Thanks!
-Friendlyfish
do you know of any PC that prevented the Spellplague? Well?
No PC's prevented the Time of Troubles, either. Or killed Cyric before he ascended to godhood. Or saved the lives of King Azoun and Tanalasta. Or prevented Bane from returning.
This kind of complaint is silly because this is something that's true of every single campaign setting that's ever been published which has had an advancing timeline. The events of every campaign are meaningless as far as the established canon is concerned because it's impossible to keep track of them all, or account for them. And frankly, it's not the job of the game company to take the events of your particular campaign and make them canon. It's up to the players to decide what is and what isn't canon, and proceed with their campaign however they like.
It's his perogative to follow the canon as closely as he wants
Absolutely. But it's unreasonable to complain about your PC's not having an effect on the published canon, as that has never been the case, ever. It's common sense. If you're going to play in a campaign setting which has an advancing timeline, then you have to accept one of two things. Either 1) You're not going to be sticking 100% to established canon, because your campaign will deviate from that canon at some point, or 2) You're going to stick to established canon no matter what, in which case the actions of your PC's are meaningless, because no matter how much you'd like it to be the case, your player group can't dictate what should and shouldn't be canon.
No PC's prevented the Time of Troubles, either. Or killed Cyric before he ascended to godhood. Or saved the lives of King Azoun and Tanalasta. Or prevented Bane from returning.
Most of those were very minor in scale compared to the Spell Plague and the 100(well just about) TLA. The PCs could actualy do any and all of those things and the future soucebooks will still be uiseful to a certain extent. (with the possible exception of the ToT as that happened very quickly, but it also had very little effect on the Realms as a whole). But the main point is that with very little adjustment the souce books still prove useful.
But if PCs say stop the Spell plague or the Shades take over of Sembia(I actualy currently have a PC who is going to fight this very hard in msatran's game) or ignores the Dragonborn entry into the Realms because you think that dragon type creatures should be very rare...then suddenly those books become very useless.
So personaly from a bussiness prospective I don't think these books will sell well.
This kind of complaint is silly because this is something that's true of every single campaign setting that's ever been published which has had an advancing timeline. The events of every campaign are meaningless as far as the established canon is concerned because it's impossible to keep track of them all, or account for them. And frankly, it's not the job of the game company to take the events of your particular campaign and make them canon. It's up to the players to decide what is and what isn't canon, and proceed with their campaign however they like.
Actualy again a RPG campaign setting with a advancing timeline doesn't have have those problems at all...but when you treat it more like a shared world for novelists you will have these problems. That is part of the problem they did most of these changes for the idea of writing novels...not for a RPG...which is what I think their main mistake is.
Absolutely. But it's unreasonable to complain about your PC's not having an effect on the published canon, as that has never been the case, ever. It's common sense. If you're going to play in a campaign setting which has an advancing timeline, then you have to accept one of two things. Either 1) You're not going to be sticking 100% to established canon, because your campaign will deviate from that canon at some point, or 2) You're going to stick to established canon no matter what, in which case the actions of your PC's are meaningless, because no matter how much you'd like it to be the case, your player group can't dictate what should and shouldn't be canon.
Again sure you don't have to follow canon at all...but then why buy anything outside of the main Campign setting book? Personaly I right now just wished brought very little of the 3.5 stuff because I barely even touched it and now it is all pretty much garbagew if I want to keep up to date.
My pc saved a few people here and there. He never failed at that.;) How MS runs a game and how every other DM I have met (including myself) runs a game must be totally different. MS seems to be bound ny some canon-curse while others are free to use their imaginations to come up with interesting, free flowing campaigns. I could be wrong though.
You know you starting to get insultive here so I'll spell this out to you again.
msatran runs a very long running living campaign world for about 20 years. To do this the game constantly needs fresh blood(even I have only been playing in the game for about 12 years now). He has to have done a lot of back flips and use a imagination like we wouldn't believe to accomandate older players so their actions means something and keep the game close to canon as possible so that new players wouldn't be completely lost when the start playing.
He has been doing a great balancing act of running the game. Balancing between about 15 different players and about 15 different campaigns all running about the same time(some are reguglarly runned most are pick ups). And with this change to the Realms WotC has pretty much just come over and gived him a shoved. Sure they really didn't do this intentionaly...meaning it wasn't personal... but WotC's edition change definitly is not friendly towards game like msatran runs...or for I game I enjoy playing in.
Does he sometimes let his passion runaway from him at times...sure. But in my opinion not only is this forgivable, but should be expected.
Maybe if I give a example you might understand things better. As mentioned before I have a Sembian character who has learned about the start of the Shades bid to take over Sembia...the character has full intentions on stopping this.( I don't think even msatran is prepared for all the things the character is prepared to do....).
Now Mike hasd two options...
1) He could run it straight and if my character fails I fail...if the character succeds I succeed. I am happy...it will be a fun campaign(or multiple as the character might start recruiting others to help). But if the character succeeds suddenly 4th edition Realm's soucebooks suddenly gain a very large holes in useful material...and well having a continueing souce of useful material is also very much needed for a game like this.
2) No matter what my characters does it is met with failure...and that very large hole doesn't exist.
Which option you would take. 1 is the right one in my opinion...but eventualy though normal gamer attrition his game will die because it will be harder to attract new players.
While I keep a open mind about other playing styles...and have said many times before their is no right way to play D&D...in my opinion if you have never played in a game like msatran's you have really never played in a D&D game before. Sure the quick campaigns that follow a central storyline and such can be fun...it just is more enjoyable because of the continaution of characters. You really can't get that in any other medium. D&D is the one game that doesn't have to end...and I think that is gone now. Did some of the changes needed to happen...sure but they could have definitly done it in a friendlier way to all gaming styles. That was in my opinion the real factor why the FR and D&D have been so popular is because they are not focused.
Mr.Baker and others I am sorry about the length of this post, but I think some of you really don't have a clue why some of us are upset about the changes. And I think it is very relevent to this.
Most of those were very minor in scale compared to the Spell Plague and the 100(well just about) TLA. The PCs could actualy do any and all of those things and the future soucebooks will still be uiseful to a certain extent.
Depends what you do in your campaign. For instance, what if one PC group declared war on the Zhentarim and managed to wipe them out, and blew Zhentil Keep right off the map? Any future books that come out featuring the Zhents as major villains would be pretty damn near useless to them.
Actualy again a RPG campaign setting with a advancing timeline doesn't have have those problems at all...
Of course they do. If you've got an advancing timeline, then things change. And odds are, something is going to conflict with events in your game. Remember, one groups hiccup is another groups cluster****. Whether it be things like Palladium blowing up the city of Tolkeen or White Wolf blowing up the World of Darkness in its entirety. Every single campaign setting published by anybody, which has advanced the timeline, has always done something in the timeline which has contradicted someone's home game pretty badly.
That is part of the problem they did most of these changes for the idea of writing novels...not for a RPG...which is what I think their main mistake is.
I think it's been made pretty clear that the changes were made for the sake of the RPG, and not the novels. I very much doubt Ed Greenwood, R.A. Salvatore, Elaine Cunningham, etc, are happy about having to eliminate a good number of their favorite characters for the sake of the RPG. Elaine, especially, who'll likely lose her signature character (Elminster's immortal, and Drizzt is a long-lived Drow, but Arilyn? Tough luck, ma'am
). Again sure you don't have to follow canon at all...but then why buy anything outside of the main Campign setting book?
To see what could be added to your current campaign. That's what my friends and I did. We'd pick a point to start our campaign from, play from there, and buy books as they came out. We'd flip through, and then the DM would say "Okay, this, this, and this happened. Not that, because you guys already did that. Ok, let's play". Not to mention that when you started a new campaign, what wasn't canon in one campaign became canon in the next.
Personaly I right now just wished brought very little of the 3.5 stuff because I barely even touched it and now it is all pretty much garbagew if I want to keep up to date.
Well, if you're willing to sell them cheap, then I'm willing to buy them. I'm trying to buy up every last 3E Realms book before the edition changeover (I'm still kicking myself for all the 2E and 3E books I've sold on eBay). You may not get much play out of them, but trust me, I will.
1 is the right one in my opinion...but eventualy though normal gamer attrition his game will die because it will be harder to attract new players.
I don't really see this as a problem due to the 100 year leap. From what I can tell of your game, you're going to have zero need for the books. So does it really matter what the FRCG says if you're still 90+ years away from being in that time period? If you need to recruit new players, then all they need is the PHB. If msatran really felt the need, he could write up his own FRCG. Take information from the current FRCS and update it as need be. Then pass out printed copies to anyone who needs it. Where there's a will, there's a way, and other applicable cliche's.
While I keep a open mind about other playing styles...and have said many times before their is no right way to play D&D...in my opinion if you have never played in a game like msatran's you have really never played in a D&D game before.
By that definition, 99% of this board hasn't played D&D.
If it's a hardship on your campaign, then that's a shame, but if that's the case then it's because you have an extremely unusual campaign. When you got something so far out of the norm, then you shouldn't be surprised when things don't go your way.
*gets stabbed in the back*
*wipes his blade clean*
What?
What are the core themes of the Realms, and how will the 4th Edition Realms focus on those better?
Also, kudos for continuing to come on here and answer questions, to what might be charitably described as a bit of a hostile crowd!
pic 1
pic 2
(From the Moonshaes article)
You know you starting to get insultive here so I'll spell this out to you again.
msatran runs a very long running living campaign world for about 20 years. To do this the game constantly needs fresh blood(even I have only been playing in the game for about 12 years now). He has to have done a lot of back flips and use a imagination like we wouldn't believe to accomandate older players so their actions means something and keep the game close to canon as possible so that new players wouldn't be completely lost when the start playing.
He has been doing a great balancing act of running the game. Balancing between about 15 different players and about 15 different campaigns all running about the same time(some are reguglarly runned most are pick ups). And with this change to the Realms WotC has pretty much just come over and gived him a shoved. Sure they really didn't do this intentionaly...meaning it wasn't personal... but WotC's edition change definitly is not friendly towards game like msatran runs...or for I game I enjoy playing in.
Does he sometimes let his passion runaway from him at times...sure. But in my opinion not only is this forgivable, but should be expected.
Maybe if I give a example you might understand things better. As mentioned before I have a Sembian character who has learned about the start of the Shades bid to take over Sembia...the character has full intentions on stopping this.( I don't think even msatran is prepared for all the things the character is prepared to do....).
Now Mike hasd two options...
1) He could run it straight and if my character fails I fail...if the character succeds I succeed. I am happy...it will be a fun campaign(or multiple as the character might start recruiting others to help). But if the character succeeds suddenly 4th edition Realm's soucebooks suddenly gain a very large holes in useful material...and well having a continueing souce of useful material is also very much needed for a game like this.
2) No matter what my characters does it is met with failure...and that very large hole doesn't exist.
Which option you would take. 1 is the right one in my opinion...but eventualy though normal gamer attrition his game will die because it will be harder to attract new players.
While I keep a open mind about other playing styles...and have said many times before their is no right way to play D&D...in my opinion if you have never played in a game like msatran's you have really never played in a D&D game before. Sure the quick campaigns that follow a central storyline and such can be fun...it just is more enjoyable because of the continaution of characters. You really can't get that in any other medium. D&D is the one game that doesn't have to end...and I think that is gone now. Did some of the changes needed to happen...sure but they could have definitly done it in a friendlier way to all gaming styles. That was in my opinion the real factor why the FR and D&D have been so popular is because they are not focused.
Mr.Baker and others I am sorry about the length of this post, but I think some of you really don't have a clue why some of us are upset about the changes. And I think it is very relevent to this.
Well tough luck. Any kind of published material can differ from how you want things to work out in your campaign. I'm coming to believe the only way people like msatran could be satisfied is if there would be nothing significant happening in FR novels, adventures or game supplements at all. Where is the difference to new novels changing stuff all the time? Forget about the time skip of the new Realms for a moment and imagine this: your character might want to save Sembia from the Shade influence, but there is a new novel anounced in which the Shades take over Sembia. What would you (or your DM) do? Stray from the canon? I sure hope so.
And no, i don't think msatrans continuning 'emotional outlets' are forgivable. His hostile and insluting (to the designers) trolling just sucks and gets on my nerves.
Do you know of any rule in any game edition keeping a DM from deciding what to use and what not to?
Do you know of anything that stops DMs from continuing to run their 3E games in perpetuity, regardless of what 4E does?
again, you're missing the point. Of course, we don't have to follow along into 4e. What you fail to comprehend is that many of us would like to be able to buy supplements, sourcebooks and the like and have them relevant. We don't want to get left behind, but that is what they are doing to us
Yo, homes! What's your name!
My name's Ty Manther! From Un thaaa!!! Bring it down, yo!
That don't sound like a hood name. What's that funny frill around your head? And what's Un thaaa?
That's the land that used to be here before Ty Manther! My mamma always liked to name things simple.
This is not the opinion of the Author, nor should it be the opinion of Wizards of the Coast, or any of you.
Well tough luck. Any kind of published material can differ from how you want things to work out in your campaign. I'm coming to believe the only way people like msatran could be satisfied is if there would be nothing significant happening in FR novels, adventures or game supplements at all. Where is the difference to new novels changing stuff all the time? Forget about the time skip of the new Realms for a moment and imagine this: your character might want to save Sembia from the Shade influence, but there is a new novel anounced in which the Shades take over Sembia. What would you (or your DM) do? Stray from the canon? I sure hope so.
And no, i don't think msatrans continuning 'emotional outlets' are forgivable. His hostile and insluting (to the designers) trolling just sucks and gets on my nerves.
You know, we've spent a lot of time asking for a timefreeze so that the past could be explored and more interesting events in history could be given more detail and time. And do you want to know what? That would make it more like Eberron and give us what we want because then the timeline wouldn't be advanced!
That's what a "Campaign Setting" used to be, you know. The PAST was clearly defined. The FUTURE wasn't.
So, let's start with you. Your hostile and insulting attitude gets on my nerves, too. Your reverence for and inability to question game designers as if they can do no wrong speaks ill of you as a human being, and your lack of respect for tradition, quite frankly, is one of the reasons I find all the 4e talk so offensive. "If it's new, it must be better" seems to be the new mantra of the entire world, not just Wizards of the Coast, and it's not grounded in logic. It's not grounded in analysis. It's grounded in arcane (And by this I do not mean the D+D definition of the world) Market Research, which usually fails. It's grounded in naked self interest, callous cash payment, a world without stories, or the love that went into them. It's grounded in that Marvel/DC comics logic of "Well, clearly we can't rewrite everything without a cosmic crisis!" And you know how well that's been turning out for them.
There's a book called "Ruin the Sacred Truths." You should read it.
Some of us like things to make sense. Well, this doesn't make sense, and quite frankly, your attitude doesn't either.
The part that you're missing about me is that the 4th edition MECHANICS will sink or swim on their own. That's just rules. But this hardwires the flavor into the rules in a way that basically sinks my players characters, takes their concepts and says "All that fun we had isn't fun anymore. You guys failed. Get with the program or get off the boat."
That's the message that Wizards of the Coast is sending to long time gaming groups. That's not a way to promote unity in your gaming group, or any of those other things. If you hear dissonance in my voice, it's because I don't like being treated like an outsider for paying attention to the very things I was always told, as a DM, to pay attention to, things like detail and character development and the intricacy of a character's concept to a gameworld.
I like what they did with Thay; I just hope it didn't change the Red Wizards themselves much. A bunch of evil spell-casters living atop a remote plateau is pretty cool, and the whole 'Thaymart' concept was a little off for them (although I DID like certain aspects of it). I was never a huge fan of Halrua, but I'm sorry to see it go - a bunch of marshallly-minded types living in a floating fortress? I think thats been done, too -
So they're wizards, and their home floats a little higher
Question:
Is Chult going to remain untouched? I always felt it was the 'odd man out' in Faerûn, and after Maztica and Malatra were added to FR, it seemed even more out of place and a bit redundant. On top of that, we now have Katashaka as an official part of the setting, so I'm sure we will get even more 'jungle/Savanna' regions with that. So... any chance Chult just 'breaks off' and floats away... please? :D
Rich, thanks for the info trying to address our questions and concerns. I realize the feedback from the "Countdown" article wasn't quite what you were hoping for, but I acknowledge you were trying to give people what they were asking for, and I am grateful for that.
I second this sentiment.
Despite how we all may feel about the new setting, Rich comes here, facing all of us, nearly everyday to field our questions. Now, we may not like what we are hearing, but that is no reason to be rude about it.
I, for one, appreciate whatever info we receive about the 4e Realms, no matter how we may feel about it, and I think we should all take a moment to thank Rich for putting up with us.
Try to remember, 4e was a group decision - don't SHOOT the messenger, guys. ;)
That is pretty extreme. I am not saying that is a bad thing, it is just an extremely rare thing. I would think the average consumer is a casual gamer trying to get just one maybe two games in at the same time.
Anyway my comments are about making your games be tied to canon. If canon runs your 100% then that will definitly cause some problems for any DM. Not everything that comes out in a gaming product is for anyone, be that FR, EB or any other gaming supplement. All I am saying really is that the only people who can ruin a campaign is the DM and or players.
Mostly the DM though. He/she has total control over what happens in a game, from rules to storyline to what amount of canon they wish to use to what monsters and traps are encountered ect. The DM is the only one who can mess with a game, not the publishers of a gaming product. Personal accountability in a DM is crucial for a decent game, just like it is important in real life. ;)
My first campaign was set in FR. I realize now it was pretty much a light railroadfest. The players were happy though for the most part so it worked out. My 2nd game is set in Eberron and Ilearned my lesseon from the previous game. I don't plan too much ahead and the players have lots of say in what happens just by their actions. My next FR game (sometime next year)
will be the same as my current style. If I don't like something in a book I gnore it or add my own spin on it. I also only have one gaming group with 5 players that only meet once a week. We all have families or relationships and work gets in the way of gaming. Anyway that is where I am coming from as a DM/gamer. If I/we could play more then it would happen though. Time/responsiblity constraints just get in the way.
Anyway FR has been about change (and drastic ones at that) since the start of 2E. TOT saw that all assassins were killed. They didn't lose their class, they died! Magic Dead zones and gods dying ruined cities. After the TOT Tilveton was wiped out and Zhentil Keep was totally buggered at one point.
Gods have been dying alot here and there as well, and new ones have taken their places. NPCs dying is also a real possibility in the Realms. Anyway FR is about change. Eberron is the snapshot campaign, that is about the "now" and about building on the past. That is the game where the DM has total control over lore. I am not saying folks should run out and buy the EB book for this reason, just pointing out the two worlds styles.
By that definition, 99% of this board hasn't played D&D.
If it's a hardship on your campaign, then that's a shame, but if that's the case then it's because you have an extremely unusual campaign. When you got something so far out of the norm, then you shouldn't be surprised when things don't go your way.
I disagree that this game is that rare or unusual.
"A tardy man gets a little behind if he does not get on the bus"
Sometimes, greater opportunity awaits those who follow an unexpected path. ;)
I disagree that this game is that rare or unusual.
A thread asking the question of how long peoples campaigns tend to last might be a good idea.
And I'm serious about buying your 3E FR books. :P If you're interested in selling them, then PM me with a list of what books you want to offload, what you're willing to sell them for, and the condition they're in.
Just a comment this time around... if this is an indication of what to expect from the artistic style of the upcoming 4E Realms, color me impressed!
pic 1
pic 2
(From the Moonshaes article)
Yeah, that is nice. Did you take a close look at the second picture, though?
Who's this guy? Or rather... what is he? ;)
A thread asking the question of how long peoples campaigns tend to last might be a good idea.
And I'm serious about buying your 3E FR books. :P If you're interested in selling them, then PM me with a list of what books you want to offload, what you're willing to sell them for, and the condition they're in.
Yeah, that is nice. Did you take a close look at the second picture, though?
Who's this guy? Or rather... what is he? ;)
He's an illegal alien!!!:P
He's an illegal alien!!!:P
He's there to do the jobs the Ffolk won't do.:D
He's there to do the jobs the Ffolk won't do.:D
That or he's going to mug the faeries....
Or maybe its the Swamp Thing - I hear he hangs with the 4e Hobbits. :P
Either way, he appears to be 'touching' himself. ;)
EDIT: I didn't notice this before, but shouldn't those people to the left be falling over?
I thought, at first, it was just one of those funny, Batman-style, tilted pics, but then I noticed the Faeries are standing perfectly straight.
Most peculiar....
PS: People, please don't quote and include the pic, unless its on a different page - its completely uneccessary.
Ffolk do not believe in Gravity, thus it does not effect them. Ha ha ha, simple barbarians.
-If only it were that simple...
Why does that pic remind me of the final scene of Close Encounters of the Third Kind?
Before or after the **** probing? If before I imagine that large guy with the viking helmet will scream loudly....like a sissy girl even.
The greencapped chap looks like a leprechaun to me. (I have a +25 spot check...)
-That would be PERCEPTION in $E.
LORD DELTA:fight!:
The greencapped chap looks like a leprechaun to me. (I have a +25 spot check...)
What's Spanish for Leprechan?
What you fail to comprehend is that many of us would like to be able to buy supplements, sourcebooks and the like and have them relevant.
Then buy the sourcebooks. Support the Forgotten Realms!
We don't want to get left behind, but that is what they are doing to us
I can appreciate wanting new products to be relevant to games also. I'm sorry you feel left behind. That's a legitimate feeling under the circumstances.
But I don't feel like we're being left behind.
I like the Realms. I like learning about it. I'm no loremaster for the Realms (too much of a negative connotation attached to it, unless one is Ed, Eric or Brian), but that's OK.
It's just that I've also accepted that the Realms are undeniably tied to the Dungeons and Dragons game. If that game changes, so must the Realms.
I have my friends, my game books and my love of the Realms.
That doesn't go away just because of the far too radical changes WotC is implementing to the setting.
-I've told you this in another thread, and I'll repeat myself. It's his perogative to follow the canon as closely as he wants,
Never, ever disagreed with that.
I'm dissapointed and embarrased that such hugely wild, off-base claims like msatran's find their way from Realms fandom to this forum.
I shouldn't be surprised, given the stupidity found on the Realms-L list by otherwise highly educated individuals, back when 2E changed over to 3E.
How is it WotC's responsibility to account for msatran's own decisions?
But that's just it...it's not, and never has been, WotC job. Any DM who slaves their game to Canon lore should rightly expect that lore to run their game.
:::::::
The WotC message boards are not anyone's scratching post in which to drop their stress into. It's obvious that's what's happening here.
As soon as the stupidity stops here, it will stop being mine.
Never, ever disagreed with that.
I'm dissapointed and embarrased that such hugely wild, off-base claims like msatran's find their way from Realms fandom to this forum.
I shouldn't be surprised, given the stupidity found on the Realms-L list by otherwise highly educated individuals, back when 2E changed over to 3E.
How is it WotC's responsibility to account for msatran's own decisions?
But that's just it...it's not, and never has been, WotC job. Any DM who slaves their game to Canon lore should rightly expect that lore to run their game.
:::::::
The WotC message boards are not anyone's scratching post in which to drop their stress into. It's obvious that's what's happening here.
As soon as the stupidity stops here, it will stop being mine.
Mr. Miscellany,
Just stop. It's getting obnoxious.
Msatran,
I don't like 4e either, but tone down the hyperbole. I don't think it helps you make your case, and it makes Miscellany cry for some reason.
Rich Baker,
Thanks for answering my questions.
It's just that I've also accepted that the Realms are undeniably tied to the Dungeons and Dragons game. If that game changes, so must the Realms.
Okay, I agree with some of that, but...
Why didn't Eberron need to change at all?
Do you really believe ALL of this was neccessary?
Sure, a lot of changes needed to be made to allow the new rules to work, but certainly nothing as drastic as what has occurred.
And the century time-jump was a pretty heavy-handed 'Lucifer's Hammer' to make these changes, which could have been minor, as Eberron and James Wyatt will prove.
I suppose a lot of it has to do with the fact that Eberron is still young, and doesn't need a 'Deux ex Machina' to bring in new blood. However, they shouldn't say it's because of the 4e rules - I LIKE those rules (from what I've seen), and I think BLAMING them for this is just casting a disparaging light upon something that many of us 'old-timers' would have gladly excepted otherwise.
But whatever... whats done is done... all we can do now is "board up the windows" and wait for the storm to blow over.
What's Spanish for Leprechan?
Duende or Gnomo.
I personally don't like 4ed skills. Perception as spot. Not soon anyway.
I personally don't like 4ed skills. Perception as spot. Not soon anyway.
-I think that's believable.
Duende or Gnomo.
A more direct translation would be Fabricante del zapato, since a Leprechaun translates literally to mean 'Shoe Maker' from Gaelic, just as his cousin, the Clurichaun is a 'beer maker'.
I prefer the second type myself - much more useful. ;)
I personally don't like 4ed skills. Perception as spot. Not soon anyway.
I don't mind them trimming the skills down - if there is anything I think should remain in my game, I can always put it back in. Adding to the rules is easy; it's taking stuff out that becomes a chore.
Remember, the new system is still D20, and anything we liked about 3e we can always still use... how hard can it possibly be?
Thanks.
It's just that I've also accepted that the Realms are undeniably tied to the Dungeons and Dragons game. If that game changes, so must the Realms.
I have my friends, my game books and my love of the Realms.
That doesn't go away just because of the far too radical changes WotC is implementing to the setting.
Good for you. For others, these "far too radical" chnages do leave them behind
Good for you. For others, these "far too radical" chnages do leave them behind
If they are left behind, it's their fault for not getting on the train.:P
Anytime you have a setting with an advancing timeline and a metaplot this will happen.
Post nice!
I know that this is one long post, but I *truly* wish that you'll read it through and reply to my concerns and questions.
After reading the FR "preview" article, I feel that I just *have* to comment on it. As I know that you're not overly-sensitive to negative feedback (unlike some other WoTC freelancers and staff members), I'm going to be brutally honest with my critique. Also note that I'm not blaming you in any way (*damn* you, Chris Perkins, *damn you*! ;)) or claiming that you've "destroyed the Realms". I’m not even angry anymore –- sad, disappointed and depressed, yes, but not angry. And I very well realize that what I don't find interesting or appealing, may be "cool" and “fun” for 99% of the new (and/or old) 4E fans.
Here's the thing: Judging by what has been reveled in your article, 'The Orc King' and GHoTR, I think that the FR Design Team has taken the "easy way out" in just about *everything* in 4E FR. In the article I found some “holes” you could fly a Halruaan Skyship through –- at least judging by my own logic (let me return on this issue below).
I know that this is not the end product, and you have counseled me to "wait and see" until the books come out, yet in my profession I have to read and analyze a *lot* of books –- often only on the basis of a short description or review -- and thus I've developed a pretty good "feeling" or "instinct" for what I'll like and what I won't. This 4E FR does not have that same "feel" or “spirit” as the Realms I've come to love -- not even a *hint* of it. Dungeons and ruins and opportunities for adventure may lie around every corner and it may – yet they already *did* without the need for such profound changes (yet I understand that you had commercial reasons for this, so I’m not dwelling on the *why*). It's just seems to be a *new* and *completely* unfamiliar and unrecognisable setting with the FR logo slapped on it (and Drizzt and Elminster lurking around just because they’re profitable “cash cows”). Not even the “sick art” we’ve been promised will make it any more appealing to me.
The fact is that even if Ed Greenwood himself wrote the *whole* FRCG and Player’s Guide, I don’t believe that even he could “salvage” the Realms (or apply “enough” damage control) for me and my friends. I mean, the whole “basic premise” and “design philosophy” are so “off the course” that I don’t even know where to begin. It's not about any kind of "fear of change" or even that all my existing FR accessories will be "outdated" or "obsolete" -- it's because these changes are so massive and frankly, quite badly-written and planned/thought out. .
It’s almost like someone made a list of things that “must be eliminated to make FR *cooler*” and then you guys just used whatever reasons/methods first popped up in mind (“Uh, maybe this is not logical, but it’d be so *cool*, and nobody’s gonna care about realism anyway that much!”) without any rhyme or reason. Let me repeat: to me 4E Realms –- judging by this article –- smack of bad writing, lazy “brainstorming”/planning and poor adaptation/employing of previously published Realmslore. I mean, "Magical Terrain" becoming common... forests that fly and clouds that spit fire? An empire of these Dragonborn just “whisked” into the Realms, out of the blue? Thay, Unther, Mulhorand… gone? Waterdeep – apparently to serves some sort of “exotic terrain” -- ravaged by the Walking Statues? Baldur’s Gate a refugee city with thousands upon thousand upon thousands of citizens? Empire of Netheril arisen and Sembia conquered? The Plaguelands that seem to serve only as the “spawning geounds” for every new Monster Manual? Well, I must say that you didn’t tread lightly on *my* dreams. As someone already commented on another thread, this makes me long to the “Glory Days of TSR” and all that “Marco Volo-goodness”.
I truly hope that you’ll elaborate on some weird inconsistencies beyond “Nobody knows why A happened to B but not C, because it’s *MAGIC*!” (and as you, Brian and Ed are all working on 4E FR, I believe that you will). Here are the things I found especially “puzzling” or even inconsistent in the article, along with some questions:
1) The Spellplague. Originally describes as a “sickness afflicting magic-users and killing or driving them insane” (or something like that) now seems to be more like “Time of Troubles on steroids”. As MarkusTay already mused on another thread: “What, exactly, is the definition of "The Spellplague"? Its certainly NOT a disease, or even a magical illness, so the word 'plague' is a misnomer. What the Spellplague IS is a 'poetic' descriptor for a period of time (not a tangible 'thing') when Mystra was killed, and the Weave disappeared.” To *me*, it seems like a lazy designer’s convenient way to use a magical and “unknown” (as in an “alien-chaotic-phenomenon-nobody-understands-anything-about”) worldwide “Forcewave/Storm” of *Wild/Random Magic* and Utter Chaos to explain all the changes with one simple reason without giving them any serious consideration. And yes, now it *is* pretty easy for DMs to use *any* sort of “wacky” ideas in FR, cause *anything* might exist as the result of the Spellplague (“Yeah! These huge flying crystal mountains shaped like grinning imps and glowing with eerie purple light will *rock*).
2) When Mystra died the last time, how come the Weave didn’t dissolve then, and why did the Spellplague not take place? And if Mystryl was able to “recreate” herself as Mystra -– in an instant –- why did not Mystra do it when Cyric and Shar assaulted Dweomerheart?
3) I may be wrong, but since Mystra died and the Weave “dissolved”, how come not *all* “Epic” or “High Magic” Spells and “Mythal-like Magics” were affected? My understanding was that *all* of them were *part* of the Weave, just like any other spell, and would either explode violently, “sigh out” or slowly dissolve along with the Weave? And, IIRC you said that the Spellplague “reshuffles” the FR Cosmology (so that it’s identical to the Core Cosmology), which makes it all the more difficult to fathom –- in my opinion a magical catastrophe that can *rearrange* and “toss around” whole *planes* should “crack open” all the Mythals and wipe out all magical effects *everywhere*. Why did it “flow around” some places and not affect them, as it logically should –- was this because some places were “cool” (Myth Drannor) and others were “not cool” (Thay) and yet some were “places we dare not destroy” (Waterdeep)?
4) Along the same lines –- when the Shadow Weave dissolved, too, why did the Shade not lose their spellcasting abilities or were not driven insane? Why did the City of Shade not crash to ground? Just because it had a “Mythallar”? I point to my previous concern –- wasn’t this Mythallar part of the Weave?
5) Some questions about Cormyr. Was “Vangerdahast’s Dragonward” (which he developed in ‘Elminster’s Daughter’) affected at all? If not, why? I may be wrong, but my assumption was it was “just” an Epic Spell and nothing to do with either Mythals or High Magic, right? And if the War Wizards (whom, one could argue, are the major part of Cormyr’s military might) were affected by the Spellplague, *how* could the Forest Country *realistically* resist the might of “Risen Netheril”?
6) Magical Items and Wizards. Again, I may be wrong, but I *think* I’ve heard Ed Greenwood say that magical items are “charged” with Weave, and by my own logic as the Weave collapsed, their original “power source” collapses as well. Or, if it applies only to “triggered” spells and items, wouldn’t all the wizards have noticed that they are “safe” from death or insanity as long as they don’t *cast* spells? Or did it affect them regardless of what they did?
7) I also seem to recall that the Weave upholds all life on Toril and all living things are connected to the Weave (I may remember incorrectly, but this might be something Ed has said on Candlekeep?) and if it collapses, *all life* on Toril should *perish*. I’m not sure if I remember correctly, but if I do, is there any particular reason why this should not have happened?
8) Sword Coast and Waterdeep. Frankly, like someone has already said, all this “protected by Illefarn’s magic” smells of ‘Baldur’s Gate 3’ or NWN 3. Anyway, if the *rest* of the Sword Coast was protected by Ancient Magic of Illefarn, why was Waterdeep not protected –- it stands on the ruins on Illefarn’s capital city and I seem to recall that it has some powerful magical defenses/wards (some of which were by Ahghairon) of its own? So why did the Walking Statues go on a “rampage”, if by my logic either Waterdeep should have been *fully* protected *or* the rest of the Sword Coast (BG included) should have been utterly wiped out?
9) Thay. I seem to recall that the ruins of Delhumide (sp?) in Thay have a “Mythal-like” magic. Now, as they are ruled over by Szass Tam, did he try to save any Red Wizards -- at least those who he deemed as loyal or too “significant” for the organization to perish? I don’t think he’d want to see his country’s might crushed – maybe the other Zulkirs and their “loyalists”, yes, but what would he gain, besides a *huge* army of zombies, by letting rest of the Red Wizards succumb to the madness and death?
10) Thymanther. I thought the Dragonborn were *already* introduced into Realmslore in ‘Dragons of Faerûn’ as children of Bahamut and Tiamat? If so, *why* did you use such a silly "Here-is-this-kingdom-of-these-Dragonborn-that-got-gated-in”-stunt –- was it just that you could “wipe out” more “complex” and “exotic” cultures such as Unther? Or because it would be way more “*cool*” that way? I just wondered if they are going to be a “valid” or even very “desirable” (to play) PC race at all, since I gathered that they’re –- as a “militaristic” and “isolationist” culture -- *not* a very “widespread” or even *tolerated* race in FR? How could you, then, play a Dragonborn in the Silver Marches? In my opinion it would have been much more realistic to use the “seed” planted in ‘Dragons of Faerûn’, and expand on that.
11) I find it *very* odd that nobody has chronicled the events of the Spellplague, no matter how *utterly* “chaotic” or “catastrophic” this era was. I hate to draw any comparisons to RW, but to use a concrete example, I *think* we have pretty good information even about the Plague Years during Europe’s medieval history, even though it was probably just as “chaotic” and “dark” back then as it was after Mystra’s death. You see, merchants and peddlers and heroes and travellers and sailors (to name a few examples) have *always* spread the news and rumours, and likewise, there’s *always* been chroniclers who have written them down. So, I find it highly illogical that you guys would use any kind of “It was too chaotic and terrible!” as the reason for leaving “blank spaces” in the history just in the name of “creative room” for future novels and accessories and modules.
12) Were Bards affected by the Spellplague, too? And what are you going to do with them (as FR has traditionally always had many bard NPCs) if there is no Bard class in PHB? And yet –- did the Spellplague affect Sorcerers, Arcane Archers, Bladesingers, Assassins, et al. or just the Wizards?
If this post came across as “dismissive”, condescending or even aggressive in tone -- that wasn’t my intention (I meant to be a bit sarcastic, though
). It’s just that this is one of my last posts on these boards before I’m packing up and leaving until 5E is announced, and therefore I’m not “pulling any punches” about a subject that I’m very passionate about. And isn’t negative feedback always better than no feedback at all? ;)I wish to thank for all that you did for the Realms in 3E, and I wish good luck with 4E FR –- it's now just evident that it won't be my “cup of tea”. And yet: when 5E FR comes out, for what it's worth, I suggest that you won’t instill another “Spellplague” and "Epic-Scale" changes in the Realms, but rather seek to “return” towards Ed’s original vision (well, one can always dream, right? ;).
Yours Respectfully,
Asgetrion
I know that you don't have any plans to make "Classic Realms" books, but could you put out more Arcane Age source books? I would love to learn more about, and role play during the Crown Wars. I would also enjoy a source book for the Seven Citadels War and even a source book set in the time of the "Creator Races."
Think about it. You guys could set up the Arcane Age for EPIC campaigns since the "New Realms" and Eberron really won't be able to handle the high power stuff. This is the same way the Star Wars RPG is set up. Rules for role playing in the Old Republic for people that want to run high powered Jedi games and the New Republic or Rebellion eras for people that want to run scruffy nerf herder games.
Rich and Company have said repeatedly that there will be NO god of magic in 4e FR. For whatever reason, they feel Mystra was one of the Classic Realms biggest problems, so they certainly won't bring her back, after all the crap they just went through to get rid of her.
Can you guys keep the wailing and the gnashing of teeth down in this thread? I'd appreciate it. I'd like it if Rich would feel comfortable enough coming back to answer some legitimate questions.
"Hi Rich-
I'm really looking forward to 4e Forgotten Realms! I'm interested in whether the Far Realm will make an appearance in the Realms in this edition and whether alienist-style casters will be playable in the setting. Maybe something like a warlock pact with the Aboleths (who may be rising?)
Thanks!
-Friendlyfish"
I really just come here now to lobby for Arcane Age and "Classic" Realms products.
For the record, no I don't think Richard Baker is evil. He is a Phillies fan after all so Rich can't be that bad. Yankees fans are evil. ;) Thanks Rich for all your hard work in the Realms (even the stuff I don't like).
Forgive me for snipping your post down:
Hi Rich!
1) The Spellplague. Originally describes as a “sickness afflicting magic-users and killing or driving them insane” (or something like that) now seems to be more like “Time of Troubles on steroids”. As MarkusTay already mused on another thread: “[i]What, exactly, is the definition of "The Spellplague"? Its certainly NOT a disease, or even a magical illness, so the word 'plague' is a misnomer. What the Spellplague IS is a 'poetic' descriptor for a period of time (not a tangible 'thing') when Mystra was killed, and the Weave disappeared.”
I might not have struck the right tone in the article. Spellplague isn't just a term for "the second Time of Troubles"; it's an actual phenomenon, a manifestation of magic that often appears as an aura of blue fire. You could bottle up a bit of Spellplague, take it somewhere, and let it go. It's like some sort of nanovirus whose eruptions/outbreaks appeared in many different places over the course of ten years or so, and still continue in a few very unlucky spots.
2) When Mystra died the last time, how come the Weave didn’t dissolve then, and why did the Spellplague not take place? And if Mystryl was able to “recreate” herself as Mystra -– in an instant –- why did not Mystra do it when Cyric and Shar assaulted Dweomerheart?
Not to give a pat answer here, but I'd simply say that Shar, having observed the deaths of Mystryl and Mystra, realized that she needed to follow a very specific process when she arranged Midnight's murder, or else the goddess of magic would simply re-create herself. So Shar chose a method that hadn't been tried before and prevented such a rebirth.
3) I may be wrong, but since Mystra died and the Weave “dissolved”, how come not *all* “Epic” or “High Magic” Spells and “Mythal-like Magics” were affected?
I'd say because mythals and such things have a special self-sustaining, "looped" nature. They're described as living magics in many ways. They have a lifeforce (of sorts) all their own, and I'd say that's what sustained them. But I don't know if we've specifically decided that is the reason, I'm just offering some speculation.
4) Along the same lines –- when the Shadow Weave dissolved, too, why did the Shade not lose their spellcasting abilities or were not driven insane? Why did the City of Shade not crash to ground? Just because it had a “Mythallar”? I point to my previous concern –- wasn’t this Mythallar part of the Weave?
Because the Shadow Weave isn't the Weave, and does not actually rely on the Weave's existence. It's an alternate "interface," and was not directly damaged by Mystra's death. Although I think it's fair to guess that there might have been "blowback" Shar didn't expect, and the Spellplague didn't necessarily respect Shadow Weave users caught in its path.
7) I also seem to recall that the Weave upholds all life on Toril and all living things are connected to the Weave (I may remember incorrectly, but this might be something Ed has said on Candlekeep?) and if it collapses, *all life* on Toril should *perish*. I’m not sure if I remember correctly, but if I do, is there any particular reason why this should not have happened?
Because total planetary death wouldn't be very useful to us? As far as I know, nothing about Realms says that the Weave *has* to be present for life to exist. If we ever said something like that before, I think we were wrong to do so, or else we've been portraying antimagic zones and dead magic zones all wrong for years.
8) So why did the Walking Statues go on a “rampage”, if by my logic either Waterdeep should have been *fully* protected *or* the rest of the Sword Coast (BG included) should have been utterly wiped out?
Even if the Spellplague did not directly impinge in the area of ancient wards, powerful individuals driven mad or infected outside such wards sometimes walked into the protected places and then blew stuff up. Or so I would guess. Maybe the "animate the walking statues" idea was the work of a mighty archmage who had a really bad idea before adventurers stopped his plan.
10) Thymanther. I thought the Dragonborn were *already* introduced into Realmslore in ‘Dragons of Faerûn’ as children of Bahamut and Tiamat?
That's an unfortunate coincidence; when naming the new PC race developed for 4e, our developers settled on the best available name from 3e. The dragonborn from Races of the Dragon introduced in Dragons of Faerun aren't necessarily the dragonborn of 4e.
12) Were Bards affected by the Spellplague, too? And what are you going to do with them (as FR has traditionally always had many bard NPCs) if there is no Bard class in PHB? And yet –- did the Spellplague affect Sorcerers, Arcane Archers, Bladesingers, Assassins, et al. or just the Wizards?
Any Weave users, I'd say. But don't worry, bards are around in 4e. If they're not in the Player's Handbook we'll have them available soon after online or in another sourcebook. You can assume bards are still around.
Sorry you're disappointed, Asgetrion, but I hope I've convinced you that there is at least some small chance we might not be completely inept. Thanks for your thoughtful post, and I hope you'll reserve final judgment until you see all the pieces together in one place.
Is this a ret-con of a ret-con?
Because the Shadow Weave isn't the Weave, and does not actually rely on the Weave's existence. It's an alternate "interface," and was not directly damaged by Mystra's death. Although I think it's fair to guess that there might have been "blowback" Shar didn't expect, and the Spellplague didn't necessarily respect Shadow Weave users caught in its path.
This how it is written up in Magic of Faerûn, but in the recent super-modules (can't remember which one), this piece of Lore was changed, and is clearly stated that the Shadoweave does rely on the Weave, and it cannot exist without the other.
Now, I know this for a fact, because we had a whole thread about this over at Candlekeep, and I was proven wrong (because I said exactly what you just said).
So, are you guys changing this back, now?
Because the Shadow Weave isn't the Weave, and does not actually rely on the Weave's existence. It's an alternate "interface," and was not directly damaged by Mystra's death. Although I think it's fair to guess that there might have been "blowback" Shar didn't expect, and the Spellplague didn't necessarily respect Shadow Weave users caught in its path.
Mr. Baker, this answear confuse me a little. You have said previously that the Shadow Weave was going to be destroyed with the Weave and as far as I know it was part of the Weave. But even so if it was just another 'interface' then wouldn't it's destruction result in a 'Spellplague' that hits Shadow Weave users? Or is the Shadow Weave surviving?
Overall while this new world might be of interest...I am not done with the Classic Realms and this isn't the Realms I have enjoyed and liked for the past twenty years. Maybe one day I'll play in a 4th edition New FR game. But I really wished this world was built on the ashes of the Realms.
Ya know in the new FR book Mystra might be back. It is 96 years later.
-Actually according to "A Grand History of the Realms" on page #4 the current year is 1375 DR, the Year of Risen Elfkin. So we get a 104 year timeline advancement.
;) :P :D LORD DELTA:fight!:
Some things are mutable, folks, until the book's published. But the answers so far are interesting if for no other reason than to see people go "Hey wait a sec. You guys said X worked like Y..."...
Oh well, patience in the meantime.
And now for my questions:
1) Are we to infer that the gold dwarves were forced from their ancestral home by the events occuring in the nearby Landrise?
2) I recall you mentioned Evermeet in the present tense (albeit earlier in the thread and not in the article). Are we to infer that Evermeet managed to survive in some form (changed or not) ?
I might not have struck the right tone in the article. Spellplague isn't just a term for "the second Time of Troubles"; it's an actual phenomenon, a manifestation of magic that often appears as an aura of blue fire. You could bottle up a bit of Spellplague, take it somewhere, and let it go. It's like some sort of nanovirus whose eruptions/outbreaks appeared in many different places over the course of ten years or so, and still continue in a few very unlucky spots.
-Is there any relevance that the Spellplague appears blue, when Mystryl ended her existence, blue flames appeared around the world, and Mystra's old symbol was a blue flame?
Not to give a pat answer here, but I'd simply say that Shar, having observed the deaths of Mystryl and Mystra, realized that she needed to follow a very specific process when she arranged Midnight's murder, or else the goddess of magic would simply re-create herself. So Shar chose a method that hadn't been tried before and prevented such a rebirth.
-In other words, there's more to the story that you can't tell us?
Is this a ret-con of a ret-con?
-Actually, it would be a retcon of a reretcon.
-Thanks for asking, MT, 'cause I was just about to.
You could bottle up a bit of Spellplague, take it somewhere, and let it go.
That's got some interesting potential.
That's got some interesting potential.
Yeah...we can bottle it up and bring it over to Eberron....j/k.
Yeah...we can bottle it up and bring it over to Eberron....j/k.
Is not that hard, In my campaign Eberron is just a minature world created inside the bottle of an Archmage.
are their any plans on speciality priests in 4th edition, like Doomguides, Heartwarders, Nightcloaks, Alaghors, Arachnes, Feywardens or Sworddancers?
This is not an FR question, but I found a WotC Dungeon Tiles product on amazon that is not in the online product list of WotC. It is called Dire Tombs. Are this Tiles really existing or is this a mistake?
http://www.amazon.de/Dire-Tombs-Dungeon-Dungeons-Accessories/dp/0786948191/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books-intl-de&qid=1200312642&sr=8-1
As far as I understand (the book hasn't been released in my town yet), Worlds and Monsters makes reference to Shadow as being a potential power source for characters. Is this how Shadow Weave users will be constructed in 4E?
Not all monsters that used to teleport at will do so in 4e. But there's no reason that archdevils or demon princes couldn't use teleportation rituals themselves to "beam up" minions to places they need to go. Those rituals may be expensive and tedious, so it might not be routine for demons to bamf into the middle of the town square--but it could happen if the DM needs it to. Anyway, I expect that most demons and devils rely on gates and portals now, too, which seems good to me. It means that dungeons containing gates to hell are important.
Rich you just gained a fan for life for using *BAMF* in your above response
.William Holder
Even though some gods are dead in the 1300s, is the possibility that some (Her?) gods may make a comeback in the 1400s? This may be a way of showing some older fans that you do not wish to take away everything they know and love.
I personally am fine with all of this. I pretty much stopped reading the novels religiously 5 years ago. I pick up RAS' stuff (except the last one), Kemps and a few odd ones that are about regions I wish to read about. I used to pick up everything with an FR tag, but I got older and my gamer compulsory attitude changed when diapers became more important than RPG products.
I used to be a big NPC fanatic as well, then I really got into playing games in the Realms. Ever since I stopped reading the novels I cared a lot less about the NPCs that you guys created and cared more about the one that I was making up for my game. Now I am looking for Novels that are about average adventurers if possible and not "Stars" of the Realms.
I even jumped over to Eberron after I played in a buddys (a canon-loving FR fantics) EB game. I like both settings. I will have fun running and playing in both worlds. The novels for EB have been so so but the one good thing about them is that they are not canon. At least this is good from a gamers standpoint, not a fan of the novels standpoint.
* You've never tried to engage a moviemaker or computer game producer with the setting; I've seen those conversations a time or two. It's harder than it looks...
Rich,
Who at WotC deals with movie makers? I would have assumed that HPG handled all those sorts of things. (Hasbro Properties Group)
Rich,
Who at WotC deals with movie makers? I would have assumed that HPG handled all those sorts of things. (Hasbro Properties Group)
I'd guess they still probably call in subject matter experts.
I bow to you superior wisdom.
However, I will be more willing to give the new setting a chance by buying the CS and seeing what it's got. If it disappoints me, I'm going homebrew.
I will however, continue to avidly pursue the novels (which most of the time I just read in Barnes and Nobles anyway)
You don't have to bloody buy it, and therefore vote for it with your wallet, to give it a chance. The sales FRCG (Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide) will most likely be the deciding factor on whether or not this "new" Realms of theirs works. I am not saying that you should not buy the FRCG, just that you should visit your local game/hobby/book store and check it out before buying it. That is what I plan on doing, even though I have hated almost every single little thing they have released about the 4e Realms so far. So, I suggest that everyone (Pro, Con, or Neutral) who is considering investing in the "new" Realms to go check it out before deciding "to buy, or not to buy." And no, I am not trying to advocate boycotting it, as that would be violating the CoC.
I might not have struck the right tone in the article. Spellplague isn't just a term for "the second Time of Troubles"; it's an actual phenomenon, a manifestation of magic that often appears as an aura of blue fire. You could bottle up a bit of Spellplague, take it somewhere, and let it go. It's like some sort of nanovirus whose eruptions/outbreaks appeared in many different places over the course of ten years or so, and still continue in a few very unlucky spots.
Ahhh... okay. A lot of what we've been hearing made it sound like a descriptor for a time period (a long and horrible one). It having a physical manifestation explains a lot, and sounds a lot better story-wise.
I'm getting this post-apocalyptic 'dead zones' feel now, where the spellplague is sort of like those 'zombie movies', and pockets of 'plague' spring up all over the place without warning.
Are we gonna have Archmages in decontamination suits going into the infected areas? :P
Rich you just gained a fan for life for using *BAMF* in your above response
Yup, definately earned you some brownie points on that one. :P
Big-Time Question:
Is this a ret-con of a ret-con?
This how it is written up in Magic of Faerûn, but in the recent super-modules (can't remember which one), this piece of Lore was changed, and is clearly stated that the Shadoweave does rely on the Weave, and it cannot exist without the other.
Now, I know this for a fact, because we had a whole thread about this over at Candlekeep, and I was proven wrong (because I said exactly what you just said).
So, are you guys changing this back, now?
Back in a flash. ;)
Update: Can't seem to find the original thread, so now I just posted a help request...
Could you please tell me, will there be PC Drow stats in the first 4E MM or will we be forced to wait and buy the FR book if we wish to play or use Drow?
Thanks in advance...
Page 12. "The Rite of Unwinding is a Sharran ritual intended to suppress the Weave in an ever-expanding region, slowly creating a dead magical zone to suppress the Weave without actually destroying it (which would cause the Shadow Weave in the area to collapse.)
Oddly, Rich's name IS in the credits for this book.
and this one -
I do not have a super module, however this dated July 25 2007 might be a retcon to his retcon.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070725
The side bar, basically repeats what I already posted. Unless there is something released after 7/25/07 Shadow Weave is still part of the Weave and dependent on the Weave existing. After all last written is canon (even if it is wrong *sighs*)
Hope that helps - the Shadow Weave has been a point of contention sinse its appearance in FR, and I think a large part of that is that each mention of it in an official source re-defines it. This yo-yoing of lore is a HUGE problem, IMHO.
For the last three years I've run a thriving campaign focused upon the Vilhon Reach. My players are, to be blunt, nature theme fanatics. They all play druids... with the notable exception of two fey warlocks whose zeal in maintaining the Balance could shame a Silvanite.
We're concerned about how certain areas near the Changing Lands will fare in 4e. Can you tell us anything of the fates of Ilighon, Wavecrest, Turmish, and the Emerald Enclave organization?
Hiya Rich!
For the last three years I've run a thriving campaign focused upon the Vilhon Reach. My players are, to be blunt, nature theme fanatics. They all play druids... with the notable exception of two fey warlocks whose zeal in maintaining the Balance could shame a Silvanite.
We're concerned about how certain areas near the Changing Lands will fare in 4e. Can you tell us anything of the fates of Ilighon, Wavecrest, Turmish, and the Emerald Enclave organization?
-Its not looking for your players. But there is allways some room for hope.;)
LORD DELTA:fight!:
Can you give me a page reference? I'd like to look it up and see exactly what it says before I answer. While I worked on parts of those adventures, I did so pretty early in the process and didn't see the entirety of each as they came together from freelancers and developers/editors (I was already on to other projects).
And here is a quote of your own Rich, which you appear to be contradicting:
Q. What were the old bad ideas?
I'm not eager to answer this question, because I can't do it without bashing the work of other designers and authors. I'll pick on one of my own: the Shadow Weave. It's fiddly, it's complex, and it's really intended to provide DMs with a fig leaf of explanation for a check on Mystra's otherwise absolute power in the setting. With a different take on magic and the goddess of magic in the setting, the necessity of a Shadow Weave diminishes drastically. It's something we can live without. There are several other glaring examples (at least to me) but I'm not picking on any others in this forum.
-Its not looking for your players. But there is allways some room for hope.;)
LORD DELTA:fight!:
It isn't looking good at all.
Between this and Races & Classes' proposed druid changes, a few of them are bordering on livid.
Regardless, I'm not bringing down Chondath or any of those areas even if they're aberration packed ruins in the new Realms. Any "Changing Lands" I include will probably run right through mythal saturated cities instead. :P
The Enclave hasn't exactly seen encyclopedic coverage, so a co-DM and I have been writing up our own Vilhon Reach lore based on the scraps of available information.
Still, I'm curious as to the canon fate of those above mentioned areas. I was hoping 4e might bring at least a sliver of new details on them, but yeah... it looks bleak.
Hello Rich,
I have two questions for you:
1) You mentioned that the 'old Forgotten Realms' was too disparate a setting. The way you described it was that it was impossible to summarize in one sentence what made the 'old FR' unique. I would probably have said something like, "Forgotten Realms is a setting defined by unparalleled diversity that is deeply rooted in history and lore". I suppose that means that the "old Realms" could be defined precisely by lacking a narrower focus, which may or may not be an acceptable way to define a setting. This leads me to the question that stems from the above paragraph. Could you please give us a one sentence (or a very short) statement on what focus defines the 'new Realms"?
2) I am just wondering if there is any news on the computer game front, particularly a game tied to the world-shaking events that will shape the "new FR". I don't really expect that there is more information - it has only been a month or so since I last asked and there were the holidays in the interim, but I am excited by the prospect and one never knows what could have precipitated.
Thank you, Rich, for answering all of these questions for us. You are truly a paragon* of communication.
*I suppose to be epic, you would need to live online. ;)
And here is a quote of your own Rich, which you appear to be contradicting:
I don't see any contradiction at all.
That IS an interesting angle - to have at least one kingdom where magic use is banned, and magic-users considered criminals.
Then again, that was done in Kalimar.
Are there NO new ideas left?
Either way, that was probably the one and only thing I liked about that abysmally boring setting, and I think the concept would make a good fit in FR.
I don't see any contradiction at all.
Its a bit of a stretch -
Presumably, Rich had said that the Shadow Weave was a bad idea, and now he is saying that that is what protected Shade after Mystra's death and the collapse of the Weave. Obviously, the last time Mystra died, the cities all fell, so some mechanism must of been in place to save Shade this time out.
Unfortunely, if the Shadow Weave is dependent upon the Weave to work, then it shouldn't have been in place to save Shade AFTER Mystra died.
Quick Fix: The Shadow Weave does require the Weave to maintain its own integrity, but the break-down of that would happen slowly over the course of time, weather it be a few days, or a few years. Either way, the Shadow Weave would have remained active for a time AFTER the Weave was destroyed - long enough to allow Shade (and any other Shadow-dependent mechanic) to survive, and adapt to the new magical environment.
Does that work for everyone?
I just don't want to see the Shadow Weave present on 4e. The Shadowfell is enough, and I kind of like how thats shaping up.
Excellent question, Rauric!
That IS an interesting angle - to have at least one kingdom where magic use is banned, and magic-users considered criminals.
Then again, that was done in Kalimar.
Are there NO new ideas left?
Either way, that was probably the one and only thing I liked about that abysmally boring setting, and I think the concept would make a good fit in FR.
Also done in Dark Sun. And........Amn? Doesn't FR already have this connection?
Also done in Dark Sun. And........Amn? Doesn't FR already have this connection?
Dark Sun/Athas was done so well, and is so completely different from anything we would consider 'normal fantasy', that even similar concepts are hard to recognize.
I have ported quite a few of those desert critters into my FR games - they are SO awesome!
Sorry, once again, for all the chatter. I wish I had another question, but right now I'm still digesting much of what has gone down in the last couple days.
Questions for Rich Baker
Hello Rich,
I have two questions for you:
1) You mentioned that the 'old Forgotten Realms' was too disparate a setting. The way you described it was that it was impossible to summarize in one sentence what made the 'old FR' unique. I would probably have said something like, "Forgotten Realms is a setting defined by unparalleled diversity that is deeply rooted in history and lore". I suppose that means that the "old Realms" could be defined precisely by lacking a narrower focus, which may or may not be an acceptable way to define a setting.
Acceptable? We're talking about an entire world here; you can't sum up Earth in a sentence and seeing that same inability as a problem in a major campaign setting is just lazy. Frankly, if a campaign setting can be summed up in a sentence then I consider it's design to be lazy, probably cliched, and far too simplistic to have even remotely earned the moniker of "game world."
Acceptable? We're talking about an entire world here; you can't sum up Earth in a sentence and seeing that same inability as a problem in a major campaign setting is just lazy. Frankly, if a campaign setting can be summed up in a sentence then I consider it's design to be lazy, probably cliched, and far too simplistic to have even remotely earned the moniker of "game world."
Isn't this thread supposed to be reserved for questions and not inane rants?
And here is a quote of your own Rich, which you appear to be contradicting:
I don't see any contradiction at all.
In the quote of Rich's above, he seems to be indicating that they are going to marginalize and maybe completely eliminate the Shadow Weave completely in the 4e Realms. However, the tidbits recently released seem to insinuate that the Empire of Netheril is still using the Shadow Weave (IMO). IIRC, Rich stated that Netheril is going to be employing Shadow Magic from the Shadowfell (previously the Plane of Shadow) like Shadowcasters in the 3e Tome of Magic.
It isn't looking good at all.
Between this and Races & Classes' proposed druid changes, a few of them are bordering on livid.
Regardless, I'm not bringing down Chondath or any of those areas even if they're aberration packed ruins in the new Realms. Any "Changing Lands" I include will probably run right through mythal saturated cities instead. :P
The Enclave hasn't exactly seen encyclopedic coverage, so a co-DM and I have been writing up our own Vilhon Reach lore based on the scraps of available information.
Still, I'm curious as to the canon fate of those above mentioned areas. I was hoping 4e might bring at least a sliver of new details on them, but yeah... it looks bleak.
-They probably took a map of the Realms, put it on a wall. Everyone got to throw a dart or three at the map. Where ever the darts landed is what got nuked!!!;) :P :D
LORD DELTA
Isn't this thread supposed to be reserved for questions and not inane rants?
Fine, then I'll append a question: Do the designers honestly think that they can completely eliminate the very core of what makes the Forgotten Realms the Forgotten Realms without driving off customers? I mean, I realize that a lot of this is not their fault; after all, they have to adapt to the inanities that are being shoved haphazardly into 4e (and the core design elements that are being arbitrarily removed), but there's more to this than that.
And how about another one: Since gnomes have been removed as a player race and redefined as woodland fey, what happens to the gnomes of the Realms, particularly Lantan?
Or this? Since succubi are, for some unfathomable reason, devils now, what happens to Soneillon, the Queen of Whispers? The chaotic demon queen that's plagued Impiltur for centuries suddenly has a totally different personality? While we're at it, how 'bout Lord Orgauth? As a non-humanoid pit fiend in the new system of color-coding outsiders for the players' convenience (as though dragons weren't bad enough), he would naturally be redefined as a demon; given the nature of the Zhentarim and especially Scyllua Darkhope, this makes zero sense. Assume similar questions for any and all other major players in the Realms that have their type and alignment suddenly changed due to 4e's pointless messing about with monster types for no good mechanical reason.
What triggered the decision to have Tyr murder Helm for the reasons he did? Or for that matter, to have Tyr fall in love with Tymora in the first place? The deity of law and justice and the deity of luck and adventurers don't seem to have a whole heck of a lot of common ground, certainly a lot less than the god of justice and the god of guardians... especially when the god of guardians was the god of justice's own doorkeeper!
Why is there a need to have a cataclysm with every even-numbered edition change? It rapidly gets old.
That should do to start with, I think.
In the quote of Rich's above, he seems to be indicating that they are going to marginalize and maybe completely eliminate the Shadow Weave completely in the 4e Realms. However, the tidbits recently released seem to insinuate that the Empire of Netheril is still using the Shadow Weave (IMO). IIRC, Rich stated that Netheril is going to be employing Shadow Magic from the Shadowfell (previously the Plane of Shadow) like Shadowcasters in the 3e Tome of Magic.
-So...if the Shades get a SHADOW POWER SOURCE in 4E, why cann't there be a WEAVE POWER SOURCE IN 4E?
LORD DELTA
~
Renegade, the Helm-Tyr-etc. stuff has already been answered. No answer will be satisfactory for it, however. (I've saved my barbs for that on another thread.)
P.S. There was no hint of love, it was Sune who suggested a marriage between Tyr and Tymora to 'rebalance' the planes. Or whatever. :eyes roll:
Well Sune's a ditz; if she thinks it's a good idea then it most certainly isn't. :p
You're preaching to the choir, preaching to the choir. Between the Mystra debacle and the Helm-Tyr-Sune-Tymora fiasco (plus an all-around deicide/demotion) the whole thing put me off. *nods*
I could handle the Spellplague without either, but that's someone else's deal.
~
Rauric---do you really thing a god of thieves will become a greater power? I doubt he ever was to begin with. His portfolio never justified him being a greater power unless, of course, he stabs Shar in the back. Wonder if she has a back-up for that one?
There's an idea (which I've espoused before), why not kill Shar as well? She's been overdone and so far 3e FR is too Sharrish for me. Let some new blood take over, let their tales be told. Let Lolth take over, for that matter. :P
I was wanting to give you some feedback on he recent countdown to the realms article.
- I really liked the sword coast part, specially the Amn/Moonshaes thing. The same is valid for the imperial cormyr.
- I am worried with the netheril/sembia relationship, but I still have to finish reading kemp's books, so I will refrain from commenting it.
-I am really concerned about these so called Changing lands. It seems sort of very vague. I feel like it is just a very large area with weird things to kill. Could you shed some more light into that, if possible?
-Tymanther worries me a lot, but I am guessing (hoping) you guys will develop that story better, right?
Also.. I have a few of questions, if you don't mind...
- Could you give us some light concerning the uthgart barbarians?
-Will the heresy of the rising sun(?) still exist?
-Will the spellplague affect dragons,phaerim and other magical creatures?
-Could you,at this point, give us any info about Evermeet?
Thank you very much.
I apologize for my English,but it is not my native language..
...Will the spellplague affect dragons, phaerim and other magical creatures?
While Netheril claims all of Anauroch and the neighboring lands, the Netherese are still few in number, and great portions of this desolate land are left to ruins and monsters. The ruined cities of old Netheril and the Underdark caverns of the monstrous phaerimm (now all but extirpated from the Realms) hold many secrets the shades want to remain hidden, and ancient treasures they seek desperately to recover.
I guess not everyone digests 100% of what they read. ;)
While I did work on part of Shadowdale, that wasn't my material.
Something of an answer, Rich -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuje from CandleKeep
Page 12. "The Rite of Unwinding is a Sharran ritual intended to suppress the Weave in an ever-expanding region, slowly creating a dead magical zone to suppress the Weave without actually destroying it (which would cause the Shadow Weave in the area to collapse.)
Oddly, Rich's name IS in the credits for this book.
and this one -
Originally Posted by Kentinal from CandleKeep
I do not have a super module, however this dated July 25 2007 might be a retcon to his retcon.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070725
The side bar, basically repeats what I already posted. Unless there is something released after 7/25/07 Shadow Weave is still part of the Weave and dependent on the Weave existing. After all last written is canon (even if it is wrong *sighs*)
Hope that helps - the Shadow Weave has been a point of contention sinse its appearance in FR, and I think a large part of that is that each mention of it in an official source re-defines it. This yo-yoing of lore is a HUGE problem, IMHO.
The parenthetical is a clear contradiction of the information on Magic of Faerun page 10. I'm inclined to regard the Shadowdale sidebar as being in error in this regard. My apologies for the confusion.
-So, what MoF states (concerning this matter) is still in effect, then?
Mr. Baker.
Could you please tell me, will there be PC Drow stats in the first 4E MM or will we be forced to wait and buy the FR book if we wish to play or use Drow?
Thanks in advance...
We will be revealing a selection of "here's what this little piece of the world looks like in 1479" in the course of our upcoming preview articles, and I just can't scoop those yet.
Hiya Rich!
For the last three years I've run a thriving campaign focused upon the Vilhon Reach. My players are, to be blunt, nature theme fanatics. They all play druids... with the notable exception of two fey warlocks whose zeal in maintaining the Balance could shame a Silvanite.
We're concerned about how certain areas near the Changing Lands will fare in 4e. Can you tell us anything of the fates of Ilighon, Wavecrest, Turmish, and the Emerald Enclave organization?
From what I can gather from the Preview article, it appears that the Vilhon Reach, Old Empires, and parts of the Unapproachable East are depopulated wastelands; their peoples dead or have fled. It also states that Sembia, whose wealth is built on being a trade hub, is the crown jewel of the Netheril empire. So...who exactly, does Sembia trade with? It appears that almost every port of call on the Sea of Fallen Stars south and east of Sembia is no longer there. Does that mean Sembia is no longer a trade hub and Netheril is simply looting the country's existing wealth before abandoning it?
Likewise, with a good half to two-thirds of the Realms' population dead or displaced, would that not throw the economy into complete chaos? Hyper-inflation for the necessities (food, water, clothing, armor, & weapons), while non-magic art & jewelry could be rendered valueless. Can a PC expect to pay 100+ gp for an ordinary longsword, for example?
And besides, there's the new nation of Tymanther, and those guys have to eat something... or someone...
Hmmm. In all honesty I can't explain why the Shadowdale sidebar says that. The parenthetical is a clear contradiction of the information on Magic of Faerun page 10. I'm inclined to regard the Shadowdale sidebar as being in error in this regard. My apologies for the confusion.
Thank you for that answer - this is how I've personally felt it always should be (it makes more sense mechanically), and now I can just ignore that trouble-making sidebar. :D
I'd love to answer all of these, but I think I need to forestall a long, long thread of "What happened to X? and What happened to Y?"
We will be revealing a selection of "here's what this little piece of the world looks like in 1479" in the course of our upcoming preview articles, and I just can't scoop those yet.
Alright, fair enough. Thanks for the reply.
There's also the Divine power source, which clerics and paladins use.
(A little less shouting would be OK.)
-So...if the Shades get a SHADOW POWER SOURCE in 4E, why cann't there be a WEAVE POWER SOURCE IN 4E?
LORD DELTA
And things were in dire chaos, 94 years ago. There's been some amount of recovery since.
Ok, riddle me this.
From what I can gather from the Preview article, it appears that the Vilhon Reach, Old Empires, and parts of the Unapproachable East are depopulated wastelands; their peoples dead or have fled. It also states that Sembia, whose wealth is built on being a trade hub, is the crown jewel of the Netheril empire. So...who exactly, does Sembia trade with? It appears that almost every port of call on the Sea of Fallen Stars south and east of Sembia is no longer there. Does that mean Sembia is no longer a trade hub and Netheril is simply looting the country's existing wealth before abandoning it?
Likewise, with a good half to two-thirds of the Realms' population dead or displaced, would that not throw the economy into complete chaos? Hyper-inflation for the necessities (food, water, clothing, armor, & weapons), while non-magic art & jewelry could be rendered valueless. Can a PC expect to pay 100+ gp for an ordinary longsword, for example?
We will be revealing a selection of "here's what this little piece of the world looks like in 1479" in the course of our upcoming preview articles, and I just can't scoop those yet.
Wait, when did WotC (or Rich) first confirm the jump is 100 years, not 10? This is the first I've read of it.
Hmmm. In all honesty I can't explain why the Shadowdale sidebar says that. The parenthetical is a clear contradiction of the information on Magic of Faerun page 10. I'm inclined to regard the Shadowdale sidebar as being in error in this regard. My apologies for the confusion.
While I did work on part of Shadowdale, that wasn't my material.
Rich, why are they keeping the Shadow Weave around when it was such a "bad idea?" (Your own words, see below quote.)
Q. What were the old bad ideas?
I'm not eager to answer this question, because I can't do it without bashing the work of other designers and authors. I'll pick on one of my own: the Shadow Weave. It's fiddly, it's complex, and it's really intended to provide DMs with a fig leaf of explanation for a check on Mystra's otherwise absolute power in the setting. With a different take on magic and the goddess of magic in the setting, the necessity of a Shadow Weave diminishes drastically. It's something we can live without. There are several other glaring examples (at least to me) but I'm not picking on any others in this forum.
Also, didn't you mention at some point on this thread (IIRC), that the Shades of the new Netherese Empire were switching over to using the Shadow Fell as a source of power, the way that Shadowcasters from the Tome of Magic used the Plane of Shadow?
94 years later, the Shadow Weave would have collapsed (without Mystra's weave to 'lean on'), and the Shades would have tapped directly into the source of Shadow energy.
Remember, Shadow Magic and the Shadow weave are two different things, and the Shadow Weave was just a very simple way for Shadowcasters to access Shadow energy. The Shadow Energy was always part of the Plane of Shadows, which has simply been renamed in 4e to the Shadowfell.
Also, the Negative Energy Plane has been rolled into this Shadowfell as well, so that now Shadow Magic actually has some of the 'evil flavor' it was always supposed to have, but never truly did mechanically.
So what the Shades used in 1385 when the 'world went mad' could be entirely differnt from what they will use 94 years from now.
At least, I hope so.
Drow appear in the Monster Manual as monsters. I'm not sure if we've included them in the "monsters as PCs" info in that book.
Thanks for the reply.
There is; it's called the Arcane power source. Wizards use it.
-Ok...what I meant was why can't the "Weave" power the Arcane Power Source?
-Those no good Shades get a Shadow Power Source. Why did the "weave" have to go, when it could power the "Arcane Power Source"?
-Sorry for a shoutin earlier:P
LORD DELTA
Wait, when did WotC (or Rich) first confirm the jump is 100 years, not 10? This is the first I've read of it.
-Technically its a 104 year time jump.;)
-Its been 94 years since the Spellplague started.:P
-Page #4 in A Grand History of the Realms states that the official year is "1375 DR Year of the Risen Elfkin".
LORD DELTA
Its a little confusing, but look at the bright side - we still have ten years of 3e setting to play in.
Not to mention nearly a century of 'no rules' floating between editions, where we can do or make-up whatever the hell we want. The possibilities are endless. :D
Oh... and someone's been touching his smileys again in an inappropriate manner.
Not to mention nearly a century of 'no rules' floating between editions, where we can do or make-up whatever the hell we want. The possibilities are endless. :D
-Yes, no novels screwing things up anymore!!!
-For now.;)
Oh... and someone's been touching his smileys again in an inappropriate manner.
-I allways touch my smilies in an inappropriate manner!!!:P
LORD DELTA
the perceived effect was that the weave dissolved, but in reality wat dissolved was the perception of the weave (since it changed not everyone could istantanely adapt to the new thing, that kept changing at a fast pace by the way)
a friend made me notice that the old realms of Imaskar and Raumathar used magic w/out the Weave....
Hmmmm... would a Wild mage (think thats what they were called) - the guys who can control Wild magic - be able to have a better chance of casting spells accurately in these "Plaguelands"?
I don't even know if those still exist in 3e, since Wild Magic itself seems to have been done away with.
Maybe it will be replaced with the Far Realms Power Source? :coolcthul
Why was Mystra having a 'stranglehold' over magic such a big deal?
Because Mystra and her Chosen were seen by non-FR gamers as being too prominent and all-consuming, essentially sucking the room out of the FR room and chasing them away. So, regardless of whether it actually was or not, the perception of it being 'true' became a problem.
So, removing the bulk of it should eliminate that excuse. Whether those same gamers will now jump at the chance to play in the new Realms is another long-term question.
Rich, will any lesser gods rise to greater status? I do not mind ambiguous answers btw.:D
I sent this thread to Ed Greenwood for the definitive two coppers’ worth, and he’s replied.
Here’s Ed:
The concept of darkfire or shadowfire is attractive, but to champion it requires a misunderstanding of what the Shadow Weave really is. It’s NOT (despite the propaganda betimes put out by the clergy of Shar) a separate (and equal) system of magic to the Weave; rather, it exists as an echo of the Weave, matching and surpassing the Weave only when Shar personally feeds it with her divine power (and, being an essentially a selfish, ruthless entity, such feedings will be rare acts indeed; she doesn’t CARE what happens to mortal worshippers).
Spellfire is the raw energy of magic, a taste of the way magic was before there was a Weave, restricted (in some small ways) by the Weave (that is, by the will of Mystra). The Shadow Weave works by drawing on this same energy, so there is no shadowfire: there is only spellfire. Shar as a divine power could give certain of her mortal followers a “darkfire” analagous to the silver fire of Mystra (sharing her divine power, in other words), IF she desired to.
She could not give the Shadow Weave users spellfire, because it, by its very nature, consumes and rends shadow weave-magic far more swiftly and more widely than it does Weave-based spells.
To those who argue that Shar could kill Mystra or destroy the Weave: those two things are the same, as Mystra IS the Weave. No mortal yet knows what would then happen, but it should be obvious that as an echo of the Weave, the Shadow Weave itself would also be destroyed (or would collapse).
Remember, the Weave isn’t the energies of magic. The Weave is magic: that is, a system of harnessing those energies by means of an existing body of spells.
The new TOME OF MAGIC presents three other “systems” of harnessing energies (“magical forces,” most sages would call them). One of those systems is Shadow Magic, and it provides magic that followers of Shar could well turn to, either if the Weave is gone, OR if a DM wants to postulate that Shadow Weave users can tap into this system. Unfortunately, one of the things that Shadow Magic as presented in that tome doesn’t provide users is “shadowfire” or darkfire as it’s been discussed in this thread thus far.
Various TSR and WotC designers and fiction writers and I have discussed these matters many times over the years, to hammer out agreement on the specifics of what Mystra can and can’t do, what Shar can and can’t do, and what the Weave and the Shadow Weave can and can’t do. Please remember two things: divine situations in the Realms aren’t static; there will inevitably be “developments” in the struggle between Shar and Mystra. And as the creator of Shar, Mystra, AND the Realms, I’m in a position to see things more clearly than anyone else.
So saith Ed. Interesting, VERY interesting.
love to all,
THO
You can find the actual post here, about the 9th post down.
Ed says the shadow weave would collapse; so do several other canon sources. NONE of them say it would collapse immediately.
So the Shadow Weave could very well have helped save Shade from the initial scourge of the Spellplague, but eventually the Shades would have had to find an alternate method of powering their Mythallar or casting spells, as the Sahdow Weave began to dissolve around them over time.
In that way, both the lore we know, and what Rich has said, make sense. Of course, if the Shadow Weave is still around in 1479 DR, that blows my whole argument out of the water. But I think the deigners plan on replacing the Shadow Weave with the Shadowfell Power Source (or simply the 'Shadow' Power Source). The Shadow Power Source has been around for years - its nothing new - we've just been calling it 'Negative Energy', or as they say in Eberron, "Umbral Energy". Its what powers things like Undead.
What used to be the Shadow Weave has been absorbed by the ShadowFell in 4e, along with the Plane of Shadows, the Negative Energy Plane, and god knows what else. Its part of their whole 'less is more' strategy.
Not advocating or agreeing with anything or ayone here, but rather just trying to view everything in a logical light that we can all make some sense out of.
If you guys know me at all, you'd know my big thing is continuity - I don't care what they hand us nearly as much as I do HOW they hand it to us. I want to be served Filet Mignon, not "dead cow meat". ;)
Because Mystra and her Chosen were seen by non-FR gamers as being too prominent and all-consuming, essentially sucking the room out of the FR room and chasing them away. So, regardless of whether it actually was or not, the perception of it being 'true' became a problem.
So, removing the bulk of it should eliminate that excuse. Whether those same gamers will now jump at the chance to play in the new Realms is another long-term question.
I see. What Im learning from 4e FR so far is that if I dont bother to even open a FRCS and instead make stuff up about the FR and then complain about it the FR designers will bend over backward to cater to me and who cares about the ones who liked the thing. Its a good thing I wont be buying any 4e FR products after reading the recent revelations because by not buying them my opinion just became more valuable to the designers than the ones of all the people who will throw a lot of money at the product.
I think the continuity problems should be attributed to Superboy Prime, Skrulls, or Mephisto.
Mephisto FTW!
Although I have also used the Skrulls, in my games...
The reason why is mostly for game mechanics: If we create a ritual in the core game called "Shadow Walk," we'd like that to mean the same thing in any D&D world. We'd like monster origins to mean pretty much the same thing everywhere too; if there's a spell that banishes monsters native to the Elemental Chaos back to their native realms, we'd want that to work in the Realms exactly the way it would in the core D&D game.
It also helps us to avoid creating high-work, low-payoff "flavor exceptions" for the Realms. If Realms didn't have, say, a Feywild, then we'd have to constantly backfill in Realms product to explain where it is exactly the ritual "Feywild Crossing" takes you, or where you can set that core adventure featuring a fomorian stronghold, or what-have-you. Now sometimes we want to create exactly those sorts of flavor exceptions, but we want to keep those at a reasonable number and do so for good reason.
Finally, here's the clincher for us: The new cosmology is really not all that different from the old one. The 3e Realms had godly dominions in an astral plane, it had a Shadow plane, it had a Faerie (rarely touched on, admittedly), and it had the Inner Planes (which now take a much more adventurable and interesting form in the Elemental Chaos).
The only real hiccup I see is reconcepting the Abyss as being part of the Elemental Chaos instead of an astral dominion, and we're doing that because the core D&D game is working to move devils and demons further apart conceptually. But that's a place where we view the payoff (hey, demons and devils work in FR pretty much like they do in the core game) to be worth the cost of some continuity damage. Some folks will no doubt disagree with our cost/benefit analysis there.
Why is there a need to change the Realms cosmology to conform to the 4e default cosmology? The Realms didn't share the Great Wheel in 3.5; I see no reason to change it again. (I assume this is happening due to the mention of the Shades drawing power from the Shadowfell. If it isn't, please clarify.)
The Shadow Weave appeared in 3e because we were already interested at that time in trying to spread the message that Mystra and her Chosen aren't the be-all and end-all of the setting, and that arcane things could happen that they wouldn't like or be able to stop.
I'm afraid that details on any sort of shadow power source and classes that might make use of it are really far off right now, so I can't say much on that score. However, I will say this much: If we'd had that "tech" available at the time we transitioned to 3e, I think it would have been a better implementation of the notion of a Shadow Weave than the one we came up with at the time.
Rich, why are they keeping the Shadow Weave around when it was such a "bad idea?" (Your own words, see below quote.)
Rich, why are they keeping the Shadow Weave around when it was such a "bad idea?" (Your own words, see below quote.)
Originally Posted by WotC_RichBaker
Q. What were the old bad ideas?
I'm not eager to answer this question, because I can't do it without bashing the work of other designers and authors. I'll pick on one of my own: the Shadow Weave. It's fiddly, it's complex, and it's really intended to provide DMs with a fig leaf of explanation for a check on Mystra's otherwise absolute power in the setting. With a different take on magic and the goddess of magic in the setting, the necessity of a Shadow Weave diminishes drastically. It's something we can live without. There are several other glaring examples (at least to me) but I'm not picking on any others in this forum.
Also, didn't you mention at some point on this thread (IIRC), that the Shades of the new Netherese Empire were switching over to using the Shadow Fell as a source of power, the way that Shadowcasters from the Tome of Magic used the Plane of Shadow?
I'd like to think that wild mages would fare better at mucking around with the Spellplague than most. I think that'd be really interesting. I'm not sure that wild magic is really "done away with," it's just something we haven't gotten to yet.
Question
Hmmmm... would a Wild mage (think thats what they were called) - the guys who can control Wild magic - be able to have a better chance of casting spells accurately in these "Plaguelands"?
I don't even know if those still exist in 3e, since Wild Magic itself seems to have been done away with.
Maybe it will be replaced with the Far Realms Power Source? :coolcthul
_______________________________________________________________________________
That all makes perfect sense (and I hate The Great Tree anyway). We had a unified cosmology in 2e, and its nice to see you guys getting back to something that worked well in past editions. Dropping the worlds into their own private microcosms was one of the biggest mistakes made in 3e, IMHO.
I loved everything you just said, thank you for that answer. :D
It also helps us to avoid creating high-work, low-payoff "flavor exceptions" for the Realms. If Realms didn't have, say, a Feywild, then we'd have to constantly backfill in Realms product to explain where it is exactly the ritual "Feywild Crossing" takes you, or where you can set that core adventure featuring a fomorian stronghold, or what-have-you. Now sometimes we want to create exactly those sorts of flavor exceptions, but we want to keep those at a reasonable number and do so for good reason.
Heh... you let something slip...
So... many 4e adventures will be set OUTSIDE of the standard Prime Worlds, in the Feywild and Shadowfell? I've come to the conclusion that these planes, probably along with the Far realms (Abeir?) are going to work like Ravenloft, with parts of them becoming 'solid' in the prime material (cotermonious) from time to time - dissapearing castles, enchanted forest appearing out of nowhere, anti-deluvian horrors spilling out of the mists...
This way, people from every setting, even home-brews - can use the modules in their games with very little fuss, and without disturbing any sort of 'canoness' they have going on.
Brilliant!!!
We've touched on the Torm story already, so you folks know about that one.
There are a couple of intermediates bouncing up too. Selune, for example.
Rich, will any lesser gods rise to greater status? I do not mind ambiguous answers btw.:D
But as I posted earlier, they have an out -
Ed says the shadow weave would collapse; so do several other canon sources. NONE of them say it would collapse immediately.
So the Shadow Weave could very well have helped save Shade from the initial scourge of the Spellplague, but eventually the Shades would have had to find an alternate method of powering their Mythallar or casting spells, as the Sahdow Weave began to dissolve around them over time.
In that way, both the lore we know, and what Rich has said, make sense. Of course, if the Shadow Weave is still around in 1479 DR, that blows my whole argument out of the water. But I think the deigners plan on replacing the Shadow Weave with the Shadowfell Power Source (or simply the 'Shadow' Power Source). The Shadow Power Source has been around for years - its nothing new - we've just been calling it 'Negative Energy', or as they say in Eberron, "Umbral Energy". Its what powers things like Undead.
What used to be the Shadow Weave has been absorbed by the ShadowFell in 4e, along with the Plane of Shadows, the Negative Energy Plane, and god knows what else. Its part of their whole 'less is more' strategy.
Not advocating or agreeing with anything or ayone here, but rather just trying to view everything in a logical light that we can all make some sense out of.
If you guys know me at all, you'd know my big thing is continuity - I don't care what they hand us nearly as much as I do HOW they hand it to us. I want to be served Filet Mignon, not "dead cow meat". ;)
MarkusTay, I really like your analysis, and I feel much the same way.
Could another possible explination be (especially based on the quote from Ed Greenwood posted shortly above) that since Shar had a hand in removing Mystra (as I understand), she helped to point Shade and the Shadow Weave users that she "cared" about to another power source before doing whatever she did to Mystra?
If they essentially had a "heads-up" that something was going down before it went down, then they might have been able to do something to ensure their survival before it happened.
I don't mean to jump onto the speculation band-wagon too much. I do look forward to the release of the new FRCS, and expect that enough will be explained to satisfy my continuity "wants".
We don't have plans to do a novel specifically about the Spellplague or Mystra's death -- right now. But there's clearly room for a big story there. That'll be up to the Book team and our business team.
Question:Is there going to be a novel about Mystra'd death and/or Helm's "execution" and Tyr's exile?
Could another possible explination be (especially based on the quote from Ed Greenwood posted shortly above) that since Shar had a hand in removing Mystra (as I understand), she helped to point Shade and the Shadow Weave users that she "cared" about to another power source before doing whatever she did to Mystra?
Shar is all about secrets - I really doubt anyone but Cyric was in on her plans, but I could be wrong.
More likely, she 'attached' the Shadow Weave to something else, anchoring it in place for awhile, just to allow her followers some time. This would give them that time, without Shar having to worry about some 'lowly mortal' spilling the beans.
Those sneaky harper agents are everywhere...
Now the logical 'thing' for her to anchor her Shadow weave to (and thus removing its dependence on Mytra's) would be the Plane of Shadow itself, known in 4e terms as the Shadowfell. In fact, that could go along way in explaining WHY the Shadow Plane exibits somewhat different behaviour in 4e then in previous editions - this new connection cause by Shar would have 'weakened the barriers' between planes, allowing some of the Shadoworld - excuse me, Shadowfell - to 'spill into' FR, as it were.
Hmmm... I'm hating the time-jump, but I am starting to see possibilities here...
Yes. Unambiguous, but not very specific...
We've touched on the Torm story already, so you folks know about that one.
There are a couple of intermediates bouncing up too. Selune, for example.
Good times. I am fond of Selune and hope she can get alot more love in 4e.
Shar is all about secrets - I really doubt anyone but Cyric was in on her plans, but I could be wrong.
...Now the logical 'thing' for her to anchor her Shadow weave to (and thus removing its dependence on Mytra's)...
Richard Baker confirmed that the sidebar on the Shadowdale module is wrong and that the Shadow Weave remains completely independent of the Weave, the information on Magic of Faerûn is canon.
Of course by 4th edition the Shadow Weave will be gone as a game mechanic and -probably- it will be mutated into the the Shadow source of power (retaining only the flavor it had as the Shadow Weave in the past) while the Arcane source of power will probably be the Raw magic of Toril.
MY POINT being, that we don't need to throw away ANY lore -all we need say is that at some point in the past, Mystra's weave WAS required. Probably when she first created it, it was the easiest way for Shar to go.
Since then, probably fairly recently (1358 DR?), she anchored HER Weave to something else, which is what finally allowed her to kill Mystra once and for all. The lore, as stated in in MoF, was accurate at the time that source was released, and was the newest, most recent meta-game information we had about the Shadow Weave's particulars.
The info in the super-modules was OLD, even though they were published at a later date. The characters running in those adventures would only be given information that Mystra's church, or Shar's lesser minions, would know. Therefore, that little piece of 'Intelligence' was outdated, but the PCs needn't have known that.
Now, I'm not saying any of this is canon, but it does 'fix' all the lore so everything still works fine. ;)
The exact details of the cosmology don't have to match -- for example, *which* godly domains are floating in the Astral. In FR you've got the Gates of the Moon, but in core D&D you might have Olympus instead. The thing we *do* want to match is what I'd call the basic structure of reality--an astral plane in which godly realms exist, an elemental plane, a fey plane, and a shadow plane.
The reason why is mostly for game mechanics: If we create a ritual in the core game called "Shadow Walk," we'd like that to mean the same thing in any D&D world. We'd like monster origins to mean pretty much the same thing everywhere too; if there's a spell that banishes monsters native to the Elemental Chaos back to their native realms, we'd want that to work in the Realms exactly the way it would in the core D&D game.
It also helps us to avoid creating high-work, low-payoff "flavor exceptions" for the Realms. If Realms didn't have, say, a Feywild, then we'd have to constantly backfill in Realms product to explain where it is exactly the ritual "Feywild Crossing" takes you, or where you can set that core adventure featuring a fomorian stronghold, or what-have-you. Now sometimes we want to create exactly those sorts of flavor exceptions, but we want to keep those at a reasonable number and do so for good reason.
Finally, here's the clincher for us: The new cosmology is really not all that different from the old one. The 3e Realms had godly dominions in an astral plane, it had a Shadow plane, it had a Faerie (rarely touched on, admittedly), and it had the Inner Planes (which now take a much more adventurable and interesting form in the Elemental Chaos).
The only real hiccup I see is reconcepting the Abyss as being part of the Elemental Chaos instead of an astral dominion, and we're doing that because the core D&D game is working to move devils and demons further apart conceptually. But that's a place where we view the payoff (hey, demons and devils work in FR pretty much like they do in the core game) to be worth the cost of some continuity damage. Some folks will no doubt disagree with our cost/benefit analysis there.
You could have gone back to the great wheel. Which had everything you wanted and more.
Also considering demons and devils were created by the yugoloths it made sense their were similarities...sigh.
I can live with Demons = monsters, and Devils = corrupters. :D
Also, its already been stated that Sigil is still there, which means it probably still has the Outlands floating around it.
So now, instead of the outer planes being directly connected to the Wheel, all those border-towns are really just portals to the planes, which are now detached and floating in the Astral.
Ergo, to many, it would appear as if the Great Wheel worked exactly the way everyone's pictured it, so PCs need not know the latest 'truth' about the planes. Whats the difference between a physical doorway to a connected realm, and a portal that leads there? Mechanically, they would both work the same - only the DM need know the PCs have been 'ported' (Bamfed!) to a new locale.
The Planes have always been something beyond mortal understanding, so all of these 'models' primes have come up with are just representations of an abstract idea. So, if you like the Tree, use the Tree... but nothing really changes in the greater scheme of things....
Not that I would have taken him out of my campaign's continuity just because WOTC changes the Planes. I had plans to fix things basically by just keeping Sigil around anyway. Rauric will be out of a job now that there is no more Bloodwar. He will be pretty ticked off. :D
Have you ever read Rip Van Wormer's excellent lore concerning the connection between Sigil and the Imaskari?
I love that! On nearly every world, a race could rise up and build their 'own Sigil', which in Reality are all part of the same Sigil. Thats why it is always changing and adapting - new races are altering their parts of it all the time. Eventually, the creating race gets lost within their own creation, and their own little portion gets absorbed into the whole.
That is SO COOL.
Rich, you should check this out, it is strait from the mouth of Ed (via The Hooded One ;)):
You can find the actual post here, about the 9th post down.
-And, as Ed always says, since he is not the creator of the Shadow Weave, he does not know everything that it is intended to do, or can do, and as such, we should defer to the person who does, Rich Baker.
-Rich, is there any relevance that the Spellplague appears blue, when Mystryl ended her existence, blue flames appeared around the world, and Mystra's old symbol was a blue flame, (and that the year is known as the Year of Blue Fire, though that can be explained with the Spellplague)?
"And on the thirteenhundreth and eighty-fifth year since the erecting of the standing stone, the world was awash in the blood of Mystra, and Blue Fire swept away Wizard's folly..."
Its all in the delivery. ;)
I'm excited to know that the story of Tyr-Helm-Tymora will be told or touched on in a novel. The Forgotten Realms has always been to me a very good storytelling motor. Hopefully you'll do a book on the death of Mystra too. Get Troy Denning to do it to complete the Avatar story feel :P
Yup that would make it so much better....
Sorry I don't read books I know the ending to...well fictional novels at any rate. It is so boring and well with the actions of the gods in these books I probably couldn't get though them anyway.
Yup that would make it so much better....
Sorry I don't read books I know the ending to...well fictional novels at any rate. It is so boring and well with the actions of the gods in these books I probably couldn't get though them anyway.
Good for you John.
I like the novels though, I liked the novels before I even played DnD and I suspect I'll continue to like them now that I'm unable to play the game. I like a good story and I'm sure with all the crazy spellplague stuff going on there will be plenty to tell.
Sorry I don't read books I know the ending to...
Do you John... do you REALLY?
Maybe Tyr and Torm were lovers, and Torm was jealous, or perhaps there really was no Tymora - it was really Bhaal, hiding out all these years in drag!
Just because you know the ending, doesn't mean a story can't surprise the hell out of you.
BTW, not defending that piece of lore here - I still hate it with a passion.
Amigo, anything happens to Phlan? I liked that city, it had a legacy and it was pretty much already Points of Light....
I'm excited to know that the story of Tyr-Helm-Tymora will be told or touched on in a novel. The Forgotten Realms has always been to me a very good storytelling motor. Hopefully you'll do a book on the death of Mystra too. Get Troy Denning to do it to complete the Avatar story feel :P
Mmmmm not Troy. Two negatives don't equal a '+'.
And Ubbergeek, what's supposed to happen with Phlan? I thought it was already a part of the Zhent empire, or in the process of doing so.
Or it didn'T?
(I had also proposed it in the 'base city proposed in DMG' threads of a time ago that it was a good PoL place, useable.)
Thanks for your reply -- I really appreciate it that you took your time to read through my long list of concerns and answered to most of them.
And I don't think that you (or Ed) could probably ever be called "inept". I realized that I should have used "vaguely-written" instead of "badly-written", because what I meant was that (quite understandably) I'd have wanted more "concrete" information in that article. As I've said before, I hold you in esteem both as an author and a game designer (for example, your 'Realmslore'-articles have been excellent and inspirational -- both in style and content -- and at least Asbaron will certainly appear in my campaigns :D). Having said that, I wish that you had written the article on 'The Wailing Dwarf', because I think *that* was a good example of a badly-written and boring piece of Realmslore.
Thanks for clarifying the "nature" of the Spellplague -- although I may think that the 4E Realms could have done without it, I must admit that now it seems much more "logical" as a magical phenomenon (I liked that "nanovirus" comparison
). Actually, I think you're correct about the Weave not being "necessary" for life to exist -- it may very well be that I remembered Ed saying "The Weave touches all living beings" or something like that. After all, we did not see a "total planetary death" when Mystryl died and the Weave dissolved. I also wish to note that I was not being sarcastic when I asked if there was any particular reason why it should not happen (if I had been right) -- I genuinely wanted to know if you guys had thought of it (that is the sort of question one of my players would have posed for me -- they're clever bastards who constantly try to outwit and vex me
). As for the Mythals, you're probably right -- I just confused them with Mythallars being destroyed when Mystryl died (sorry for that).
You know, I have to admit that I *have* to take a look at 4E FR books in my job as a librarian (RPG collection development being my responsibility, after all ;)). And despite any personal misgivings as a private customer and gamer, my professional opinion is vastly different -- no matter how "good" or "bad" they turn out to be, 4E Core Books and 4E FR are the most relevant RPG acquisitions of the year for any library (which has RPG material in its collections, that is).
Yours respectfully,
Asgetrion
My DM is planning on running a 3.5 FR game, and the setting is the year 1385 DR, the Year of Blue Fire, with the Spellplague "kicking-off," so to speak. He asked me to search for anything and everything I could regarding the Spellplague for him, so I decided to come to the source (no pun intended.) What things, besides content your "Countdown to the Realms: Year of the Ageless One" should he know/keep in mind regarding the Spellplague and the Realms when running a game during this time?
(BTW, I for one love that you and your team-mates are trying to make the Realms more accessible. I could hardly be bothered to read anything more than a few sections of the Player's Guide to Faerun because I thought there was so much baggage to the setting. I have confidence this will not be the case in 4e, and I thank you, because the setting is really neat!)
Yet you can't be bothered learning about it...
WoW... the people at WotC were right...
Rich, any chance the 4.0 sourcebooks will be pictures-only?
Consering the high amount of... debating around FR, I kind of got a bit less informed on this aspect, so while I knew about a renewed Zhentarim power, I didn't know it took Phlan.
Or it didn'T?
(I had also proposed it in the 'base city proposed in DMG' threads of a time ago that it was a good PoL place, useable.)
Let's see...Hillsfar, the Zhents. Mulmaster, the Zhents. And those are the big settlements. What's the chance a town of Phlan's size will survive unscathed between now and 1479 DR without some sort of acknowledgement or nod in Zhentil Keep's direction? It's like Tilverton, bound to get swallowed up/annexed. Same goes for the rest unless Melvaunt holds out somehow--perhaps pockets of spellplague guarding the west and north?
Personally I like Phlan, perhaps Melvaunt gets ground up and the survivors resettle in Phlan and rebuild the ruins? Perhaps the orcs take over Melvaunt's remains, whether allied to the Zhentarim or not would be anyone's guess.
And since I asked before...
The vast Underdark system beneath the western Shaar suffered a calamitous collapse, leaving a miles-deep pit the size of a country where the Landrise once ran.
Sounds like Llurth Drier took a hit (considering the ruling faith there was Ghaunadaur's). Or the dwarves of the Great Rift. Either, both, or none?
And beloved Evermeet the seat of the Feywild's court?
You could have gone back to the great wheel. Which had everything you wanted and more.
Also considering demons and devils were created by the yugoloths it made sense their were similarities...sigh.
-On page 67 in Wizard's Presents: World's and Monsters it says that Yugoloths are reconcepted in 4E. They are now Demons!
Mezzoloths and Nycaloths are Mezzodemons and Nycademons. The Mezzodemon is in the 4E MM. They are a strain of Demon. Not going to spoil it all. Some posters may want to check it out.-They are a strain of Demon, they serve a yet unnamed Demon Lord. Still Merc's, but with no Blood War going on, they work with humans. Demons are "Brutes" monsters. Yugodemons are "Soldiers" monsters. 30 YEARS OF LORE DONT MATTER IN 4E!!!
-The Demon Lords like Orcus, Demogorgon are now called "Primordials" but still Demon Lords The Great Wheel IS Dead!!! No more needless symmetry. pg 17 W/M
LORD DELTA
Good for you John.
I like the novels though, I liked the novels before I even played DnD and I suspect I'll continue to like them now that I'm unable to play the game. I like a good story and I'm sure with all the crazy spellplague stuff going on there will be plenty to tell.
You expressed you personal opinion I did the same. I really don't like these events because I look at the Realms as a RPG world first...then a shared novel world for writers. I read the novels not for the stories but for the lore contained within them to bring a little more life into the setting. That is why I stopped reading the novels because it stopped doing that for me. If I want to read novel with a good story their alot more better novels out there then what WotC has produced. Again that is my opinion.
-On page 67 in Wizard's Presents: World's and Monsters it says that Yugoloths are reconcepted... They are a strain of Demon.
I think I just heard Shemmy's head explode somewhere.
-On page 67 in Wizard's Presents: World's and Monsters it says that Yugoloths are reconcepted in 4E. They are now Demons!
LORD DELTA
Demons...my yugoloths are now demons(mindless brutes that they got turned into.) Please don't tell what happened to Arcanoloths...I don't think I can take it anymore.R.Baker are you guys also trying to cut down on the thinking aspects of the game? I know that might sound a little insulting but the monsters just seem so role driven. Demon are the brute force...devils are corrupters...etc. I always saw the fiendish race pretty much as one race but with 3 fractions...now they just seem to be just monsters for adventures to beat up instead of fighting though other means.
*Sigh*I should maybe take a vacation from thesse boards and the previews.
Evermeet has nothing to do with the Feywild... unless Evermeet truly is a piece of Faerie... perhaps Tintageer itself, yanked through time and space by Elven hubris? ;)
I tossed that in there in order to tweak Mr. Baker to actually answer a similar question I posted a day ago regarding Evermeet. Considering how it's portrayed as being 'closer' to Arvandor in some respects in 3e, it would make sense if Evermeet survived it would gain a more 'fey' aspect in 4e FR. Since Evermeet was mentioned in the present tense (along with Evereska and Myth Drannor) in a previous response a few pages back, it piqued my interest...because no one at WotC will say a peep about Evermeet one way or another as to its continued existence.
(:P)I think I just heard Shemmy's head explode somewhere.
No. That was my head exploding. I hate the changes to demons, devils, and yugoloths almost as much as I hate the changes to the Realms. Oh well. I'll survive.
I've come to the conclusion that facial hair prevents creative ideas from falling out of designer's heads. I believe Ed Greenwood and Brian James prove my new theory. So.....
Richard Baker Must Be .... forced to grow a large, fluffy beard?
Ahh ... it's getting late.
No. That was my head exploding. I hate the changes to demons, devils, and yugoloths almost as much as I hate the changes to the Realms. Oh well. I'll survive.
I've come to the conclusion that facial hair prevents creative ideas from falling out of designer's heads. I believe Ed Greenwood and Brian James prove my new theory. So.....
Richard Baker Must Be .... forced to grow a large, fluffy beard?
Ahh ... it's getting late.
A "Richard Baker Must *blank*" fundraiser for charity would be cool. Make it an auction, highest bidder gets to pick something silly for Richard to do.
Richard Baker Must Dye...his hair purple and his eyebrows red.
A "Richard Baker Must *blank*" fundraiser for charity would be cool. Make it an auction, highest bidder gets to pick something silly for Richard to do.
Richard Baker Must Dye...his hair purple and his eyebrows red.
Full body wax, just like in The 40 Year-Old Virgin!
For your sake, Mr. Baker, I hope the most you got is peach fuzz.
What next, Water-boarding? :P
No. That was my head exploding. I hate the changes to demons, devils, and yugoloths almost as much as I hate the changes to the Realms. Oh well. I'll survive.
I've come to the conclusion that facial hair prevents creative ideas from falling out of designer's heads. I believe Ed Greenwood and Brian James prove my new theory. So.....
Richard Baker Must Be .... forced to grow a large, fluffy beard?
Ahh ... it's getting late.
My head pretty much exploded too. Then again, I am running a planar Forgotten Realms/Planescape crossover campaign centered on... Guess what? The origins of demons, and the whole Law/Chaos axis and blood war conflict... Wonder if it has to do with me having a beard...
As an aside... Does anybody know what Shemmy´s reaction to that change has been (I can see her going on a berserk rampage if her head does not explode...)?
I got the feeling that the whole "converting cosmology and fiends back to 3.X" that I´m gonna have to do just became far harder (and for those who say "well, don´t change editions", yes, I intend to change editions because, for all that I hate the fluff changes, the mechanical changes seem good on everything I´ve read so far).
Who's Shemmy?
-I think your she is a he. But here is Shemmy
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14839667#post14839667
LORD DELTA;)
I see, now. A bigtime Planescape fan.Everything is still the same in Greyhawk and junk guys, the new Core setting is a different reality I guess. It's just like how demons and devils are different in Eberron than they are in Forgotten Realms. It doesn't mean that EVERY setting is effected by this. I think...
:lightbulb Let's ask a Realms designer. Rich,
Are yugoloths now demons in Forgotten Realms? If they are demons now does that mean the Blood War never existed? Were Tanar'ri and Baaetzu always friends?
After reading about Worlds & Monsters and learning about design not wanting magic to do "silly" things, I was wondering if this is a Core only thing or if it's part of Realms design philosophy as well? Magic as convenience/civilization facilitator has had its place in the Realms. From the Amanuensis (book copying) spell to Calimshan where magic is used to make everyday life easier, and so on.
So, will wizards (or whomever) in the Realms be able to design rituals, and create items based off those rituals, to do "silly" things?
Thanks!
Good for you John.
I like the novels though, I liked the novels before I even played DnD and I suspect I'll continue to like them now that I'm unable to play the game. I like a good story and I'm sure with all the crazy spellplague stuff going on there will be plenty to tell.
That is amusing, I read the novels first too. In fact, without the novels, and the computer games, I probably would not have gotten into D&D. Now, as mainly a novel fan, I look at the changes they have implemented, and I think that they will detract from the novels, not open 'cool' and 'exciting' new stories. In fact, much of the 'new edition' of the Realms openly destroys many parts of the Realms that I loved reading about, which are now just gone. Many of the heroes of the novels are just dead. The complex and 'real' pantheons are now simplified into maybe 20-30 deities. For some reason, Thay survives, but Halruaa does not. The were both great nations of wizards. But WotC likes Thay and did not like Halruaa. What the hell did they have against Halruaa anyways? Rich said that it was not part of the Realms, but it was by far one of my favorite parts of the Realms. Does anyone else recall another campaign setting for another system that this happened to? A system where it went through an 'end times.' Then they rebooted the mechanics of the game so it was better, but the flavor of the 'fluff' of the game was so foreign that the new version of it suffered? Oh wait, that was the World of Darkness. And I have heard similar things about Dragonlance even though I never participated in that world.
No. That was my head exploding. I hate the changes to demons, devils, and yugoloths almost as much as I hate the changes to the Realms. Oh well. I'll survive.
I've come to the conclusion that facial hair prevents creative ideas from falling out of designer's heads. I believe Ed Greenwood and Brian James prove my new theory. So.....
Richard Baker Must Be .... forced to grow a large, fluffy beard?
Ahh ... it's getting late.
Don't forget about Age of Apocalypse in the Marvel universe. It was so bad a quit reading comics entirely.
My personal theory (still working on this one) is that "yugoloth" is a family or branch of demonkind, like tanar'ri, obyrith, or loumara. I think that each family might have different characteristics or purposes, so it's possible that yugoloths, despite their demonic nature, might retain that mercenary role they've always had. But that's only my personal musings at this point.
As far as I can tell, this change doesn't invalidate the concept of enmity between devils and demons, or the idea that they might have fought/still be fighting a gigantic cosmos-wide war.
Rich,
Are yugoloths now demons in Forgotten Realms? If they are demons now does that mean the Blood War never existed? Were Tanar'ri and Baaetzu always friends?
I'm going to decline to answer on Evermeet for now, other than to say it's still there. I might be able to say more later.
And since I asked before...
Sounds like Llurth Drier took a hit (considering the ruling faith there was Ghaunadaur's). Or the dwarves of the Great Rift. Either, both, or none?
And beloved Evermeet the seat of the Feywild's court?
Yeah, Fin, yugoloths are now demons in FR, just like they are in core. That's an example of the kind of rules question that FR needs to follow the core rules on.
My personal theory (still working on this one) is that "yugoloth" is a family or branch of demonkind, like tanar'ri, obyrith, or loumara. I think that each family might have different characteristics or purposes, so it's possible that yugoloths, despite their demonic nature, might retain that mercenary role they've always had. But that's only my personal musings at this point.
As far as I can tell, this change doesn't invalidate the concept of enmity between devils and demons, or the idea that they might have fought/still be fighting a gigantic cosmos-wide war.
-I noticed in "Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters", there was no mention of "The Blood War". It mentions the War between "The Primordials and The Gods" at the beginning of the world. Maybe I haven't read far enough yet. But for all intents and purposes, it looks like "The Blood War" is over in that it never happened in the core World cosmology.
I hope I am wrong on this.:embarrass -Also didnt you say that "Gelugons" are "Yugoloths" in 4E? IIRC, you said that they made a "Pact" with "Mepiostoles(sp)" and thats why "Asmodeus" didnt throw him down during "The Recogning(sp)"? The were valuable, for the Souls. That "Asmodeus" was going to get. I think It was in your Blog, Before Gleemax. With there being no "Gehenna" in the "Core Cosmology", would there not be a battle ground for "The Blood War"? There is no "Gehenna" in 4E right?
LORD DELTA
?
how can Orcus be primordial when he evolved from larvae
?
I was hoping Evermeet would go back to Faerie or something, but its all good. I just don't like both Cormanthor and Evermeet being the 'center' of Elfiness. Small Kingdoms and 'tribes' of Elves is one thing, but flavor-wise, it makes more sense to have only one place be the "center of all things Elven".
Suggestion - don't take this the wrong way, but it would go far in the eyes of lore-fans if you guys would 'lean-on' established lore, rather then create stuff whole cloth. I'm not going to turn this into a tirade, especially since I've finally decided to use 4e Realms (GASP!), but I can think of a number of things that could have been incorporated somewhat smoother, IMHO.
Take this new problem with the Yugoloths: I happen to like what you did with demons and Devils, but thats because thats the way I personally always pictured them. However, I also like that there are different branches of 'families' among the fiends (Loths, Daemons, Demodands, etc...), so STICK TO YOUR GUNS! Don't let the other designers 'snowball' you into glossing over this aspect of fiendom. Why can't the Demons have a somewhat smarter group that behaves more like devils, and plot and plan? That makes them more realistic, I think, then just pouring them all into cookie-cutter moulds.
So finally, I come to my point - We KNOW from CANON that the Yugoloths are schemers, and have even gone so far as to spread rumors that they created both major branches of Fiends. Why not use that? If the Loths are that clever, then isn't it possible that they had everyone FOOLED into thinking they were something MORE then other Demons? If their 'gig' is spreading propaganda, then isn't it possible that they've been demons all along, but they convinced everyone after untold millenium that they were something 'else'... something greater?
Don't fight the lore, use it. Thats what its there for.
Unfortunately, I have only a goatee, which leaves about 67% of my lower facial perimeter unguarded. That means that only about 1 in 3 good ideas actually remain in my head.
Say what you want about the man, but he has a great sense of humor! :D
-I think your she is a he. But here is Shemmy
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14839667#post14839667
I had always thought Shemmy was a 'she' because of the Avatar used. If I'm wrong, I apologized to him... I would never want to offend someone who's knowledge of the planes puts most other lore-masters to shame. ;)
Question
Don't read anything into this - its just idle curiousity, and since I can't ask questions like "what happened to 'X'", I figure a little insight to who designed what might be nice. Were there particular things each of the main guys worked on, concept-wise? The Shadowfell of course sounds like something you've brought in (correct me if I'm wrong), and the Far Realms are obviously something Bruce Cordell is 'playing with'. I realize these cosmological things go beyond just the FR team - the whole 4e group would have been involved -but I'm just curious as to who was an advocate for the various ideas. I really love the 'new' feywild, so I wondering about who put that together, and also who gave us the bare-bones concept for the Elemental Tempest? I like all of these, so please don't think this is going to ammunition for some kind of attack. Being familiar with the various designers work (BC actually got me to appreciate Cthulhu-type stuff, something I've always hated), I was hoping to get some insight into the development of this new Cosmology.
Thanks --- Mark T.
EDIT:
-With there being no "Gehenna" in the "Core Cosmology", would there not be a battle ground for "The Blood War"? There is no "Gehenna" in 4E right?
Read what you quoted by the man - he already answered your question.
The entire multiverse is their battlefield now.
thought that creatures like baernaloths are primordials
?
how can Orcus be primordial when he evolved from larvae
?
Just roll with it.....;)Read what you quoted by the man - he already answered your question.
The entire multiverse is their battlefield now.
i find it kind of cool... Nobody is safe... ;)
One of my favorite things in the Realms was the number of evil organizations that could oppose the PCs (and be subtle about it), like the Red Wizards and Cult of the Dragon. It appears that the Netherese will be the more overarching villains but will we still have these types of organizations around? We'll still have some good ones like the Harpers as well, correct?
Also, another one of my favorites are the genasi. Will they still be around? (I expect that you can't answer this one yet but vague generalities are welcome).
Thanks.
And actually fits better with a game setting, then some talked-about war in a remote part of the universe. You want the Bloodwar? Dump a piece of it into your player's laps.
Um...actualy the blood war took place across the multi-verse...even the Celestrials had skrimishes over it between themselves(over how to handle it). It was actualy interesting, thought provoking, and a challenge to deal with...this is not.
My comment(about thinking leaveing the game) also reflects on 30th level characters going and killing gods...that shouldn't be how you beat a god. Take The Lord of Blades in the Eberron setting. He is a center of a religion (pretty much a god). Sure you could kill him...but that will in the end only make his relgion stronger(thus he really wins). You would have to discredit him, convince his followers that he is not right, etc.
All I am seeing about all these flavor changes is it is all about the number on your character sheets. What spells you have, how much damage you do, etc. While that should be a part of the game, it should go beyond that. Sorry but this looks like Hack N' Slash heaven to me. Which sure the game before supported...but you could always do what you want with it...now I just see major roadblocks to do that...especialy in attracting new players to my game as this nonsense is all they will know.
I was hoping Evermeet would go back to Faerie or something, but its all good. I just don't like both Cormanthor and Evermeet being the 'center' of Elfiness. Small Kingdoms and 'tribes' of Elves is one thing, but flavor-wise, it makes more sense to have only one place be the "center of all things Elven".
-Myth Drannor is the 'America', whereas Evermeet is the 'Old World'.
I had always thought Shemmy was a 'she' because of the Avatar used. If I'm wrong, I apologized to him... I would never want to offend someone who's knowledge of the planes puts most other lore-masters to shame. ;)
-The character Shemeska the Arcanaloth has a female personality. The poster, however, is a male.
-Myth Drannor is the 'America', whereas Evermeet is the 'Old World'.
In 4e, Evermeet will be the home of the Eladrin (Sun and Moon), and Cormanthyr the home of Elves (Sylvan).
And that great big hole in the Shaar? Its the express lane to 'Drow Town'. :P
According to W&M - the underdark is going to become FAR MORE accessable.
And then the Shaar collapses - yeah... didn't see something like that coming...
-The character Shemeska the Arcanaloth has a female personality. The poster, however, is a male.
Thats.... ummmm... interesting?
Yeeeaaaahhh.... lets just leave it at that. ;)
In 4e, Evermeet will be the home of the Eladrin (Sun and Moon), and Cormanthyr the home of Elves (Sylvan).
-Uh...Ignore that.
Thats.... ummmm... interesting?
Yeeeaaaahhh.... lets just leave it at that. ;)
-Nothing wrong with that. My sister plays male characters all the time. The current incarnation? Vic, the Spanish (Castillian) Bard.
But, this is a forum... not an RP session. I never understood why people feel the need to adopt personas... and...
Nevermind... I forgot who I was talking too. ;)
:P
-Nothing wrong with that. My sister plays male characters all the time. The current incarnation? Vic, the Spanish (Castillian) Bard.
You play 7th Seas? that is so cool...I thought I was the only one...(atleast I am assuming so due to the name Castillian...)
And no they is nothing wrong with gender bending in a RPG.
You play 7th Seas? that is so cool...I thought I was the only one...(atleast I am assuming so due to the name Castillian...)
-No, no I don't. The character is simply from Castile, Spain, and arrived in the current setting via Spelljamming (Apparently, the Medieval Spanish had Spelljamming, go figure).
I do use some of the mechanics for my FR games, though.
@Mods - sorry for the chatter, once again.
I thought about running 7th - I LOVE pirate stuff - but the rest of the setting is too derivitive - as seen handily above by the confusion one name caused. ;)
I do use some of the mechanics for my FR games, though.
@Mods - sorry for the chatter, once again.
Yes we'll stop...
Well, better a PERsona then a FURsona, as far as I'm concerned. :P
Completely seconded.
Technically (from what I've read), Shemeska IS a Fursona.
Question
I'm really diggin' the Feywild BIG-TIME (I was commisioned to do a Faerie supplement at one point by an RPG company), and I was wondering - Is there a snowballs-chance-in-hell that you guys could get Tony DiTerlizzi to do any of the artwork for it? His Planscape work was incredible, and it would add a great amount of flavor into what I think you guys are envisioning.
To this day, I prefer his 2e Monstrous Manual illustrations when showing someone what I mean by something. Thanx - Mark
Show
-"The Key Conceits". Point #14 on pg 14 says:"Less Evil fighting Evil""Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and Archdevils War on each other 'rather than threathening the PCs'. We dont want to waste space on things players cant use. Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun.
-So where does the blood war fit in what I just posted?
Also the devils are now trapped in the nine hells!!! The only way they can leave is through somebody summoning them OUT!!!;)
-The demons are at war with all of creation now. The universe has the Elemental Chaos at the bottom, the core world in the middle, and the astral sea on top. So if the blood war was still going, it would be on the core world now. At the beginning the primordials were in the elemental tempest. The gods were in the astral sea. A god(now know as the elder elemental eye) found a shard of pure evil that currupted him, he took it to the elemental tempest. Cast it in to the elemental tempest which currupted a portion of it. Now know as the abyss. Some of the primordials were changed to become ORCUS, GRAZZT, DEMOGORGON, ECT. get the picture. Would have posted last night, had tech problems here in the Feywild(stupid Verizon crew working at 12 midnight)!!!
PS There is not one(1) single mention of the Blood War in W/M!!!
Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun. -So where does the blood war fit in what I just posted?
Also the devils are now trapped in the nine hells!!! The only way they can leave is through somebody summoning them OUT!!!;)
-The demons are at war with all of creation now. The universe has the Elemental Chaos at the bottom, the core world in the middle, and the astral sea on top. So if the blood war was still going, it would be on the core world now. At the beginning the primordials were in the elemental tempest. The gods were in the astral sea. A god(now know as the elder elemental eye) found a shard of pure evil that currupted him, he took it to the elemental tempest. Cast it in to the elemental tempest which currupted a portion of it. Now know as the abyss. Some of the primordials were changed to become ORCUS, GRAZZT, DEMOGORGON, ECT. get the picture. Would have posted last night, had tech problems here in the Feywild(stupid Verizon crew working at 12 midnight)!!!
PS There is not one(1) single mention of the Blood War in W/M!!!
Okay guys, you got me - I had to Google that one. :D
Technically (from what I've read), Shemeska IS a Fursona.
Question
I'm really diggin' the Feywild BIG-TIME (I was commisioned to do a Faerie supplement at one point by an RPG company), and I was wondering - Is there a snowballs-chance-in-hell that you guys could get Tony DiTerlizzi to do any of the artwork for it? His Planscape work was incredible, and it would add a great amount of flavor into what I think you guys are envisioning.
To this day, I prefer his 2e Monstrous Manual illustrations when showing someone what I mean by something. Thanx - Mark
USE IT... use it all. :D
Just look at some of the Fey-types he did for 2e MM - those pics are iconic! I'm normally against re-using artwork, but in his case I'll make the exception. A liberal sprinkling of his art throughout a Fey sourcebook would be VERY cool indeed.
I didn't even realize he was the 'Spiderwick Guy' - maybe if we all don't go to see the movie, he'll be broke and have to come back to work for you? :P
Will we still have evil organizations other than the Netherese? Absolutely. Some have changed a lot in 100 years, but you'll still have Red Wizards, Zhents, the Cult of the Dragon, and quite a few others to play with.
Likewise, you'll have some good organizations too. I'm sort of hoping we can successfully "rehabilitate" the Harpers this time around. I think Cloak & Dagger and several novels at the end of 2e really threw them off-course, and I'd like to hope that 100 years is enough time for the organization to get its feet under it again and be the sort of thing many players aspire for their characters to join.
And yeah, genasi are still around. We've got some good stuff planned for 'em.
Hi Rich,
One of my favorite things in the Realms was the number of evil organizations that could oppose the PCs (and be subtle about it), like the Red Wizards and Cult of the Dragon. It appears that the Netherese will be the more overarching villains but will we still have these types of organizations around? We'll still have some good ones like the Harpers as well, correct?
Also, another one of my favorites are the genasi. Will they still be around? (I expect that you can't answer this one yet but vague generalities are welcome).
Thanks.
In FR, we wouldn't retcon it away, but if it's strongly deemphasized in 4e core, it won't play much of a role in 4e Realms. So think of the Blood War as something that was going on intensely in the Realms' cosmos before the Spellplague, but now has diminished greatly.
Let me ask a question, though: If we said that the Blood War had never happened in FR (and I'm not saying we would), what canon would be violated? There are a couple of plane descriptions in the FRCS and FR Player's Guide that would be inaccurate, but is there something major besides those? (What I'm really asking is, How important was the Blood War to the Realms, really?)
-RichShow-"The Key Conceits". Point #14 on pg 14 says:"Less Evil fighting Evil""Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and Archdevils War on each other 'rather than threathening the PCs'. We dont want to waste space on things players cant use.
-So where does the blood war fit in what I just posted?
Also the devils are now trapped in the nine hells!!! The only way they can leave is through somebody summoning them OUT!!!;)
-The demons are at war with all of creation now. The universe has the Elemental Chaos at the bottom, the core world in the middle, and the astral sea on top. So if the blood war was still going, it would be on the core world now. At the beginning the primordials were in the elemental tempest. The gods were in the astral sea. A god(now know as the elder elemental eye) found a shard of pure evil that currupted him, he took it to the elemental tempest. Cast it in to the elemental tempest which currupted a portion of it. Now know as the abyss. Some of the primordials were changed to become ORCUS, GRAZZT, DEMOGORGON, ECT. get the picture. Would have posted last night, had tech problems here in the Feywild(stupid Verizon crew working at 12 midnight)!!!
PS There is not one(1) single mention of the Blood War in W/M!!!
In core D&D, don't expect much about the Blood War.
In FR, we wouldn't retcon it away, but if it's strongly deemphasized in 4e core, it won't play much of a role in 4e Realms. So think of the Blood War as something that was going on intensely in the Realms' cosmos before the Spellplague, but now has diminished greatly.
Let me ask a question, though: If we said that the Blood War had never happened in FR (and I'm not saying we would), what canon would be violated? There are a couple of plane descriptions in the FRCS and FR Player's Guide that would be inaccurate, but is there something major besides those? (What I'm really asking is, How important was the Blood War to the Realms, really?)
-Thanks Rich. To answer your question, It would be none. Its just that I like the Blood War used it alot. Oh, well the times they are a changing. Dont get me wrong I LIKE what I see in Worlds and Monsters. Everything makes sense to me. I do like the fact that Demons are at war with the reality, kinda makes some sense!!! I may just use the "Core World" now. So kool deal.;) :D
LORD DELTA:fight!:
Let me ask a question, though: If we said that the Blood War had never happened in FR (and I'm not saying we would), what canon would be violated? There are a couple of plane descriptions in the FRCS and FR Player's Guide that would be inaccurate, but is there something major besides those? (What I'm really asking is, How important was the Blood War to the Realms, really?)
Then the constant battles between demons and devils in different parts of the Realms (Hellgate Keep, Myth Drannor) wouldn't have the same impact. Even in your Last Mythal Trilogy the characters were surprised to see demons and devils working together, something that wouldn't be surpriseful if the Blood War never existed, the importance may seem small for a primer, but that is where it's power resides, you never know when and were it'll affect you.
For example, one of my players went planewalking to rescue the soul of a friend of his character that was stolen by Demons in the Fugue Plane. Without the Blood War the Devil wouldn't have a reason to join him and reap the benefits by making a deal when he was cornered trying to rescue his character's friend from an abysal raft in the Styx (that devil got a promotion after killing many Tanar'ri and corrupting the soul of an Aasimar, the race of my player's character).
Devils are part of Reality, so their lawful nature would make them automatically be at odds with Demons who are trying to destroy it, when both are not being controlled by an outside force (ie., some'thing' far more powerful).
Personally though... I would never had both types working together, but thats just me.
Question
Will Spelljamming finally be completely ret-conned out? It wasn't 'covered' in 3e, but a few sneaky references did manage to pop up from time to time.
I just thought that the Astral Sea was a natural for that, but the concept would need a major overhaul.
I am about to start a new campaign that will climax with mystra being killed and would like to know ahead of time who will replace her so I can kinda keep with the realms lore.
thanks :D
Your mention of the Harpers being worked on got me to wondering about the Moonstars, as well as some of the organizations listed in the Champions of Ruin, Champions of Valor and Power of Faerunbooks. Is there a (releasable ;)) list of groups that will definitely survive or fall?
(I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask...) Also, are there any plans to release a new FR Interactive Atlas, or merge one into DDI?
Thanks!
Thats going to be the picture of the Shaar, from the new FRCG, isn't it? :D
Ya know, I HATED that particular piece of lore... until I saw that picture.
I came across this in the Worlds & Monsters article -
Thats going to be the picture of the Shaar, from the new FRCG, isn't it? :D
Ya know, I HATED that particular piece of lore... until I saw that picture.
I still dislike but I got to say the new artwork is great. That is (maybe) the one thing I like about 4th edition.
Hey Rich will there still be the art galliers from the books on the website...well a part of the website that you don't have to pay for? Also pass along my compliments to the art director. I really like the new look...(well except for the PHB covers...and the really dumb looking weapons and armors).
Let me ask a question, though: If we said that the Blood War had never happened in FR (and I'm not saying we would), what canon would be violated? There are a couple of plane descriptions in the FRCS and FR Player's Guide that would be inaccurate, but is there something major besides those? (What I'm really asking is, How important was the Blood War to the Realms, really?)
Just off the top of my head, it would radically alter the history of Ascalhorn and eventually Hellgate Keep by extension. The entire dynamic of the event would lose a lot of if the Blood War rationale were suddenly stripped out of it. I seem to recall it having some impact on most places where there were gates to the lower planes actually, at least in an abstract sense.
Would it change the setting, not per se, but its like giving Captain America a hot pink triangular shield to replace the old one... its technically a shield, but its not really Cap's shield... which is kind of the sense I'm getting out of 4e Realms really, but that's neither here nor there.
The only time I can recall there being much mention of the Blood War would have been during the "War of the Spider Queen" novels. Didn't the nasty ultraloth guy in that one mention, or at least think of the Blood War once or twice? Since my books are packed up from moving, I can't recall the direct reference. Anyway, I am kind of glad we're moving away from the Blood War as a point of contention between demons and devils. I never liked the idea that demons would immediately put aside their own differences because a devil could show up, or that these two groups were constantly butchering each other. After all, wouldn't that have left angels and archons and eladrins, all of whom get along swimmingly (most of the time), a huge opening to attack the forces of darkness and send them packing? Evil used to be distracted and unfocused. I applaud the change.
Then you really never got the Blood War...mmm...it is sad that good ideas have to die because they rely on sublteness instead of sledge hammers.
Anyway the Blood War will always rage on in my D&D universe it was probably the best idea they have ever had.
Then you really never got the Blood War...mmm...it is sad that good ideas have to die because they rely on sublteness instead of sledge hammers.
Anyway the Blood War will always rage on in my D&D universe it was probably the best idea they have ever had.
A point that the anti-4th crowd seems to hold is that all changes proposed and made are new, and not based on old complaints...
Again, remember - not everyone liked Planescape since back then, and not everyone liked it's stuff ENFORCED on nearly EVERY setting. Like Mystara fans point it frequently.
Honestly, what was the original cosmology of FR? It may not have been the Wheel, there may not have been the Blood War.
It's maybe a good idea for you, but not for everyone - and it may have been, ironicaly enough, having been hammered in FR too.
Oh, and it,s nothing subtile. It's WAR.
Is it possible to de-shade a Shade in 3.5?
I guess I can ask this too...how about in 4th?
A point that the anti-4th crowd seems to hold is that all changes proposed and made are new, and not based on old complaints...
Again, remember - not everyone liked Planescape since back then, and not everyone liked it's stuff ENFORCED on nearly EVERY setting. Like Mystara fans point it frequently.
Honestly, what was the original cosmology of FR? It may not have been the Wheel, there may not have been the Blood War.
It's maybe a good idea for you, but not for everyone - and it may have been, ironicaly enough, having been hammered in FR too.
Oh, and it,s nothing subtile. It's WAR.
Be that as it may be, I don't know either way to be honest, but the Blood War does have a significant impact on the Realms and its history. Forced or not, the lore is intertwined, and retconning it out is going to leave some signficant holes in history, from Ascalhorn to Dragonspear to Myth Drannor. Even a lot of the lore surrounding regions like Impiltur, Thesk, and Thay are tied up in it to some extent, although perhaps not as directly as others. Like it or not, getting rid of it is going to leave some strange spots in history that isn't going to make much sense without something being either retconned or just ignored and forgotten about. Considering the impact that Ascalhorn had on the history of most of the North, I just don't quite see how that's going to work out too well...
Plus this leads to what I like to call "Pre-Crisis/Postcrisis Continuity." Yeah, Wonder Woman was originally a founding member of the Justice League. But after Crisis on Infinite Earths, she wasn't anymore. So is she, or isn't she?
It happened, but it didn't happen. This is the sort of continuity kludge that once ****ed up, can never be undone no matter how hard you try.
(As I said before, we wouldn't retcon it anyway... just wondering how rooted into the setting the Blood War really was. Thanks for the reminder.)
Just off the top of my head, it would radically alter the history of Ascalhorn and eventually Hellgate Keep by extension. The entire dynamic of the event would lose a lot of if the Blood War rationale were suddenly stripped out of it. I seem to recall it having some impact on most places where there were gates to the lower planes actually, at least in an abstract sense.
I've suddenly gotten very, very busy, and I'm going to have to step out of this forum for a few weeks. I hope that folks like Eric, George, or Brian might be able to stop by and answer 3e-ish questions as they come up.
Sorry to "go dark" for a bit, but I'll get back as soon as I can.
Good one, Stigger. You're right, the Hellgate Keep story is pretty tied into Blood War lore.
(As I said before, we wouldn't retcon it anyway... just wondering how rooted into the setting the Blood War really was. Thanks for the reminder.)
Well, I've been trying to patch things between the two views, so I'm glad you've come to realize that the Bloodwar must be dealt with in some way. It really shouldn't be that hard to create a Gehenna/Gray Waste in the Elemental Abyss where the Loth-Demons live, and war broke out (perhaps the Loths started 'trafficing' with Devils, and thats what started the dispute?)
Either way, I'm sure you can still find a designer or two (George, Brian) who is steeped enough in the lore to work it all out for you. ;)
On an unrelated note:
I've suddenly gotten very, very busy, and I'm going to have to step out of this forum for a few weeks. I hope that folks like Eric, George, or Brian might be able to stop by and answer 3e-ish questions as they come up.
Sorry to "go dark" for a bit, but I'll get back as soon as I can.
No problem - (Dn)D-Day is fast approaching, and it appears you have many a 'pot-hole' to fill in.
Note: I was under the impression that GK was 'out of the loop' concerning 4e - is he back on board, or was I sadly mistaken?
I'm curious, has spellfire been done away with as well, was there a surge of wielders during the spellplague? Like humanoids just suddenly flaring like a star due to surge of uncontainable spellfire before becoming ashes moments later.
Hello Rich,
I'm curious, has spellfire been done away with as well, was there a surge of wielders during the spellplague? Like humanoids just suddenly flaring like a star due to surge of uncontainable spellfire before becoming ashes moments later.
Spellfire's come up briefly, before. Go here.
-Rich
"The Key Conceits". Point #14 on pg 14 says:"Less Evil fighting Evil""Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and Archdevils War on each other 'rather than threathening the PCs'. We dont want to waste space on things players cant use.
This kind of philosophy for 4th edition is one that saddens me. Evil fights evil due to its very nature (in the same way that good mistrusts or disagrees with good), and the good thing of it is that there are still enough Demon Lords and Archdevils to threaten the players. In fact, it can add complexity to the game, when a Devil tries to manipulate the PC´s to fight against a Demon enemy of his. I know that nowhere does it say that I can´t do that anymore, but as you can see, it´s a conscious design decision to move away from "hard choices", both as a DM or as a player. While many would call this streamlining, I feel it is dumbing down the game (as much as I hate to use that term). Removing the fact that evil is not a monolithical entity that fights against itself as much as it fights against good (and yes, I know that Demons and Devils will still fight against each other, but it will be "downplayed") takes away some well-received complexity.
So, in the light of that... How does this conscious design decision constitute a streamlining of the game, as opposed to dumbing it down? (And I don´t wanna sound offensive asking this, I actually wanna hear something about fluff that I like, for a change. Fluff on its own is starting to push me close to not care about 4th ed, and that saddens me very much. It´s already pushed me off from buying the FRCS, I´d hate it if it stopped me from getting interested in the core books).
According to the original version of the weave, along with many of Ed's comments over at CK, on Toril Magic = Life. Without the weave, life falters. Now you guys say that the Weave had nothing to do with life, and that the world will be just fine without it! This is the basis for much of FR's lore, so changing it causes problems.
Like - ALL the lore concerning Netheril, and the Phaerimm's 'life-drain'.
Before, the Phaerimm made sense - they sucked all the magic out of the world, and caused the landscape to become a barren desert. This just doesn't make sense anymore.
This carried through to other settings as well, where magic = life. You basically just threw the entire Dark Sun setting right out the window.
If magic does not = life, then you wiped out a major piece of D&D's multi-spheric lore, not just Faerûn's.
According to the original version of the weave, along with many of Ed's comments over at CK, on Toril Magic = Life. Without the weave, life falters. Now you guys say that the Weave had nothing to do with life, and that the world will be just fine without it! This is the basis for much of FR's lore, so changing it causes problems.
Yet -If I recall correctly- it was never stated in a sourcebook that the Weave is the basis of all life in Toril (and such a thing would mean that Chauntea never would have been able to create life with the help of Selûne, an event that did happened before Mystryl's creation). Also, as Richard mentioned a couple of pages ago, Weave = Life would mean that in a Dead-magic zone life would die and it's not the case.
Before, the Phaerimm made sense - they sucked all the magic out of the world, and caused the landscape to become a barren desert. This just doesn't make sense anymore.
The Phaerimm didn't drain Magic/the Weave, they actually used a life-draining spell.
The Phaerimm didn't drain Magic/the Weave, they actually used a life-draining spell.
And those parts of the Anauroch were Dead Magic Zones at that time.
And those parts of the Anauroch were Dead Magic Zones at that time.
Do you mean those areas were there pre-casting of the life-draining spells or post-casting?
If it's the first case then the Phaerimm could never have casted their life-draining spells.
If it's the second case then where is it stated? The Grand History of the Realms never mentions such a thing, and it has many entries devoted to the life-drain spells of the Phaerimm.
Anyways, even if the life-drain spells created dead-magic zones, the lack of life on the Anauroch is a direct product of said spell/s and dead-magic zones are byproducts of them.
This kind of philosophy for 4th edition is one that saddens me. Evil fights evil due to its very nature (in the same way that good mistrusts or disagrees with good), and the good thing of it is that there are still enough Demon Lords and Archdevils to threaten the players. In fact, it can add complexity to the game, when a Devil tries to manipulate the PC´s to fight against a Demon enemy of his. I know that nowhere does it say that I can´t do that anymore, but as you can see, it´s a conscious design decision to move away from "hard choices", both as a DM or as a player. While many would call this streamlining, I feel it is dumbing down the game (as much as I hate to use that term). Removing the fact that evil is not a monolithical entity that fights against itself as much as it fights against good (and yes, I know that Demons and Devils will still fight against each other, but it will be "downplayed") takes away some well-received complexity.
So, in the light of that... How does this conscious design decision constitute a streamlining of the game, as opposed to dumbing it down? (And I don´t wanna sound offensive asking this, I actually wanna hear something about fluff that I like, for a change. Fluff on its own is starting to push me close to not care about 4th ed, and that saddens me very much. It´s already pushed me off from buying the FRCS, I´d hate it if it stopped me from getting interested in the core books).
A point raised on ENworld is that it's a coop-out, a bad excuse to stop something from infering in the world. It's an artificial measure.
It also make the devils and demons not special, but common fodders in war. And the demons perhaps too unChaotic.
A point raised on ENworld is that it's a coop-out, a bad excuse to stop something from infering in the world. It's an artificial measure.
It also make the devils and demons not special, but common fodders in war. And the demons perhaps too unChaotic.
The first part what?
Second part no it just means they are more special...they exist other then to bring PCs exp. They have depth. In 4th they (along with everyother monster it appears) are just common fodder for PCs. Sorry if saome of us want depth in our RPG.
Yet -If I recall correctly- it was never stated in a sourcebook that the Weave is the basis of all life in Toril (and such a thing would mean that Chauntea never would have been able to create life with the help of Selûne, an event that did happened before Mystryl's creation). Also, as Richard mentioned a couple of pages ago, Weave = Life would mean that in a Dead-magic zone life would die and it's not the case.
Which is why I thought they did those Dead Magic areas so badly....and they are lifeless in my games.
Also I have never seen anything that describes them as having life in them.
Which is why I thought they did those Dead Magic areas so badly....and they are lifeless in my games.
Dead magic zones were created as a mechanic to complicate the life of magic users and down-power them in certain portions of the world, it was never stated that they were created to justify the absence of life in some part of the world nor ever those two conceptions were connected or related.
Also I have never seen anything that describes them as having life in them.
This argument is a logical fallacy (argumentum Ad ignorantiam), the lack of information does not prove false something.
Anyways we actually do have some information regarding the subject matter. First, we know that one can walk inside a Dead magic zone, stay there for an eternity and you wouldn't ever lose your life as a consequence of staying there, never in the rules it is stated that death is the result of staying inside a DMZ.
Also from TGHotR (year 689) we know of a subject that was surrounded and permeated with a dead magic zone for the rest of his life since that year, and he never died because of that. Also (sidebar on page 157) the Sharrans that tried to create a Dead Magic Zone that would have covered the Vast Swamp intended to make a base of operations there, I don't see the point of staying in that place if they were going to die.
So yes, we have plenty of evidence against the Weave equals life argument and the only one supporting such postulate (Ed's words) is inconsistent since there was life before there was a Weave.
The first part what?
Second part no it just means they are more special...they exist other then to bring PCs exp. They have depth. In 4th they (along with everyother monster it appears) are just common fodder for PCs. Sorry if saome of us want depth in our RPG.
the Blood War is basicaly an out of game excuse to have things like evil never uniting and to keep the fiends where they are.
Nobody said it's bad - you miss the point that the design philosophy is to allow, like in Eberron, leeway for the DM to make their OWN stuff, and not having as much canon and fluff enforced on YOUR campaign, if you wish to do things different than the base D&D specially.
The fiends are still fluffyfull, important. just that a new war basicaly replaced this one, with opportunities for the DMs to place their own inprints.
Sorry if somes of us want personality and creativity in our rpg.
Before, the Phaerimm made sense - they sucked all the magic out of the world, and caused the landscape to become a barren desert. This just doesn't make sense anymore.
This carried through to other settings as well, where magic = life. You basically just threw the entire Dark Sun setting right out the window.
If magic does not = life, then you wiped out a major piece of D&D's multi-spheric lore, not just Faerûn's.
Well, magic is still around - it's the Weave that's gone, the conduit with which to tap into magic, if you will.
DB
the Blood War is basicaly an out of game excuse to have things like evil never uniting and to keep the fiends where they are.
Thing is, I don't think evil should be monolithic like that. Whether there's a Blood War or not, I would have trouble "buying" evil factions being amenable to each other for too long.
Further, the Magic Drain (Netheril, Empire of Magic, p. 10) effect also drained away life energies as a side effect.
The contradiction claim does not exist, so far as I can tell.
Anyway I am sooo glad most of my players are not into continuity and lore and just want to play in my games every Monday. Even the one guy who is a big FR fan probably won't balk at the changes coming down the road. It just makes things that much easier. I worry too much about real life to put that much effort in worrying about my fun time as well. ;)
Plus it seems to me the Blood War can still exist.
Well, magic is still around - it's the Weave that's gone, the conduit with which to tap into magic, if you will.
True - I thought of that afterwards - I'm so used to thinking that Mystra IS Magic and Mystra IS the Weave. Ergo, A Magic Dead Zone is really an Arcane Dead Zone, in 4e parlance. There is still magic there. I think the Fey Power source of 4e will connected to life in 4e, buts that just conjectire on my part, only because it is sort of the Shadowfells opposite, and the Shadowfell will now represent negative energies, or death.
So it appears that the magic knowkledge contained in the nether Scrolls will have to be considered Fey Magic in 4e, if my conjecture above is correct. It would go a long way in explaining why the Elves were so despertae to get those scrolls back. Also, it makes sense on several levels - the Netherese built their own versions of Mythals, and had their own version of High Magic.
So, the Arcanists of Netheril did not use Arcane magic - thats actually got some potential for fixing quite a few things. And Now the Phaerimm's Life-Drain only affects the Fey Power Source, which is why Elves turned into Sharn - to protect their lands from the depradations of the Phaerimm.
In a crazy, mixed up 4e sort of way, it really makes sense - perhaps more so then the old way of looking at things. After all, when there was only one source of magic, it confused the hell of many issues (like Shadow Magic, Divine Magic, and Pluma Magic).
So it works, in that context - Magic IS life, but the Weave was not ALL magic. I have to keep reminding myself that the Weave was not magic, but rather like an Internet Service Provider - and dial-up, at that. ;)
I just thought Life-Drains stripped moisture out of the environment, making life impossible without the whole water thing going on. Don't recall it affecting magic though... been years since I read up on it though, so I could very well be mistaken. Can't recall where the description is to look it up though.
BTW, in the Netheril Material, IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES say that magic is drained by the Life-Drain Spells - two cities actually fell because of them.
Which is why I thought they did those Dead Magic areas so badly....and they are lifeless in my games.
Also I have never seen anything that describes them as having life in them.
An early Dungeon adventure has a priest of Talona brewing poisons from toxic plants growing in a dead magic zone.
The standard neutralize poison spell does not work in this case, the heroes needed some poison antidote made from the same toxic plants...wow what a versatile patch of plants huh?
That is the only thing I remember mentioned growing in a dead magic zone...it is 2ED though if I remember it right.
Hope that I have helped you out in some small way.
So it works, in that context - Magic IS life, but the Weave was not ALL magic. I have to keep reminding myself that the Weave was not magic, but rather like an Internet Service Provider - and dial-up, at that. ;)
Ed Greenwood's original argument was that the Weave sustained life.
Either he meant to say magic as in raw magic sustains life (which I doubt, considering that he knows pretty well the difference between raw magic and the Weave, especially since he constantly mentions the Weave as the interface for the raw magic) or else he's incorrect.
BTW, in the Netheril Material, IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES say that magic is drained by the Life-Drain Spells - two cities actually fell because of them.
Could you please provide a page reference? I'm asking because if the Netheril book says that then there's a big inconsistency with the Phaerimm's ecology:
From Netheril, Empire of Magic (p. 118)
"...Phaerimm are creatures who need magic in their environment to survive. Their stomachs and intestinal tracts use a strange symbiosis of magic and digestive juices to assimilate the nutrients in their diet. Without magic, phaerimm starve to death."
It wouldn't be beneficial to Phaerimm to cast the life-drain spell if it does drain magic/creates a dead magic zone as well since it would mean that, in a way, they would be committing suicide.
Reference - LEoF, pg.98, the year -427
Thats a much newer reference, but I remember their was an original one in the Netheril box - but its been years and I don't feel like going through the entire thing ATM (I'm working on a map right now).
EDIT AGAIN: Looked it up anyway - it only took me about 45 seconds to find - pg. 10 of the Winds of Netheril, read the entire Paerimm entry - they used Magic Drain spells, which also just happened to drain the life out of the land as well! According to THAT, their was NO Life-drain spell, the Phaerimm must have a very different and more powerful version of Drain magic, since it leeched away ALL energies along with magic, including life.
Oh, and the lore isn't contradictory - they leached away the magic so that they could EAT IT.
The standard neutralize poison spell does not work in this case, the heroes needed some poison antidote made from the same toxic plants...wow what a versatile patch of plants huh?
I'm fairly certain thats how it works in RW - you need a sample of the toxin in order to fabricate an antidote.
I could be wrong their - I'm no Chemist, but usually you can't 'cure' anything until you isolate the source.
Hmmmmmm... gives me an idea about how to cure 4e FR....
Sorry if somes of us want personality and creativity in our rpg.
I´m sorry, but I have to take offense to that. You´re saying that those who don´t think like you do don´t want personality or creativity in our RPG, and by extension, what I read in that is "those that don´t think like me have no personality or creativity". Thanks a lot, but no. I do have both, and I´m sure many other posters too, whatever their opinion is, so please hold back on the holier-than-thou tone.
I´m sorry, but I have to take offense to that. You´re saying that those who don´t think like you do don´t want personality or creativity in our RPG, and by extension, what I read in that is "those that don´t think like me have no personality or creativity". Thanks a lot, but no. I do have both, and I´m sure many other posters too, whatever their opinion is, so please hold back on the holier-than-thou tone.
True, but does that applies to the Pro- side only, since we are obviously wrong in our ideas?
(albeit I am not not so hugely Pro as in more I'll Read and See in fact)
I am/was meanly snarky, but going always by the book is not the highest creativity, you must admit.
This kind of philosophy for 4th edition is one that saddens me. Evil fights evil due to its very nature (in the same way that good mistrusts or disagrees with good), and the good thing of it is that there are still enough Demon Lords and Archdevils to threaten the players. In fact, it can add complexity to the game, when a Devil tries to manipulate the PC´s to fight against a Demon enemy of his. I know that nowhere does it say that I can´t do that anymore, but as you can see, it´s a conscious design decision to move away from "hard choices", both as a DM or as a player. While many would call this streamlining, I feel it is dumbing down the game (as much as I hate to use that term). Removing the fact that evil is not a monolithical entity that fights against itself as much as it fights against good (and yes, I know that Demons and Devils will still fight against each other, but it will be "downplayed") takes away some well-received complexity.
So, in the light of that... How does this conscious design decision constitute a streamlining of the game, as opposed to dumbing it down? (And I don´t wanna sound offensive asking this, I actually wanna hear something about fluff that I like, for a change. Fluff on its own is starting to push me close to not care about 4th ed, and that saddens me very much. It´s already pushed me off from buying the FRCS, I´d hate it if it stopped me from getting interested in the core books).
Because now I can have a demon and a devil on the same side without the players going what the ---? The Blood War ending allows the devils and demons to fight amongst themselves. In fact isn't the whole section about Levistus about gust that? I also make the players the main focus of the story not some war that is going on behind the scenes. For example: if the players dicover a plot of a devil, there is not an automatic ally in the demon horde. And the theory of an enemy of my enemy is my firend can;t bale them out.
True, but does that applies to the Pro- side only, since we are obviously wrong in our ideas?
(albeit I am not not so hugely Pro as in more I'll Read and See in fact)
I am/was meanly snarky, but going always by the book is not the highest creativity, you must admit.
No, I never said it applied only to the pro-side. To quote myself: "I do have both [creativity and personality], and I´m sure many other posters too, whatever their opinion is". That last part, "whatever their opinion is" is actually me asking both sides to respect one another, man. Going always by the book is not the highest creativity, I agree with that, but going by the book doesn´t supress creativity either.
In my case, all the changes to Demons and Devils have royally screwed up a campaign that I took months to develop. Since I´m not about to change things (both because I do like the narrower distinctions between Demons and Devils, the old structure of the planes, etc. and because the campaign wouldn´t make sense if I took the 4th ed. version of fiends), it means I´m gonna have to spend a long time re-converting things back to 3rd edition flavour, at least by the look of things, since, after all, fluff and mechanics seem to be quite integrated (case in point, if I want to use a succubus, I´m gonna have to put her back into Tanar´ri camp, for example). That´s why I dislike the changes to the fiends and the planes, in short (having planes separated by monster types instead of by philosophies, for example, seems less "deep" to me, thus I dislike the new design approach).
Anyway, I don´t want to clutter the thread anymore. If you wanna keep discussing the matter, feel free to PM me. I made my point already (which is simple: "respect other people´s opinions"), so I had better shut up.
Because now I can have a demon and a devil on the same side without the players going what the ---? The Blood War ending allows the devils and demons to fight amongst themselves. In fact isn't the whole section about Levistus about gust that? I also make the players the main focus of the story not some war that is going on behind the scenes. For example: if the players dicover a plot of a devil, there is not an automatic ally in the demon horde. And the theory of an enemy of my enemy is my firend can;t bale them out.
Let´s see... Demons and Devils already fought amongst themselves before the ending of the Blood War (as a quick example, the in-fighting between Demogorgon, Graz´zt, Orcus, etc.). Having a Demon and a Devil on the same side worked precisely to that effect: making players go "what the...", and while that might not have been the effect you wanted, I sure know that´s an effect I am actively going to exploit...
On making the players the main focus of the story and not some war that´s going on behind the scenes... Well, toss the players into the war, and make their presence in the war make a difference. Imagine they´re the ones responsible for the defeat of one of the sides. How is that not making the game about the players?
And since when did you have an automatic ally in the Demons/Devils when facing their enemies? That was a sure way towards disaster... Because any Demon or Devil worth their salt would use you as a pawn, not as an ally. They´d make you do their dirty work, then they´d betray you in the most wicked way possible. That´s the catch... If they think "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", then they´re gonna get into trouble, and with a good reason. You should never trust a fiend, and the players will learn that lesson the hard way.
Edit: Sorry for the double post, but since I wanted to adress two different replies that had nothing to do with one another, I thought it better this way.
I´m sorry, but I have to take offense to that. You´re saying that those who don´t think like you do don´t want personality or creativity in our RPG, and by extension, what I read in that is "those that don´t think like me have no personality or creativity". Thanks a lot, but no. I do have both, and I´m sure many other posters too, whatever their opinion is, so please hold back on the holier-than-thou tone.
Or he could simply be saying that he like the idea of being able to choose to have a blood war or not (an not have it hardcoded in the story). And I believe you started it...
- it only took me about 45 seconds to find - pg. 10 of the Winds of Netheril,
...I've got to be on his ignore list.
Either that, or he didn't read all the posts prior.
:P
Or he could simply be saying that he like the idea of being able to choose to have a blood war or not (an not have it hardcoded in the story). And I believe you started it...
He was saying that, but his tone was quite snarky (by his own admission). Also... What did I start, considering that his reply was to Johnkretzer´s post, and not mine?
I'm glad it didn't take me long to find, because then I'd be really upset. I'm still wondering though - I was answering Buzzard's query to me, and that also came after your post - he wanted a page reference. I posted, then read his post (right above mine), and wound-up editting my post twice. I guess he didn't bother reading your post either. Like I said, I never read the end of the other page - thanks for pointing that out.
...I've got to be on his ignore list.
You Wish. :P
the Blood War is basicaly an out of game excuse to have things like evil never uniting and to keep the fiends where they are.
Nobody said it's bad - you miss the point that the design philosophy is to allow, like in Eberron, leeway for the DM to make their OWN stuff, and not having as much canon and fluff enforced on YOUR campaign, if you wish to do things different than the base D&D specially.
The fiends are still fluffyfull, important. just that a new war basicaly replaced this one, with opportunities for the DMs to place their own inprints.
Sorry if somes of us want personality and creativity in our rpg.
I disagree and again instead of explaining the Blood War they just decided to get rid of it because it was too 'complex'.
Here are some facts about the Blood War that you seem not to know.
1) Not all demons or devils fight it.
2) Some demons and devils believe that the blood war is either useless, unimportant. Like the Demon Prince Graz'zt who has serveral Devil allies. Most generally believe that they should unite to bring the upper planes down. So by canon you can easily have a scenario where devils and demons working together.
3) It can be completely be ignored by a DM who doesn't want to get involved with it. As I pointed out most demons and devils don't care as much or just pay lip service and have their own plots.
So really did they really have to get rid of the Blood War? Like I keep saying I think the current design team is just getting lazy and just don't want to read up on the old lore and are creating inferior lore to replace it.
I was almost willing to give them a chance when I read Races and Classes...but after reading Monster and Worlds...this isn't the game I play anymore...which is sad as D&D was a game that didn't force you to play one way. Which is looking like a lot of what they want with 4th edition.
Because now I can have a demon and a devil on the same side without the players going what the ---? The Blood War ending allows the devils and demons to fight amongst themselves. In fact isn't the whole section about Levistus about gust that? I also make the players the main focus of the story not some war that is going on behind the scenes. For example: if the players dicover a plot of a devil, there is not an automatic ally in the demon horde. And the theory of an enemy of my enemy is my firend can;t bale them out.
Ok first what is wrong with surprising your players?
Second if they know anything about the Blood War they know that it isn't only possible for demons and devils to be on the same side but almost likely depending on who is backing the demons or devils.(Which would require a Knowledge Planes check for the characters to know about it)
As for Your example...why would the demon even waste time with the PCs? I mean he has his own concerns it is a pretty big universe after all. At best he might give them infomation...and maybe they can trust it.
Also having background that has depth is important to me...so I rather play a PC or run a game where the PCs go where they want. If they want to get involved in the Blood War they can...thus they would be the main focus. If they choose not to then the rest of the world just doesn't disappear...it still exist and moves on.
If what Markus says is true, then shouldn't all life in Faerûn have instantly become extinct when Mystril and then Mystra died?
-Exactly. It's not true. MT's not lying, but...Next time I talk to KtM, I need to get the quote from him. He and Dan, I believe, always argued on that point, and KtM eventually found a quote either from a sourcebook or from Ed further talking on the subject, that clearly disproves the notion that without the Weave, as KtM said, "Toril goes boom".
Hmmmmm.... imagine that.... Wizards of the Coast being disrespectful to a cardgame. ;)
Wait until Pikachu and the Plague Rats find out...
Whatever - it will actually be much easier to explain all of 2e and 3e's 'lore soup' with seperate power sources. Mystra was the goddess of all magic, but the Weave only accessed the Arcane Power Source. So she dillineated the flow of (some) other sources, such as divine, but 'Arcane' was her 'source of choice', and so, when she first created the weave, that is the one she used to power it.
If the Nether scrolls were using the Fey Magic Source, then that would explain why the Phaerimm's Magic Drain spell also drained life - it only targeted the Fey source. That would also be why Netherese magic was similar to Elven. Also, given what we know about Shade, it would help explain why they survived (because they tapped into a completely different power source).
It would also prove that the Imaskari were either more powerful, or at least more versatile, then the Netherese. They got their magical know-how from several sources, so when they too ran into the Phaeriimm, it wasn't as big a deal as it was with the Netherese.
The 4e 'Power Source' thing becomes very helpful in explaining quite a bit of quirky lore, when you think about it. It may seem somewhat contrived, but I think there was always a little something in lore that hinted at 'other ways' to do magic. From a game-mechanics point of view, it's a no-brainer.
I tell you, the more I hear about 4e rules, the more I'm liking them. People have to understand just because something is no longer mentioned (like the Bloodwar) doesn't mean it isn't there - they're just leaving some stuff ambiguous so DMs can decide for themselves what is what. Isn't that the way its supposed to be? Thats kind of what they did with Spelljamming in 3e - it was there, but it also wasn't. Since so many people disliked SJ, that was a great way to go, IMO.
Still not loving what they did to FR in 4e, but whatever. It just seems like sloppy design to me, but what do I know? I have more issue with the poor implimentation with the changes, then the changes themselves, really. I just hope the lore in the FRCG is much better then these crummy little 'snapshots' we've been getting. If there's a story there (and a damn good one), then fine, but if they continue down this path of just telling us something happened without logical explanations for all of it, then I think they are going to lose way more fans then they attract.
They said they were shooting for a 'theme' with 4e FR, and I still don't see one. It looks even more disparate and chaotic then before. Maybe it will be something along the lines of "Plague Survivors", but that whole 'survivor' thing is just way too similar to Eberron's theme for me.
Minor Rant:
And if anyone thinks that Baldur's Gate 'grew' for any other reason then to give the Video Game's more play-room, your delusional.
Wasn't there also a Bloodwar cardgame?
-I don't know, but that sounds strangely cool.
It flopped.
-Exactly. It's not true. MT's not lying, but...Next time I talk to KtM, I need to get the quote from him. He and Dan, I believe, always argued on that point, and KtM eventually found a quote either from a sourcebook or from Ed further talking on the subject, that clearly disproves the notion that without the Weave, as KtM said, "Toril goes boom".
Maybe it's this one? (the quote doesn't mention the "life" concept directly)
It seems likely that to destroy Mystra would be to destroy the Weave, and vice versa [...] This would NOT mean that Realmspace/Toril/Faerûn would necessarily be destroyed, nor that magic would ‘go away.’ It probably would mean a lot of widespread magical chaos, and magic that thereafter ‘worked differently’ (either wholly or subtly) from the system of spells described in the current game rulebooks - - because they deal with magic in Faerûn “under the Weave.” So a DM who wants to change magic in his or her Realms campaign to a spell-points system, or back to the spell levels and descriptions of earlier D&D editions, or substitute magic systems from other games, or just “tinker” with the published spells, could readily use a “destruction of the Weave” catacalysm as an in-game reason for such alterations.
Spellplague anyone? :D
Maybe it's this one? (the quote doesn't mention the "life" concept directly)
-Might be that one.
Spellplague anyone? :D
-Indeed.
Maybe it's this one? (the quote doesn't mention the "life" concept directly)
Spellplague anyone? :D
When I read things like I wonder if 2 things:
1)When was it written?
2) Ed is not all that great...or even he understands what the Weave offers in flexability in a RPG.
1)When was it written?
-At least a year and a half to two years ago.
-At least a year and a half to two years ago.
Pretty much what I figured just around the time that they decided on the Spellplague...how interesting.
When I read things like I wonder if 2 things:
1)When was it written?
This answer from Ed was posted on the Candelkeep Forum the 27th of September of 2005.
Are Dragonborn reproductively compatible with other races? Is half-Dragonborn an option? If the Dragonborn are not reproductively compatible, could someone please rethink the "more feminine" appearance? The phrase "lactating lizards" came to mind when I saw page 68 of Races and Classes. The sight of it gave me a shudder that is typically engendered by the wisdom of senior management, although I do not expect confirmation.
Can anyone confirm that the Dragon Shaman class of PHB2 will not appear as a core class? I will guess it became part of the Warlord class, although it seemed like a natural fit for the Dragonborn.
Will Swordmages and Monks appear in core 4e?
This answer from Ed was posted on the Candelkeep Forum the 27th of September of 2005.
-Ah, slightly older than I thought. I was fairly close, though.
This answer from Ed was posted on the Candelkeep Forum the 27th of September of 2005.
Still falls within the time-slot of when he new about 4e, though. ;)
It was discussed in 'a back room' at Gencon '05, I believe.
Still falls within the time-slot of when he new about 4e, though. ;)
It was discussed in 'a back room' at Gencon '05, I believe.
I didn't know that, it seems that that answer was a foreshadow of 4th Edition Forgotten Realms. Ed Greenwood should have been stopped?. Just kidding. :P
Ed Greenwood should have been stopped?. Just kidding. :P
-Indeed, Ed Greenwood must be stopped.
-But, seriously, though, as the Weave has already ceased to exist for a limited time, and Abeir-Toril didn't go 'boom', the idea that life would die immediatley without the Weave is fundamentally flawed.
-Indeed, Ed Greenwood must be stopped.
-But, seriously, though, as the Weave has already ceased to exist for a limited time, and Abeir-Toril didn't go 'boom', the idea that life would die immediatley without the Weave is fundamentally flawed.
I agree. When I thought this was canon(and still is in my Realms) it would be a slow withering type of death. It would take time but it would be irreversible. Less births each year...more bad crops...water would become stagnate...etc.
In the end Shar would get her way...which is why she was trying to kill Mystra...and not Chauntea or Selune because Mystra was the key.
On the other hand, when we use the term 'magic', we mean 'all magic', and that does include the energies required for life (the positive energy plane, which I'm fairly sure will be rolled into the Feywild).
The problem stems from many (designers and fans alike) using the terms 'Magic' and 'The Weave' interchangeably in the past, when that simply isn't correct.
Think of 'all magic' as a vast supply of every eatible substance in the universe, and the weave is a cookbook.
A FRENCH cookbook.
Sure, you can whip-up some great meals with it... but what if you want a Cheeseburger?
The mistake we have always made - which has been addressed numerous times in newer lore - is that we have always thought that the Weave was the 'end-all, be-all' of magic on Toril.
That was all just propaganda spread by Mystra's church - and something I've been saying since WAY before the 4e announcement. :P
Shar wasn't all that wrong - she knew there were other options, and her Shadow Weave was merely one of them. In that light, Shar almost appears as a 'liberator' of magical Freedom.
Weird, huh? Didn't I just say last night how 'good' was very subjective? ;)
Less births each year...
-That's not Mystra's domain, that would be Lathanders.
more bad crops...
-Chauntea.
...water would become stagnate...etc.
-Eldath, perhaps? Let's throw her some scraps, here.
-That's not Mystra's domain, that would be Lathanders.
Precisely, Lathander is even more evidence that life does not depend on the Weave since the sun god holds the "birth" portfolio.
-Chauntea.
Yup.
-Eldath, perhaps? Let's throw her some scraps, here.
And/or Istishia.
Thing is, I don't think evil should be monolithic like that. Whether there's a Blood War or not, I would have trouble "buying" evil factions being amenable to each other for too long.
I would have to agree entirely here with you. There is no "evil manifesto" that all evildoers adhere to, just as not all good characters band together towards some common goal (mainly because there isn't a single common goal).
-That's not Mystra's domain, that would be Lathanders.
-Chauntea.
-Eldath, perhaps? Let's throw her some scraps, here.
That is why she is the caretaker of the Weave...it doesn't matter much...personaly I wish Ed and the rest would shut up more I had it nicely worked out in my head...
Also yes all the gods relied on the Weave your point? That would be why divine magic came from there as well.
You know what would have bveen a actual interesting development for Mystra and her Choosen. If Shar lost power and Selune increased in power...and well Mystra needed to maintain the balance well needs to start aiding Shar...mmmmm
That is why she is the caretaker of the Weave...it doesn't matter much...personaly I wish Ed and the rest would shut up more I had it nicely worked out in my head...
-You, sir, have just blasphemed. Prepare to be stoned. :P
(-No, I agree with you, to a point.)
Also yes all the gods relied on the Weave your point? That would be why divine magic came from there as well.
-Having Divine Magic rely on the Weave is, perhaps, one of the worst ideas that exist in the setting.
You have Thoth and Set, CL for the elves and some other guys. Cyric is technically a god of magic too (Illusions)
What about the other gods of magic, Mystra wasn't the end all be all of magic.
-Mystra was magic incarnate, however. None of those other deities could say that.
-That's not Mystra's domain, that would be Lathanders.
-Chauntea.
-Eldath, perhaps? Let's throw her some scraps, here.
-So basically "Mystra and her Weave" over shadowed all the other gods?
Going by 4E rules what we can see so far-"Mystra" would have the biggest "Pantheon" going in the setting according to 4E rules. "The Chosen" would be Demi-Gods in her Pantheon. "Azuth and Savras" would be in her orbit. Hence the need in the designers eyes to do away with her. They probably spent alot of time at that Gencon talking with Ed about "Mystra and the Weave" and possible way to change things to fit the 4E rules.
LORD DELTA
One of the things I like to do with my realms campaigns is set them against a backdrop of an historical event. For instance my current game is set around the drow invasion of the citidel of the bloody hand , pre waterdeep. And the one before was Orc army taking of citidel felbarr.
My question. Is there any chance of a book that will deal with applying 4E mechanics to historical/prespellplague Faerun?
-So basically "Mystra and her Weave" over shadowed all the other gods?
Going by 4E rules what we can see so far-"Mystra" would have the biggest "Pantheon" going in the setting according to 4E rules. "The Chosen" would be Demi-Gods in her Pantheon. "Azuth and Savras" would be in her orbit. Hence the need in the designers eyes to do away with her. They probably spent alot of time at that Gencon talking with Ed about "Mystra and the Weave" and possible way to change things to fit the 4E rules.
LORD DELTA
Now Shar and the Shadovar over shadow all other gods and NPCs. Thanks to retconning Shar is now at the center of every major plot in the Realms. She's responsible for the Fall of Netheril, the Time of Troubles, and the Spellplague. After taking over Sembia the New Empire of Netheril is now the largest nation on Toril. On top of all that the empire is ruled by the Prince's of Shade. They are all epic level. It looks like Shar is the new all-powerful god in the Realms that people can complain about.
Now Shar and the Shadovar over shadow all other gods and NPCs. Thanks to retconning Shar is now at the center of every major plot in the Realms. She's responsible for the Fall of Netheril, the Time of Troubles, and the Spellplague. After taking over Sembia the New Empire of Netheril is now the largest nation on Toril. On top of all that the empire is ruled by the Prince's of Shade. They are all epic level. It looks like Shar is the new all-powerful god in the Realms that people can complain about.
-I guess she is one bad
*****.;) LORD DELTA
What about the other gods of magic, Mystra wasn't the end all be all of magic.
You have Thoth and Set, CL for the elves and some other guys. Cyric is technically a god of magic too (Illusions)
Just a minor point but I guess you don't keep up to date much. Both Throth and Set will probably not only be out of the FR but D&D as a whole.
-Having Divine Magic rely on the Weave is, perhaps, one of the worst ideas that exist in the setting.
I agree but I adapted to it.
You know they could have just... you know it is not worth it anymore.
Since he killed Sseth and at least one other god he is the one interloper to stick around.
-Set killed Sseth finally?
Well... This is my first message here and the topic is so huge that I couldn’t read everything, so I’m sorry if the questions that I’m going to post here are already posted.
And I’m sorry for any mistakes regarding English, because I’m Brazilian… :D
Regarding the deities in the FR 4e:
Do you have any idea of what kind of changes we could expect with Kelemvor in FR 4e? I’m asking this because he was the mortal lover of Midnight (the new Mystra), and she was murdered by Cyric, in the event that caused the Spellplague. It is possible that we could see a more sorrowful and dark Kelemvor, seeking revenge for this crime?
Still regarding the death/dead god in FR 4e, it is possible to see a resurgent Myrkul that could even battle Kelemvor for the rulership over these portfolios? I know that he’s “officially” dead, but it is mentioned in some book that an essence of the god survived in an artifact know as the Crown of Horns. I think that, with a very explained and coherent manner, the crown of horns could be used by Kelemvor, and both deities (the old and the new) could be battling for the control over the death and the dead in the new Realms.
What do you think about this?
See ya,
PS: Please, do not take out the Blood War from FR 4e...
Still regarding the death/dead god in FR 4e, it is possible to see a resurgent Myrkul that could even battle Kelemvor for the rulership over these portfolios? I know that he’s “officially” dead, but it is mentioned in some book that an essence of the god survived in an artifact know as the Crown of Horns. I think that, with a very explained and coherent manner, the crown of horns could be used by Kelemvor, and both deities (the old and the new) could be battling for the control over the death and the dead in the new Realms.
FYI, Myrkul didn't have the Portfolio of Death. It was Bhaal who had it.
But anyway, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I too would like to see the return of Myrkul. And let me point out, again, that Myrkul can return without impacting Kelemvor, as the Portfolio of the Dead wasn't the only one he possessed. He held the Portfolios of the Dead, Wasting, Decay, Corruption, Parasites, Old Age, Dusk, Fall, Exhaustion. All of those, save for the Dead and Fall, lay unclaimed. And taking Fall back from Mielikki ought to be fairly easy. So Myrkul could come back as the God of Wasting, Decay, Corruption, Parasites, Old Age, Dusk, Fall, and Exhaustion, and Kelemvor could remain God of Death and the Dead.
I also like Myrkul, and I think that this could be a great opportunity to see it back in FR 4e, as one of the big evil guys (just like Bane). And that's why a conflict between he and Kelemvor for the death/dead portfolio, or the possible corruption of Kelemvor caused by the Crown of Horns, with the essence of the (un)life force of Myrkul could be a big plot for these deities in the new Realms.
I like the Grim Reaper thing - he collects the soul, and Kel judges them; they could work together (although I don't know who'd be in charge with 4e rules in mind - probably Kel).
Bravesword's post got me thinking - Do ascneded Gods still have a soul?
Mortals do, but what happens to it once a person ascends to godhood? I would assume that demi-gods (saints in 4e) would have one. Perhaps their souls get consumed in the process of godhood?
I'm only wondering this because the original Mystryl shouldn't have had one, but the next two should have. What happened to Midnights mortal soul? Will she be reunited with Kelemvor in his Land of the Dead?
Would make a nice little short story, I would think...
Bravesword's post got me thinking - Do ascneded Gods still have a soul?
-Hmm...I'd say no. All that Incarnum 'soulstuff' blends together with the Divine.
-Hmm...I'd say no. All that Incarnum 'soulstuff' blends together with the Divine.
Thats kind of what I was thinking too...
That 'Divinity' was the gods version of a soul. Perhaps Demi-powers/Saints have their souls 'set afire' - sort of like a candle burning more brightly. In time, they either ascend to a higher rank (through worship), or their soul 'burns itself out', and they get recorded in the history books.
That would be interesting, because it would go a long way in explaining Sainthood, and why Saints would even persue having monasteries erected in THEIR honor.
Think of Sainthood as the Primaries, and the election as true Godhood. ;)
This is the idea that I have in mind:
Imagine that Kelemvor would be one of the defenders of Mystra, in case of an attack against her, especially considering his great enemy, Cyric (as showed in the Avatar Trilogy and in Prince of Lies). They were former lovers when they were mortals after all, and they were close allies even as deities (some even debated if their relationship was a bit closer than usual).
That said, and being Kelemvor a Greater Deity of considerable power, he could easily frustrate the plans of Cyric and Shar of bringing Mystra down and killing the goddess of magic. Thinking about this, and trying to avoid any flaw in their plans, both deities (Cyric and Shar) agreed that Kelemvor should be put out of picture, at least until Mystra is certainly dead. But how to do this?
Shar and/or Cyric could have sent a follower in search of the Crown of Horns. This artifact still holds a portion of Myrkul sentience, and Shar could have convinced the former Lord of the Dead that it was time to regain his powers as the “real bad guy” in the Pantheon, as did Bane years before. Shar could even execute this in secret from Cyric (who would welcome his portfolios back), looking for a more "competent" deity to watch over de death and the dead in the Realms (she despises Kelemvor and doesn't trust Cyric in being the god of death/dead either, thinking in Myrkul as a competent substitute).
So, while Cyric assassinated Mystra and caused the Spellplague, Shar made her move to assure the success of the Black Sun, striking against Kelemvor. She attacked him and put the Crown of Horns in his head, and both deities (or souls, considering that Myrkul and Kelemvor were former mortals) became imprisoned in the same “body”, fighting for control over the death/dead.
Here’s another option: Shar attacked Kelemvor, putting the Crown of Horns in his head. After that she fled the scene, and Kelemvor was temporarily drained of his powers to follow her or to save his beloved Mystra. During the next years, Myrkul would carefully suggest things and actions inside Kelemvor’s head, making him to think that these changes of personality were due to his mourning for Mystra’s death. His clergy would gradually practice again the rituals and prayers of the old myrkulite church, and even other gods would be puzzled by the change of behavior of Kelemvor.
And what will become of him? Would he be permanently consumed by Myrkul, and the former Lord of Dead would rule again, or Kelemvor would have the willpower to fight back the influence of the Crown of Horns, restoring his faith, his powers and (if he still have one), his soul?
That would be a nice plot, don’t you think?
Enter Myerkulemvor, 4e's god of the dead!
Thats kind of what I was thinking...
That 'Divinity' was the gods version of a soul. Perhaps Demi-powers/Saints have their souls 'set afire' - sort of like a candle burning more brightly. In time, they either ascend to a higher rank (through worship), or their soul 'burns itself out', and they get recorded in the history books.
Indeed.
I pictured it myself in the same way too. Effectively a saints soul eventually reaches a higher energylevel i.e. they become a demigod. A usual byproduct is excess light. A gods soul is still a soul, but it's irreversibly active on a higher scale.
On the outer planes a soul can transcend to a higher form in the hierarchy or angels and this usually goes along with bluish or golden light. An transformation into a fiend or demon along with red or black light.
Anyway this 3ed view I always held will be less defined in 4ed because the positive and negative planes will be gone (I really liked the fact stars are rips in the material plane to the para-elemental plane of radiance, the mix-plane of positive and fire energy).
Not sure if this has been touched upon and if so sorry...
But Tyr and Lathander just told Ao he had fallen down a flight of stairs... ;)
If you can say, I was wondering if the River Styx survives in the new cosmology in any fashion?
It would be nifty if there were still a transplanar River Styx that flowed from the depths of the Abyss to the Nine Hells in the Astral Sea.
I don't know if you were planning on keeping this feature, but if not, I do hope you will please consider it, at least for the Forgotten Realms cosmology. That way you could reintroduce charonodemons (or marraenodemons, either way) at some point as the ghastly and iconic ferrymen who offer transport along it.
This would preserve a feature that is beloved by many a player, provide an extra avenue for planar travel and adventure, and would allow those players for whom the Blood War is an important aspect of their game to continue to support that, even if the Blood War is deemphasized in 4e.
Don't post too often, first post in a while but the recent talk regarding Kelemvor got me thinking, as the god of the dead would he not have sensed the death of a god, namely Mystra and acted upon this?
Not sure if this has been touched upon and if so sorry...
In "Crucible", they touch on this sort of thing. Kelemvor would definitely sense Mystra's death, but as it is not his purview to interfere with death, he would not intervene. Whatever element of his mortal affection for her still remains would probably feel awful about it, but since he is the god of death, he can not intervene to prolong a life. At least, that's how I understand it.
In "Crucible", they touch on this sort of thing. Kelemvor would definitely sense Mystra's death, but as it is not his purview to interfere with death, he would not intervene. Whatever element of his mortal affection for her still remains would probably feel awful about it, but since he is the god of death, he can not intervene to prolong a life. At least, that's how I understand it.
The deities' portfolios are limited to mortal existence.
The why was Mystra able to cut off Godly magic?
-Yep another mark against her and her Chosen overshadowing my 14th level munchkin. Cant have her ruining the fun of my munchkin now can we. Phat lootz herz Iz Comz!!!;) :P :D
LORD DELTA
I shall loot [Mystra's Robe of Brillient Starry Night] and dance on her corpse!
-Ah...I see, a 'Necrophillac' are we? Do you need any help with her corpse? I bet MarkusTay63 would gladly help you ravish her dead and rotting corpse.:P (Just kidding!!!;) )
LORD DELTA;)
The why was Mystra able to cut off Godly magic?
Mystra controls the Weave which is the interface to access magic in the mortal world. She can deny the use of a god's magic and/or their faithful on Toril, not on their own godly realms. The Weave is after all, the method with which mortals access magic. Kelemvor can only sense the death of mortals and not deities since they are not native to Toril, they are outsiders.
Portfolio
Every deity of rank 1 or higher has at least limited knowledge and control over some aspect of mortal existence. A deity’s connection to its portfolio gives it a number of powers.
To clarify, when gods use/grant spells on Abeir-Toril, they are accessing an aspect of mortal existence that's under Mystra's control.
-Ah...I see, a 'Necrophillac' are we? Do you need any help with her corpse? I bet MarkusTay63 would gladly help you ravish her dead and rotting corpse.:P (Just kidding!!!;) )
LORD DELTA;)
Ewwww. Just...ewwww.
C'mon man, 'ravish'? Ick.
No amount of smilies make this not nasty.
I think Delta's been watching too much Drawn Together.
Well said.
I think Delta's been watching too much Drawn Together.
-Whats Drawn Together?
LORD DELTA:P
Theres a character that likes... corpses... thats where I thought you got that from.
2) Myrkul (last I read) is happy where he is, causing trouble via the Crown of Horns.
3) Having Myrkul come back would be tacky--2 out of 3 main 'baddies' coming back after the Tot? Nope. Bane's enough.
4) The portfolio proposed for a resurgent Myrkhul (regardless of Kelemvor) is too...eh. It's like having a drow demipower whose portfolio consists of webbing, candlewax, and stalagmites. A bit too minor, and if anyone's noticed WotC is aiming to keep deities with more fundamental/essential portfolios.
I disagree with you, Selvarin.
I think that Kelemvor could be more used in the FR cosmology in the events that caused the Spellplague (especially considering his previous relationship with Mystra, when both of them were mortals).
I really like Kelemvor, but I think that he has now a very bureaucratic role, just judging the dead and all that. Ok, that’s why he’s there, that’s his function, after all… But I think that this hook of Mystra’s death could be used to create a great story for him.
I also miss Myrkul. Having an evil god of death/dead back in the FR Pantheon would be a great chance to introduce new (or old) villains and threats in FR 4e. Considering that the PCs will have more chance to really make difference in the setting (according with the information that we receive from the design team, right?), I wouldn’t discard an adventure where a group of really powerful PCs (paragon or epic) could be sent to his godly domain to check what's wrong with the Judge of the Dead. Or a story which Kelemvor (with the influence of Myrkul) forges an alliance with Bane.
All hail Myerkulemvor! :D
Now Shar and the Shadovar over shadow all other gods and NPCs. Thanks to retconning Shar is now at the center of every major plot in the Realms. She's responsible for the Fall of Netheril, the Time of Troubles, and the Spellplague. After taking over Sembia the New Empire of Netheril is now the largest nation on Toril. On top of all that the empire is ruled by the Prince's of Shade. They are all epic level. It looks like Shar is the new all-powerful god in the Realms that people can complain about.
I hadn't heard about any of this. What are the sources for this? Is that from novels?
I hadn't heard about any of this. What are the sources for this? Is that from novels?
-This article, as well as the Twilight War trilogy of novels.
(Note, the log-in and password for that article is your boards log-in and password.)
YouTube it... its for grownups. ;)
Theres a character that likes... corpses... thats where I thought you got that from.
-Maybe I am just sick like that. Anyway...I was poking fun at you.;) :P :D
LORD DIRTY DELTA:D
Myrkul was MUCH cooler.
I'm not saying that more can't be done with Kelemvor, I'm just saying *I* don't want to see him more active in novels and stories if it means more risk of him getting screwed up. Elsewhere I've discussed the idea of him taking the portfolio of vengeance (or vengeful justice) after Mystra is murdered. I just don't want something funky happening to him.
I understand you fears... Sometimes the're my fears, too. But it´s bad to leave a promissing deity behind just because you are afraid that they could do some terrible thing to her. I really didn't like the Tyr-Helm plotline, and I agree that the best thing to do is to promote Torm as the justice god in Faerun (very good argument, Greenknight!).
And it´s a good idea to add vengeance as one of his portfolios, especially after Mystra's death.
Well, let´s wait until FR 4e, then...
Kelemvor puts me to sleep.
Myrkul was MUCH cooler.
You know "cooler" is really subjective....
DELTA:D
You know "cooler" is really subjective....
True, I apologize -
Myrkul is cooler, IMHO. ;)
Post-padding is against the ToC.
True, I apologize -
Myrkul is cooler, IMHO. ;)
-What me?
DELTA:P
Post-padding is against the ToC.
True, I apologize -
Myrkul is cooler, IMHO. ;)
"colder" IMHO :D
I understand what you mean regardin Kel, but "the Evil Death god" was getting too old for me...
I mean I have nothing against bringing Myrkul back but just not as a "Death god"
Trust me though, Jergal is more than meets the eye.:D
-Definitley.
Just wait til he transforms and rips someone in half like Megatron did. I wouldn't be surprised if Jergal had some master plan to retake all of his powers if he wanted to.
Well, in the Age of Worms conversion notes for FR, Jergal was really evil and intended to become the overdeity by subsuming Bane's, Myrkul's, Bhaal's and the other deity-guy's (who was the main baddy in the adventure path) portfolios.
Just wait til he transforms and rips someone in half like Megatron did. I wouldn't be surprised if Jergal had some master plan to retake all of his powers if he wanted to.
I'm just amazed by how powerful he was. He divided his powers FOUR ways (between him, Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul), and the end result was two Greater Gods, a Lesser God, and a Demigod. That's pretty impressive.
I'm just amazed by how powerful he was. He divided his powers FOUR ways (between him, Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul), and the end result was two Greater Gods, a Lesser God, and a Demigod. That's pretty impressive.
Wasn't Jergal originally the most powerful god during the age he ruled the Dead or something? He got bored because nothing challenged him or something right? I need to look him up in my pdf copy of Deities and Demigods to be sure but I think that was right.
Wasn't Jergal originally the most powerful god during the age he ruled the Dead or something? He got bored because nothing challenged him or something right? I need to look him up in my pdf copy of Deities and Demigods to be sure but I think that was right.
Netheril: Empire of Magic stated that Jergal actually admired Shar's power (and if I recall correctly they were actually lovers) and she tried to manipulate him and although he likes/ed Shar he realized what the Dark Goddess was trying to do.
Shar had some interesting characterization back then, she was also the lover of Kozah (aka Talos aka Gruumsh now :P)
Netheril: Empire of Magic stated that Jergal actually admired Shar's power (and if I recall correctly they were actually lovers) and she tried to manipulate him and although he likes/ed Shar he realized what the Dark Goddess was trying to do.
Shar had some interesting characterization back then, she was also the lover of Kozah (aka Talos aka Gruumsh now :P)
She also was the goddess of murder (while Jergal was god of Death :P) and thieves and such. I wonder how Mask became the god of thieves then....At any rate sounds like Shar was easy.
He admired the ineffable evil and seductive Power, grace of Shar and had formally courted her on several occasions, though he was well aware of the many attempts she made to manipulate him.
And speaking of Shar's Portfolios...
Portfolio: Dark, night, hatred, loss, forgetfulness, sleep, nightmares, illusions, lies, trickery, unrevealed secrets, hiding places, betrayal, treachery, seduction, thieves, thievery, murder, winter
Wow, Shar was positively rolling in them!
Wow, Shar was positively rolling in them!
-She, at one point or another, lost about half of those. Geeze...
-Though, it makes sense. In a society with fewer deities, each one is going to have a lot more portfolios/responsibilities. It is likely that she began losing her portfolios after Netheril collapsed, and the general 'Faerûnian Pantheon' was being born with the exchange of peoples, ideas, and deities.
Maybe Mask managed to swipe those away from Shar and somehow Jergal got Murder who later passed it on to Bhaal and then to Cyric.
Yeah because Shar and Jergal were from the Netherese pantheon right? Later all the various human pantheons merged together. Which no doubtedly caused some gods to fight and kill each other for their place. Case in point the younger Tempus defeated the older Targus and took his place as God of War. Though ol' Garagos is still around.
Maybe Mask managed to swipe those away from Shar and somehow Jergal got Murder who later passed it on to Bhaal and then to Cyric.
-Yup, yup, yup.
Kelemvor puts me to sleep.
Myrkul was MUCH cooler.
Myrkul never appealed to me - just some run-of-the-mill bad guy deity with the skulls and bones theme. I really didn't like the ToT, but I loved what they did with Kelemvor. Now we have a religion revolving around death that actually makes sense and gives the Realms something they've never had before.
DB
-She, at one point or another, lost about half of those. Geeze...
-Though, it makes sense. In a society with fewer deities, each one is going to have a lot more portfolios/responsibilities. It is likely that she began losing her portfolios after Netheril collapsed, and the general 'Faerûnian Pantheon' was being born with the exchange of peoples, ideas, and deities.
-She truly is the Goddess of Loss. BTW when was Mask first mentioned in Realmslore? Or do I need to go over to Candlekeep to find out. I wonder why he has such a H***-*n for her.;)
DELTA;)
Edited cause I used the same joke only days earlier, and I don't feel like being repetitious. :P
-
LORD DELTA:P
Maybe we can get 'Death' from Famiily Guy... Sweeeeeeeeeeet. :D
On a more serious note, I was just thinking (it happens sometimes) - I wonder if Jergal was involved in any way with Mystra's death. Just because Shar and Cyric were the only two implicated, doesn't mean others weren't involved.
On the other thread, we've been wondering about why Mystra couldn't come back this time, so maybe Jergal flexed his 'Death' muscles one last time and made it so for good this time out. He's had something up his sleeve for awhile now, so I wouldn't put it past him...
Mystra may have been the only other god on par with him, back before he split his power up among four different gods. Perhaps this whole thing has really been HIS plan, after all, and Shar was just HIS dupe...
And there's that Lathander guy... always smiling... and sunny and stuff... I don't trust him...
Maybe he was in on it, and tried to pull a 'Dawn Cataclysm 2.0'.
everyone else is either dead or missing.
death to lanthander, return the noon day sun
On a more serious note, I was just thinking (it happens sometimes) - I wonder if Jergal was involved in any way with Mystra's death. Just because Shar and Cyric were the only two implicated, doesn't mean others weren't involved.
-I was discussing with either GreenKnight or Charles P., that Velsharoon might have been in on what Shar and Cyric were planning as well. Perhaps it is because of Velsharoon that Cyric was able to gain entry into Dweomerheart in the first place. After all, deities cannot simply enter into another deities' realm without permission (Evermeet: Island of the Elves, Sacrifice of the Widow). Velsharoon already didn't like Mystra much, was being courted by Shar, and was thinking about "switching sides", as per Faiths and Pantheons. That Velsharoon was involved would also explain why he did not die in the aftermath, when Savras, a lesser deity on par with Velsharoon, did.
chauntea, silvanus, jergal, shar and selune the oldest deities in the FR.
-Not necessarily. Interloper deities, such as Corellon Larethian, Gruumsh, or anyone else might be older. These deities might predate the existence of Realmspace (as I think is the case).
Unless, of course, Azuth was chasing velsharoon...
Also, I think sfdragon was referring to native Torillian deities, not interlopers.
Interlopers Must Die!!! :P
But that part about Azuth and Velsharoon fleeing into the Astral makes it look like they were running togetherr...
Unless, of course, Azuth was chasing velsharoon...
-Chasing him is a possibility, and that Velsharoon betrayed everyone doesn't mean that Azuth is aware of his betrayal.
Interlopers Must Die!!! :P
-If there were no interlopers, the setting would be crappier. Much crappier.
-I was discussing with either GreenKnight or Charles P., that Velsharoon might have been in on what Shar and Cyric were planning as well. Perhaps it is because of Velsharoon that Cyric was able to gain entry into Dweomerheart in the first place. After all, deities cannot simply enter into another deities' realm without permission (Evermeet: Island of the Elves, Sacrifice of the Widow). Velsharoon already didn't like Mystra much, was being courted by Shar, and was thinking about "switching sides", as per Faiths and Pantheons. That Velsharoon was involved would also explain why he did not die in the aftermath, when Savras, a lesser deity on par with Velsharoon, did.
That's something of a standing presumption of mine. It'd be convenient for Velshy to be a traitor in this setup.
or to be less serious
Of course Velsharoon is the traitor, why else do you think I provided the artifact that serves as a seconday control mechanism to the twit? My health?
Maybe we can get 'Death' from Famiily Guy... Sweeeeeeeeeeet. :D
Which was a total rip off of Terry Pratchett's 'Death' in his Discworld series. Not that I mind, Family Guy holds absolutely nothing sacred and rips off everything. :D
-I was wondering where you were. Given your disdain for him, are you finally going to pull the trigger now? Velsharoon is a loose cannon, I tell you.
Hmm, I had been leaving him to be turned into a battery but I have some remaining safe points to shunt fragments of Mystra to and if you aren't gonna use him then I have no problems doing so. There should even be enough left to set in motion Shar's punishment without too much cost on my part.
*
Necromancy spells across Faerun destabilize for a moment. Velsharoon's screams are heard through the planes.
*
Agreed, by the way, we need to discuss details regarding your Avatar spell. Shar and I need to chat and I'd prefer a guarantee that Mystra won't have too much trouble with the resurrection when I'm done frying Shar's power base for her.
It's going to cost you, of course.
Shrug, a third of Shar's power, the portfolios of ritual magic and transmutation, the details of one working to be negotiated at a later date. Mystra reserves veto rights, you get initial selection on the magic involved. Do you have an extra term or is my opening bid appropriate?
-Excellent...
- Alediran, recent Archmage.
We don't use THAT word... we just call it 4e now. ;)
I literallty LOL! My sargent gave mr "the look" When can we expect the next Countdown to the Realms article? Will it arrive at a regular intervule or will it be irrattic?
Thanks
Hvulpes
That wave of shear negative energy that washed across him after it was posted probably left him hospitalized. :P
But that part about Azuth and Velsharoon fleeing into the Astral makes it look like they were running together...
Unless, of course, Azuth was chasing velsharoon...
Interlopers Must Die!!! :P
I thought they were flung out into the Astral plane to drift away.
Bel
Agreed, by the way, we need to discuss details regarding your Avatar spell. Shar and I need to chat and I'd prefer a guarantee that Mystra won't have too much trouble with the resurrection when I'm done frying Shar's power base for her.
Isn't a deity killed on it's home plane killed for good?
Bel
Isn't a deity killed on it's home plane killed for good?
Bel
Depends on where you go by, but that´s the general consensus. (Planescape 2nd ed. for example mentions that not even that way you could kill a Power. They´d eventually reform from the memories and beliefs of their followers, or somesuch. "That´s why they´re called powers, berk").
I thought they were flung out into the Astral plane to drift away.
That's what I thought. No mention of anyone chasing anyone that I can recall.
That wave of shear negative energy that washed across him after it was posted probably left him hospitalized. :P
-Wait...I thought Negative Energy didn't exist anymore? :P
That's what I thought. No mention of anyone chasing anyone that I can recall.
-Sure, but why not? It's a theory, a good theory at that, and brings more sense to that rather senseless story. Both Azuth and Velsharoon were shunted from Dweomerheart when Mystra died, but nothing says anything about what they were doing beforehand.
-Wait...I thought Negative Energy didn't exist anymore?
It does, but it's part of the Shadow Weave(fell) now.
Which makes pefect sense, if you think about it.
Nothing in FR history has ever generated more negativity (among fans). ;)
With the Weave's collapse, do any spellbooks still have value? Can you learn a spell from them?
I can imagine it will need more study but would they be entirely useless?
I mean, imagine the Nether scrolls becoming obsolete...
(now to wait for a few weeks until Rich has time to answer...)
Which makes pefect sense, if you think about it.
Nothing in FR history has ever generated more negativity (among fans). ;)
-Hmm, good point. :P
Will the Fey power source in 4e be the same as the Arcane power source?
With the Weave's collapse, do any spellbooks still have value? Can you learn a spell from them?
I can imagine it will need more study but would they be entirely useless?
I mean, imagine the Nether scrolls becoming obsolete...
I'd like to see tham treated as they are in Disk World, as an unstable and hazzardous object. I am accustomed to disappointed.
I doubt the spells would work since the "more refined" magic of the weave was used for those spells. Besides, it would create a 3.5 bridge to 4e.
A Female Open lord of Waterdeep, perhaps? Or perhaps an ascension for Siamoprhe or Red knight?
Will we have any prominent female rulers or gods?
The Forgotten Realms already has many prominent female rulers and gods, and that will continue to be the case moving into 4E.
The Forgotten Realms already has many prominent female rulers and gods, and that will continue to be the case moving into 4E.
-A great deal of the current ones (Regent Alusair, Myrmeen Lhal (Sp?), Mystra, Eilistraee (possibly) will not be making the "transition", however.
Originally Posted by MarkusTay63
Kelemvor puts me to sleep.
Myrkul was MUCH cooler.
I have conflicting feelings toward the ol' Greyhawk, but Nerull is better than Myrul in the batdung necromantic Adversary kind of dark god, that I admit.
Originally Posted by Iakhovas
The Forgotten Realms already has many prominent female rulers and gods, and that will continue to be the case moving into 4E.
It was a leitmotiv of the setting - a certain feminist touch - and considering the things like Astrid's Parlor, well...
A new generation will rise.
If people want Necromancy and Evil Undead armies, either put Velsharoon up to actually being something other than people's lackey (and the setting's Vecna) or make Orcus a genuine God of the Realms again.
I say we get Kali in 4e!
There's a b__ch that could give Lolth a run for her money!
Well that's a common Cyric/Velsharoon complaint but while Nerull types are easy sources of plots to destroy the world, it's not like there are any lack of Demon Lords or evil divinities for that sort of thing.
Another good question is whether we'll be seeing an increased role for the Main Book Demons (Orcus and company) and Devils (Asmodeus the Deity in the Realms) and so on? I doubt in the main book but will you be addressing their role eventually?
Demons, I think, will just be really Bad-A__ monsters from now on.
I don't know how all the old Demon Lords are going to fit into this new version of Demons as giant, snarling beasts, but we'll see.
They're just focused on death, destruction, chaos without the usual deal-making. So, lots of Conan the Barbarian Cults that toss virgins into the Cyclopean Eye thing while Orcus gets his vast hordes of undead solely to destroy.
That's sort of like saying Lathander and Oghma are unusable as Bad guys :p Errr, duh.
Lathander as a bad guy? Two words: Dawn and Cataclysm.
Lathander as a bad guy? Two words: Dawn and Cataclysm.
That's true. I wouldn't mind more moral ambiguity even from the Righteous GodsTM.
I hope Richard Baker keeps Tyr (and doesn't reduce his ranks) even if he does make Torm take his place as El Numero Hero. Maybe he could change Tyr's name to something slightly less Earth seeming and move his alignment to LN.
Let's recall Torm during the TOT was imprisoned by his own church as they murdered clerics of Sune.
So yeah, both of them make good bad guys. ;)
Yes, and the church of OGHMA were the main villains in Schend's recent novel, Blackstaff.
So yeah, both of them make good bad guys. ;)
True. I mentioned in the thread about Artemis' father that the storyline would have made perfect Realms sense if the Church that fathered him turned out to be a bunch of Lawful Evil Ex-Myrkulites that are now a bunch of LE Kelemvor worshipers.
But some more dark elements to his personality would help.
There's a lot of fun potential for abuse there.
"Kill the Lathanderite for raising the dead!"
Yes, and the church of OGHMA were the main villains in Schend's recent novel, Blackstaff.
They were? I know they "got in the way" at one point, but I didn't get the impression that they were major villains.
100% with church sanction, BTW.
It was a covert group of Oghmites that started that entire chain of events - a group who's purpose is to 'liberate' (steal) magic from mages who are hording it (like Khelben).
100% with church sanction, BTW.
Not really; two artifacts randomly interacting were what set everything in motion, if I recall correctly. The Frost Lich guy was the villain.
What will happen to some of the demigods that currently don't serve a greater deity? Will they be killed off? I'm especially hoping that Hoar survives personally.
That's against both god's creeds. Some might switch to evil but I'd hope Helm's followers aren't going to become villains.
Not really; two artifacts randomly interacting were what set everything in motion, if I recall correctly. The Frost Lich guy was the villain.
Yes, Really.
The Frost Lich killed and took the place of a member of that group, so he could steer its actions to better serve his purposes - however, the group existed BEFORE the Lich ever came around and infiltrated it, and did EXACTLY what I said it did. If the group did not exist, the Lich may have found other means to achieve his goals - but then that would have been an entirely different novel.
If you recall, Khelben went to Oghma's church and confronted the head Priest about the group, and the Priest was embarrassed about the group's existance - but he was aware of it and condoned it. Keeping secrets is against Oghma's Dogma, therefore the group exists and STEALS from all mages - even 'good' ones.
IIRC, Khelben even said "We'll discuss this later" to the head priest, in a not-so-nice way. Of course, thats never going to happen now, so the group can continue on its merry way from that point forward. The two individuals in the story were but one 'cell' within the covert organization.
Bluntly, I think it's pretty childish to think that a bunch of LG and LN heroes are going to go attack a bunch of innocent LG and LN types because their god lost in an honor duel.
That's against both god's creeds. Some might switch to evil but I'd hope Helm's followers aren't going to become villains.
Hmm, the poor clerics of Helm have been in a tough spot for so long. Some of them are bound to break a bit mentally when their divine connection gets brutally severed all of a sudden.
I feel Helms death will be nearly unbearable for my group. We've had 2 players already choose Helm as their patron. He must be one of the realms most popular god for the player community. Helm is abit of a jerk but he is a very believable diety with a clear role that speaks to a lot of us.
So...yeah. Ugh. If Lathander and Kelemvor had been killed, it would have been game over for all of their afterlives.
Edit:
FYI, Richard, can you tell us if Tyr is going to have any role in the new campaign setting or will he be totally out?
Also, will there be any form of the Triad, even if it's re-arranged? (Torm/Bahamut/Lathander) or something?
Yes, Really.
The Frost Lich killed and took the place of a member of that group, so he could steer its actions to better serve his purposes - however, the group existed BEFORE the Lich ever came around and infiltrated it, and did EXACTLY what I said it did. If the group did not exist, the Lich may have found other means to achieve his goals - but then that would have been an entirely different novel.
If you recall, Khelben went to Oghma's church and confronted the head Priest about the group, and the Priest was embarrassed about the group's existance - but he was aware of it and condoned it. Keeping secrets is against Oghma's Dogma, therefore the group exists and STEALS from all mages - even 'good' ones.
IIRC, Khelben even said "We'll discuss this later" to the head priest, in a not-so-nice way. Of course, thats never going to happen now, so the group can continue on its merry way from that point forward. The two individuals in the story were but one 'cell' within the covert organization.
I didn't see the Oghmanytes as "villains", necessarily, but your assessment seems to match what I remember from the novel (and it's been probably a year and a half since I read that book). Still, you could say Khelben was a "villain" for doctoring history. *shrug* The point being, it's a matter of clashing ideologies rather than good vs. evil.
Yes, Really.
The Frost Lich killed and took the place of a member of that group, so he could steer its actions to better serve his purposes - however, the group existed BEFORE the Lich ever came around and infiltrated it, and did EXACTLY what I said it did. If the group did not exist, the Lich may have found other means to achieve his goals - but then that would have been an entirely different novel.
If you recall, Khelben went to Oghma's church and confronted the head Priest about the group, and the Priest was embarrassed about the group's existance - but he was aware of it and condoned it. Keeping secrets is against Oghma's Dogma, therefore the group exists and STEALS from all mages - even 'good' ones.
IIRC, Khelben even said "We'll discuss this later" to the head priest, in a not-so-nice way. Of course, thats never going to happen now, so the group can continue on its merry way from that point forward. The two individuals in the story were but one 'cell' within the covert organization.
I stand corrected, but I agree with Rinonalyrna Fathomlin, I still don't see the Oghmanytes as "villains."
I didn't see the Oghmanytes as "villains", necessarily, but your assessment seems to match what I remember from the novel (and it's been probably a year and a half since I read that book). Still, you could say Khelben was a "villain" for doctoring history. *shrug* The point being, it's a matter of clashing ideologies rather than good vs. evil.
Unfortunetly, I came off rather calous in that post. I don't think that Oghmites are any more villains then Khelben, or any one else for that matter. The point I was trying to make is that ANYthing taken to an extrme is not a good thing. For example, a perfect lawful-good society would be a tyranny, despite the rulers good intentions.
ANY group in D&D can be painted as the 'bad guys', because no one organization is going to seem benevolent to everyone, and even within a large organization there will be those that take the dogma to horrible extremes (as seen in church Heresies).
As some of you are aware, I constantly have a good time here on these boards painting Drow and Orcs in a favorable light, while exposing the Elves as the villains they truly are. Now, I'm not crazy enough to actually give a rats _ss about ficticous fantasy races, but what I do want is for people to get rid of their preconceptions and "think outside the box". Everyone has a valid point of view, even monsters, and when you start to think like them, new gaming possibilites open up.
After all, if you start throwing everyone into 'categories' and hating (or liking) them for their beliefs, feelings, and outlook, then you start to sound like the folks that complain about people who complain.
And thats just plain ignorant. ;)
FYI, Richard, can you tell us if Tyr is going to have any role in the new campaign setting or will he be totally out?
Good Question - I wouldn't mind seing him 'powered down' and just becoming a god of the Northmen.
Then again, although appropriate, that would make him even more derivitive.
Did anybody read the new article about the FR's magic on 4th edition?
-Where is this?
Good Question - I wouldn't mind seing him 'powered down' and just becoming a god of the Northmen.
Then again, although appropriate, that would make him even more derivitive.
I'm not sure if it's derivative if the God in Question is the God in Question. Ravenloft worked fine at my Table with the Elves worshiping the Celtic Gods, the Dwarves the Norse Pantheon, and humans the obvious Christian analogue of Ezra.
Plus, really, we have Mulhorandi.
But honestly, I think half of people's complaints about Tyr would be resolved if they renamed him "Tyroc the Justice Lord."
Did anybody read the new article about the FR's magic on 4th edition? It's full of holes and disrespect for established lore. For starters it mentioned that Shar blocked the ascension of a new god of magic (UTTER CRAP IF YOU ARE READING THIS RB, ONLY AO HAS THAT POWER, CHANGE THAT RIGHT NOW!)
Best James Cagney: Where's your AO now Mystra?!
From what I recall of the Time of Trouble novels, the other dieties can do quite a range of things but AO can always intercede.
Anyways, once a person buys off on the possibility of diecide in the setting, divine contraception doesn't seem like such a stretch.
(He picked up a couple of small bits I wrote up, like some of the thoughts on magic items, but the article is 90% his writing.)
Unfortunetly, I came off rather calous in that post.
Think nothing of it, I see the point you are trying to make.
After all, if you start throwing everyone into 'categories' and hating (or liking) them for their beliefs, feelings, and outlook, then you start to sound like the folks that complain about people who complain...
Hmmm...yes. Indeed.;)
Hey, just so y'all know, the article is mis-attributed. Bruce Cordell wrote that one, not me.
(He picked up a couple of small bits I wrote up, like some of the thoughts on magic items, but the article is 90% his writing.)
-Stuff it, Philly Phanatic. :P
Hey Rich, are you back for good now? If so, I have a question I'd like to pose to you.
Still super-busy for another week and a half or so. Got an adventure I have to finish! I'll try to get back to fielding questions regularly in a couple of weeks.
Okay, thanks for the heads-up.
See what I mean guys? You were all rabid and foaming at the mouth on this blaming an innocent man.
Uh, no. I certainly wasn't. Lose the inaccurate generalizations, please.
I was refering to other people on this board, which is certainly true.
Again, I'd like to apologize for being "snappy", as I wasn't in the nicest mood when I wrote that.
However, I'd suggest not writing "all" if you aren't referring to everybody.
The article states that "Wizards, warlocks, clerics, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means." and "Indeed, without the divine restrictions of previous ages, magic is more abundant than ever, manifesting not only as inexplicable changes to the landscape, items, and creatures, but even in some of the most fantastic exploits of fighters, rouges, rangers, and other heroes."
Does this mean that FR martial characters will get special magic powers from their class or does it just refer to the powers gained through items and spellscars?
thanks! :D
btw, really excited for the 4E Realms.
Does this mean that FR martial characters will get special magic powers from their class or does it just refer to the powers gained through items and spellscars?
Yes, in 4th edition martial characters do gain some measure of magical power.
Yes, in 4th edition martial characters do gain some measure of magical power.
Was this confirmed somewhere and i missed it?
It's not like fighters are becoming spellcasters, but they will get a wide variety of special powers, as opposed to spending almost every round simply swinging at the enemy.Check the Races and Classes preview.
Yup, that much i figured, but i got the impression that these powers would be non-magical, therefore they'd use martial and not the arcane power source.
The new FR article seems to imply that even characters with the martial power source get some magic mojo in the Realms. Maybe they meant multiclassed/ characters with arcane class training feats...
A question, random but nobody have posed.
Any NEW god(s) coming? You have cut gods, but you never said no new ones, after all! ;)
So, anyone intruded or have risen in the century?
Just a thought. I thought alot of what was in that article was interesting and I'm waiting on more information before I go all **** about it.
You are a reasonable person though.
Yes, in 4th edition martial characters do gain some measure of magical power.
Oh, please, no... that's what irked me most about Earthdawn - everybody and their dog without exception used magic, so when the party reached a decent circle, a fight came across as an over the top comic book clash of superheroes and -villains. In D&D 3e I had to alter some classes and build my own prestige classes because so many of them used magic. So instead of toning down the overabundance of magic, they even turn it up? Thanks, but no thanks.
DB
Oh, please, no... that's what irked me most about Earthdawn - everybody and their dog without exception used magic, so when the party reached a decent circle, a fight came across as an over the top comic book clash of superheroes and -villains. In D&D 3e I had to alter some classes and build my own prestige classes because so many of them used magic. So instead of toning down the overabundance of magic, they even turn it up? Thanks, but no thanks.
DB
It's the world with Mystra and pals, kind of undodgable.
You gotta live with the logical consequence of a magic so present - why a warriror coudln't experiement with... practical magic?
Also, the magic is lower.... like eberron, not as much as high blast, high power magic.
Oh, please, no... that's what irked me most about Earthdawn - everybody and their dog without exception used magic, so when the party reached a decent circle, a fight came across as an over the top comic book clash of superheroes and -villains. In D&D 3e I had to alter some classes and build my own prestige classes because so many of them used magic. So instead of toning down the overabundance of magic, they even turn it up? Thanks, but no thanks.
DB
"call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means"
It doesn't say they all cast spells or have spell-like abilities. It only implies that magic in some way allows them to transend normal limitations. Great Strength, rapid healing, jumping great distances, etc. could be powered by "personally derived threads of magic".
In 3e, monks had Supernatural class abilities, and UMD involves using magic.
You may be overreacting.
Tom Bollis
You are a reasonable person though.
Implying others are not? ;)
It's the world with Mystra and pals, kind of undodgable.
You gotta live with the logical consequence of a magic so present - why a warriror coudln't experiement with... practical magic?
Well, I'm not talking about the Realms per se - the Realms will use the 4e core mechanics which means the abundant magic is integrated in them.
"call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means"
It doesn't say they all cast spells or have spell-like abilities. It only implies that magic in some way allows them to transend normal limitations. Great Strength, rapid healing, jumping great distances, etc. could be powered by "personally derived threads of magic".
I didn't mean spells, and I don't care what these abilities will be called in the end. As long as they're clearly supernatural, I think it's safe to say that magic is involved.
In 3e, monks had Supernatural class abilities
Yep, that's why I built a mundane monk.
You may be overreacting.
I just dislike systems in which every other character uses magic. I don't care if such a system doesn't even expressly state that it's magic - as long as warriors have a floating attack, can jump ten meters or close some of their wounds, it's magic. I prefer magic to be something special, something not everyone can use, but I guess my taste is a little too old-fashioned these days ;)
DB
I just dislike systems in which every other character uses magic. I don't care if such a system doesn't even expressly state that it's magic - as long as warriors have a floating attack, can jump ten meters or close some of their wounds, it's magic. I prefer magic to be something special, something not everyone can use, but I guess my taste is a little too old-fashioned these days ;)
DB
Me too, the only game I like with every character having magic is the WoD Mage. Magic is only for the worthy and a fighter who uses muscule over brain should not have access to the power of arcane. Magic is not a democracy nor is comunism.
Magic is only for the worthy and a fighter who uses muscule over brain should not have access to the power of arcane. Magic is not a democracy nor is comunism.
-In D&D, that's already how things are, currently. Having an INT of 10 (which is average), lets you cast 0-level spells, and that's it.
-In D&D, that's already how things are, currently. Having an INT of 10 (which is average), lets you cast 0-level spells, and that's it.
And that's how I want it to stay. I don't want dumb fighters with supernatural powers just because a sword isn't enough.
A question, random but nobody have posed.
Any NEW god(s) coming? You have cut gods, but you never said no new ones, after all! ;)
So, anyone intruded or have risen in the century?
Actually, Rich DID say there would be some new gods, although he didn't say who they were. Don't have a clue as to what page that was, though--sorry.
Me too, the only game I like with every character having magic is the WoD Mage. Magic is only for the worthy and a fighter who uses muscule over brain should not have access to the power of arcane. Magic is not a democracy nor is comunism.
Warriors are not all dumb... Just look at Conan. No, he was actually not a mindless brute, but shown always a natural cleverness.
I have no problems with a special warrior who have some resources and do use a special kind of practifcal magic with his weapons. Why not?
Also, magic is an anarchy - anyone who know the secrets could use it.
Thank Rinonalyrna Fathomlin.
Thank Rinonalyrna Fathomlin.
You're welcome.
Also guys, remember that there is a such thing as fighter/mages.;)
Also guys, remember that there is a such thing as fighter/mages.;)
-That they can learn spells means they have an INT of 10+, which means they aren't mindless, and are actually of above-average intelligence.
-That they can learn spells means they have an INT of 10+, which means they aren't mindless, and are actually of above-average intelligence.
I agree.:D
. Now we get manuver like abilities, at will abilities. 13year olds who needs them!!!:P 18DELTA;)
Question:
Is Chult going to remain untouched? I always felt it was the 'odd man out' in Faerûn, and after Maztica and Malatra were added to FR, it seemed even more out of place and a bit redundant. On top of that, we now have Katashaka as an official part of the setting, so I'm sure we will get even more 'jungle/Savanna' regions with that. So... any chance Chult just 'breaks off' and floats away... please? :D
Asta la Vista, baby.
And a VERY special thanks to Rich and company -
Asta la Vista, baby.
So what did he mean by that? And what is Katashaka?
So what did he mean by that?
-MT is saying, "See, I told you so."
And what is Katashaka?
-An 'Africa'-like continent where the Chultans came from.
Chult is no longer part of the Mainland...
...and katashaka is the big Africanesque continent south of Maztica, where the original Chultans (Tabaxi) came from.
...and katashaka is the big Africanesque continent south of Maztica, where the original Chultans (Tabaxi) came from.
-Wow, that's almost word-for-word what I said.
Its not that strange - when intelligent people take the time to learn the lore and know what they are talking about. ;)
Heh... I didn't even see you posted that (you're quick).
-I guess that's why my mafia name is Steve "The Ostrich".
http://www.messengerfreak.com/mafia_name_maker.php
Why hate on the option to be able to compete at high levels with supernatural forces out there?
My mafia name: Thinks-he's-so-smart
Given that the Realms' pantheons will see a major shake-up, I was wondering whether saviour gods as well as gods of destiny and fortune will see some sort of increase in status and rank. In the days of the Spellplague and all the havoc it will cause, it would be only too natural for the populace to turn their attention to such deities first and foremost, especially if the great divine powers are more or less helpless to fight or counter the effects. Not that said deities may be of any greater help either, of course. But in essence, the same scenario saw Christianity rise to dominance in late antiquity, without being able to do anything more to help the normal populace than any other religion at the time. That is: stop the terror spread by the Germanic intruders or the prowling Huns.
Just as food for thought.
Gods of destiny would be against the Realms, where such thing as Fate doesn't exists there.
Savras is the God of Fate and Jergal is the God of Fatalism though....
Savras is the God of Fate
Well, he's right if using the context provided by TGHotR, considering that Savras no longer exists. :D
Savras is the God of Fate and Jergal is the God of Fatalism though....
Fate in the fixed destiny sense: X person is destined to rule Calimshan.
Fate in the fixed destiny sense: X person is destined to rule Calimshan.
Isn't that the only meaning of fate? That something IS going to happen? I like how the Legacy of Kain series looks at fate.
-However, as this has to do with Zanan's post, I agree with her. It would make sense for the more 'hope' driven deities (Lathander, Torm) to accrue more worshipers in such a time.
I'm not against Fighter/Mages, I love Bladesingers. What I'm against is the Fighter without spellcasting classes having supernatural skills.
I don't mind this completely unless all fighters without spellcasting classes start packing supernatural tricks. I could see fighters here and there dabbling in magic long enough to pick up one or two very specialized tricks but it should not be a universal theme. A handful of optional feats or talents managing it might work out.
It makes me think that if the different deities play their cards right, all of them could gain the benefits. Could Divine Magic become more favourable with the people of the realms instead of Arcane Magic due to the Spellplague?
Remember, Clerics have healing powers and rituals. Gods have divine wisdom and intellect. The gods work on their end to develop an idea of how magic might work, quicker then most mortals. Add to that bright servants like angels and you might have divine magics coming back online first before Arcane magic.
Clerics then heal those with injuries of the body and work to soothe or heal the shattered minds of those mages touched by the plague. Doing this, even the most evil church could pick up more followers.
Some it wouldn't make sense, like Talos. He would love the nature of the spellplague.
Others like Malar would look at the plague as a mixed blessing. Malar would have more beasts to hunt down and new areas to mark, yet some of his strongest hunters could be harmed. I might see a few of his clergy healing people and trying to fix the wizard problems, since hunting a mad foe may or may not be as worthy as hunting a creature in full health of body and mind.
Bane, I can see using the plague to build his base. Showing his 'compassionate' side by healing others, while expecting to see some service in exchange. In these trying times, the idea of a source of healing and protection would be welcomed even if it is from the Lord of Fears. It's better then dying.
Perhaps a version of the 'better to rule in hell, then serve in heaven' idea. Better to serve in hell, then have your soul ripped apart. Which might explain some growth with the darker powers. Plus massive growth with more beign deities, like Lathander, Torm or Tymora.
Jergal would likely get a little boost even if he doesn't actively promote himself. Hoar, not so much, unless he went under some major changes. Revenge doesn't lend it's self to survival, except for a possiblity of people who want revenge on Cyric and/or Shar and their church... if news of what they did to Mystra get out.
So what do people think and what do you think of this Rich?
I wouldn't mind personally to see Jergal and Hoar gaining more power. I hope these two deities at least stick around to do something. I'de hate it if they were killed. They already killed one of the gods I liked (Helm).
-Jergal might be combined with Kelemvor.
-Hoar is probably going to be reduced into 'Saint' status, as most other "extraneous" deities. Who he might be serving is what's up in the air, in my mind. There are so many different deities he could serve. Shar, Torm, Tymora, among others. Making Hoar a 'divine mercenary', who comes and goes, serving certain deities on some days, and certain other deities on other days, depending on his own mood, would be interesting, I think.
Gods of destiny would be against the Realms, where such thing as Fate doesn't exists there.
As Kenzuki pointed out, there are / were Savras and Jergal. Anyway, who's to say fate does or does not exist with absolute certainty? The only one who can be sure beyond doubt is Ao. So what stops people who don't converse with Ao on a regular basis from believing in fate? And if fate - or an approximation thereof, if you will - doesn't exist, what about the prophecies of Augathra, Alaundo and some minor prophets? That's the whole point of "fate" in heroic fantasy - something is supposed to happen, but a couple of ingenious individuals find a way to change the outcome.
By the way, everybody should look into the Legacy of Kain series. It's incredibly hard to find more sophisticated storytelling - and food for thought.
DB
-Jergal might be combined with Kelemvor.
-Hoar is probably going to be reduced into 'Saint' status, as most other "extraneous" deities. Who he might be serving is what's up in the air, in my mind. There are so many different deities he could serve. Shar, Torm, Tymora, among others. Making Hoar a 'divine mercenary', who comes and goes, serving certain deities on some days, and certain other deities on other days, depending on his own mood, would be interesting, I think.
I'de like Hoar as a Divine Mercenary so to speak. I also think that his picture in F&P DOES make him look like that. I don't like his picture in F&A which makes him look like a bearded old guy with a bad sense of fashion though....
Jergal better not be fused with Kelemvor! Jergal is one deity who appears to be more than meets the eye and I think it would suck for him to become part of Kelemvor....
I say raise Jergal to a Lesser Deity or a "Saint" or whatever. Divine Scribe or something. Just keep him around plllleeeeasse!
I'de like Hoar as a Divine Mercenary so to speak.
-As would I...As would I...That also allows Hoar to continue having priests, priestess' and lay worshippers who run the entire gamut. The 'good' ones align themselves more with Torm, the 'evil' ones more with Shar, and so on...
I also think that his picture in F&P DOES make him look like that. I don't like his picture in F&A which makes him look like a bearded old guy with a bad sense of fashion though....
-95% of the illustrations in Faiths and Pantheons were better than the illustrations in it's predecessor books. It would have been cool to see more 3e-ized illustrations of Clerics, but oh well.
Jergal better not be fused with Kelemvor! Jergal is one deity who appears to be more than meets the eye and I think it would suck for him to become part of Kelemvor....
-Well, we know the Kelemvor isn't going anywhere. Now, who might be in the "mini-pantheon" of death, with Kelemvor as it's head? Jergal, and...Well, that's about it. Were there more deities who might be demoted and merged into this "mini-pantheon", I'd say Jergal would have a good change of making it to 4e, as his own distinct self. However, since there really aren't any others that I can think of...
I've also heard this other theory that he did it to avoid dying in a cycle about the portolios of sun, dusk, and dawn. Supposedly the one with the Dusk portfolio was going to die next after the highsun deity and thus Dawn would reign supream. Myrkul became the new God of Dusk after he got it from Jergal and he died sure enough. Now there is talk of Lathander arising as the new Sun God and rumors spread of Jergal perhaps regaining his power by taking back the Dusk portfolio and the others.
Then there is the whole Age of Worms deal, I haven't read what that is about but it sounds cool.
Who knows though.
It was Ed Greenwood the person that said that Fate doesn't exists in the Realms.
So? Ed's not the ultimate authority anymore, now less than ever. And even if Baker & co. agreed with him upon fate not being a reality, what about the prophecies, and what was the point of Savras' existence (or eventual divinity, to be exact)?
What's more, just because it says in the FRCS… we need an example here… that Ao is the ultimate being and all about balance doesn't mean that every living being on Toril knows that. Same with fate – it's a concept too interesting to not exist as a philosophical school of thought.
DB
But in essence, the same scenario saw Christianity rise to dominance in late antiquity...
Well, realword discussions about religion aren't allowed on this boards. So please refrain from such statements, which are an oversimplification of history and by no means reflect the entire picture of what happened at that time.
Well, realword discussions about religion aren't allowed on this boards. So please refrain from such statements, which are an oversimplification of history and by no means reflect the entire picture of what happened at that time.
I don't discuss it, nor simplify the case. Just stated one of the main reasons why many other faiths declined or were given up for one that offered "better" salvation. That is plain fact, if only one of many facts.
The same would - under the Spellplague situation - hold true for FR faiths like that of Ilmater, or, regarding destiny and luck, Beshaba and Tymora. Just as food for thought.
Will designer's actually be contributing again to this thread in the foreseeable future, or are they all too busy at this point making money on articles for the god-awful DDi?
I'm about 1 centimeter away from walking away from this soap-opera cr@p (RW and IG) and going back to Warmachine or even Warhammer.
At least with miniatures, you know what you're getting by looking at the blister first.
Well, realword discussions about religion aren't allowed on this boards. So please refrain from such statements, which are an oversimplification of history and by no means reflect the entire picture of what happened at that time.
-Incorrect. As long as it is respectful, and minds the CoC, such conversations can be used in the context Zanan, used, in relation to the Realms.
Any word on the Saurials race(s) in the future? Do they have a role, somewhere?
And while we are at this... The world where they came from, is it Abeir, the Other World, too?
Someone already asked about the Saurials about two dozen pages back.
Should have searched, but well....
Can't go always looking 20, 30 pages back and more.
:embarrass
What was the answer, roughly and resumed?
I did a bit of homebrew lore about them in some thread - there is another group of them called Lacerials from the short-lived Malatra campaign setting (lower K-T), and I always thought it was odd that two identical species could live in different parts of Toril, not know of each other, and not be somehow related.
Hence, I came up with this - originally, there were FIVE main groups of Sauroids that rose to dominance on Toril, and formed the Saurial Empire. Eventually, the magic-savy Sarrukh decided that they wanted to be the sole dominant species, and turned on the other four. Most of them were slaughtered outright, but many were able to escape through a portal to another dimension. Meanwhile, another small group fled far to the east, and went into hiding on a remote Jungle Plateau (the Lacerials).
So, its ironic that some 35,000 + years later, a small group of Saurials got brought to Toril, and they don't even realize that they have finally come home.
Don't know if you can use that, but I like the idea of tying them to the Sarrukh (who were referred to as a 'Sauroid race' in early sources).
Is there a reason that we are filling this thread with fiddle-faddle considering that there are no Realms designers on to answer any questions (at least for another week by my reckoning)?
-Because that's what discussions are?
Hence, I came up with this - originally, there were FIVE main groups of Sauroids that rose to dominance on Toril, and formed the Saurial Empire.
-I did something very similar in my own campaign setting. I originally had a Sarrukh as the king of a particular swamp littered with ancient ruins, but I liked the idea of a more 'dinosaur-type' creature. Since I had too much information linking the ruins to Sarrukh already, I created a few other reptilian "creator races", one an evolution of another.
Question
This is not for the designers; it is for the Mods, or programmers, or IT guys - whatever - the people in charge of maintaining this site. I'm not sure if there is a more appropriate place, since I don't really move very far from the FR forums here at WotC.
Is it possible to get you guys to add in the BB code that re-sizes pics? Most of the sites I frequent allow that, but the code doen't work here. I usually just resize the pic manually and post it to photobucket, but I think I'm violating a bunch of copyright laws doing that.
Thanks --- Mark
Question
This is not for the designers; it is for the Mods, or programmers, or IT guys - whatever - the people in charge of maintaining this site. I'm not sure if there is a more appropriate place, since I don't really move very far from the FR forums here at WotC.
Is it possible to get you guys to add in the BB code that re-sizes pics? Most of the sites I frequent allow that, but the code doen't work here. I usually just resize the pic manually and post it to photobucket, but I think I'm violating a bunch of copyright laws doing that.
Thanks --- Mark
-You're going to want to send that as an E-mail to either Customer Service or Community Management. Might as well pester them both.
Thanks. ;)
If that doesn't get any form of official response, I'll go thast route next.
Thanks. ;)
-It's not, trust me.
Question:
I know Maztica is history, but what about Katashaka?
Considering it only finally got officially named in the last canon source of 3e FR (the GHotR), it would be sort of weird to just get rid of it right after creating it. I mean, what was the point in naming it at all, then?
I mean, what was the point in naming it at all, then?
-As a 'pat on the back' to Brian, and all of the others who helped him with that?
Nevermind.
Yeah, I know, but think about it... the last continent we find out anything at all about in 3e just gets vaporized in 4e?
-Or, it just gets ignored, like most of Zakhara was in 3e. Kara-Tur was touched at points, as well as Maztica. Zakhara? Offhand, I can't think of any references made to it in 3e, asides for the FRCS mentioning that it existed, and the PGtF blurb on 'Zakharan' Humans.
I think there might have been a little something in the Shining Lands entry in SS, as well.
-Don't have that book, so if there was, it was completely lost on me. But, if there was, key point you mentioned- 'little something'. A mention here or there doesn't- as long as it isn't something extreme- change a place/person/thing very much.
I like to plan my campaigns for months in advance, my first campaign in 4ed is no exception. Because of that I have a question that can make it easier for me even if next edition not is out yet.
Will Lands of Intrigue look the same in 4ed, and will Tethyr in particular look like in the former edition? Relatively speaking of course.
And then, not a question: I look forward to next edition very much. I just wanted you to know that!
I have played in Forgotten for many years and feel some change would be fun. Yes I know not all "old" players feel that way, quite the opposite perhaps, but for me I like changes from now and then. But I do will have some nostalgic feelings for some parts and non player characters gone of course too.
Beyond that, hopefully a designer will be back here soon to field our questions.
I guess you have a thing for unscrupulous merchants. ;)
Meh, when you encounter a troll and kil it is no suprise why he attack you but when a assasin pretending to be a bum tries to kill you, and you find out that It came from The Council of Six Themselves ;) Now That's a plot hook!
Will the 3 upcoming 'Citadels' novels be pre or post Spellplague?
Good Question.
If Ed said that Fate does not exist in the realms than explain Jergal and Savras?
Jergal: Based on the Omega number of the Universe, it has approximately X billion years until heat death.
Savras: If you throw a ball at a 30 degree angle to the horizontal with 30 Newtons of force....
Prediction isn't always fate-based.
Good Question.
I have to ask because Ill buy them if theyre pre but not if theyre post. Honestly Im debating buying them either way. I used to read every novel in a couple days but Ive been on chapter 2 of Neversfall for 2 months. I read a page or so and I cant even concentrate on the book because I start thinking about 4e. Even the time of troubles and the shadow weave didnt disgust me so much I couldnt even read a novel that didnt involve them.
How about a Troll shapechanged into a bum, that turns back just as he tries to kill you, that you find out is working for a corrupt council of six member who takes orders from the Twisted Rune? :D
Good Question.
I knew you were going to say something like that:D, but you know what I mean ;)
Jergal: Based on the Omega number of the Universe, it has approximately X billion years until heat death.
Savras: If you throw a ball at a 30 degree angle to the horizontal with 30 Newtons of force....
Prediction isn't always fate-based.
What??
What??
Jergal: Based on the Omega number of the Universe, it has approximately X billion years until heat death.
-Heat Death. The universe itself is simply going to "run itself down".
What??
Savras: If you throw a ball at a 30 degree angle to the horizontal with 30 Newtons of force....
-The results of an action, as demonstrated by throwing a ball, can be determined via analyzing the situation. In this example, calculating the velocity of the thrown ball, gravity, the angle in which it is thrown, you can calculate where the ball is going to land.
So....what does that have to do with Savras and Jergal?
-We've gone the full circle, now.
Prediction isn't always fate-based.
I'm confused.
-Then read said posts over. There isn't anything to be confused about.
How does any of that babble have anything to do with the existance of Jergal and Savras as the Gods of Fate and Fatalism?
:: Sigh ::
Prediction isn't always fate-based
-The end of the universe can be predicted by analyzing and calculating certain physical laws and theories. Predicting the path of something, using the ball as our example, can be done analyzing and calculating certainl physical laws and theories. None of that has anything to do with presdestined fate.
That sounds like Fate to me.
-All of the situations described above can theoretically be explained via physical (or metaphysical, as these are deities we're talking about) laws. Also note that, I recall reading somewhere, though it might not have been Forgotten Realms, or even D&D related, that 9 times out of 10, prophecies are wrong.
But certain things are fated to happen. Bhaal knew he was going to die. Bane knew he was going to die as well. Don't forget the prophecies of Alaundo.
That sounds like Fate to me.
Alaundo could have perfectly base those prophecies around facts. Just as there is no luck, there is also no predestinated future. Only cause and consequence. Like Newton said: For every action there is a reaction that is equal and opposing.
-As Alediran stated, "It was Ed Greenwood; the person that said that Fate doesn't exists in the Realms."
And having JUST finished The Annotated Elminster, I can tell you that Ed may say one thing, but he certainly writes another.
Several times, Elminster is directed by Mystra to follow a certain path, even when it appears contradictory to her ways, and it isn't until years later... sometimes centuries... that El realizes Mystra NEW all along that he NEEDED TO BE IN A CERTAIN PLACE AT A CERTAIN TIME.
In fact, El actually muses that Mystra knows the future (or several possible ones?), and guides him down the path that will have the most favorable outcome for her.
I suppose, that when we got the ToT reboot and Mystra 2.0, she lost the ability to see into the future, because obviously she was blind to what went down in 1385.
Anyway, there were several instances when it was obvious Mystra new what would happen before hand , which means that certain things are indeed 'fated' to happen in the Realms.
Also, Fate exists in Zakhara, so who's to say she doesn't have some pull in Faerûn? - afterall, Mystra seems to have some control on her turf. ;)
In fact, El actually muses that Mystra knows the future (or several possible ones?), and guides him down the path that will have the most favorable outcome for her.
-Mystryl had the portfolio of time.
-Mystryl had the portfolio of time.
Potentialy a very dangerous portfolio, so abusable.
Theory - AO withold it, not finding anyone worthy for it or prefering it barred/controlled very closely.
Maybe Fate only came into existance after the Fall of Netheril? Of course, that would slightly screw with Zakharan history (but not much).
Theory - AO withold it, not finding anyone worthy for it or prefering it barred/controlled very closely.
-A possibility. One problem, though, is that both Kronos, a Human deity once upon a time, and Labelas Enoreth have/had the same portfolio.
Guys, seriously. Is it too hard to stick to the 2nd Ground Rule for this thread? There is so much off topic discussion going on here it's nigh impossible to discover where the questions are. Could you all please create new threads for discussions, so that people can find the questions and answers from Realms designers? Thanks.
-Richard Baker is no longer answering questions. Until he gets back, the only answers that are going to be answered are the ones that we field ourselves.
-Richard Baker is no longer answering questions. Until he gets back, the only answers that are going to be answered are the ones that we field ourselves.
Oh, I'm aware of that, Karsus! And when those questions are answered, that's great. I'm not talking about answers, I'm talking about the discussion that ends up taking place all the time. Like the posts above here. Sure, it's helpful and a good discussion, but keeping it on this thread means that the thread goes off topic and people have more to go through if they are looking for answers from designers, or if designers (and other people knowledgeable about the Realms) are looking for questions.
If it's a quick answer, I'm fine with that. If it becomes a full fledged discussion, then perhaps it's best to take it to another thread, and link it here. That way, the discussion gets it's own space (meaning others are more able to contribute) and this thread stays on topic.
Just as there is no luck....
There may not be "luck" but there are uncontrolled variables. Whenever you have uncontrolled variables, you get statistical anomalies. Statistical anomalies, especially the ones you can get on a scale as large as everything that occurs on a planet, can certainly appear as luck (both good and bad.)
Guys, seriously. Is it too hard to stick to the 2nd Ground Rule for this thread? There is so much off topic discussion going on here it's nigh impossible to discover where the questions are. Could you all please create new threads for discussions, so that people can find the questions and answers from Realms designers? Thanks.
Rule -
GROUND RULES
2/. Stay on topic.
This type of thread has proved to be incredibly useful to a large number of members. However previous threads were long enough as it is, and pretty daunting to a newcomer. Posting off topic makes this worse. There is no point having a thread solely devoted to asking a specific people questions if it gets sidetracked.
I am not being overly heavy with a request to stay on topic as the sidetracking seen on past thread has generated complaints. In other words those of you who don't stay on topic are spoiling this thread for others. If you want to discuss issues that come up as a tangent on this thread then create a new topic. Link to the new topic by all means, but stick to direct questions or direct discussion of the answers. Any thread hijacking posts that lead to complaints will simply be deleted.
I would have to agree that some good questions are being 'lost' because of all the chatter, and I myself am just as guilty as anyone else - it is rather hard to NOT respond to something, but perhaps we can start a "Discuss the 'Ask the Designers' thread" thread.
Question/Suggestion:
Rich and others in charge - have you guys ever considered BUYING the rights to Nyambe? Its a fully fleshed-out fantasy-Africa style campaign, and meshes beautifully with FR in the place of Katashaka. Considering that 3rd party D20 source has pretty much run its course, you guys could probably pick it up for a fair price, and it wouldn't take a whole lot to fit it to 4e FR.
In fact, I've already done much of the 'background work' with my CK article. ;)
Question/Suggestion:
Rich and others in charge - have you guys ever considered BUYING the rights to Nyambe? Its a fully fleshed-out fantasy-Africa style campaign, and meshes beautifully with FR in the place of Katashaka. Considering that 3rd party D20 source has pretty much run its course, you guys could probably pick it up for a fair price, and it wouldn't take a whole lot to fit it to 4e FR.
-Well, that'd be totally dependent on if it's for sale. Who published that, anyway? I always hear about it, but I've never actually really seen it for myself.
Like I said, it's very well developed, and would make a wonderful addition to FR - in fact, the author went out of his way to make all 'outside references' very generic, so that the continent could just be 'plunked down' onto any world. Also, the basic shape of it isn't all that different from Katashaka's.
Sorry for straying from the topic AGAIN, people...
About Nyambe.
Like I said, it's very well developed, and would make a wonderful addition to FR - in fact, the author went out of his way to make all 'outside references' very generic, so that the continent could just be 'plunked down' onto any world. Also, the basic shape of it isn't all that different from Katashaka's.
Sorry for straying from the topic AGAIN, people...
I got the settign book - good ideas, indeed. Stole ideas.
Rich and others in charge - have you guys ever considered BUYING the rights to Nyambe? Its a fully fleshed-out fantasy-Africa style campaign, and meshes beautifully with FR in the place of Katashaka. Considering that 3rd party D20 source has pretty much run its course, you guys could probably pick it up for a fair price, and it wouldn't take a whole lot to fit it to 4e FR.
Well, they already said they didn't want too overt RW analogies, and Nyambe clearly fits the bill. So I hope and think that something like this will be out of the question.
DB
Thanks for being patient. I'm back to keeping half an eye on the thread, and I'll field questions as they come up.
A couple of ground rules:
1. I reserve the right to not answer. Some questions I can't even begin to address without running into things we want to keep confidential, or things that we plan to reveal later.
2. I'm not a marketing vehicle for 4e or FR, so I'm not going to provide many (any?) spoilers.
3. I'm not real happy when I find my answers blocked and copied on other sites, because it makes my bosses think I'm trying to run my own independent marketing campaign. Keep the answers here, please.
4. My real job occasionally makes demands on my time, so I can't promise any sort of quick turnaround.
5. Let's keep the tone civil, please.
So, there it is. The questions that I feel I can answer are questions about material we've already previewed or featured or a product we've already printed (or announced we're going to print). I'm happy to try to provide clarification or a little bit of insight into our reasons for doing things, as long as I don't bump into points (1) or (2) above. I'm also much more comfortable addressing things I can speak with authority on, which means, "things I actually worked on."
I'm pleased that you folks are interested enough in the Realms to visit this thread and ask me what I think or know about stuff, and I'm happy to chat about the stuff we're up to--but remember, it's sort of catch as catch can for me, so I might not mill through questions very fast.
I'm happy to chat about the stuff we're up to...
*LOL!*
Okay, here's the question I've been waiting to ask. I like most of what I've been reading about the 4E core design concepts, but there is one thing that's been really bugging me: a lack of interest on the part of the designers in creatures that are (or tend to be) purely good. Now, I understand the argument that it's hard to make creatures of goodness fascinating the way creatures of evil tend to be, and I have also read the argument that if a creature is good, it means it's less likely to be "useful" to the players (ie. as an opponent). Now before I get to my question, I have a few things to say, to that last argument especially. Number one, creatures of pure goodness are very much a part of the fantasy genre. Number two, I see no good reason why goodly characters couldn't be opponents: after all, not all PCs are heroic (I take it 4E D&D won't actively discourage people from playing evil characters?), and two parties of the same alignment can still clash, even violently.
Having said that, my question here is, ARE there going to 4E races that are entirely (or almost entirely) about goodness? For example, some strong counterpart to demons and devils? Fiends of all types seem to be retaining their concepts of being purely evil--I saw no indication in W&M that they will be alignment-flexible. The fate of celestials seems to be totally up in the air! And while I'll be the first to jump up and agree that we don't need compulsory symmetry, as I said before, "pure goodness" is an old and perfectly legitimate concept in the fantasy genre, and personally I think there should be something to represent that. Obviously, angels don't cut it--not only can they be of any alignment, but they are now going to be more like constructs than sentient beings.
I think there is also a "shadow" question to my main one: Is 4E D&D deliberately trying to scour away the brighter, heart-on-its-sleeve aspects of the game in favor of "modern" cynicism (ie. "formly benevolent critters now have sharper, more sinister edge")? Or, have the fates of goodly creatures just not been decided on, yet? There are fans of D&D, such as myself, that do actually enjoy the more cheerful, unironic side of game setting.
Thanks in advance,
RF
Mademoiselle Rino... I think a part of the answer lay that there was anciently, a certain need for... symetry (spelling?). The eladrins of old where kind of created for that as somes Planescape guy argued, by example.
But if Good exist, there will remains surely a place for beings of light and infinite good will.
And I'd add for the cynism bit... somes call it cattering to the 'evil is cool' crowd. But knowing Shadowrun and having seen White Wolf players around, things is that it's also a fact that we realised a bit more that life is complex, ambiguous, even in the classic fantasy works (A Song of Fire and ice seems very much basedon that).
While FR is not Eberron, greenwood touched on that aspect a bit, and reminded that there is quite some shades of grey in his creation..
And now, a question. Or questions...?
Considering that I have a rpg idea in work and I have beaten Icewind Dale 2 this year.... Ulutiu, that minor and slumbering god of the frozen northern lands, who was said to be slowly vampirised by Auril... Will he finally die from it, energizing the Ice Queen some?
And while we are talking of it... Will Auppenser waste away due to the Spellplague and Mystera's death, considering that he is somewhat kept well by Her? Or awaken?
(Being a guy who like the idea of psionic, that intrigate me)
Sorry for the very random and perhaps inane questions, again. *bowing*
Can you tell me any more about the 1/2 races? Half elves will continue into 4e, but what about a half-dwarf or half-halfing?
Are Dragonborn reproductively compatible with other races? Is half-Dragonborn an option? If the Dragonborn are not reproductively compatible, could someone please rethink the “more feminine” appearance? The phrase “lactating lizards” came to mind when I saw page 68 of Races and Classes. The sight of it gave me a shudder that is typically engendered by the wisdom of senior management, although I do not expect confirmation of that theory.
Can you confirm that the Dragon Shaman class of PHB2 will not appear as a core class? I will guess it became part of the Warlord class, although it seemed like a natural fit for the Dragonborn.
Will Swordmages and Monks appear in core 4e? The Races and Classes booklet was ambiguous.
Will the variance of number of skills between classes continue? To me it always seemed senselessly skewed, a wizard getting 2 and a rogue getting 8.
Thank you
I do expect that those angels who serve good deities are really Good with a capital G, and can hold down that conceptual space about as well as they used to in previous editions. And there are varieties of celestials we just haven't addressed yet (the archons, the guardinals, etc.), although we likely won't get to them in a hurry.
*LOL!*
Okay, here's the question I've been waiting to ask. I like most of what I've been reading about the 4E core design concepts, but there is one thing that's been really bugging me: a lack of interest on the part of the designers in creatures that are (or tend to be) purely good. Now, I understand the argument that it's hard to make creatures of goodness fascinating the way creatures of evil tend to be, and I have also read the argument that if a creature is good, it means it's less likely to be "useful" to the players (ie. as an opponent). Now before I get to my question, I have a few things to say, to that last argument especially. Number one, creatures of pure goodness are very much a part of the fantasy genre. Number two, I see no good reason why goodly characters couldn't be opponents: after all, not all PCs are heroic (I take it 4E D&D won't actively discourage people from playing evil characters?), and two parties of the same alignment can still clash, even violently.
Having said that, my question here is, ARE there going to 4E races that are entirely (or almost entirely) about goodness? For example, some strong counterpart to demons and devils? Fiends of all types seem to be retaining their concepts of being purely evil--I saw no indication in W&M that they will be alignment-flexible. The fate of celestials seems to be totally up in the air! And while I'll be the first to jump up and agree that we don't need compulsory symmetry, as I said before, "pure goodness" is an old and perfectly legitimate concept in the fantasy genre, and personally I think there should be something to represent that. Obviously, angels don't cut it--not only can they be of any alignment, but they are now going to be more like constructs than sentient beings.
I think there is also a "shadow" question to my main one: Is 4E D&D deliberately trying to scour away the brighter, heart-on-its-sleeve aspects of the game in favor of "modern" cynicism (ie. "formly benevolent critters now have sharper, more sinister edge")? Or, have the fates of goodly creatures just not been decided on, yet? There are fans of D&D, such as myself, that do actually enjoy the more cheerful, unironic side of game setting.
Thanks in advance,
RF
Sorry if it's a repeated question and if it is, can someone direct me to the answer if any... thanks.
Question: I recall you mentioning that you were indeed involved, to some degree, in developing the three-part Super Adventure trilogy, and more specifically, the final installment, the Anauroch module. Anyway, can you explain why the Shadovar were able to obtain the Nether Scrolls that were sealed away in Myth Drannor with such relative ease, when Malkizid and other Demons/Devils have been struggling to do so for years and years, with no success?
As it turns out, I had less to do with Anauroch than I did with the other two adventures in the trilogy.
-I knew you were involved to a degree, insofar as you were able to field that question about the Shadow Weave sidebar, so...
Hi, folks!
Welcome back, Mr. Baker.
You'll be happy to know I left a very POSITIVE comment about you over at CK, before I even knew you had posted here again. :D
I'd just like to Thank You once again for taking the time from your busy schedule to answer our questions, despite many of us having disgruntled attitudes.
Well, they already said they didn't want too overt RW analogies, and Nyambe clearly fits the bill. So I hope and think that something like this will be out of the question.
Are you familiar with that setting at all? You should at least read the review in the link I provided. It captures the flavor of African cultures without being derivitive. Since we know a little about Katashaka through the Tabaxi, I think that setting fits PERFECTLY within the spirit of 4e FR.
People don't like change, it scares them.
Thats a VERY negative generalization, and INCREDIBLY untrue.
I LOVE change - I just don't enjoy changes that break continuity, because they destroy the ability of the setting to fully immerse you with it's realism.
Immersion is KEY in ANY setting, be it game or novel, and without it roleplaying gets placed by the wayside with hack'N'slash.
Give me ANY changes you want, just make them fit with past events and lore.
Case in point - I was a HUGE Star Trek fan, until Rodenberry's wife decided to 'nuke' continuity with Enterprise. The brand has not been able to recover since.
People need to learn from history's mistakes, not REPEAT them.
On-Topic Question:
I'm not sure about what you can and can't answer, but I'll try anyway - in Bruce Cordell's novel he mentions the
Show
eventual return of te Deep Imaskari to the surface
Are you familiar with that setting at all? You should at least read the review in the link I provided.
I am, that's why I saw no need to read the review. I'm sorry, but it's too overtly African for my liking *shrug* You're a big Kara-Tur fan whereas I consider it a RW rip-off, so I know your mileage regarding the question what is a rip-off and what is just inspired by (...) varies.
DB
You're a big Kara-Tur fan whereas I consider it a RW rip-off...
-He does too, don't worry. ;)
-It was brought to my attention by our fair Rino that "Queen Tiandra and King something-or-other" were the royal couple in the Court of Stars, come 4e. What happened to Queen Morwel?
And I'd add for the cynism bit... somes call it cattering to the 'evil is cool' crowd. But knowing Shadowrun and having seen White Wolf players around, things is that it's also a fact that we realised a bit more that life is complex, ambiguous, even in the classic fantasy works (A Song of Fire and ice seems very much basedon that).
Understood, but just because life is complex and humans (and human-like creatures) tend not to be purely good or purely evil, doesn't mean that everything in the universe has to be complex in that same way. If demons and devils are still going to be purely evil (not exactly "grey" creatures), I don't see why there can't be purely good beings. I don't think that'd be bowing to needless symmetry because the concept of goodness is so important to this genre (it wouldn't be an example of lazy, endless "filling in all the cracks").
And as I said, enjoy the gentle and benevolent aspects of fantasy, and still think there is a place for them in D&D.
I see Rich answered my question, so I'll check it out now...
-He does too, don't worry. ;)
-It was brought to my attention by our fair Rino that "Queen Tiandra and King something-or-other" were the royal couple in the Court of Stars, come 4e. What happened to Queen Morwel?
Indeed, I was curious about that, myself...
It's not really a matter of us not being interested in creatures of pure good, or committed to creating a darker and more cynical setting. It's more a question of real estate. Every page of the Monster Manual is pure gold. It's an irreplaceable resource. Any time you print a monster that 99% of the DMs won't actually use in an adventure, you *have* to ask yourself if that space wouldn't be better spent on a creature that might appear in more games... or whether there's a way to make that monster more widely useful by softening any absolute statements you're making about why it appears in the world and what it does.
I do expect that those angels who serve good deities are really Good with a capital G, and can hold down that conceptual space about as well as they used to in previous editions. And there are varieties of celestials we just haven't addressed yet (the archons, the guardinals, etc.), although we likely won't get to them in a hurry.
Thanks very much for the answer.
I'm glad to hear that it isn't all about making the setting darker in tone, or that goodly creatures aren't interesting enough.Understood, but just because life is complex and humans (and human-like creatures) tend not to be purely good or purely evil, doesn't mean that everything in the universe has to be complex in that same way. If demons and devils are still going to be purely evil (not exactly "grey" creatures), I don't see why there can't be purely good beings. I don't think that'd be bowing to needless symmetry because the concept of goodness is so important to this genre (it wouldn't be an example of lazy, endless "filling in all the cracks").
And as I said, enjoy the gentle and benevolent aspects of fantasy, and still think there is a place for them in D&D.
Note that even in D&D,. settings like Eberron and specially Planescape show even such absolutes can have relatives... The celestials are Good, but they are not always good. And so the fiends. It's complex, those things...
The article states that "Wizards, warlocks, clerics, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means." and "Indeed, without the divine restrictions of previous ages, magic is more abundant than ever, manifesting not only as inexplicable changes to the landscape, items, and creatures, but even in some of the most fantastic exploits of fighters, rouges, rangers, and other heroes."
Does this mean that FR martial characters will get special magic powers from their class or does it just refer to the powers gained through items and spellscars?
thanks!
btw, really excited for the 4E Realms.
You're a big Kara-Tur fan whereas I consider it a RW rip-off...
-He does too, don't worry. ;)
Thank You, I was just about to say that.
What I AM a fan of, is the potential of areas like kara-Tur - Oriental culture, folklore, and fantasy is so rich that K-T could have been GREAT.
I like to explore those "might have beens". ;)
And if you think Nyambe is a RW African rip-off, you must use the map of Faerûn to plan your European holidays. :P
ALbeit, it's a not much taped source in rpg, so....
And if you think Nyambe is a RW African rip-off, you must use the map of Faerûn to plan your European holidays. :P
Isn't Africa the first thing that comes to mind when you're browsing "Nyambe - African Adventures"? ;)
Anyway, that's why my Realms differ considerably from canon, and one of the very few things I'm happy about concerning the New And Improved Realms⁚ is that "This is supposed to be [insert RW country], albeit with a twist" seems to be a thing of the past.
DB
Here's my question: Will Anauroch, Empire of Shade get a 4E update? I've seen conflicting reports about this, and wondered if you could give a definitive answer either way.
Thanks so much!
With the Weave's collapse, do any spellbooks still have value? Can you learn a spell from them?
I can imagine it will need more study but would they be entirely useless?
I mean, imagine the Nether scrolls becoming obsolete...
Oh, and do the rules on wizard symbols still exist? (I expect that is too much a spoiler but I'll ask anyway)
Hi, Rich!
Here's my question: Will Anauroch, Empire of Shade get a 4E update? I've seen conflicting reports about this, and wondered if you could give a definitive answer either way.
Thanks so much!
Considering the Shades are very active in trying to make their own country and not just a city in the air, I'd be surprised that there is not some pages at least on what's going on in Anauroch...
Considering the Shades are very active in trying to make their own country and not just a city in the air, I'd be surprised that there is not some pages at least on what's going on in Anauroch...
Probablly, but I was more interested in actual stat updates...
It's not really a matter of us not being interested in creatures of pure good, or committed to creating a darker and more cynical setting. It's more a question of real estate. Every page of the Monster Manual is pure gold. It's an irreplaceable resource. Any time you print a monster that 99% of the DMs won't actually use in an adventure, you *have* to ask yourself if that space wouldn't be better spent on a creature that might appear in more games... or whether there's a way to make that monster more widely useful by softening any absolute statements you're making about why it appears in the world and what it does.
I do expect that those angels who serve good deities are really Good with a capital G, and can hold down that conceptual space about as well as they used to in previous editions. And there are varieties of celestials we just haven't addressed yet (the archons, the guardinals, etc.), although we likely won't get to them in a hurry.
Well, isn't what you really mean to say "It's an irreplacable resource for five years, which is your new business plan for 5th edition?"
Quite frankly, I think that regardless of the differences that you and I have (And they are numerous), I think that the fact that they have dropped the entire defense of the new Forgotten Realms on you is totally, and completely unfair. That's right. It's completely and totally unfair.
They gave you a crappy piece of real estate, and now you have to sell it to people who don't want to buy it. I realize that Wizards prevents you from saying how bad an idea it is, but I'm pretty certain that you're not entirely convinced yourself that this was the smartest thing to do.
18DELTA
It's not really a matter of us not being interested in creatures of pure good, or committed to creating a darker and more cynical setting. It's more a question of real estate. Every page of the Monster Manual is pure gold. It's an irreplaceable resource. Any time you print a monster that 99% of the DMs won't actually use in an adventure, you *have* to ask yourself if that space wouldn't be better spent on a creature that might appear in more games... or whether there's a way to make that monster more widely useful by softening any absolute statements you're making about why it appears in the world and what it does.
I do expect that those angels who serve good deities are really Good with a capital G, and can hold down that conceptual space about as well as they used to in previous editions. And there are varieties of celestials we just haven't addressed yet (the archons, the guardinals, etc.), although we likely won't get to them in a hurry.
Hey Rich this answear has spawned two questions for me....
1: Isn't there going to be more monsters in the MM and a new MM every year? So with the flood of monsters coming out do you really think they are all going to be used by 99% or even 70% of DMs? I mean I understand what you are going for but if gamers are nothing it is diverse. I understand that alot monsters (with the cutting of lots of abilities) aren't going to be useful more then once maybe twice.
2: With the lose of good 'monsters' is 4th edition going to discourage evil aligned campaigns even more then in previous editions?
What that means is that the MMs will actually have LESS Monsters then earlier editions, but many entries will be several pages long, making it easier for a DM to insert the entire culture into his campaign, rather then a single individual. Also, DMs will no longer have to write up individual monsters, which will save loads of time with encounters.
Hopefully, because the MMs will be jammed with Stat-blocks for all the possible variations on the beasties, it will leave the setting books less stat-dependent (except, of course, for inportant NPCs).
If I'm wrong here (and I don't think I am), Rich or anyone else can feel free to correct me.
The MMs will be more along the lines of the 3e MM5, With races getting special focus, and several examples of variants.
What that means is that the MMs will actually have LESS Monsters then earlier editions, but many entries will be several pages long, making it easier for a DM to insert the entire culture into his campaign, rather then a single individual. Also, DMs will no longer have to write up individual monsters, which will save loads of time with encounters.
Hopefully, because the MMs will be jammed with Stat-blocks for all the possible variations on the beasties, it will leave the setting books less stat-dependent (except, of course, for inportant NPCs).
If I'm wrong here (and I don't think I am), Rich or anyone else can feel free to correct me.
From what they have said they will be more monsters per page then any other MM. I am sure that some monsters will recieve the attention you are suggestion like the orc and gnoll. But not all of them
Though that will raise one of my other question I actualy really liked the 3.5 monsters because it was for me a very easy system to make varients of monsters with. I never liked the the later MM because to me those varients on Drow or the hobgoblin was a waste of space since I could do that in my sleep and much more suited to my needs as a DM. How customizable are these stat blocks going to be? Are they going to be as easy to tinker with?
The MMs will be more along the lines of the 3e MM5, With races getting special focus, and several examples of variants.
What that means is that the MMs will actually have LESS Monsters then earlier editions, but many entries will be several pages long, making it easier for a DM to insert the entire culture into his campaign, rather then a single individual. Also, DMs will no longer have to write up individual monsters, which will save loads of time with encounters.
Hopefully, because the MMs will be jammed with Stat-blocks for all the possible variations on the beasties, it will leave the setting books less stat-dependent (except, of course, for inportant NPCs).
If I'm wrong here (and I don't think I am), Rich or anyone else can feel free to correct me.
For some reason, that doesn´t seem to go along with the design guidelines we´ve been seeing when it comes to monsters. A monster´s culture is not relevant for an encounter, so I would expect those to be out. Now, behaviour towards outsiders and a bit of RP suggestions, that I could see in, but not extensive stuff on their "ecologies", I´d say.
I really like the idea of regional feats and starting packages. Can you give us a hint as to what's going to happen with regions in 4E?
Thanks.
For some reason, that doesn´t seem to go along with the design guidelines we´ve been seeing when it comes to monsters. A monster´s culture is not relevant for an encounter, so I would expect those to be out. Now, behaviour towards outsiders and a bit of RP suggestions, that I could see in, but not extensive stuff on their "ecologies", I´d say.
I would agree...but Worlds and Monsters puts forth the idea that monsters should actually have some interesting place in the world, as well as a good story behind them.
Sorry if this has been asked before.
I really like the idea of regional feats and starting packages. Can you give us a hint as to what's going to happen with regions in 4E?
Thanks.
I may be wrong, but I have heard that - or it's probable - that they are desemphased; there is local speciality feats offered, but it's more a 'those feats are common there and here'.
You will not be able to easily customize the 3e monsters, because the system no longer works that way. THEY will provide us with all the neccessary types to build encounters off of. 'Boss Types' are different, and you could still tack on anything you like, but basically, an Orc with a bow is just an Orc with a bow - you don't need to know what kind of bow or what color it is, just it's range and damage.
Its sort of a retro to 1e/2e monsters - if you need to know more about them, there's over thirty years of history in the older books. All we need to play in 4e are the stats - the rest is up to the DM.
If you want an idea of how it will all pan out, take a look at the miniatures - A dozen dwarves, 7 or 8 Hobgoblins, about 10-15 Drow, 3-5 Githyanki, etc, etc... just like the last two MMs, which they have admitted were test-beds for 4e concepts.
More monsters per page = 37 varieties of Orc.
You will not be able to easily customize the 3e monsters, because the system no longer works that way. THEY will provide us with all the neccessary types to build encounters off of. '
From what i've read it looks like customization of monsters will be easier than in 3rd Ed. because advancement works different now.
I really liked a lot of the monsters with character classes, that was the best idea ever, because it was CONSISTENT!
They've pretty much said "Screw Consistency." And that doesn't sit very well with me.
Hey Rich, i posted this question a few pages ago, thought i repost it so that you have the chance to actually see it ;) It's about the last Spellplague preview, so maybe you could clarify. Thanks.
The article states that "Wizards, warlocks, clerics, sorcerers, bards, paladins, and even rogues, fighters, rangers, and other adventurers call upon personally derived threads of magic to cast mighty spells, enforce pacts with enigmatic entities, heal injury, ward against evil, or accomplish physical feats that transcend purely mortal means." and "Indeed, without the divine restrictions of previous ages, magic is more abundant than ever, manifesting not only as inexplicable changes to the landscape, items, and creatures, but even in some of the most fantastic exploits of fighters, rouges, rangers, and other heroes."
Does this mean that FR martial characters will get special magic powers from their class or does it just refer to the powers gained through items and spellscars?
thanks!
btw, really excited for the 4E Realms.
But it won't be for the low level monsters, because an Orc should still be able to take classes, and a lot of creatures should be able to take classes.
Monsters will be able to take class levels, that was stated in one of the podcasts, IIRC
@Rich: Thanks, thought so myself but there were already rumors going round that every class would get magic powes, so i hope your clarification puts them to rest now. ;)
IMHO, I think only the 'base' creature should be able to take levels - all the variants will already have artificial 'levels' applied.
I'm all for the books providing us with 'complete' monsters ready to go, but I'm glad they left in the ability to give unique individuals levels as well.
Personally, I don't even see the need for an MM anymore, unless you don't use miniatures (which in 4e becomes even more tightly woven into the rules) - everything should be right on the cards. ;)
My group has been begging me to play again, but I'm holding out until June - we are all looking forward to the new rules. :D
Question:
Anything you can tell us about Artifacts, Rich? I'm fairly certain they will still work, according to what has already been said, but won't all of them need to be written up once again? Will they still be divided into 'lesser' and 'greater', and will PCs be able to at least create lesser ones at some point, now that epic levels are becoming part of the 'core' experience?
We think that the approach we used on regional feats before was more complicated than it really needed to be; lots of players searched through the feat descriptions to find a feat they wanted, and then searched for a region offering access to that feat. Also, it always kind of bugged me that choosing to tie your character to your region better meant being less of a fighter, or rogue, or wizard, or whatever than you could have been, because a feat you would have spent on improving your class capabilities was spent on a regional benefit instead.
Sorry if this has been asked before.
I really like the idea of regional feats and starting packages. Can you give us a hint as to what's going to happen with regions in 4E?
Thanks.
Question:
Since you aren't able to answer most 4e-specific questions ATM, I'll try something further afield, but pertinent to the future of D&D: Who owns the material in Dragon Magazine while Paizo was in charge? Do both of you own it? A lot of the concepts from the mag went on to appear in official sourcebooks, and I was wondering if you can still reference any of the older stuff now that you've split with them.
I think most folks houserule it that way, Alediran.
Question:
Since you aren't able to answer most 4e-specific questions ATM, I'll try something further afield, but pertinent to the future of D&D: Who owns the material in Dragon Magazine while Paizo was in charge? Do both of you own it? A lot of the concepts from the mag went on to appear in official sourcebooks, and I was wondering if you can still reference any of the older stuff now that you've split with them.
I know Eric Mona has stated that all material published in Dungeon and Dragon belongs to WotC.
Yes, but what I tried to tell Richard Baker that the Regional Feats are good and if they were only treated like a free feat at first level for every race then they can be used by every character and not become less of itself.
-If, as Rich mentioned, they implement the idea of Regional feats as "each region offering a minor mechanical benefit in-flavor", that's exactly what's going on- a free feat, more or less, based on region.
-That also means that Humans are going to be having different racial abilities, based on location, which I am a big proponent of. Rashemi should be 'sturdier' (+1 FORT, perhaps) than, say, Ffolk.
I like the idea that people from different regions would be better at certain things - its not only very flavorful, but it is also very realistic.
I like the idea that people from different regions would be better at certain things - its not only very flavorful, but it is also very realistic.
-Some people would disagree, but...
-Some people would disagree, but...
Yes... the same people who disagree with stereotypes... and yet, they DO exist for a reason. ;)
Mr. Baker, any chance that we can see the actual cover for the fr 4e campaign setting??
-I don't know if the cover has ever been released, but I know it depicts a Shade riding on the back of a flying Dragon-like flying creature...Think Nazgûl on Flying Creature. ;)
Yes... the same people who disagree with stereotypes... and yet, they DO exist for a reason. ;)
-That they do. In a sociology course I took, we spent about a week discussing the origins, purposes, and so on, of stereotypes.
-That they do. In a sociology course I took, we spent about a week discussing the origins, purposes, and so on, of stereotypes.
They are bad when, just like everything else, they are abused.
They are bad when, just like everything else, they are abused.
-Like NPCs. Amen.
-Rich, can you give us a vague outline of what the 4e FRCS book(s) is going to be? Deities, Geography, Rules...? What?
I apologize if any of my questions or comments have offended you or the other design team members and wish you and them luck with your endeavors. I still be lurking around here and keeping in touch with friends I have made but I think for the most part I am done posting. Good luck and goodbye.
Hey Rich, This is more of a statement then a question. I am done. I have lost all hope with the latest edition with reading 'Fearless' The Dragon Editorial. I like RPGs where in game actions can have consequences that could get you killed instantly if they are that stupid. It has convinced me that 4th edition is just not my game and with the changes to the Realms, cosomolgy, etc. It doesn't even offer flavor that I like. I see no reason to continue to buy WotC D&D products. I will still buy the PHB and DMG but I have a very strong feeling that I will not like them. Even if my gaming group converts to 4th I will just borrow the books I need.
I apologize if any of my questions or comments have offended you or the other design team members and wish you and them luck with your endeavors. I still be lurking around here and keeping in touch with friends I have made but I think for the most part I am done posting. Good luck and goodbye.
Without saying too much I think it will still be pretty easy to kill of players if they behave foolishly. And I don't like every change myself, but the fact there is no more standard 'roll a single good roll or die' is nice to me. I fail to see how it improves the game if/when you die because of a single roll. That does not neccessarily have to do with making stupid moves as a player. As I said you can always kill them anyway, if that is the "proper" punishment.
Without saying too much I think it will still be pretty easy to kill of players if they behave foolishly. And I don't like every change myself, but the fact there is no more standard 'roll a single good roll or die' is nice to me. I fail to see how it improves the game if/when you die because of a single roll. That does not neccessarily have to do with making stupid moves as a player. As I said you can always kill them anyway, if that is the "proper" punishment.
I like that gritty kind of game world that it is actualy dangerous(and with the proper precautions you can remove alot of that 'fail a single roll and die' threats). Where one mistep canb get you killed. That single die roll to aviod death is a phenomal powerful thing that reality doesn't offer. If you drink poison in the real world you are most likely dead...in D&D you have a chance of being unaffected. It is just moving too much towards cinamtic action then I enjoy. If I want that I'll watch a movie.
Also I don't even mean consequences as being death...it just seems all consequences of player decisions are being removed all of it is determine by dice rolls...sorry they have turned D&D into a ROLL-playing game at this point.
I like that gritty kind of game world that it is actualy dangerous(and with the proper precautions you can remove alot of that 'fail a single roll and die' threats). Where one mistep canb get you killed. That single die roll to aviod death is a phenomal powerful thing that reality doesn't offer. If you drink poison in the real world you are most likely dead...in D&D you have a chance of being unaffected.
On the contrary, people have survived falls from great heights (including airplanes), taking poisons (particularly drug overdoses, but since mediaeval times, doses of arsenic and other toxins).
It is just moving too much towards cinamtic action then I enjoy. If I want that I'll watch a movie.
I have to say you are probably in a minority here. I love the idea of a movie where I get to be a decision making participant. Sure, there have to be real risks, and I think they are still there. I just don't like that the game would as often reward the cautious as the brave, and that many if not most of the mechanisms were little more than capricious.
Also I don't even mean consequences as being death...it just seems all consequences of player decisions are being removed all of it is determine by dice rolls...sorry they have turned D&D into a ROLL-playing game at this point.
I don't think the issue of save or die effects impinges on the role play vs. roll play question in any meaningful way. What they do (and seem to have done to you noting your visceral reaction to Chris's editorial) is make some players into careful, calculating, risk averse strategists. This is no more (or less) role playing than the character that Chris describes. I love that D&D can be both. To those of that mindset, D&D can be an excellent min-maxing, problem solving game for those always looking for the optimal solution with least personal risk. It can /also/ be the in your face, brazen, cinematic careening from catastrophe to near death experience game of heart stopping and groan eliciting moments.
To have your character's life ended suddenly by a single bad die roll is not fun. Note that in the current game this could happen regardless of any precautions a player could take. What the new game appears to do is simply convert this to the notion that it will take a few failures to kill a character. These few failures could occur in a single encounter, but what the new system seems to do is to make more effects quantitative instead of qualitative. What Chris is saying is that an effect can make a character of any level quite hurt, but unless the character was badly off to begin with, it won't be an instant kill. I would certainly expect that a character could still go up against a foe way to powerful for him and get killed in a hurry, but appropriate encounters will not terminate him with a single attack at low or high levels. And most importantly of all - a healthy character will not be killed by such ignominious means as falling out of a cart - and also that a healthy 20th level character will not be instantly killed in the first round of the final BBEG encounter - by rolling a 1 on a save.
On the contrary, people have survived falls from great heights (including airplanes), taking poisons (particularly drug overdoses, but since mediaeval times, doses of arsenic and other toxins.
Surew it happens, but in the cases of falls it is very rare....not something you can do everyday...and in the cases of most poisons most people that survive need very quick medical treatment. Also Arsenic is a poison that kills you by building up inyour system and requires serveral doses to kill you. Look at some of the bio-warfare agents we have developed.
I have to say you are probably in a minority here. I love the idea of a movie where I get to be a decision making participant. Sure, there have to be real risks, and I think they are still there. I just don't like that the game would as often reward the cautious as the brave, and that many if not most of the mechanisms were little more than capricious.
Actualy I believe my post mentioned the word 'I'. I was clearly not saying I am in the majority here. Though I do know most of the people I play with feel generaly the same way I do about RPG I am not as egostistical to believe my viewpoint is worldwide as you seem to do. You said being brave should be rewarded I also think inteligence should be as well and that idea is not mutaly exclusive. Being brave and smart about it is possible.
A action movie generaly lacks depth I perfer my RPG to have that depth.
I don't think the issue of save or die effects impinges on the role play vs. roll play question in any meaningful way. What they do (and seem to have done to you noting your visceral reaction to Chris's editorial) is make some players into careful, calculating, risk averse strategists. This is no more (or less) role playing than the character that Chris describes. I love that D&D can be both. To those of that mindset, D&D can be an excellent min-maxing, problem solving game for those always looking for the optimal solution with least personal risk.
I wasn't only refering to save or die effects I was speaking about everything requiring a roll now.
To have your character's life ended suddenly by a single bad die roll is not fun. Note that in the current game this could happen regardless of any precautions a player could take. What the new game appears to do is simply convert this to the notion that it will take a few failures to kill a character. These few failures could occur in a single encounter, but what the new system seems to do is to make more effects quantitative instead of qualitative. What Chris is saying is that an effect can make a character of any level quite hurt, but unless the character was badly off to begin with, it won't be an instant kill. I would certainly expect that a character could still go up against a foe way to powerful for him and get killed in a hurry, but appropriate encounters will not terminate him with a single attack at low or high levels. And most importantly of all - a healthy character will not be killed by such ignominious means as falling out of a cart - and also that a healthy 20th level character will not be instantly killed in the first round of the final BBEG encounter - by rolling a 1 on a save.
Lets really look at it....most save or die effect in the game are completely stoppable by a 4th level spell. Death effects...Deathward. Grapples...freedom of movement. Poisons...neatrulized poisons.(All of which have long enough durations to be prep spells or for high enough level be put into items). Death from massive damge could be just ignored if you don't like it or they are about I believe 2 to 3 optional rules that make it less servere the instant death.
But besides this it is what I enjoy about the game that is being removed or added that I don't like.
I don't like the new flavor.
I don't like social combat rules.
I don't like tiers of play( the heroic, epic and I can't remember the third one)
I don't like what the direction they have taken the Realms.
I don't like the idea of NPCs and monsters having different rules then PCs.
I don't like that alot the precieved problems and the fixes all have to do with the DM and not the rules and that these fixes won't actualy fix anything.
I don't like that every class has to have it's own mechanics for it's abilities. I believe this will eventualy just get extremely complex.
I don't like them saying well we are going to allow evil paladins because we don't want to create multiple classes that basicaly does the same thing...yet they are going to turn each speciality wizard into it's own class. With it's own mechanic for casting.
I don't like saving defenses.
I don't like casters rolling to 'hit' with area effect spells...then giving them items with bonus on said rolls.
I don't like the conciets of the game as put forward by the designers.
I don't like the designers contnuel statement of "Well we don't understand why a PC would want this so it is gone." attitude.
I don't like the new skill system at all. I mean some rules changes I can see like grapple even though I never had issues alot of people did I recognize it could be improved...the new skill system is just a giant step back for me.
I don't like the general idea of things being simplfied that don't need it.
All the above are just my opinion of why I don't like the direction of 4th edition. I see no reason why to spend money on it. I see the 3.x or even any other edition of the game being alot more friendly to a more varied styles of play. 4th edition isn't. So I'll probably stick with 3.5. Maybe in 5 years when 5th comes out it will offer something for me, but with everything I have read this edition is just uninteresting.
I don't like social combat rules.
I don't like what the direction they have taken the Realms.
I don't like the idea of NPCs and monsters having different rules then PCs.
I don't like that alot the precieved problems and the fixes all have to do with the DM and not the rules and that these fixes won't actualy fix anything.
I don't like that every class has to have it's own mechanics for it's abilities. I believe this will eventualy just get extremely complex.
I don't like them saying well we are going to allow evil paladins because we don't want to create multiple classes that basicaly does the same thing...yet they are going to turn each speciality wizard into it's own class. With it's own mechanic for casting.
I don't like saving defenses.
I don't like casters rolling to 'hit' with area effect spells...then giving them items with bonus on said rolls.
I don't like the conciets of the game as put forward by the designers.
I don't like the designers contnuel statement of "Well we don't understand why a PC would want this so it is gone." attitude.
I don't like the general idea of things being simplfied that don't need it.
I agree with all this. Especially the things concerning Wizards, they are being done because whinners complained their fighters weren't able to do the things wizards do (OF COURSE a fighter can't do the same things a Wizard can, fighters only swing big pieces of metal/wood/bone/whaterver to hit something, Wizards manipulate reality). The "specialization" particularly irks me because I LOVE GENERALIST WIZARDS and I never play specialized ones.
I don't like the new skill system at all. I mean some rules changes I can see like grapple even though I never had issues alot of people did I recognize it could be improved...the new skill system is just a giant step back for me.
I mostly agree with this.
Surew it happens, but in the cases of falls it is very rare....not something you can do everyday...and in the cases of most poisons most people that survive need very quick medical treatment. Also Arsenic is a poison that kills you by building up inyour system and requires serveral doses to kill you. Look at some of the bio-warfare agents we have developed.
I believe one only needs one example of fact to prove that something can happen?
Actualy I believe my post mentioned the word 'I'. I was clearly not saying I am in the majority here. Though I do know most of the people I play with feel generaly the same way I do about RPG I am not as egostistical to believe my viewpoint is worldwide as you seem to do.
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps most RPGers prefer the calculated strategy game (as someone who is quite at home with both styles of play, I recognize my opinion hardly counts). What WotC are trying to address is not so much existing gamers, and potential gamers. The video game industry has successfully moved from an initially limited all younger male demographic to a wider audience. I would imagine that WotC would like to succeed with that with RPGs.
Please note that the only thing I have suggested about you is that you prefer a calculated strategic approach. I see nothing wrong in this, and I play some of my characters that way. This I have deduced from your very strongly worded, almost caustic criticism of what little we know of the new game, and the reasons you have put forward for that criticism. To turn around and accuse me of being egotistical on the evidence of my last post seems rather forward to me. I trust you would not behave that way face to face.
You said being brave should be rewarded I also think inteligence should be as well and that idea is not mutaly exclusive. Being brave and smart about it is possible.
Of course, and I would never suggest that it is. However, not all my characters are as smart as I am (I hope).
A action movie generaly lacks depth I perfer my RPG to have that depth.
Ah, but here we have the opportunity to fully participate in an adventure that has both cinematic drama and literary depth.
I wasn't only refering to save or die effects I was speaking about everything requiring a roll now.
Just as many asthmatic couch potatoes dream of wearing plate mail and vanquishing dragons, I am sure some shy tongue tied wallflowers long to deliver inspiring speeches and impress courtiers.
Likewise, some people who are generally poor at puzzles and draw a blank at sound defensive strategy nonetheless yearn to be rogues or warlords.
The game is a fantasy role playing game, and as such it should appeal to these types as well as those of us who are gifted in problem solving, strategy, social engagements and public speaking.
Therefore, the game has "die rolls for everything". That does not in itself eliminate the intelligent player from the game. A good DM will allow and encourage situational bonuses for good ideas and good role play, and even offer successes without rolls for certain ideas or strategies. However, this should not be allowed to force a player with little talent but in who's character he has invested the necessary skill points, from acting. After all, it is his fantasy. My Paladin is always stronger than I am - why shouldn't his rogue be smarter than he is?
Lets really look at it....most save or die effect in the game are completely stoppable by a 4th level spell. Death effects...Deathward. Grapples...freedom of movement. Poisons...neatrulized poisons.(All of which have long enough durations to be prep spells or for high enough level be put into items). Death from massive damge could be just ignored if you don't like it or they are about I believe 2 to 3 optional rules that make it less servere the instant death.
Indeed, but this makes the game into (to me) a rather dull exercise in measures and countermeasures. This is obviously to some peoples' taste, but wouldn't it be off-putting to new players?
But besides this it is what I enjoy about the game that is being removed or added that I don't like.
I don't like tiers of play( the heroic, epic and I can't remember the third one)
Heroic, Paragon and Epic. I think the idea here is that heroic represents that part of your character development leading up to the point where would (optionally) pick a prestige class in the 3e game. Paragon is that area where players typically chose prestige classes (or stayed with the base), and Epic is still epic.
I don't like what the direction they have taken the Realms.
Big question, really the topic of debate of most of the threads here.
I don't like the idea of NPCs and monsters having different rules then PCs.
Good and interesting point. I don't see them as obeying different rules, so much as monsters not having to conform to player character development mechanics. Why should a monster have so many levels (HD) in order to have its iconic abilities? Why should a beat stick monster (because it has so many HD) have to then have so many abilities? Why should most every monster ability have a PC analog - shouldn't some monsters have a startlingly unique array of abilities that confound the PCs?
I don't like that alot the precieved problems and the fixes all have to do with the DM and not the rules and that these fixes won't actualy fix anything.
Again you have an interesting point here. I perceive that a lot of what you call "bad DM'ing" centres on the realms. Why does this not also occur to this degree in other published settings? I am sure that although it is easy to write off my opinion as biased or uninformed, WotC must have some reasonable basis for their opinions.
I don't like that every class has to have it's own mechanics for it's abilities. I believe this will eventualy just get extremely complex.
Every class has always had its own mechanics for its abilities. There is always a basic "physics" that all classes and monsters have in common, plus a list of exceptions for each class or monster that make that type unique and interesting.
I don't like them saying well we are going to allow evil paladins because we don't want to create multiple classes that basicaly does the same thing...yet they are going to turn each speciality wizard into it's own class. With it's own mechanic for casting.
I am going to answer this wrt the wizard - the existing wizard has a real problem relating to "niche protection". That is to say, a mid to high level wizard could do everyone else's job better than they could (for 1 or 2 encounters - then the party strums its fingers while the wizard goes to bed). Making each Wizard type into its own character class is part of the solution to this issue - the psion is the mentalist wizard. The sorcerer can have a whole new flavour, perhaps turning people into newts etc. But the base Wizard can be carefully crafted to not trample the niches of all the other character classes.
I don't like saving defenses.
Ok, so the Wizard rolls an attack vs. an enemies Ref defence. This is statistically identical to having the enemy rolling a Ref save vs. the attack. The only difference is that the wizard now conforms to the same mechanic as the fighter. So, from a numbers point of view, there is no difference. From a flavour point of view, their is increased consistency. So, if you have a problem with that - so be it - had things been the other way around I would imagine you would have objected to the new inconsistency.
I don't like casters rolling to 'hit' with area effect spells...then giving them items with bonus on said rolls.
Rolling to hit is dealt with above ("saving defenses"). Again, we have an added consistency here. As levels go up, AC goes up mostly through items and the increased toughness of monsters. Fighters get magic swords to combat this. If nothing is available to Wizards to overcome the armour/defences creep, then they will get left behind.
I don't like the conciets of the game as put forward by the designers.
Since you are listing a load of specific concepts, this complaint is redundant.
I don't like the designers contnuel statement of "Well we don't understand why a PC would want this so it is gone." attitude.
Examples would be better. I miss some things too - like a Paladin's mount. Having said that, I was never able to deploy one usefully as a PC, not through want of trying. The rules just never worked.
I don't like the new skill system at all.
I have no opinion on the little I have seen published about skills - except to say that I trust the design direction based on the stated philosophies of the redesign.
I don't like the general idea of things being simplfied that don't need it.
It takes me about an hour to create a single stat block for a custom monster. This I need simplifying.
It takes my players on average, 4 hours to make a character that is (somewhat) to their liking. This does not count the concepts that seemed cool but never played right and ended up as unsatisfactory experiments.
I seem to remember fighting epic (10-20 round combats) with dragons in AD&D. In 3e, if a creature isn't down by round 3, something is going wrong. Additionally, these 3 round combats take up to an hour to conduct.
After two or three encounters, the party wizard and/or the cleric would raise the alarm and the party would want to rest to heal and recharge (the infamous 5 minute workday). The mechanics actively encouraged this type of play. Forcing players beyond it is hard work and increasingly contrived.
There are several specific mechanics that always required a trip to the handbook - Turning, Grappling, Dispel Magic to name a few.
Then there are all the spells which end run the DM - high level divinations, impervious force fields, instantaneous transport, undetectability. Sure they can be worked around, but at the price of some extra work, and in the end, it becomes more and more contrived.
This is a small part of the argument that simplification is called for.
All the above are just my opinion of why I don't like the direction of 4th edition. I see no reason why to spend money on it. I see the 3.x or even any other edition of the game being alot more friendly to a more varied styles of play. 4th edition isn't. So I'll probably stick with 3.5. Maybe in 5 years when 5th comes out it will offer something for me, but with everything I have read this edition is just uninteresting.
I suspect that the play will be the thing. Change is difficult for most people, we gamers seem more susceptible to this phenomena than most. Experience alone will tell. I am going to risk my $120 - if it doesn't work out, then I still have my rich collection of 3e. If it does, then I shall start over - initially reluctantly (oh my aching wallet), but mixed with that curiosity and anticipation that I enjoyed on the initial release of 3e. Actually, I am driving down to Washington DC to participate in DDXP. There will be 4e preview adventures in FR - so I will get a first hand taste of what is coming down the pike.
-Like NPCs. Amen.
-Rich, can you give us a vague outline of what the 4e FRCS book(s) is going to be? Deities, Geography, Rules...? What?
I'd like to, but I think that might scoop our preview schedule. Here's the short version: It'll be a lot like the 3e FRCS, but without the player character creation material (that's over in the Player's Guide), and with more attention devoted to monsters/threats/villain groups. Also, there's a ready-to-use starting area, sort of like the Deadsnows chapter at the end of the Silver Marches book. More than that I can't say right now.
-Gotcha.
-A quick question, and then I'll stop. With all of the articles that have been released so far, I've only found out when someone else linked it, or references it (the Moonshae article, the Magic in the Realms article, etc.). Is there a working schedule, or something like that, for all of the 4e Forgotten Realms things in the online DRAGON laying around somewhere, that you can share with us? Or, is there some kind of pattern to the releases (Forgotten Realms articles are released only on tuesdays, on the first or third week of the month, whatever...)?
My group has been begging me to play again, but I'm holding out until June - we are all looking forward to the new rules. :D
Question:
Anything you can tell us about Artifacts, Rich? I'm fairly certain they will still work, according to what has already been said, but won't all of them need to be written up once again? Will they still be divided into 'lesser' and 'greater', and will PCs be able to at least create lesser ones at some point, now that epic levels are becoming part of the 'core' experience?
I asked this earlier but you were not available at that time, so here it comes again:
Will Lands of Intrigue, and Tethyr in particular, still be somewhat in same shape as in 3,5 ed? I would like to know since I plan my 4th ed campaign already and Lands of Intrigue will be the starting area (if no huge changes is to come).
If you can't answer for some reason or another, I understand of course.
Thanks for many nice written books Rich by the way
I believe one only needs one example of fact to prove that something can happen?
Yes but in D&D currently it is likely not just possible....
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps most RPGers prefer the calculated strategy game (as someone who is quite at home with both styles of play, I recognize my opinion hardly counts). What WotC are trying to address is not so much existing gamers, and potential gamers. The video game industry has successfully moved from an initially limited all younger male demographic to a wider audience. I would imagine that WotC would like to succeed with that with RPGs.
I don't think the markets will cross pollinate like they seem to think it will. Also the video game market really hasn't move away from the all younger male demographic that you seem to think it has. If anything it is just that older men are playing.
Please note that the only thing I have suggested about you is that you prefer a calculated strategic approach. I see nothing wrong in this, and I play some of my characters that way. This I have deduced from your very strongly worded, almost caustic criticism of what little we know of the new game, and the reasons you have put forward for that criticism. To turn around and accuse me of being egotistical on the evidence of my last post seems rather forward to me. I trust you would not behave that way face to face.
Actualy I adlib a alot of my plans and such and take huge risk dependent upon character. It is hard to explain and almost has to be done face to face my preference here as I have tried and have always failed in explaining it. The main point is that though I just view cinamatic action movies to be different from a RPG and I watch a movie or read a book for different reason then I play in a RPG.
Also I apologize for the insult about the size of your ego. I just dislike it when I do express personal opinions people think I am talking about a minority or a majority etc.
Of course, and I would never suggest that it is. However, not all my characters are as smart as I am (I hope).
I have played dumb characters before and I never minded that they died because of the dumb things they do...it is what happensd to dumb people. Also please noter most action heroes are clever if not intelligent and don't dumb things.
Just as many asthmatic couch potatoes dream of wearing plate mail and vanquishing dragons, I am sure some shy tongue tied wallflowers long to deliver inspiring speeches and impress courtiers
This is a personal issue with me, since I was a shy person who liked playing these characters I credit the game with getting me out of being as shy as I was...which would have happened if I could just take the short cut and roll a die.
Likewise, some people who are generally poor at puzzles and draw a blank at sound defensive strategy nonetheless yearn to be rogues or warlords.
I hate puzzles in RPGs for the most part as I find them extremely contrived and really unrealistic and wished they would be dumped from the gener(though I don't get the colloration between rogues and puzzles?).
As to planing a sound defensive stagety...most DMs aren't really tactical or stagetical genius and are probably just as good as you are at it...so I don't see it being a issue.
Therefore, the game has "die rolls for everything". That does not in itself eliminate the intelligent player from the game. A good DM will allow and encourage situational bonuses for good ideas and good role play, and even offer successes without rolls for certain ideas or strategies. However, this should not be allowed to force a player with little talent but in who's character he has invested the necessary skill points, from acting. After all, it is his fantasy. My Paladin is always stronger than I am - why shouldn't his rogue be smarter than he is?
Yes a good DM can focus it on actualy what the players does with siturational mod. etc. The problem I see is with these new potential gamers who will not realize this...
Indeed, but this makes the game into (to me) a rather dull exercise in measures and countermeasures. This is obviously to some peoples' taste, but wouldn't it be off-putting to new players?
Ok tell me if you were going into a gunfight would you wear a bullet proof vest if you had the oportunity to put one on? So why wouldn't your character?
Heroic, Paragon and Epic. I think the idea here is that heroic represents that part of your character development leading up to the point where would (optionally) pick a prestige class in the 3e game. Paragon is that area where players typically chose prestige classes (or stayed with the base), and Epic is still epic.
To me these tiers seem to like the tiers in the game Scion. Where a character of x level is expected to do x things. Once a character reaches x level he is expected to do x things. I perfer a more greying of the lines if you will in this regard.
Good and interesting point. I don't see them as obeying different rules, so much as monsters not having to conform to player character development mechanics. Why should a monster have so many levels (HD) in order to have its iconic abilities? Why should a beat stick monster (because it has so many HD) have to then have so many abilities? Why should most every monster ability have a PC analog - shouldn't some monsters have a startlingly unique array of abilities that confound the PCs?
They already do. Also beatsticks don't have a huge array of abilities already. Look at hill giants or most giants that are meant just as beatsticks...also as far as I know there is no way for PCs to gain Shallow whole ability or other monster abilities. They are differences.
Again you have an interesting point here. I perceive that a lot of what you call "bad DM'ing" centres on the realms. Why does this not also occur to this degree in other published settings? I am sure that although it is easy to write off my opinion as biased or uninformed, WotC must have some reasonable basis for their opinions.
Lets put it this way I think alot of people problems with Save vs die effects is that DMs overuse them. If D?Ms kept them rarer people would actualy be afraid of them and not just annoyed by them. But getting rid of them won't changeanything really...those DMs will just find another trick to overuse.
Also the Realms have more examples of bad Dming probably because it has been the longest lasting campaign setting(or one of them) and has had the most games played though so just statiocaly speaking it will have more.
Every class has always had its own mechanics for its abilities. There is always a basic "physics" that all classes and monsters have in common, plus a list of exceptions for each class or monster that make that type unique and interesting.
Not entirtely true..and I qam not against new mechaqnics per se I just think having a common base like divine, arcane and psionics is a better way of designing it then having each have it's own unique way of working...
I am going to answer this wrt the wizard - the existing wizard has a real problem relating to "niche protection". That is to say, a mid to high level wizard could do everyone else's job better than they could (for 1 or 2 encounters - then the party strums its fingers while the wizard goes to bed). Making each Wizard type into its own character class is part of the solution to this issue - the psion is the mentalist wizard. The sorcerer can have a whole new flavour, perhaps turning people into newts etc. But the base Wizard can be carefully crafted to not trample the niches of all the other character classes.
The wizard is only doing that if he over extends himself...and why is the DM continue allowing the party to rest unmolested? Again this is a problem with the DM( or players) and not the game.
Ok, so the Wizard rolls an attack vs. an enemies Ref defence. This is statistically identical to having the enemy rolling a Ref save vs. the attack. The only difference is that the wizard now conforms to the same mechanic as the fighter. So, from a numbers point of view, there is no difference. From a flavour point of view, their is increased consistency. So, if you have a problem with that - so be it - had things been the other way around I would imagine you would have objected to the new inconsistency.
Simple I like magic not being consistent...you have a wider range of effect by multiple rolls as oppose to just one roll. Also I have nightmare(not really just concerns) about the crit succes on area effect spells.
Since you are listing a load of specific concepts, this complaint is redundant.
You are correct in this it is redundant...
Examples would be better. I miss some things too - like a Paladin's mount. Having said that, I was never able to deploy one usefully as a PC, not through want of trying. The rules just never worked.
Inm the preview book they have stated thing like there won't be a agicultral god because they don't see a adventurer worshipping one. I have two issues with this...
1) Just because they can't see it doesn't mean that we don't. I find a game that is suppose to be about imagination, ideas, and, concepts them limiting it to what they can dream up to be annoying.
2) I like a rich detailed world with depth. Just because a PC might not worship a god of X doesn't mean the average people won't. As a matter of fact considering the importance of farming for the world is a god of agiculture will be worshipped by a lot of people. So said church would be extremely powerful and would have a effect on the world...yet since it isn't Player Character cenntic it is unimportant.
I have no opinion on the little I have seen published about skills - except to say that I trust the design direction based on the stated philosophies of the redesign.
What the system is going to be was revealed in the preview books.( This was refering to the skill system.)
It takes me about an hour to create a single stat block for a custom monster. This I need simplifying.
It takes me from anywhere to 5 min to a half-hour depending on level(or HD) and depending how they simplfied it depend on how I like it. If I can still be just as creative and create interesting creatures for the PCs to fight I am happy...if not then it is garbage to me. I don't mind spending the time if the results are good.
It takes my players on average, 4 hours to make a character that is (somewhat) to their liking. This does not count the concepts that seemed cool but never played right and ended up as unsatisfactory experiments.
I take me personaly about 10 to 20 min to create a 1st level character(I use all the books). Some of the other people I play with take longer or shorter period of time if I was to guess I would say the average is about 30 min to a 40 min.
I seem to remember fighting epic (10-20 round combats) with dragons in AD&D. In 3e, if a creature isn't down by round 3, something is going wrong. Additionally, these 3 round combats take up to an hour to conduct.
Our group still have epic fights that last 10 to 20 rounds and it doesn't feel very wrong or take hours. We can get though 3 round of combat in about 15 min to a half-hour depening on it's size. Vs on a dragon it is about at most 3 to 4 min.
I typed the above things just to illustrate that different people take things differently. I am not trying to suggest that I and my group is superior to you and your group in anyway as I really don't feel a skill at playing a game would be a indication of superiority. Right now though my group know the rulers well enough that we aren't bogged down by them. We probably just play alot more than your group. But I personaly don't feel the need to simplefied the rules.
Though I think game play will slow down as players will have alot more options(atleast that is what they are saying as a selling point).
After two or three encounters, the party wizard and/or the cleric would raise the alarm and the party would want to rest to heal and recharge (the infamous 5 minute workday). The mechanics actively encouraged this type of play. Forcing players beyond it is hard work and increasingly contrived.
Again they are a lot ways to cut down on the 5 minute work day...one of them is actualy for the players of the wizard and cleric to actualy conserve resouces so they can last longer then a encounter.
Another is to give them a dealine which is a staple of fantasy literature and movies. Sure you can't use it all the time but that is one way.
Another is to actualy have the monsters act intelligently...if the PCs pull out of a stronghold to rest or just fort a portion of it why wouldn't the monsters counterattack, or set up a stronger defense, or even just leave?
There are several specific mechanics that always required a trip to the handbook - Turning, Grappling, Dispel Magic to name a few.
Sure I won't disagree but the DM screen cuts down on that...and those well still exist. They will always do
Then there are all the spells which end run the DM - high level divinations, impervious force fields, instantaneous transport, undetectability. Sure they can be worked around, but at the price of some extra work, and in the end, it becomes more and more contrived.
Again I can agree with some of those thing though careful planing can mitigrate certain of these but I haven't seen anything yet that say they are dumping these.
This is a small part of the argument that simplification is called for.
And I hope you see that some of what you think as complex other don't find so.
I suspect that the play will be the thing. Change is difficult for most people, we gamers seem more susceptible to this phenomena than most. Experience alone will tell. I am going to risk my $120 - if it doesn't work out, then I still have my rich collection of 3e. If it does, then I shall start over - initially reluctantly (oh my aching wallet), but mixed with that curiosity and anticipation that I enjoyed on the initial release of 3e. Actually, I am driving down to Washington DC to participate in DDXP. There will be 4e preview adventures in FR - so I will get a first hand taste of what is coming down the pike.
Listen I agree maybe 4th edition is for you. I hope you enjoy it greatly. Heck I am trying to keep a open mind about it but I have yet seen any actual change I consider positive as of yet...I keep hoping though. The post I made that started this was that I was going to aviod doing what I just did( I live in NJ and we just got about 6 inches of snow dumped on us so I blame that for such a lengthy rersponse. Also your response was well thought out and made me think about it so I figure I'll respond). I can accept the possiblility people like the changes and are for respectable and for tehm real reasons...I just don't see the need.
So I really hope 4th edition is everything you and your group wants out of D&D. I just wish it is what I want but what I have seen in the previes by WotC( not rumors from fans) I am starting to doubt it.
Also the Realms have more examples of bad Dming probably because it has been the longest lasting campaign setting(or one of them) and has had the most games played though so just statiocaly speaking it will have more.
Who says it has more examples of bad DMing? I don't get that impression from reading forums. Far more common than any reports of unsatisfactory play in the Realms are innuendos/conjectures that it happens in unspecified other people's games.
Who says it has more examples of bad DMing? I don't get that impression from reading forums. Far more common than any reports of unsatisfactory play in the Realms are innuendos/conjectures that it happens in unspecified other people's games.
I can only quote from personal experience - I have played with probably two score or so different DMs over the past 30 years, and the most stand out examples of intelligent people DMing poorly have been realms fans. I haven't specified which DMs because they could be present (on these forums) and that would be unpleasant. I accept that my sample is very small, and that it probably has little statistical value, but it has skewed my perception. Additionally, I have run campaigns in FR, and I have run into a number of difficulties. All of which had solutions, but few to none of which had to exist had the Realms been designed/populated a little differently. To be frank, most of the difficulties I have experienced have to do with FR being a pretty "high magic" setting, and the inherent weaknesses of D&D wrt high level magic. Couple that with high level NPCs, high level PCs, and you have a recipe for RSEs of your very own.
I can only quote from personal experience - I have played with probably two score or so different DMs over the past 30 years, and the most stand out examples of intelligent people DMing poorly have been realms fans. I haven't specified which DMs because they could be present (on these forums) and that would be unpleasant. I accept that my sample is very small, and that it probably has little statistical value, but it has skewed my perception. Additionally, I have run campaigns in FR, and I have run into a number of difficulties. All of which had solutions, but few to none of which had to exist had the Realms been designed/populated a little differently. To be frank, most of the difficulties I have experienced have to do with FR being a pretty "high magic" setting, and the inherent weaknesses of D&D wrt high level magic. Couple that with high level NPCs, high level PCs, and you have a recipe for RSEs of your very own.
Then maybe just the Realms is just not for you? I mean they are people who enjoy high magic worlds...it is just as feasible a option in my opinion the a mid or low level magic world.
Some people like those colorful high level NPCs.
I guess what I am saying is that they just traded one audience for another...I don't see the gain really. I think it would have been better just to come up with another campaign world that group of people could like then destroy one that people like me enjoyed.
Inm the preview book they have stated thing like there won't be a agicultral god because they don't see a adventurer worshipping one.
But this refers to the core rules. Settings will have Agricultural deities, and underwater deities, and gods for everything else. They just aren't really worth the space in the Player's Handbook.
What the system is going to be was revealed in the preview books.( This was refering to the skill system.)
Hmm. Races and Classes give some idea of how the skill system will work. However, how what is presented synergises with character creation, race, powers and feats is a different thing entirely.
It takes me from anywhere to 5 min to a half-hour depending on level(or HD) and depending how they simplfied it depend on how I like it. If I can still be just as creative and create interesting creatures for the PCs to fight I am happy...if not then it is garbage to me. I don't mind spending the time if the results are good.
I am going by numbers from game designers blogs as well as my own limited experience. Creating stat blogs for public consumption is a lot more exacting than doing it for my home game.
I take me personaly about 10 to 20 min to create a 1st level character(I use all the books). Some of the other people I play with take longer or shorter period of time if I was to guess I would say the average is about 30 min to a 40 min.
Our group has seldom started at first level - only twice in the past 5 years.
Our group still have epic fights that last 10 to 20 rounds and it doesn't feel very wrong or take hours. We can get though 3 round of combat in about 15 min to a half-hour depening on it's size. Vs on a dragon it is about at most 3 to 4 min.
Again, I was using adventure design guidelines from Wizards, which gel with my experience. Obviously some tight knit groups can go through encounters much faster.
Right now though my group know the rulers well enough that we aren't bogged down by them. We probably just play alot more than your group. But I personaly don't feel the need to simplefied the rules.
I personally am hoping for a new influx of players - in my own circles, I will have at least 6 new players soon, and easier to introduce rules + faster in game resolution, along with manageable game durations and achieving regular goals will go a long way to getting new players hooked and keeping busy working parent players coming back.
Again they are a lot ways to cut down on the 5 minute work day...one of them is actualy for the players of the wizard and cleric to actualy conserve resouces so they can last longer then a encounter.
Another is to give them a dealine which is a staple of fantasy literature and movies. Sure you can't use it all the time but that is one way.
Another is to actualy have the monsters act intelligently...if the PCs pull out of a stronghold to rest or just fort a portion of it why wouldn't the monsters counterattack, or set up a stronger defense, or even just leave?
All of these are good, but at mid to high levels they become hard to pull off as a DM - players can teleport away, or use Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. They may even want the enemy to congregate outside so their area effect spells can do more damage. If the boss calls for reinforcements, they will see that as more XPs.
Sure I won't disagree but the DM screen cuts down on that...and those well still exist. They will always do
Actually, 3e was designed with the understanding that there were certain sacred cows that they did not want to tamper with. 4e - not so much.
Again I can agree with some of those thing though careful planing can mitigrate certain of these but I haven't seen anything yet that say they are dumping these.
Again, the new design ethos is a no sacred cows deal. For example, they have added a required attack roll for every spell - there goes magic missile! I think I read a design blog which specifically called for the removal of "game breaking" spells - or moving them into a play space that prevented their abuse.
And I hope you see that some of what you think as complex other don't find so.
Of course. I personally find the complexity of 3e quite manageable, but I can also see how intimidating it is to non-gamers.
So I really hope 4th edition is everything you and your group wants out of D&D. I just wish it is what I want but what I have seen in the previes by WotC( not rumors from fans) I am starting to doubt it.
And I hope that when you get to see the finished product and get a chance to play it (actually this goes for both of us) - that we find it rocks!
dim and John: I have enjoyed reading your comments but can you guys move it to another thread and let this thread be a Rich Baker answering question type of thread? Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.;)
Sorry if it didn't snow in NJ I probably wouldn't have replied. I have said my piece I see no reason to continue it on a different thread.
Questions for Mr. Baker: now that Cyric has directly or indirectly murdered several gods, the latest being Mystra (directly) and Helm (indirectly), will he not finally gain the portfolio of murder? Given that he murders deities left and right, will he now be considered the most powerful deity in 4E? According to the article, the other greater deities will only(?) be able to bind him in his home plane for a thousand years. That seems rather inconsequential... can you comment more on this?
1. Cyric has the portfolio of Murder already.
2. It's not a proven fact Cyric had anything to do with Helm's death. It could be that Tyr was just being a jerk. The gods have a suspecion of Cyric's involvement, but that doesn't mean it's true.
If it does turn out to be true, my respect for Cyric has increased greatly if he managed to get the God of Justice to commit an Unjust act.
For the core game, I don't know if I know a concrete answer, but I'll take a stab at it. We think it's a bit jarring to imagine that an elf's adventuring career starts at age 100. Was the elf still the size of a 10-year-old human at, say, 90 or so, so he waited a few more years to get his growth spurt? Kinda strange. Or did he reach his full physical growth around 20 or 30, and then sit on his hands for decades not doing anything in particular? We think it moves some of these tough questions off the table if you can assume that elves mature and begin adventuring at about the same rate as humans, but then just live longer. Now, as to why elves live to 300 when they used to live to 500 or more in previous editions, I think it's to address another awkward elf society question--specifically, just how many elven generations are alive at one time? Once your lifespan is so long that you might have 8 or 10 generations alive at the same time, you've got a very strange society to manage. It's easier to keep that number closer to 4 or 5.
(And, before anyone points this out... we assume that elves might be physically mature at 20 or 25, but they don't start families until they're older. So shortening the lifespan and reducing the maturing time doesn't yield the same number of generations alive at the same time, really. They're not in a hurry, and they feel that you ought to have some life experience before you become a parent. So I'd peg the elven generation as more like 60 years than 20 or 25.)
In any event, lifespans other than "30 levels' worth" are irrelevant for the vast majority of PCs, and only *barely* relevant for NPCs. Does it really matter if the wise elf queen is 250 or 500 or 900? She's older and wiser than you any way you slice it.
I have a question for you Mr. Baker if you can answer it.why did the elves lifespan get cut down fromedition to edition. add had it as 2000, 3e had it at 500, from memory 4e had it as 200 thats not long lived to me
Hi Rich
I asked this earlier but you were not available at that time, so here it comes again:
Will Lands of Intrigue, and Tethyr in particular, still be somewhat in same shape as in 3,5 ed? I would like to know since I plan my 4th ed campaign already and Lands of Intrigue will be the starting area (if no huge changes is to come).
If you can't answer for some reason or another, I understand of course.
Thanks for many nice written books Rich by the way
(And, before anyone points this out... we assume that elves might be physically mature at 20 or 25, but they don't start families until they're older. So shortening the lifespan and reducing the maturing time doesn't yield the same number of generations alive at the same time, really. They're not in a hurry, and they feel that you ought to have some life experience before you become a parent. So I'd peg the elven generation as more like 60 years than 20 or 25.)
Rich, not meaning to clutter your thread, but just checking to make sure that when you say 'we assume,' you mean the designers for 3E and 4E? Because in the past, Elves did indeed actually physically mature much more slowly, according to Ed.
I actually really liked this, since it, as you said, created a really weird society. I think it helped reduce the 'humans in funny suits' feel, and it really created challenging roleplay. The idea of a cute 12 year old female with silver hair and bright blue eyes that held decades of knowledge was just... Really cool and creepy.
Rich, not meaning to clutter your thread, but just checking to make sure that when you say 'we assume,' you mean the designers for 3E and 4E? Because in the past, Elves did indeed actually physically mature much more slowly, according to Ed.
I actually really liked this, since it, as you said, created a really weird society. I think it helped reduce the 'humans in funny suits' feel, and it really created challenging roleplay. The idea of a cute 12 year old female with silver hair and bright blue eyes that held decades of knowledge was just... Really cool and creepy.
Where was AO during the whole Spellplague issure, why he didn't stopped Shar from blocking the ascension of the New Mystra?
We think it moves some of these tough questions off the table if you can assume that elves mature and begin adventuring at about the same rate as humans, but then just live longer.
That's how my group has handled it for the last twenty years. Nice to see you catch up ;) No, seriously, this is a change I like.
DB
FR in 1479 seems to have many empires. Is there something like a political "Balance of Power" System. Something like Netheril & Sembia against Cormyr, Cormanthyr, Silver Marches, Evereska with both sides are equally strong?
Are there anything like a strong dwarven hold in the Dalelands in 1479? Something like a reclaimed Tethyamar?
What happend to the perform skill in 4ed? Is this skill still there? Is it not? Is it different?
How will the Spellplague affect the faithes of Faerun? Is one god blamed for all?
Is there a God of Fortune like Tyche in 4ed?
I'll ask again, seems that my question got lost.
Where was AO during the whole Spellplague issure, why he didn't stopped Shar from blocking the ascension of the New Mystra?
Shar killed him and took his stuff.
OK, well, seriously... why does AO choose to not interfere in all kinds of things? As far as we can tell, AO took a direct hand in the events of the world once in the last 50,000 years. We don't expect to intervene again for at least that long.
Shar killed him and took his stuff.
WIN!
Can't breathe.. Laughing.
Its known that The Paladin class can be of any aligment now,Will all of the aligments will be called paladins or guy guys are gonna do the whole psion thing (Telepath, Seer and so on?
I dont dislike the Idea of having diferent "Champions" of their respectives aligments but the whole "Paladin of Evil" thing really throws me (and most people tha I've talked the subject with off. Since the litteral term of paladin orbits more to a LG kinda champion.
Thanks in advance
OK, well, seriously... why does AO choose to not interfere in all kinds of things? As far as we can tell, AO took a direct hand in the events of the world once in the last 50,000 years. We don't expect to intervene again for at least that long.
But something as big and against balance like the Spellplague would surely be of his interest, The dark trio's theft of the Tablets of Fate seem like a child play comparing it with Shar stepping in his turf by blocking the ascension of the new Mystra, stated in this aragraph of the article in http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080130a
For eons, the use of magic in Faerûn was focused through a god of magic, most recently Mystra. Except for certain Netherese wizards of ancient days who learned the truth, most believed that no magic would be possible without such a deity. However, with the death of Mystra and jealous Shar suppressing the ascension of a new deity of magic, it became common knowledge that magic is accessible without a god to control and codify it. Now when a spellcaster speaks of the Weave, she is just using another term for magic.
The knowledge and facts we have about AO is that he personally aproves the ascensions and demotions of every single divine entity in Realmspace, therefore, Shar doing what's described is like if any board member speaked for you withour your approval, you wouldn't like it and you would silence that member for overstepping your authority. Therefore I think that one of these options should be used:
- Change that section of the article since it's inconsistent with Realmslore, even Finder Wyvernspur had to ask AO to change the portfolio of rotting, and that is something that happened after ToT, meaning we have at least two stated interventions of AO in less than 50 years.
- Find a way to explain it in another way that is more clear.
And no matter what happens I need to tell that there are many FR players who are sad because of Mystra's death and the lack of a Goddess of Magic in 4th edition (all my players hate that) because the Arcane Spellcasters who study magic for magic's sake will not get an apropiate patron goddess for them (one who is not Shar btw, and I hope that at least the Wall of the Faithless is still standing)
But something as big and against balance like the Spellplague would surely be of his interest, The dark trio's theft of the Tablets of Fate seem like a child play comparing it with Shar stepping in his turf by blocking the ascension of the new Mystra, stated in this aragraph of the article in http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080130a
The knowledge and facts we have about AO is that he personally aproves the ascensions and demotions of every single divine entity in Realmspace, therefore, Shar doing what's described is like if any board member speaked for you withour your approval, you wouldn't like it and you would silence that member for overstepping your authority. Therefore I think that one of these options should be used:
- Change that section of the article since it's inconsistent with Realmslore, even Finder Wyvernspur had to ask AO to change the portfolio of rotting, and that is something that happened after ToT, meaning we have at least two stated interventions of AO in less than 50 years.
- Find a way to explain it in another way that is more clear.
And no matter what happens I need to tell that there are many FR players who are sad because of Mystra's death and the lack of a Goddess of Magic in 4th edition (all my players hate that) because the Arcane Spellcasters who study magic for magic's sake will not get an apropiate patron goddess for them (one who is not Shar btw, and I hope that at least the Wall of the Faithless is still standing)
you can surpress the ascension of a new god of magic without stepping in the turf of AO, we just dont know how shar managed it.
maybe she had a long running plot that came to an end and her arguments was good enough for AO to not promote a new god
so i explained it...
What happens when this thread reaches a hundred pages? Does it explode?
Shar killed him and took his stuff.
OK, well, seriously... why does AO choose to not interfere in all kinds of things? As far as we can tell, AO took a direct hand in the events of the world once in the last 50,000 years. We don't expect to intervene again for at least that long.
The question about Ao not intervening actually sounds like a natural question, but it seems (to me - I might naturally be wrong) that you are starting to grow bored with such fluff/continuity-based questions.
Wouldn't it be less insulting to the fans' intelligence and also perhaps more honest to simply say something like ...
"Look, guys, we decided that the Realms needed to be shattered, that the pantheons needed to be simplified, that many major NPCs [except Drizzt and Elminster, because they sell well] had to be killed, that the world had to be cut off from the old dusty lore so that new players could come and play more easily in the Forgotten Realms. That is why we invented the Spellplague, the deific soap opera, and the 100-year jump. We do not care that much whether or not they fit in the world or whether they please the old fans: we are taking a gamble here that the number of new fans attracted by those changes will be greater than the number of old fans shooed away by them. But, clearly, continuinity and cohesion between the old FR and the new FR is not a priority to us and we hope that the 4E FR will be so amazingly cool that they will make you forget about the cohesion problems" ?
That's actually more or less how I am reading the comments posted around. So I guess my question is ... am I reading correctly?
As far as I know having the Weave and a God(ess) of magic was so important that Ao begged Midnight to take the job( well for him I think that was begging)...and now he is doing nothing? It makes no sense.
Also Ao has intervened alot with the whole thing about Cyric's trail...and didn't he confirm the fact that Leira was dead( giving infomation is intervenation just ask the watcher from the Marvel Universe).
I think Dalvyn is right you guys should just come clean instead of trying to tap dance areound it. Though I think some of it is you guys just trying to get the 'mass' of new people out there just waiting to play D&D in the FR and keep the old guard.
But something as big and against balance like the Spellplague would surely be of his interest, The dark trio's theft of the Tablets of Fate seem like a child play comparing it with Shar stepping in his turf by blocking the ascension of the new Mystra, stated in this aragraph of the article in http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080130a
With the Tablets of Fate, the gods themselves caused Ao to interfere. IIRC, they became disinterested with their followers, focusing instead on the interdeific struggles and rivalries. Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul going after the Tablets just gave Ao the perfect excuse to teach the gods a lesson (IIRC, Ao -- being an overdeity -- knew the trio will be going after the Tablets and just run along with it).
The Spellplague -- while having dire consequences on the world -- is just yet another (big) event on Toril, where yet another deity gets killed. The existence of the world and/or the reality weren't threatened. History of Faerun has seen heaps of similar events. The only difference is that, somehow, Mystryl/Mystra managed, through centuries of good PR, to convince mortals that she is magic (where, in reality, she was little more than a glorified magic-filter). In the very quote you gave, it says "Except for certain Netherese wizards of ancient days who learned the truth, most believed that no magic would be possible without such a deity".
As for shar blocking the ascension of a new deity of magic, various Mystryls and Mystras have been a thorn in her side since the beginning of time... and she's had two opportunities to study what exactly happens when a deity of magic dies. If she is, as many suspect, behind the death of the third goddess of magic, she was probably prepared for just about any trick Mystra had up her sleeve.
As for why Mystra hasn't sensed a threat to her life (existence?)... she probably has. But Shar is a greater deity of equal power (both have Divine Rank of 18), only vastly older, and with a portfolio of secrets. Along with Cryic (DR 17, has portfolios of intrigue, deception, and illusion), the two could probably keep any specifics of their plan hidden even from senses of another greater power (Mystra, in this case). I suspect Mystra knew/sensed something like "The Weave will be in terrible danger about 18 weeks from now... I sense two powerful presences tearing it apart, destroying it...", but nothing more specific.
Until they struck. She was probably aware of the whole plan just before she died. :p
The knowledge and facts we have about AO is that he personally aproves the ascensions and demotions of every single divine entity in Realmspace, therefore, Shar doing what's described is like if any board member speaked for you withour your approval, you wouldn't like it and you would silence that member for overstepping your authority. Therefore I think that one of these options should be used:
Why? Isn't it enough that we know Shar is somehow blocking it? Perhaps she said to Ao that she's sick of the various oddesses of magic, and Ao said OK (since the world went through three goddesses of magic in a span of about a 1,000 years... only Siamorphe did/does something similar, but that's part of her/his position).
Or, perhaps, Shar managed to capture Mystra's divine spark. Perhaps she couldn't absorb it herself (being a mistress of the Shadow Weave), and was unwilling to let Cyric have it, and so she just "bottled" it up. Thus, the essence of the goddess of magic couldn't pass to another being, and without a consciousness to maintain it, the Weave fell apart. "Mystra" could still be out there, existing as a mindless force of magic, imprisomed somewhere in Shar's domain... Why should Ao interfere?
And no matter what happens I need to tell that there are many FR players who are sad because of Mystra's death and the lack of a Goddess of Magic in 4th edition (all my players hate that) because the Arcane Spellcasters who study magic for magic's sake will not get an apropiate patron goddess for them (one who is not Shar btw, and I hope that at least the Wall of the Faithless is still standing)
And there are many who don't care one way or another (all my players, for example).
As for the patron deity... Ever since the fall of Netheril, one couldn't worship the sun. Sure, there's a god of dawn, but he's not a deity of the midday sun. Or, if I'm a good-aligned thief, my default deity is Evil, as are all of his clerics... D&D is full of stuff like that. Besides, there are still gods of magic -- Corellon Larethian, for example... we don't know what happens to the Mulhorandi pantheon, but Isis, Thoth, and Set were (are?) all deities of magic.
Regards.
...
You are just ignoring the fact that AO would NEVER allow Shar to bottle Mystra's divine essence because that essence is the property of AO.
I think it's purely idiotic, AO aside (who I hate).
You kids should make a new thread, and even I may grace it with my presence. ;)
You are just ignoring the fact that AO would NEVER allow Shar to bottle Mystra's divine essence because that essence is the property of AO.
Actually, part of Mystra's essence came from Shar.
Mystryl was made out of divine portions of both Selune and Shar. This was then passed to the two Mystra's. So it is not so strange for Shar to be able to stop the ascension of another Mystra, simply by holding onto the divine power that was once hers.
I don't think Ao would interfere in that case.
Actually, part of Mystra's essence came from Shar.
Mystryl was made out of divine portions of both Selune and Shar. This was then passed to the two Mystra's. So it is not so strange for Shar to be able to stop the ascension of another Mystra, simply by holding onto the divine power that was once hers.
I don't think Ao would interfere in that case.
And we also know that Selûne recovers some of Mystra's essence back (and becomes a Greater Goddess, so she's partly to blame for the lack of a new deity of magic too) after Shar failed to merge both Weaves. That's probably the best explanation, there's no more Mystra because the divine power went back to its origins. Basically, there's no more "Weave" "Spells" and "Magic" portfolios.
And I don't believe that AO would mind, I mean those portfolios that belonged to Mystra didn't exist in his original design of the Crystal Sphere, their existence was something accidental in the first place and the world is safer place now that the deity of magic cannot die again and produce a massive disaster like the three previous times it happened.
With AO there aren't accidents. Everything is part of a long-term calculated plan, he knows what was, is and will. And if he chose Midnight to be the new Mystra during the ToT it's because he knew that Mystra's job was very important and no other god can do it.
And if he chose not to make yet another Mystra in DR 1385, it's probably just another part of his long-term, calculated plan.
If this is the case I am relieved. I realized AO was created by TSR to explain the TOT and the new Edition changes. That is all it was. A plot device that should have faded away into nothing. Anyway that last part is just my opinion.
Plus Alediran created a thread to discuss the whole AO issue.
"Look, guys, we decided that the Realms needed to be shattered, that the pantheons needed to be simplified, that many major NPCs [except Drizzt and Elminster, because they sell well] had to be killed, that the world had to be cut off from the old dusty lore so that new players could come and play more easily in the Forgotten Realms. That is why we invented the Spellplague, the deific soap opera, and the 100-year jump. We do not care that much whether or not they fit in the world or whether they please the old fans: we are taking a gamble here that the number of new fans attracted by those changes will be greater than the number of old fans shooed away by them. But, clearly, continuinity and cohesion between the old FR and the new FR is not a priority to us and we hope that the 4E FR will be so amazingly cool that they will make you forget about the cohesion problems" ?
Oh Puleease.
I am not sure if you really like the changes, could you possibly word it in a more sarcastic, inflammatory way so I get it?
Seriously, how about - we designed the new 4e rules with no sacred cows, just using everything we know and have learned in all gaming spheres, to create a better game of D&D. We spent the years of 3e listening to our players, looking at what was working, and what wasn't. What we have come up with, we believe is the best game of D&D ever.
Having done that, we took a look at our settings. Our best selling of all time, flagship setting was Forgotten Realms. We wanted that setting to be the first to receive the awesome 4e treatment. We have also been quietly listening to players about settings over the period, and we looked at what was working and what wasn't. The Realms has always been a large complex place with a history of massive changes. We wanted new and old players to be able to play in the realms with any of the new 4e options available to them, and we also wanted them to feel comfortable whether they had spent the last 20 years reading Realms products or not.
The changes we have introduced have all been with a mind to keep what was working well, and provide new opportunities for play in areas where things were not working so well.
We have done our best to ensure that if you enjoy D&D, and you try the new Realms, you will enjoy the experience and want to come back for more. We also want to grow the hobby and bring in thousands of players who have never played D&D, and we believe the new products will help in that direction as well.
ps: I don't work for WotC, and the above is just a reflection of my own views in sharp contrast to a lot of the nonsense I see on these threads.
But it is a gamble, only time will tell if the gamble comes off.
Paul
What if Ao doesn't want another Mystra? Ever think of that Jones? Also wasn't the only reason Mystra was reborn those two times is because when she died some mortal that was nearbye or close to her got the powers? The Second Mystra getting hit by magicall fallout from Mystra #1 and Mystra #3 getting power put into her by Mystra #2? So Shar's plan is simple. Make sure Mystra doesn't do this time what she did in the past! Simple.
And what if the board was entirely serviced by people like you?
I could use the same argument. Stop making ad hominem attacks.
I am not sure if you really like the changes, could you possibly word it in a more sarcastic, inflammatory way so I get it?
I actually tried to use a rather "plain" and "neutral" tone, while "calling a cat a cat". I'm not sure how well that expression translates into English (which is obviously not my native tongue) - what I mean is that I intended to state things clearly and plainly without using PR speech.
Seriously, how about - ...
Your text is interesting, but it deals with a different topic.
Your text justifies the changes, by explaining that the designers decided to apply them in order to meet the most common complaints against FR and to apply the 4E feel to the FR setting. I can certainly agree that the designers had good reasons to apply those changes, but that is not what I am trying to address.
My text is about how they do not really care whether those changes fit well/make sense in the FR setting because they are more focused on the results, i.e., the new 4E FR. Continuity is an important issue for many people who have "spent the last 20 years" playing in the Realms, but it does not appear to be that important to the designers. By addressing the complaints of the FR detractors, they are taking a gamble: they are changing the FR to make them more appealing to those who did not like them/did not want to play in them/were scared by the massive amount of lore; attracting new players looks like a higher priority than keeping their current fans (by ensuring continuity).
ps: I don't work for WotC, and the above is just a reflection of my own views in sharp contrast to a lot of the nonsense I see on these threads.
Different people come with different points of view, different backgrounds, different sensibilities. It's often much more rewarding to try to understand other points of view than to simply discard them as "nonsense" simply because they do not match yours.
My point here is that, when given the choice to spend time on (A) improving the Tyr-Helm-Tymora/Shar-Mystra-Cyric stories to make sure that gods behave in consistent ways or on (B) designing the 4E FR, they chose B and declared consistency/cohesion to be a lesser priority. That is a decision that I can understand and that, I am sure, makes sense in some point of view. I just wished they would come clean and admit it rather than pretend and give PR answers.
In other words, they seem to be more interested in presenting good/interesting/cool 4E FR than in presenting 4E FR as a natural/consistent evolution of 3E FR. That is what other people have called - sarcastically - "firing the old fans to attract new players", or "trying to please the FR haters while ignoring the loyal fans". I tried to stay away from the inflammatory and sarcastic and present this choice under a more neutral tone.
To be clear: 4e won't use AO, but we're not writing the overgod out of the setting. Maybe you'll catch a brief mention or nod to the concept here and there, but we don't want to tell stories about the gods' relationship to the mysterious overgod. We don't want to set rules or precedents on what any such being can or can't do. We never really want to say anything about AO ever again, but we'll tip our hat in the general direction of continuity when we have to. Clearly, the Time of Troubles happened, and we're not going to say that it didn't.
Rich, so can I assume you guys are basically not using AO like you did in 3E?
If this is the case I am relieved. I realized AO was created by TSR to explain the TOT and the new Edition changes. That is all it was. A plot device that should have faded away into nothing. Anyway that last part is just my opinion.
Plus Alediran created a thread to discuss the whole AO issue.
LOL at Alediran. They never used AO in 3e either but you picked up a bunch of those books. edit
I will point out that there are elements of your statement that I don't quite agree with. For example, we do care whether the Spellplague fits in the world, and choosing the right agent of change is something that was important to us. I would say that continuity/cohesion *is* a priority, just not the top priority. And I'd say that we're working hard to minimize cohesion problems, as opposed to hoping you just choose to overlook them. But I don't expect folks to take me at my word on that. Everyone's got their own threshold for what's a minor continuity adjustment or a major gaffe.
Wouldn't it be less insulting to the fans' intelligence and also perhaps more honest to simply say something like ...
"Look, guys, we decided that the Realms needed to be shattered, that the pantheons needed to be simplified, that many major NPCs [except Drizzt and Elminster, because they sell well] had to be killed, that the world had to be cut off from the old dusty lore so that new players could come and play more easily in the Forgotten Realms. That is why we invented the Spellplague, the deific soap opera, and the 100-year jump. We do not care that much whether or not they fit in the world or whether they please the old fans: we are taking a gamble here that the number of new fans attracted by those changes will be greater than the number of old fans shooed away by them. But, clearly, continuinity and cohesion between the old FR and the new FR is not a priority to us and we hope that the 4E FR will be so amazingly cool that they will make you forget about the cohesion problems" ?
That's actually more or less how I am reading the comments posted around. So I guess my question is ... am I reading correctly?
The only thing I'd add is that we hope to show old FR fans new things about the setting, as well as attracting new players who never looked at FR before.
Seriously, how about - we designed the new 4e rules with no sacred cows, just using everything we know and have learned in all gaming spheres, to create a better game of D&D. We spent the years of 3e listening to our players, looking at what was working, and what wasn't. What we have come up with, we believe is the best game of D&D ever.
Having done that, we took a look at our settings. Our best selling of all time, flagship setting was Forgotten Realms. We wanted that setting to be the first to receive the awesome 4e treatment. We have also been quietly listening to players about settings over the period, and we looked at what was working and what wasn't. The Realms has always been a large complex place with a history of massive changes. We wanted new and old players to be able to play in the realms with any of the new 4e options available to them, and we also wanted them to feel comfortable whether they had spent the last 20 years reading Realms products or not.
The changes we have introduced have all been with a mind to keep what was working well, and provide new opportunities for play in areas where things were not working so well.
We have done our best to ensure that if you enjoy D&D, and you try the new Realms, you will enjoy the experience and want to come back for more. We also want to grow the hobby and bring in thousands of players who have never played D&D, and we believe the new products will help in that direction as well.
ps: I don't work for WotC, and the above is just a reflection of my own views in sharp contrast to a lot of the nonsense I see on these threads.
When someone trots out a 20-year-old bad idea like AO as a reason why our story shouldn't evolve now, yeah, I find that a little frustrating.
Kind of a side-trek but ... I am curious as to why you think that Ao was/is a bad idea? Is it just because it somehow does not work well with those changes, or are there other previous reasons?
My personal opinion on it is that Ao as some sort of "over-deific agent of balance" was actually a good idea, since it was the key through which it could be explained that, for example, a good deity of magic was restricted in what she could do: Mystra couldn't simply decide to cut off evil spellcasters from the Weave. I think that a good-aligned deity of magic with restrictions is more interesting then an average "plain uninteresting" neutral-aligned deity of magic (though apparently having an aligned deity of magic was a problem to some).
I've always seen Ao as the (partially) hidden reason to explain why FR deities (who are known to intervene in everyday life more often than in most other settings) cannot just destroy each other's followers and offer illimited help to their own faithful. Ao is very useful in that "cosmic balance" role in my opinion. That's why your calling it "a bad idea" intrigues me.
I will point out that there are elements of your statement that I don't quite agree with. For example, we do care whether the Spellplague fits in the world, and choosing the right agent of change is something that was important to us. I would say that continuity/cohesion *is* a priority, just not the top priority. And I'd say that we're working hard to minimize cohesion problems, as opposed to hoping you just choose to overlook them. But I don't expect folks to take me at my word on that. Everyone's got their own threshold for what's a minor continuity adjustment or a major gaffe.
Spellplague is actually one of the easiest changes to accept, I think. Its consequences might not be pleasant to fans (e.g., destruction of Halruua, removal of Maztica, as well as modifications to other locales), but I do not think that it presents a continuity problem ... simply because it's something new. With a reasonable explanation for why it happened (e.g., some deities trying to use energy from the Far Realm - I actually forgot if it was the official version or only KnightErrant's take on it), it can become an interesting change.
When I was talking about continuity/cohesion problems, I was actually refering more to the Tyr-Tymora-Helm and Mystra-Shar-Cyric story lines. Even when I try my best to be objective about those stories, I can't help but see them as "cheap tricks" to get rid of some gods. I believe that most fans feel kind of insulted by those "cheap storylines". I actually had those two stories in mind when I wrote that you seemed to not really care about continuity. I do wish to believe you, but I can't reasonably believe that a good team of designers can't come up with something more solid than those two stories.
I know it's certainly too late by now to change anything, but here's what I think would have been a solution that would have pleased both the old fans and let you reach your goals:
- Think up a solid trigger for the Spellplague (gods/mortals tapping into the Far Realm and opening up a rift for example)
- (Remove the Tyr-Tymora-Helm and Mystra-Shar-Cyric storylines - that is, do not make them die right now [see below])
- Have the Spellplague happen around 1385, describe its consequences (changes in magic, madness, creation of corrupted creatures, ...).
- Introduce the new 4E races and options as consequences of the Spellplague as you did in the preview article.
That would be the Old World, which would correspond to "untouched" 3E Forgotten Realms with the first effects of the Spellplague as an option. This Old World would still have all the deities, all the chosens, and the lore from previous editions would still be usable, while at the same time allowing for new 4E options to be used. - Describe the effects of the Spellplague during the next 80-90 years.
- Include here events that lead to the deaths of the gods you want to get rid of (with the changes in magic, Mystra could simply die off; other deities might simply be forgotten because they are no longer worshiped; ...)
- Use the 80-90 year gap to make "powerful NPCs" die and to render the old lore obsolete.
- Use the Spellplague and the 80-90 year gap to explain changes to kingdoms, societies, ...
That would be the New World, which would correspond to 4E Forgotten Realms, with trimmed down pantheons, no powerful PNCs (except for those that make bestselling novels ;) ), all the 4E options, a fresh start lore-wise (since most people described in the old lore would be dead by now).
DMs would then have two basic options: Old World and New World. You could then concentrate on the New World for fluff books; the published adventures could be classified as being Old World or New World (or some might actually work in both worlds). You would have actually created a new FR without "firing" old fans simply by giving them more options (and by not trick-slaying some gods).
Now, I'm not a designer, so I guess that this idea is not perfect ... but I can't help but (naively?) think that such an option-based 4E FR setting wouldn't have generated as much tooth-grinding and anger and wouldn't have split the community badly between the "I don't want to hear a word about 4E FR" and the "Yay! 4E FR is exactly what I want" clans.
First, the name troubles me. AO: Alpha-Omega. I sort of feel it's "crossing the streams" to add a being to the fantasy setting who so clearly stands in for a real-world concept of God. Secondly, if Ao really does manage divine portfolios and relations, it seems to me that Ao is effectively the source of all divine power. It undercuts Ed's wonderfully creative and engaging Faerunian pantheon. (And, before anyone gets on me--most of our upcoming pantheon development leaves the original FR deities in place.)
Finally, Ao raises the same sort of questions that the Chosen of Mystra sometimes do: If Something Big is happening, why is Ao allowing it to happen? As, indeed, Alediran pointed out as regards to the end of the goddess of magic. We have to say that Ao is powerless to stop it (seems unlikely), or doesn't care (also seems unlikely).
So, anyway, those are some of the reasons why I kind of wish Ao hadn't been introduced to the Realms. I can't really undo that bit of continuity (I do recognize limits in that sort of thing, believe it or no), but I sure don't want to spill one more drop of ink on the concept than I absolutely have to. Let Ao fade into the history of the setting, and be something that was relevant for the Avatar Crisis and hasn't been seen since.
First, thank you for your clear and honest answer. I really appreciate your taking the time to answer, and your answering my post in that manner.
Kind of a side-trek but ... I am curious as to why you think that Ao was/is a bad idea? Is it just because it somehow does not work well with those changes, or are there other previous reasons?
My personal opinion on it is that Ao as some sort of "over-deific agent of balance" was actually a good idea, since it was the key through which it could be explained that, for example, a good deity of magic was restricted in what she could do: Mystra couldn't simply decide to cut off evil spellcasters from the Weave. I think that a good-aligned deity of magic with restrictions is more interesting then an average "plain uninteresting" neutral-aligned deity of magic (though apparently having an aligned deity of magic was a problem to some).
I've always seen Ao as the (partially) hidden reason to explain why FR deities (who are known to intervene in everyday life more often than in most other settings) cannot just destroy each other's followers and offer illimited help to their own faithful. Ao is very useful in that "cosmic balance" role in my opinion. That's why your calling it "a bad idea" intrigues me.
Previous reasons, really. It's a little hard for me to lay out a convincing case why Ao was not a great idea without bashing the folks who came up with the idea, so I am going to skirt around this just a bit.
First, the name troubles me. AO: Alpha-Omega. I sort of feel it's "crossing the streams" to add a being to the fantasy setting who so clearly stands in for a real-world concept of God. Secondly, if Ao really does manage divine portfolios and relations, it seems to me that Ao is effectively the source of all divine power. It undercuts Ed's wonderfully creative and engaging Faerunian pantheon. (And, before anyone gets on me--most of our upcoming pantheon development leaves the original FR deities in place.)
Finally, Ao raises the same sort of questions that the Chosen of Mystra sometimes do: If Something Big is happening, why is Ao allowing it to happen? As, indeed, Alediran pointed out as regards to the end of the goddess of magic. We have to say that Ao is powerless to stop it (seems unlikely), or doesn't care (also seems unlikely).
So, anyway, those are some of the reasons why I kind of wish Ao hadn't been introduced to the Realms. I can't really undo that bit of continuity (I do recognize limits in that sort of thing, believe it or no), but I sure don't want to spill one more drop of ink on the concept than I absolutely have to. Let Ao fade into the history of the setting, and be something that was relevant for the Avatar Crisis and hasn't been seen since.
Since Mystra was one of the original FR dieties, does your comment mean that there will be a new Mystra in 4ED???
Or just not nuking her in the first place?
One of my players would really like to know what your comment means.
I would say that continuity/cohesion *is* a priority, just not the top priority.
I would say that your posts, and the occasion posts of the 4e FR Design team seem to support this as what you think is true. However, I think that this is also your greatest downfall for the new edition. Most of us dissenters believe that continuity/cohesion needs to be one of the top priorities, if not the top priority; and I think that since it is not a top priority, that this new setting is likely to lose more old players than you would like to.
As to 4E FR itself, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I am bothered by inconsistencies and discontinuity, but on the other hand I recognize the need to level the setting and thus lower the barrier to entry.
For example, I have a player who has extensive knowledge of the Realms, whereas I do not. I am the primary DM, but this effectively prevents me from DMing FR, as she is a combative type of player and would use her knowledge of FR to argue with me at every turn to extract some kind of advantage, which would decrease my enjoyment of DMing the game. Neutralizing the importance of the setting's history gets rid of the problem, but creates another: If the setting changes too much and too much continuity is sacrificed, I will probably lose interest in running the setting in the first place, considering that I like it in its current form. I guess for me it depends on how the balance is struck.
Ultimately, though, it is most likely be the ruleset, not the fluff or the settings that determines whether I switch to 4E or not and I still remain undecided on that one.
I would say that your posts, and the occasion posts of the 4e FR Design team seem to support this as what you think is true. However, I think that this is also your greatest downfall for the new edition. Most of us dissenters believe that continuity/cohesion needs to be one of the top priorities, if not the top priority; and I think that since it is not a top priority, that this new setting is likely to lose more old players than you would like to.
You two said close things, really. Blanc chat and chat blanc.
Albeit... continuity for the sake of it, for the sake of traditions and all that... It's not good in itself. As changes for changes's sake, and all that. There must be a selections of things; take the bad off, keep the good or put more in.
Hence why continuity may be not the first priority, and why it may be better that way.
(Well, post-Avatar Crisis, anyway.)
Since Mystra was one of the original FR dieties, does your comment mean that there will be a new Mystra in 4ED???
Or just not nuking her in the first place?
One of my players would really like to know what your comment means.
Since Mystra was one of the original FR dieties, does your comment mean that there will be a new Mystra in 4ED???
(And, before anyone gets on me--most of our upcoming pantheon development leaves the original FR deities in place.)
Accent mine... what part of 'most' don't you understand?
Guys we now have THREE threads going to take the 'chatter' out of this one, and you guys STILL insist on arguiing over every answer Rich gives.
I may not agree with the man (most of the time), but if I were him, I would just give up and not answer ANY questions, because his answers simply will NOT please everyone's views of how the Realms "should be".
Ao is an enigma, plain and simple, and he is NOT for the likes of you or me to fathom. Ao ONLY gets involved when deities are doing something against their portfolios, and I've yet to see them do that (concerning the Mystra stuff, not that 'other thing'). He/it only got involved during the ToT because three gods were trying to horn in on HIS turf! He is about keeping the balance, and any god (or gods) trying to become the Overgod is something he MUST address!
If Magic disappeared in the Realms, then maybe Ao would have to have become involved, because then other gods would not be able to grant their followers spells...
but the fact is, Mystra simply wasn neccessary for magic to work. I've been saying that for years (Spelljammer, Planescape) - that she created the Weave as an easy to use interfce so Arcane Casters can more readily wield magical might, and as a way of keeping tabs on them to prevent any sort of magical disasters. The Weave was more about what SHE needed to perform her portfolio, then it was about the people of Toril.
FR will go on without her and her 'tyrannical' lordship over magic, and the other gods no longer need get her permission to deliver spells to their followers - a situation that SHOULD make Ao VERY happy.
And as for where Ao was during all of this - he's down in Fort lauderdale for Spring Break, and enjoying Goddesses Gone Wild. :P
Sorry for the 'clutter' Rich, but I'm really getting tired of the same questions getting asked over and OVER again using different verbiage.
I may not be entirely happy with the answers you give, but I do appreciate your giving them, and I for one 'get it' the first time you say something. ;)
EDIT: LOL
You just said exactly what I did... but I'll refrain from the 'Great Minds' comment because I know it makes Dan nutz.
Nor do I ever recall seeing a WOTC Canonista tag under your name.
So....I think I will just more or less tune you out.
You don't game with me, nor do you think for me.
Have fun...
I may not be a designer, but I know how to read.
Since no one is really going to stop anyway
[speaking about thread trashing, my pot mounted kettle detector is going off.]Just ignore the posts you don't want to read and help cut down on what you are apparently annoyed about.
Have Fun.
18DELTA:D
By continuing with all the in-fighting you just reinforced the need of AO because on a world where gods killed each other a goddess like Eldath could never survive by her own hand in a place like that, dozens of gods would love to kill her (Cyric, Bane, Tempus, Talos just to name a few), she needs AO to survive.
Previous reasons, really. It's a little hard for me to lay out a convincing case why Ao was not a great idea without bashing the folks who came up with the idea, so I am going to skirt around this just a bit.
First, the name troubles me. AO: Alpha-Omega. I sort of feel it's "crossing the streams" to add a being to the fantasy setting who so clearly stands in for a real-world concept of God. Secondly, if Ao really does manage divine portfolios and relations, it seems to me that Ao is effectively the source of all divine power. It undercuts Ed's wonderfully creative and engaging Faerunian pantheon. (And, before anyone gets on me--most of our upcoming pantheon development leaves the original FR deities in place.)
Finally, Ao raises the same sort of questions that the Chosen of Mystra sometimes do: If Something Big is happening, why is Ao allowing it to happen? As, indeed, Alediran pointed out as regards to the end of the goddess of magic. We have to say that Ao is powerless to stop it (seems unlikely), or doesn't care (also seems unlikely).
So, anyway, those are some of the reasons why I kind of wish Ao hadn't been introduced to the Realms. I can't really undo that bit of continuity (I do recognize limits in that sort of thing, believe it or no), but I sure don't want to spill one more drop of ink on the concept than I absolutely have to. Let Ao fade into the history of the setting, and be something that was relevant for the Avatar Crisis and hasn't been seen since.
I think this is funny...you guys sound like you want to get rid of Ao as badly (if not more than) I would like to see him go(which is why I ignored him for the most part) for some of the same reasons you have stated...plus he was created to do something that was probably the 2nd worst( or maybe The Worst depending how you look at the Spell plague situration...personaly as far as my game it is the second worst because it changed so little) thing to have ever happen to the Realms.
The reason this is funny is that every change you guys are doing are possibly the worst in my opinion...yet there is a change that I would love to see yet you won't touch that 'sacred cow'. You'll just ignore it...couldn't you have just done that with the all those gods that you and the humble design staff consider wasteful?
Hey Rich do you guys read my mind and do this on purpose or what? ;) (That was a joke if you couldn't tell)
You two said close things, really. Blanc chat and chat blanc.
Albeit... continuity for the sake of it, for the sake of traditions and all that... It's not good in itself. As changes for changes's sake, and all that. There must be a selections of things; take the bad off, keep the good or put more in.
Hence why continuity may be not the first priority, and why it may be better that way.
That doesn't make the designers incompetent, but it does make you support illogical conceits, which, in turn simultaneously deconstructs every single argument you have ever made on these forums.
Thank you for debating.
With the cosmology being standardized across gamelines in 4ed, will we see the disappearance of the "keep Prime Materials, especially FR's, separated" mandate that, IMO, really served no purpose, created needless continuity problems, and, as time went on, became less and less enforced anyway?
If not, perhaps you should not answer.
Daen
1. Cyric has the portfolio of Murder already.
2. It's not a proven fact Cyric had anything to do with Helm's death. It could be that Tyr was just being a jerk. The gods have a suspecion of Cyric's involvement, but that doesn't mean it's true.
If it does turn out to be true, my respect for Cyric has increased greatly if he managed to get the God of Justice to commit an Unjust act.
Is your name Rich Baker? Or are you a Realms author/designer?
If not, perhaps you should not answer.
-No need to be rude. For the past 100 pages, we've been fielding questions posed to Rich.
-No need to be rude. For the past 100 pages, we've been fielding questions posed to Rich.
I'm not here to read answers from random people.
I'm not here to read answers from random people.
Read a book then
Perhaps you should not post question if you don't like other people to react on them,
I can't believe that you're actually calling me a name... but whatever, I guess the Wizards board allows name-calling.
It's one thing if an author/designer decides not to answer, that's cool. But getting random answers from people with "handles" who aren't even Wiz-Os, especially given the title of this thread, isn't what I'm here for.
If that seems insulting, sorry, but it's no reason to resort to calling me derogatory names for expecting something from a labeled thread.
I will never, EVER try to be helpful to someone on these boards again - its obviously rude to try and answer someone's question, so I'll just ignore all questions from now on.
This thread has turned into "Hey Rich, can you say something... ANYthing... so we can turn around and attack you for it?"
"Oh, and why did you kill Mystra, and Helm, and the Dwarven Gods, and change Toril, and create another edition, and what about NPC XYZ? Does he/she live?"
Guess what? Mystra, Helm, the Dwarven Gods, Ao, and even NPC XYZ were never alive to begin with! They didn't kill anyone! Why did they nuke the Realms? Because the CAN! Why did they create a new edition? Because, for some totally unfathomable reason, they like money (go figure).
I think I finally starting hating all of the 4e discussion WAY more then 4e FR.
As long as they get rid of the Shadoweave, I don't care what else they get rid of.
I think I finally starting hating all of the 4e discussion WAY more then 4e FR.
-4e Derangement Syndrome. As soon as 4e was announced, most progressive, productive discussion and topics on Realmslore came to a slow.
If I've seemed rude at all, it's because this thread is -ostensibly- for people to ask the authors / designers questions. I suppose it's nice that others want to jump in and try to be helpful, but how do we judge the accuracy of an answer from someone with a vague username? If I'd wanted a response from the general community, I would have asked on a more general thread. That's all.
Daen
Daenaan has convinced me...
I will never, EVER try to be helpful to someone on these boards again - its obviously rude to try and answer someone's question, so I'll just ignore all questions from now on.
This thread has turned into "Hey Rich, can you say something... ANYthing... so we can turn around and attack you for it?"
Dalvyn, I kinda feel like I've *been* saying this for months now, without being condescending or smug about it, but people have really insisted on looking for condescension and smugness in just about anything I post. When someone trots out a 20-year-old bad idea like AO as a reason why our story shouldn't evolve now, yeah, I find that a little frustrating.
I will point out that there are elements of your statement that I don't quite agree with. For example, we do care whether the Spellplague fits in the world, and choosing the right agent of change is something that was important to us. I would say that continuity/cohesion *is* a priority, just not the top priority. And I'd say that we're working hard to minimize cohesion problems, as opposed to hoping you just choose to overlook them. But I don't expect folks to take me at my word on that. Everyone's got their own threshold for what's a minor continuity adjustment or a major gaffe.
Hey Rich this statement just hit the nail on the head why 4th edition Realms is just not going to make it to my selves(most likely).
You guys aren't naturaly evoling the story...you are ram rodding it to fit what you guys want. Now that is your right as the guys writing the story...but I really don't want this at all in a game that is suppose to be about mine and my friends creativity. It is your story now...and I think you guys have lost sight what is great about D&D and RPGs in general.
Personaly if you guys had this much problem with Mystra and the Choosen you could have kept them and had made it interesting...but you guys seem to going with the minimalist style of design here in regards to favor and setting. Anything that requires thought on the part of some members of design team as to go it seems to me atleast.
But here is just one example...not that I think it will matter but I am bored.
Selune being a moon goddess power waxs and wanes constantly...she was at a low point in her power...just increase her power as it should just given her nature...
Now Mystra who's job it is to maintain the balance suddenly becomes alot less interventionist and suddenly her chooasen no longer have her backing...now these being of immense personal power have to look for help since they can't get directly involved because Mystra says so. Mmmm where do they go?
Anyway I got to say I was very impressed with 3.0 and like almost every improvement that 3.5 offered...but 4th edition as just been one big disappointment after the next.
But I don't care anymore...I have learned to love 4th edition( sorta like the Movie How I learned to love the bomb..or Dr. Strangelove). What it means is that I am free to play a game I liked without new things that are poorly playtested(like the Book of Nine Swords and the Warlock) constantly being added. I don't have to constantly smack my head and either argue with my DM on points of cannon or think of ways to keep atleast close to your what guys do in the novels so my players can actualy be the heroes or atleast important. Myth Drannor is still waiting for the PCs to take back...The Shades haven't got control of Sembia yet...Eilistraee doesn't risk everything she has sacrfice for on a game...Cyric can't do anything he likes...The Gods action don't make the PC's action irevelant because you guys think it makes a good 'story' ... Leira is back and Cyric is just a god of madness...The Great Wheel with all it's great depth is still there not this Cosmic soup... There is not a created Sister world of Abeir-Toril(or to it's friends know as Toril)... Abberations and the Fey will remain what they are... The multiverse(which the Earth is a part) of will still exist so interloprer gods will be around...etc... in my Realms atleast.
I hope everyone enjoy these the New Realms that plays in them...but thisn't the Forgotten Realms...and personaly I think the stories the designers and authors want to tell would have been better served by a new World not on the Ashes of one.
Sorry for the rant...engaging lurk mode....
The best way to make AO unimportant was if you just simply stoped the direct wars between gods and concentrated on their followers. Only then AO would be unnecessary to keep the balance since it would be checked by mortals and they would decide how they want to live.
By continuing with all the in-fighting you just reinforced the need of AO because on a world where gods killed each other a goddess like Eldath could never survive by her own hand in a place like that, dozens of gods would love to kill her (Cyric, Bane, Tempus, Talos just to name a few), she needs AO to survive.
The stated policy re Ao deals with all of this. Though infighting among the gods affects mortals and Ao affects the gods, the policy is for Ao not to directly affect mortals any more in ways attributed to him. We won't see what he chooses to do or why. If you think he keeps Edath alive, maybe he does, but it won't be addressed. If you think he could have kept Mystra alive, or replaced her, or he could have prevented the spellplague, that won't be addressed. These are concerns for the gods, not mortals, and don't need to be addressed in the official campaign setting documentation. Ao is still there in the background, if you want to use him in your own campaign, or you can leave him out of your own campaign without significant effect on the world.
Regardless of Ao's treatment in 4e FR, it has nothing to do with the usefulness of 4e products from WotC and whether or not they will be worth buying. Rick has, I believe, honestly and thuroughly addressed the issue of Ao in 4e, and nothing more need be said about him in this thread. The death of Mystra and the spellplague are now part of FR history, so we should be concerned with their effects on the world rather than the mechanics of their occurance at the god level.
I would rather hear about what FR is going to be like than whether changes should have been made. In a home campaign, I can alter whatever I don't like, including adding or removing gods, or alterring their roles.
I want to know what 4e and FR will be like for the LFR campaign and for the products that wull be coming out for the new FR, and how to addapt from what has come before, not why some people are unhappy with changes and have no intention of ever buying a single 4e product.
Tom Bollis
I forgot what thread this was, and posted clutter!
Sorry Dimonic. I think Dalvyns post is far more accurate in its actual wording.
"Accuracy" doesn't enter into it. That is the point I am making. He painted a deliberately negative picture based on his biases, so I painted a deliberately positive picture based on my biases. We are both still saying the same facts - the game is being changed. Since the motivation behind the facts is entirely speculation unless Dalvyn can actually cast spells - specifically Mind Reading or Telepathy - then anything else is just personal opinion, which is always accurate (in that it reflects one person's opinion at that moment).
That aside, I shouldn't have have replied to troll bait.
When someone trots out a 20-year-old bad idea like AO as a reason why our story shouldn't evolve now, yeah, I find that a little frustrating.
Rich, I agree with you about Ao. As I recently posted,
Before Ao was introduced it was evident that the gods weren't able to act in Faerûn as if they were free-willed superpowered people. That could well be because of what a god is: both greater and lesser than mortals. Somewhat like Glorantha's Cosmic Compromise, their identification with cosmic and archetypal forces imprisons and freezes them as free actors. Ao seems to me a clumsy attempt to personify those metaphysical laws.
But the fact remains that the way you have the gods act at the end of the Grand History and some current novels contradicts the limits on what they (can) do that are evident from the rest of the book, and the rest of Realmslore. If they could do these things, the history of Faerûn would be quite different.
Finally, Ao raises the same sort of questions that the Chosen of Mystra sometimes do: If Something Big is happening, why is Ao allowing it to happen?
Your major continuity adjustment of the gods raises the far bigger question of why they don't directly involve themselves.
(And your changes to the Realms from without don't qualify as 'evolution', and you must be joking to single out the Chosen of Mystra among the many more active forces in Faerûn, and I think your attempt to sell a single overarching story -- while leaving so many of Ed's untold -- is in principle a poor fit for the Realms.)
Dalvyn, I kinda feel like I've *been* saying this for months now, without being condescending or smug about it, but people have really insisted on looking for condescension and smugness in just about anything I post. When someone trots out a 20-year-old bad idea like AO as a reason why our story shouldn't evolve now, yeah, I find that a little frustrating.
I will point out that there are elements of your statement that I don't quite agree with. For example, we do care whether the Spellplague fits in the world, and choosing the right agent of change is something that was important to us. I would say that continuity/cohesion *is* a priority, just not the top priority. And I'd say that we're working hard to minimize cohesion problems, as opposed to hoping you just choose to overlook them. But I don't expect folks to take me at my word on that. Everyone's got their own threshold for what's a minor continuity adjustment or a major gaffe.
I am not going to debate the merits fo whether Ao was a good idea or a bad one. Nor am I going to debate whether he should or shouldn;t have the ability to stop Sha's plans for stopping the ascension of another Mystra.
However, I will admit that seeing you refer to something as "a 20-year-old bad idea" a little discouraging in my outlook for the future of the Realms. If you are willing to look on Ao that way, what other parts of the Realms do you see in the same light? Makes one wonder how much of the changes were motivated by 4e and how many were motivated by your opinion that something was "a 20-year-old bad idea"
As for your frustration. Well, many Realms fans share the feeling. However, the cause of this frustration us Realms fans have is due to the drastic changes being made to the Realms.
I understand that change was needed, both for 4e and in an attempt to attract new players. I wonder though, if such drastic changes were needed
Dalvyn, I kinda feel like I've *been* saying this for months now, without being condescending or smug about it, but people have really insisted on looking for condescension and smugness in just about anything I post. When someone trots out a 20-year-old bad idea like AO as a reason why our story shouldn't evolve now, yeah, I find that a little frustrating.
Okay, now, going with the concept that Ao was a Bad Idea of TSR's that you (collectively) are trying to phase out, why did you not have Shar and Cyric kill him off and make his death the cause of the Spellplague? The death of an Uber-deity (and a bit of an interloper deity as well) would have made much more sense for the cause of a cosmology shredding, worlds overlapping catastrophe rather than the death of the deity of magic (who has died not once, but twice before without results of a much smaller scale). Also, the death of Ao could have been reason for other power sources (other than Arcane) to become prominent in the Realms. Why did you (collectively) not kill off the "bad ideas" of TSR in logical, contiguous ways instead of things like the Divine Soap Opera? And I am sorry Rich, I have a lot of respect for you (which is why I have been trying to clutter this tread less unless I truly have something to say), but I do not see (and may never be able to see) how most (if any) of these changes are for the betterment of the setting.
I would say that your posts, and the occasion posts of the 4e FR Design team seem to support this as what you think is true. However, I think that this is also your greatest downfall for the new edition. Most of us dissenters believe that continuity/cohesion needs to be one of the top priorities, if not the top priority; and I think that since it is not a top priority, that this new setting is likely to lose more old players than you would like to.
This man speaks truth.
The history and lore of the Realms is what attracted me to it in the first place, way back when the Grey Box was put out. I have to be honets, alot fo these changes to the Realms seem sloppy and have a 'cut and paste' feel to them.
Just curious, but, any chance of getting two versions of the Realms published for 4e? A Spellplagued one and one where those events do not happen?
I hope everyone enjoy these the New Realms that plays in them...but thisn't the Forgotten Realms...and personaly I think the stories the designers and authors want to tell would have been better served by a new World not on the Ashes of one.
Had ot quote this because it echoes my feelings exactly.
And to all those who keep stating that this has become a Rich Baker sayss oemthing and people attack him, maybe its because most people do not like what they are hearing? Everyone is allowed to their opinions and should be allowed to voice them.
Besides, maybe letting Mr. Baker know how we feel about the New Realms might get the message accross that perhaps, just perhaps, it was a BAD IDEA?
And if Ao and the ToT was a bad idea, how much worse, then, is this new one? That bad idea didn't change much at all - just the name of a couple of Gods. This one Nukes the planet, and splashes pieces of at least three other settings into FR.
This is called Hindsight - think about what you and all the other current team members are doing, and then think about the things you didn't personally like about the setting... now , in all honesty, can you really see a difference between "old, bad ideas", and what you guys are doing now?
I'm sure the person that thought up Ao and the Time of Troubles thought it was really 'cool' back then, too.
I'm done - I don't wish to attack anyone, design team or fans/Grognards... I just want to play in this silly old game and be done with it. From what I understand, the new lore is set in stone, and there is absolutely NO REASON to even bother discussing it at this point. Wait until August, and then scream and cry all you want - I'm done.
Seriously, though, how many folks on this thread would have agreed that it was even *possible* for Ao to be killed?
I mean, if we had tried that, I feel pretty certain that we'd have seen many, many posts to the effect of "How can Ao be killed????"
Okay, now, going with the concept that Ao was a Bad Idea of TSR's that you (collectively) are trying to phase out, why did you not have Shar and Cyric kill him off and make his death the cause of the Spellplague? The death of an Uber-deity (and a bit of an interloper deity as well) would have made much more sense for the cause of a cosmology shredding, worlds overlapping catastrophe rather than the death of the deity of magic (who has died not once, but twice before without results of a much smaller scale).
Seriously, though, how many folks on this thread would have agreed that it was even *possible* for Ao to be killed?
-The vast majority would agree it is an impossible task.
-The vast majority would agree it is an impossible task.
But highly preferable to what happened.
Selune and Shar, perhaps, both raising up in power somewhat, to equal Chauntea/Mystra, and together the two Twilight Sisters pick up the mantle, holding the sky up between darkness and light, in the fallen wake of the Sky Father.
The kitchen-sink approach mandated for years that bolted things like Maztica, the Inuit, Egypt, the Mongols, etc., onto the setting. I wish the designers who worked on those pieces of the Realms hadn't been so literal in their interpretations. It wasn't always their fault; sometimes those missions were handed down from higher up.
A few other things, but I suspect that the farther I get down the list, the more likely it is I'll run into something you like.
However, I will admit that seeing you refer to something as "a 20-year-old bad idea" a little discouraging in my outlook for the future of the Realms. If you are willing to look on Ao that way, what other parts of the Realms do you see in the same light?
LOL. I have to admit, that would have been two birds with one stone. You don't think small, Hawkins!
Seriously, though, how many folks on this thread would have agreed that it was even *possible* for Ao to be killed?
I mean, if we had tried that, I feel pretty certain that we'd have seen many, many posts to the effect of "How can Ao be killed????"
As a Christian and a fan of the concept of an overdeity, I still find this more palatable than what you guys have decided to do. We already know that Cyric has aspirations to think that he greater than Ao (as made abundantly clear in Prince of Lies and Crucible). I can't speak for everyone, but I definitely would have preferred this.
[The death of an Uber-deity (and a bit of an interloper deity as well) would have made much more sense for the cause of a cosmology shredding, worlds overlapping catastrophe rather than the death of the deity of magic (who has died not once, but twice before without results of a much smaller scale).
Should have been written "...who has died not once, but twice before with results of a much smaller scale..." Sometimes I start typing a sentence one way, and then change it in the middle without realizing it.
The kitchen-sink approach mandated for years that bolted things like Maztica, the Inuit, Egypt, the Mongols, etc., onto the setting. I wish the designers who worked on those pieces of the Realms hadn't been so literal in their interpretations. It wasn't always their fault; sometimes those missions were handed down from higher up.
A few other things, but I suspect that the farther I get down the list, the more likely it is I'll run into something you like.
-Instead of being 'heavy handed' in fixing these problems ("Hey, Maztica's gone!"), why hasn't there, at any point between the debut of 3e and now, been more work in 'Realmsifying' these areas, like many of us have been doing with the Utter East, and Kara-Tur? It is my personal opinion that if there, at any point, was more smoothing of the frayed edges, and less cutting of the frayed edges, there'd be a lot less people being so negative of everything.
-The vast majority would agree it is an impossible task.
I disagree...most people would not think so.
1) Ao is just a non-enity in so many games(I would say in all games but I try to stay away from absolute statements) it wouldn't even effect gamers that much...and all they would have to do is stat him out...what has stats can be killed.
2) In the novels he has been a very badly concieved and excuted author's tool. I doubt very much the novel fans would be upset.
3) I doubt anybody would care even if they did think it was immpossible to kill Ao.
I don't know I always found the arguement that x is impossible to kill to be pretty silly. I object to the mass slaughter of the gods( or the revelation that somes gods are really x god) not because I think it is possible...I just see it as not treating the victim with any due respect to their abilities. I also find Midnight's story alot more compelling and interesting the Cyric or even the conflict between Shar and Selune...I mean a mortal who is trying to be responsible with the power she is given...over a battle between gods(which is good but it is hard to relate to) or Cyric the first GDPC and a punk...
But Ao being gone would have been a good change. And I think alot of FR fans would have cheered.
As a Christian and a fan of the concept of an overdeity, I still find this more palatable than what you guys have decided to do. We already know that Cyric has aspirations to think that he greater than Ao (as made abundantly clear in Prince of Lies and Crucible). I can't speak for everyone, but I definitely would have preferred this.
The problem is that Cyric CAN hurt Mystra (let's ignore the fact that he killed her). Both of them can damage each other, they have the power to do so, but no deity has the power to damage the overdeity, not even the combined forces of all the pantheons can manage to do that.
Should have been written "...who has died not once, but twice before with results of a much smaller scale..." Sometimes I start typing a sentence one way, and then change it in the middle without realizing it.
The results were of a -not so much- smaller scale because with each death of the previous Mystra, a new person took the mantle of the goddess of magic almost immediately (which is not the case now), but the previous time there was quite an important level of mayhem because of the wild and dead magic zones produced, let's not even mention what happened to Netheril and what could have happened to the world if not for Mystra's birth.
The problem is that Cyric CAN hurt Mystra (let's ignore the fact that he killed her). Both of them can damage each other, they have the power to do so, but no deity has the power to damage the overdeity, not even the combined forces of all the pantheons can manage to do that.
The results were of a -not so much- smaller scale because with each death of the previous Mystra, a new person took the mantle of the goddess of magic almost immediately (which is not the case now), but the previous time there was quite an important level of mayhem because of the wild and dead magic zones produced, let's not even mention what happened to Netheril and what could have happened to the world if not for Mystra's birth.
Um she died twice...
Once was the immediate replacement...the other one took some time. And Ao asked her because the world needed a goddess of the Weave to survive...
Also before the City of Shade books came out(both the novels and the soucvebooks starting to detail it) within the rules it would have been impossible for them to do what they did...but now it is no problem...artifacts are a great thing for dealing with pesky Overgods.
I disagree...most people would not think so.
-I disagree.
Hmmm... CHEESE springs to mind.
The kitchen-sink approach mandated for years that bolted things like Maztica, the Inuit, Egypt, the Mongols, etc., onto the setting. I wish the designers who worked on those pieces of the Realms hadn't been so literal in their interpretations. It wasn't always their fault; sometimes those missions were handed down from higher up.
A few other things, but I suspect that the farther I get down the list, the more likely it is I'll run into something you like.
As I said then, the things you thought were bad ideas were just done away with. So we get to play in YOUR Realms, rather than the world that has been developed and created over the past 20 years or so.
Personally, one of the reasons I was first attracted to the Realms was BECAUSE of the presence of analogous societies. I loved the vikings and celts of the Moonshaes and went form there. I found Mulhorand and unther's take on Egypt and Babylonia interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed the Tuigan invasion and especially love the novel Crusade. And I thought Maztica had unexploired promise to it.
However, rather than build upon what was there, making it more a part of the Realms, the design team decided that if they didn't like it to do away with it.
Whats next? Kara-Tur to Asian? Zakhara too Arabic? We know Cormyr was too Arthurian for you as you've decided to make it Imperial Cormyr.
This attitude strikes me as one lacking in respect for what has come before you. This reminds me of the redo of Star Wars, where Greedo shoots first before Han Solo shoots. Changes a good chunk of the character (while being lame and stupid)
If this is the attitude the design team took, then you've lost the money of at least one person who was buying Realms products. Guess I'd better go through my 2nd and 3rd ed stuff and see what I'm missing and finish my collection.
I am sorry if this sounds argumentative, or insulting to you, but, then again, perhaps I, like many Realms fans, feel betrayed, insulted, and frustrated over this.
I leave you with two things toponder
New Coke
and
Dragonlance: 5th Age (Saga Edition)
Personally, one of the reasons I was first attracted to the Realms was BECAUSE of the presence of analogous societies. I loved the vikings and celts of the Moonshaes and went form there. I found Mulhorand and unther's take on Egypt and Babylonia interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed the Tuigan invasion and especially love the novel Crusade. And I thought Maztica had unexploired promise to it.
I disliked all of these, for exactly the reason they were unimaginative copy-and-paste jobs. So you see, for every gamer the changes turn off, another gamer is happy about them.
I leave you with two things toponder
New Coke
and
Dragonlance: 5th Age (Saga Edition)
Yes, we got it, New Coke tanked. No need to include this example in every other post of yours :P
DB
I feel that Cormyr is actually a very good example of how we logically and consistently allowed the story to develop over 100 years. Once you posit the return of the shades (a given from the outset of 3rd Edition) and their continued existence in 1479 DR, you have to ask why Cormyr--a smaller, poorer state than neighboring Sembia--hasn't fallen into Netheril's orbit. The only logical answer is that Cormyr had a very good century. And it's a great testimony to Azoun's legacy if that is in large part due to the grandson his daughters fought so hard to keep alive and protect until he could ascend to the throne.
So it's really not a matter of Cormyr being "too Arthurian for my taste," but instead examining the logical consequences that major 3e events--the Death of the Dragon, the Return of the Archwizards, and the Twilight War--must have had over the course of a century. Cormyr *had* to step up, or it would have been overwhelmed.
We know Cormyr was too Arthurian for you as you've decided to make it Imperial Cormyr.
Though i do have a question about the Twilight War, what is happening with it, and the third book in that series? I recall seeing the release date set for March, but when I checked the site, I didn't see it listed for then, or listed at all for that matter for this year.
Also, how long will it be before we see what is left of the Faerun pantheon after the dust hass ettled. Will all that be cleared up in the Players Handbook, or a book to be released later?
Though i do have a question about the Twilight War, what is happening with it, and the third book in that series? I recall seeing the release date set for March, but when I checked the site, I didn't see it listed for then, or listed at all for that matter for this year.
-According to Amazon.com:
Availability: This title will be released on December 2, 2008. Pre-order now! Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available
-That is a blow, one that I did not realize.
ing, bloody hell!? That is over a year after the second book came out (August 2007). Grrr, and I have been waiting to buy (and read) the whole series all at once... *grumble, grumble* The kitchen-sink approach mandated for years that bolted things like Maztica, the Inuit, Egypt, the Mongols, etc., onto the setting. I wish the designers who worked on those pieces of the Realms hadn't been so literal in their interpretations. It wasn't always their fault; sometimes those missions were handed down from higher up.
A few other things, but I suspect that the farther I get down the list, the more likely it is I'll run into something you like.
It just got PERSONAL.
The Tuigan are MINE now... leave them the hell alone! :headexplo
-Instead of being 'heavy handed' in fixing these problems ("Hey, Maztica's gone!"), why hasn't there, at any point between the debut of 3e and now, been more work in 'Realmsifying' these areas, like many of us have been doing with the Utter East, and Kara-Tur? It is my personal opinion that if there, at any point, was more smoothing of the frayed edges, and less cutting of the frayed edges, there'd be a lot less people being so negative of everything.
Well said.
Once you posit the return of the shades (a given from the outset of 3rd Edition) and their continued existence in 1479 DR...
Single WORST thing ever created for D&D... right after the Birthright setting.
Just about everyone I've ever talked to HATED the Shades when they were introduced in 3e... and yet YOU decided they were 'cool', and kept them around.
I have to admit that the Bedine in the Anauroch was a VERY bad idea, but bringing back a fallen empire? Talk about your clichés and over-used plot devices! Everytime I turn around, someone is bringing back something else that 'died off' long ago - Netheril, Imaskar, Miyeritar (minus the Dark Elves, which is just plain WEIRD), the Sarrukh, and now the Fey and Abeir in 4e....
You may have moved the timeline forward, but you guys are STUCK in the past - it's like when the Flintstones met the Jetsons.
Ao Stuff
Killing Ao would have been a FAR worser call the killing Mystra IMHO. I'm not as upset as most folks around here with Mystra's death, but she was always dying anyway. People say she died three times now, but thats PURE conjecture. She died three times that we are aware of, So your telling me a goddess thats been around 35,000+ years has NO problems in all that time, and then gets 'offed' three times in two decades? That makes NO sense to me what-so-ever. She's probably died a hundred times over, and even Ao was sick of her coming back at this point.
But Ao dying wouldn't make any sense, unless something of equal or greater power stepped into the picture. Greater Power would just create another unfathomable, unreachable Uber-NPC for folks to complain about. Bringing in another Over-god would 'cross the streams' of Reality, and cause all sorts of weirdness, and who would you use? Io? Asmodeus? Lady of Pain? It would have to be someone who rules their own Plane/Sphere, just as Ao does Realmspace. I just think bringing in another Overgod would have been too much, or even using one of the "other Three" form FR - Fate, Maztica, and the Celestial Emperor (who have ALL been called Overgods in the past). That mess would just exacerbate the problem Ao causes with his existance (game-wise).
Unless the Overgod of Abeir and him had a fight.... :coolcthul
Of course, their mutual destruction could have had all sorts of unforseen circumstances, like their two realities merging into one.
Of course, their mutual destruction could have had all sorts of unforseen circumstances, like their two realities merging into one.
Isn't that basically what is happening? Hint, hint Rich. Kill Ao. :P
EDIT: Throughout the lore there has always been an open ended possibility that there has been more than one Overdeity in existence at a time. I believe Maztica once had an Overdeity that was not Ao, and possibly Kara-Tur as well. There was some debate over if the World Serpent was an Overdeity, and we know that Ao has a Master of some sort, which points to the fact that it is possible that other Overdeities could be inexistence.
There needs to be a way to integrate Tharizdun into the lore. I'm sure Tharizdun could be played up as an Overdeity and the fact that Ao went to battle with him to prevent him from 'seeping' into Toril, and while successful, died in the process.
That's another of the things I hate about the time jump, the fact that we'll never be able to read about Azoun's son (except on the FRCG as a one-liner). I was hoping to read trilogies about his exploits, just as I wanted to read about Khelben's childrens.
I disliked all of these, for exactly the reason they were unimaginative copy-and-paste jobs. So you see, for every gamer the changes turn off, another gamer is happy about them.
I'm not happy about the 4E changes (as you all probably know by now), but I will say that I've always disliked how certain tacked-on areas of the Realms were designed as real-world analogues.
I also never thought of Cormyr as being the Realms version of Camelot. I simply don't see many similarities at all.
Azoun IV's son was murdered at the age of two. Not a lot of trilogy potential there. I assume you're referring to Princess Tanalasta's son, Azoun V? Why would a trilogy about the King Foril be any less exciting than Azoun V? Both characters are equally unknown to you. Me? I’d prefer a novel about Dhalmass “The Warrior King”.
Dolmas? I LOVE Dolmas!
Not sure if it can fight, though...
Azoun IV's son was murdered at the age of two. Not a lot of trilogy potential there. I assume you're referring to Princess Tanalasta's son, Azoun V? Why would a trilogy about the King Foril be any less exciting than Azoun V? Both characters are equally unknown to you. Me? I’d prefer a novel about Dhalmass “The Warrior King”.
-I'll use a baseball reference.
-Imagine, if you will, your team has a farm system with a player who shows a lot of promise. As he matures in the minor leagues, your team begins hyping him, labeling him the second coming of Koufax. After a Spring Training where he has a lot of success, your team trades him away, for whomever. Even if the player your club recieves in the trade is a good player, there is going to be a void, a let-down for this hyped player never actually playing for your team.
I'm not happy about the 4E changes (as you all probably know by now), but I will say that I've always disliked how certain tacked-on areas of the Realms were designed as real-world analogues.
I also never thought of Cormyr as being the Realms version of Camelot. I simply don't see many similarities at all.
Yeah, I always saw Tristan the Aurther of FR. THe whole Moonshaes are based off of celtic mythology in a sense right? Anyway the Moonshaes are the one tack on I liked.
) and Arthur because of the whole Merlin/Vangy thing. Like Merlin, Vangerdhast advised Azoun's father before him - its hard not to notice the reference.However, I always felt that Azoun/Cormyr was more like Charlemagne and France - especially now with Cormyr building its own 'Frankish' Empire. Purple Dragon Knights easily translate into Charlemagne's Paladins, and although Charly never made it to the Crusades, I can see a little bit of the Templar Knights in them as well. ;)
-I'll use a baseball reference.
Excellent Analogy. :D
Hmmm... CHEESE springs to mind.
The kitchen-sink approach mandated for years that bolted things like Maztica, the Inuit, Egypt, the Mongols, etc., onto the setting. I wish the designers who worked on those pieces of the Realms hadn't been so literal in their interpretations. It wasn't always their fault; sometimes those missions were handed down from higher up.
A few other things, but I suspect that the farther I get down the list, the more likely it is I'll run into something you like.
You dont think an aboleth empire, or an empire of Dragonborn that just fell out of the sky is equally as tacked on? I agree with Lord Karsus, why couldnt you have at least tried to smooth them into the Realms instead of just removing them entirely.
You said you guys are trying to put this stuff in and trying to keep in continuity in doing so. But it doesnt seem that way. Its seems like what another poster mentioned, YOU didnt like something so goodbye to it. Replacing shoehorned locales YOU didnt like with equally shoehorned, but new, locales.
-I disagree.
That is all right you can disagree with me...though that seems to be more about stating him then getting rid of him. And I guess you have never heard one the first , though unknown, rules of RPGs...if you don't want something to die don't stat it.
I just find it funny that I think Ao as the least popular thing about the Realms there is...yet they feel they have to keep him. Yet something that clearly has some popularity they axe...like I said I would love to see their base for any polls they did to get their customers opinions.
WORST... IDEA... EVA!!!
1) Does the new 4ed cosmology mean that we'll be returning to "all the lines exist on one Prime Material as separate 'star systems' and share the same planes" conceit to an "each world is its own discrete Prime Material with its own exact duplicate of the standard planes and you can't go from one to another (except through the Plane of Shadow... or Sigil... or via special portals)" one? I know the latter was put into 3ed to make FR in particular "unique," but it caused a lot of continuity issues, and as time went on it was less and less emphasized anyway (all the "or..." stuff). It just seems more logical, as well as tidier, to have everything in the same place, just separated by vast distances, all sharing the same planes.
2) The new Countdown to the Realms indicates that the veils of illusion around Selune have finally failed. Does this mean there will be interaction and contact, even adventuring opportunities, between Toril and Selune?
3) I've long had the impression that Maztica and Unther were more "transposed" with sections of Abeir than out and out wiped clean and reloaded, and the new Countdown is rather explicit that that IS what happened to Chondath and Chessenta (the word "exchanged" is used several times). Will there be any glimpses into Abeir and the upheaval it experiences during the Spellplague?
Is Elaine Cunninghams new novel Reclamation pre or post Spellplague?
At the risk of being insulted/scolded for answering a question when my name is not Rich Baker, I have read Elaine say that Reclamation takes place well before the Spellplague. A date of 1369 DR, or thereabouts, swims to the top of my consciousness.
At the risk of being insulted/scolded for answering a question when my name is not Rich Baker, I have read Elaine say that Reclamation takes place well before the Spellplague. A date of 1369 DR, or thereabouts, swims to the top of my consciousness.
Thank you. Thats good news for me.
I have no problem being answered by someone else if they know the answer. This thread is a little long for me to go back and read it all. A search showed someone asked about novels in general but not series that had already begun.
Id still like to know about the remaining 3 citadels novels though.
Thank you. Thats good news for me.
I have no problem being answered by someone else if they know the answer. This thread is a little long for me to go back and read it all. A search showed someone asked about novels in general but not series that had already begun.
Id still like to know about the remaining 3 citadels novels though.
You're quite welcome.
Now, I'm serious.
Nobanion....
Dan out.
The 4th Edition Realms are shifting away from a "Renaissance" feel to a more contemporary higher fantasy environment. If you can imagine playing D&D in a world that looks like the cover of a Yes album, you're getting close.
So, this si still the Realms? Sounds more and more like something entirely new. So, now I want to know why the Realms had to be this contemporary higher fantasy environment? Why not make a new campaign world for that? And, honestly, where does this whole contemporary higher fantasy environment idea come from? We've been told the Spellplague and time jump were to unburden the Realms of its lore requirement and to make it more 4e friendly? So, shifting away from a Renaissance feel to this higher fantasy environment does this how?
And yes, these are directed at Rich Baker.
I mean, even those who complained about the Realms, were complainign about things like the 'Uber-NPCs' and the lore reqirement. I don;t recall ever hearing anyone say that the Realms was too Renaissance and not high fantasy enough.
Incredibly poor visualization for the Realms, IMHO.
1) Cosmology. We'd like all of our worlds to share the same basic planar structure (an Astral Sea, an Elemental Chaos, a Shadowfell, a Feywild), but the *details* of that structure -- for example, the specific godly dominions in the Astral Sea -- should be world-specific. So, in the FR cosmology, you've got a plane called Brightwater where Sune lives. Neither Sune or Brightwater are in core D&D, but that's OK. This lets us use the same "tech" to get to the planes and the same monster typing/origins in all settings, which is really handy from a rules standpoint. But as far as who lives in the heavens of Faerun, well, that's the Faerunian pantheon -- not Kord, or Vecna, or whoever else.
2) Selune's illusion. It's funny because it's a detail that has had very little story importance before (no one knows what's on the moon and no one goes there) so it's not something we had on the front burner. But clearly it's got obvious repercussions to every living creature in Faerun ("Mommy, why does the moon look different?") I guess I'm inclined to follow Brian's lead on this point. I always thought the "illusion of craters" bit was very strange, anyway.
3) Abeir. Yes, you'll see a fair amount on that topic, but not yet.
Oh, and I don't know the timeframe of the remaining Citadels novels off the top of my head. Even if I did, I'm not really sure that it's my place to reveal that. I don't want to cross up the book team's efforts to keep things close to the vest, if that's what they want to do.
Rich, three questions:
1) Does the new 4ed cosmology mean that we'll be returning to "all the lines exist on one Prime Material as separate 'star systems' and share the same planes" conceit to an "each world is its own discrete Prime Material with its own exact duplicate of the standard planes and you can't go from one to another (except through the Plane of Shadow... or Sigil... or via special portals)" one? I know the latter was put into 3ed to make FR in particular "unique," but it caused a lot of continuity issues, and as time went on it was less and less emphasized anyway (all the "or..." stuff). It just seems more logical, as well as tidier, to have everything in the same place, just separated by vast distances, all sharing the same planes.
2) The new Countdown to the Realms indicates that the veils of illusion around Selune have finally failed. Does this mean there will be interaction and contact, even adventuring opportunities, between Toril and Selune?
3) I've long had the impression that Maztica and Unther were more "transposed" with sections of Abeir than out and out wiped clean and reloaded, and the new Countdown is rather explicit that that IS what happened to Chondath and Chessenta (the word "exchanged" is used several times). Will there be any glimpses into Abeir and the upheaval it experiences during the Spellplague?
At the risk of being insulted/scolded for answering a question when my name is not Rich Baker, I have read Elaine say that Reclamation takes place well before the Spellplague. A date of 1369 DR, or thereabouts, swims to the top of my consciousness.
1) Cosmology. We'd like all of our worlds to share the same basic planar structure (an Astral Sea, an Elemental Chaos, a Shadowfell, a Feywild), but the *details* of that structure -- for example, the specific godly dominions in the Astral Sea -- should be world-specific. So, in the FR cosmology, you've got a plane called Brightwater where Sune lives. Neither Sune or Brightwater are in core D&D, but that's OK. This lets us use the same "tech" to get to the planes and the same monster typing/origins in all settings, which is really handy from a rules standpoint. But as far as who lives in the heavens of Faerun, well, that's the Faerunian pantheon -- not Kord, or Vecna, or whoever else.
I am very very happy to know that. Really.
So far one of the best news about 4e, in my opinion.
I am very very happy to know that. Really.
So far one of the best news about 4e, in my opinion.
QFT.
Connected but seperate - a good take.
can you shed some light into the following? I will understand if you can't yet, but I would appreciate any new comment.
1)Is there any info on the Uthgart Barbarians that you can release? ( I`ve asked this before, but I am not sure if you evaded the question or if you missed it.)
2)Will sun, moon and star elves have the dimensional step ( or whatever it is called) ability of the Eladrin?
3)Can you tell us a little about how Bane might benefit from the imprisonment of Cyric?
4) I am beting that, somehow Yondalla either wont be in the realms anymore or will be an aspect of some other deity. Am I right?
5) Is Manshoon (the main clone) still around?
6) Any major changes to Candlekeep, that you can talk about?
I just want to say that I am starting to enjoy the changes. I was quite skeptical and pessimist at first, but not anymore =)
I have been playing in the realms since I was 10 ( I am 24 now), so I think that the new changes can also eventually please some of the "old timers".
Also, I am very glad to know that Iakhovas is helping in the new capaign setting.
1) Cosmology. We'd like all of our worlds to share the same basic planar structure (an Astral Sea, an Elemental Chaos, a Shadowfell, a Feywild), but the *details* of that structure -- for example, the specific godly dominions in the Astral Sea -- should be world-specific. So, in the FR cosmology, you've got a plane called Brightwater where Sune lives. Neither Sune or Brightwater are in core D&D, but that's OK. This lets us use the same "tech" to get to the planes and the same monster typing/origins in all settings, which is really handy from a rules standpoint. But as far as who lives in the heavens of Faerun, well, that's the Faerunian pantheon -- not Kord, or Vecna, or whoever else.
This makes me sad, since the new planar setup was actually one of the things I was starting to like about 4E. No more.
Having 'clones' of one basic cosmology from one setting to the next, with different names written into the planes, is even worse than the Tree. It seems like an especially half-ass (pardon my English) attempt to reconcile 2E planar lore with 3E, but only going halfway in between.
I mean, multispheric or not: I don't artistically like the idea of going in between there. It's like coloring just slightly out of the lines. It's not making a statement, but rather just looks like a sloppy mistake. And it really takes away the whole Elric feel I was getting.
PS: Sorry if I'm pugnacious today. Really bad day - test failures, biting my tongue off, and now poor Nobanion being turned literally into an Aslan.
now poor Nobanion being turned literally into an Aslan.
To missquote Schwarzy - 'It WAS.'. He was already Aslan, numbers filled off. Kind of ironic, Greenwood - and not the only time you did it.
Another random question;
Does the treemen of the East - the volodni - still exist? Anything about them?
I kind of liked them. Adapted to other places recently.
Yeah, I always saw Tristan the Aurther of FR. THe whole Moonshaes are based off of celtic mythology in a sense right?
Yes, they are.
Something D&D Newbies put on their salads? :P
This makes me sad, since the new planar setup was actually one of the things I was starting to like about 4E. No more.
Don't cry Danny, all is not lost... and I feel your pain.
If I'm understanding him correctly, the extra-planar regions that are associated with a specific setting will be 'hovering nearby' that plane in the Astral (sort of like fantasy solar systems - think Eberron Cosmology here). The planes that are multi-spheric, like Baator, will be the same for all settings, which harkens back to the old 1e/2e wheel Cosmology. No more 3,000,000 Hells... just the original Nine. ;)
That means only ONE Elemental Maelstrom, which is one of the bits I'm looking forward to the most.
It will also be the SAME Feywild, Shadowfel, and Far Realms, with different parts touching different worlds (similar to how Ravenloft used to work). So all of the 'big guns' plane-wise will be back to the way they used to be, without all those silly 'mini' versions of themselves, and setting-specific planes like the House of the Triad will be inaccessable directly from other settings.
I'm looking forward to my players going on an adventure in Faerie, and accidently stepping into Greyhawk when they leave.
Or Mystara, or Athas, or Krynn, or even Eberron...
But not Aberynis... NEVER Aberynis...
It's more like solar systems in a universe, and galaxies, then completely different fractal universes.
And oddly enough, it's similar to how I was considering setting up a universe/multiverse setup for my own world, permeated by the Deep Aether, and with Aether Paths that make travel 'easier' in the storm of aetheric energies, thus creating stable, quicker-for-travel 'bridges' that linked certain star systems and planets. Sort of Sci-Fi+Fantasy.
I could see the Realms of the Faerunian Gods being in the same solar system by themselves, as long as they're in the same universe/galaxy as the others.
But not Aberynis... NEVER Aberynis...
-Gee, why ever not?
I have always been a fan of druids, but never really liked the emphasis on shape shifting that 3.x bought along with the class. On reading that the plan for druids in future products is to focus on the shape shifting aspects and reduce the spellcasting one I am, In a word, “gutted”. This is exactly the opposite of what I would like my druid to be.
From what you know of 4th Edition, does it seem likely that a cleric would be able to replicate the feel of a druid who focused on spellcasting in 3.5?
Rich, after Brian's article Spellplague: The Wailing Years and his frequent mentioning of swordmages, you might have to release the write-up for the swordmage class shortly after the release of the 4e FRCG (or FRPG).
-Check this out
-So Rich The SWORDMAGE is coming in Sept?
18DELTA
What is this about Nobanion?
In the newest Dragon Features: Countdown to the Realms - Spellplague: The Wailing Years http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080227a, there was a sidebar article that dealt with Nobanion.
Basically, he had been re-statted as a "Unaligned Exarch Druid of Silvanus" who prefers lion form.
The sidebar appears to have been removed from the page, and Brian James stated over at Candlekeep that the design team had actually decided to take an alternate path with Nobanion, and the sidebar wasn't supposed to have made it into the article.
Good questions, Vulpes. Let me see what I can do with them...
1) Cosmology. We'd like all of our worlds to share the same basic planar structure (an Astral Sea, an Elemental Chaos, a Shadowfell, a Feywild), but the *details* of that structure -- for example, the specific godly dominions in the Astral Sea -- should be world-specific. So, in the FR cosmology, you've got a plane called Brightwater where Sune lives. Neither Sune or Brightwater are in core D&D, but that's OK. This lets us use the same "tech" to get to the planes and the same monster typing/origins in all settings, which is really handy from a rules standpoint. But as far as who lives in the heavens of Faerun, well, that's the Faerunian pantheon -- not Kord, or Vecna, or whoever else.
2) Selune's illusion. It's funny because it's a detail that has had very little story importance before (no one knows what's on the moon and no one goes there) so it's not something we had on the front burner. But clearly it's got obvious repercussions to every living creature in Faerun ("Mommy, why does the moon look different?") I guess I'm inclined to follow Brian's lead on this point. I always thought the "illusion of craters" bit was very strange, anyway.
3) Abeir. Yes, you'll see a fair amount on that topic, but not yet.
Oh, and I don't know the timeframe of the remaining Citadels novels off the top of my head. Even if I did, I'm not really sure that it's my place to reveal that. I don't want to cross up the book team's efforts to keep things close to the vest, if that's what they want to do.
Rich, I don't know if you can answer this but here it goes.
Will 4e have complete support of the Cosmology via source books? Or will we all just be stuck with little snippets here and there?
Way back at the beginning they mentioned in various blogs and columns that they wanted to open up the planes for adventuring. To me, that means giving the Realms (and other settings) that 'Planescape' feel, without having to have a seperate setting for it. The biggest 'hint' of this is that they have made the elemental Planes more 'user friendly', which is why we got the Elemental Maelstrom in 4e - they want us to use the planes.
So, what we will end up with is psuedo-setting combining elements of Planescape with Spelljammer, allowing all sorts of cool 'sailing between the worlds', without all that yucky Sci-Fi 'baggage' that Spelljammer came with.
Now to answer your question (and I'm just trying to be helpful here, so please don't bite my head off) - Why would WotC go to all that trouble of re-aligning the the planes and creating an entire brand-new Cosmology if they had no intention of developing it as grandly as they can? They said they specifically want adventures to occur in the planes, so I am 99% positive we will se at least one rulebook covering that, and more likely one every single year.
If I'm wrong, I'm sure Mr. Baker will gladly step in and correct me here. ;)
At the risk of getting scolded for answering a question not directed to me...
Way back at the beginning they mentioned in various blogs and columns that they wanted to open up the planes for adventuring. To me, that means giving the Realms (and other settings) that 'Planescape' feel, without having to have a seperate setting for it. The biggest 'hint' of this is that they have made the elemental Planes more 'user friendly', which is why we got the Elemental Maelstrom in 4e - they want us to use the planes.
So, what we will end up with is psuedo-setting combining elements of Planescape with Spelljammer, allowing all sorts of cool 'sailing between the worlds', without all that yucky Sci-Fi 'baggage' that Spelljammer came with.
Now to answer your question (and I'm just trying to be helpful here, so please don't bite my head off) - Why would WotC go to all that trouble of re-aligning the the planes and creating an entire brand-new Cosmology if they had no intention of developing it as grandly as they can? They said they specifically want adventures to occur in the planes, so I am 99% positive we will se at least one rulebook covering that, and more likely one every single year.
If I'm wrong, I'm sure Mr. Baker will gladly step in and correct me here. ;)
Well, I did want to hear it from the horses mouth so to say. No I wont bite your head off.
Just, they changed the Cosmology in 3e and did nothing with it. So that leads me to suspect the same with 4e.
Edit: BTW thanks for answering.
I understand they did little with the 3e Cosmology, but that was their plan back then - they wanted all the worlds/settings seperate.
This time out, they want to bring back planes-hopping (and have said as much), and considering their interest in gaining back certain Intellectual Properties (like Ravenloft), it stands to reason that they have some sort of 'master plan' behind it all.
-Check this out
-So Rich The SWORDMAGE is coming in Sept?
18DELTA
I guess the novel was pushed back? I thought it was coming out in May.
To me he always looked like some alien creature that was worshipped before the elves, humans and dragons came into power.
Was Jergal apart of Abeir before the "split"?
Again he looks a little Chuthululike to me.
As a general note, you addressed partially the issue of why you changed angels to R_F's post on the issue. However, I'm curious about the nature of "Points of Light" and how it'll effect good organizations and gods.
While I believe player characters should be the Big Heroes in a setting, I'm a major fan of Organizations. I think much of the awesomeness of Star Wars comes from the fact that Luke is the heir to the tradition of the Jedi Knights, an organization equally as powerful and great as the Sith are evil.
Aside from the Harpers, though, these groups never got any coverage in the Realms. They just randomly tossed in the occasional reference to knighthoods.
Will you be addressing any of this in 4E? Perhaps listing the organizations of Light PCs might want to become involved in? Not everyone can be an enemy in a good RPG-game.
I guess the novel was pushed back? I thought it was coming out in May.
-I believe that everything on the publishing block was pushed back (concerning the Forgotten Realms, anyway).
-I believe that everything on the publishing block was pushed back (concerning the Forgotten Realms, anyway).
If so, wow--I had no idea.
I guess the novel was pushed back? I thought it was coming out in May.
-I meant the Class, not the Novel. Sorry for any confusion my lady.;)
-So Rich when will the Novel Swordmage be realeased?
-I take it that in Sept. The Swordmage class will be in the FRPG?
-Thanks Rich for you patience with us nit-wits, and our
:inlove: for this wonderful setting. I really liked those character sheets that are on the main site. VERY NICE!!!18DELTA
But still. 4th edition Forgotten Realms?
Ayyy-o!
Ay-Ay-o!
Here I come, and me wanna go home!
They tallied my banana and threw it in the garbage!
"I owe, I owe, its off to work I go..."
QUESTION!!!
Rich... is FR CORE now?
Looking at the covers of the books shown at the D&D Experience, Eberron books have a HUGE logo, but the FR books bear the Dungeons & Dragons logo, with a small text box indicating its for use in the Reams...
What gives?
-I take it that in Sept. The Swordmage class will be in the FRPG?
-Thanks Rich for you patience with us nit-wits, and our
18DELTA
A question about the Swordmage class, will it be reprinted in a core book, say the Arcane power source book or the PHB II?
Bel
Mr Baker,
can you shed some light into the following? I will understand if you can't yet, but I would appreciate any new comment.
1)Is there any info on the Uthgart Barbarians that you can release? ( I`ve asked this before, but I am not sure if you evaded the question or if you missed it.)
2)Will sun, moon and star elves have the dimensional step ( or whatever it is called) ability of the Eladrin?
3)Can you tell us a little about how Bane might benefit from the imprisonment of Cyric?
4) I am beting that, somehow Yondalla either wont be in the realms anymore or will be an aspect of some other deity. Am I right?
5) Is Manshoon (the main clone) still around?
6) Any major changes to Candlekeep, that you can talk about?
I just want to say that I am starting to enjoy the changes. I was quite skeptical and pessimist at first, but not anymore =)
I have been playing in the realms since I was 10 ( I am 24 now), so I think that the new changes can also eventually please some of the "old timers".
Also, I am very glad to know that Iakhovas is helping in the new capaign setting.
The Mulhorandi Pantheon and Maztica Pantheons are both gone now, correct?
You know, because their entire homelands were moved to another world.
BTW, for R_F's benefit.
The Mulhorandi Pantheon and Maztica Pantheons are both gone now, correct?
You know, because their entire homelands were moved to another world.
I think so, but I think beings like Hoar, Sharess, and Set will stick around.
Rich, Is Set going to be a bigger influence on the world?I thought I heard somewhere from you guys that Set would be a bigger Faerunwide deity than he was before. Meaning he will have more open temples perhaps in some places. Will the Yuan-Ti just start openly worshipping him if they realize he killed off Sseth?
Rich, will El have stats?
I am fine with what happens to him in the future but I am hoping you do not stat him. Leave him as an Eldritch Device please.
Ed's original concept for Mulhorandi was a crumbling 'Stygian' Empire dripping with dark gods and ancient evils. For what it's worth, I think they are trying to get back to that, and away from the interloper add-ons.
I'm not sure where that leaves Thay, since Thay had that 'ecological niche' before, but maybe thats why they needed to redo that nation as well. I'm looking forward to seeing where they go with it - the sky-scraping plateau seems much more fantastical and FR-worthy then the Thaymart concept ever was.
1) Ao has a boss(or bosses) so he isn't a overgood really.
2) Alot of pantheons had overgods...Zeus, Odin, etc. While truew they don't quite had his power level they all had the power and authority over the other gods.
3) Isn't the idea of Saints very christian and mordern thinking? I mean aren't you just trading these concepts? I am not a religous expert here but as far as I know Saints are only find in Christianity?
I think so, but I think beings like Hoar, Sharess, and Set will stick around.
Rich, Is Set going to be a bigger influence on the world?I thought I heard somewhere from you guys that Set would be a bigger Faerunwide deity than he was before. Meaning he will have more open temples perhaps in some places. Will the Yuan-Ti just start openly worshipping him if they realize he killed off Sseth?
Rich, will El have stats?
I am fine with what happens to him in the future but I am hoping you do not stat him. Leave him as an Eldritch Device please.
My question is this...iff Tyr had to go because he is a real world god...then why does Set get to stay? Or Sharess? Can we atleast be consistent here?
In my own Homebrew Cosmology, Ao is a conceptual - a being higher then a 'power' (D&D god), but lower then the Elder Gods, who in turn answer to the one true god. Odin, Zeus, the Celstial Emperor, etc, ect... are all part of a group I call 'Supreme Gods', or Pantheonic Leaders, who's DR would go from 21-25.
Ao, in my model, would be around DR 26 - just higher then those Pantheonic Leaders, and he would answer to one of the Elder Beings (NOT GOD himself) ;)
Titans and Jotuns and all other Mythological 'proto-gods' would fall into that Conceptual class that Ao belongs to, but a great many of them have been 'down-graded' for various crimes against the universe.
But you can take that or leave it... its just how I personally like to marry D&D Cosmology to RW Mythologies and religions.
pantheonic leaders are middle managers, the gods themselves are supervisors/team leaders and the exarchs and angels are the cube dwellers.
Which means there is a Senior VP, a President and a CEO still unrevealed.
Bel
The Mulhorandi Pantheon and Maztica Pantheons are both gone now, correct?
You know, because their entire homelands were moved to another world.
-They still have worshippers on Faerûn, however. Moreso the Mulhorandi pantheon than the Maztican pantheon. If said nations still exist somewhere else, then said deities haven't experienced a massive loss in power resulting in death. There is no reason they can't be 'multispheric'.
1) Ao has a boss(or bosses) so he isn't a overgood really.
-The definition of 'overdeity' doesn't proclude this.
3) Isn't the idea of Saints very christian and mordern thinking? I mean aren't you just trading these concepts? I am not a religous expert here but as far as I know Saints are only find in Christianity?
-The term itself, yes, is Christian. The idea that a religion recognizes certain individuals/entities as being holy/enlightened/prophetic/whatever you want to call it isn't.
Call them Devas (Utter East), call them Sages (Kara-Tur), call them Padhrasattvas (Tabot, Ra-Khati, Khazari, etc), call them 'Spirits' (the Adama), call them 'local gods, civic gods, or 'beast lords', but whatever, they all boil down to the same exact thing - a group of beings that provide an 'insulating layer' between mortals and true gods.
Personally, I like to think of all of them as 'Archons', but D&D has unfortunely already used that term for angels (which would also be part of that group).
My question is this...iff Tyr had to go because he is a real world god...then why does Set get to stay? Or Sharess? Can we atleast be consistent here?
I heard somewhere that Ed's Mulhorondi had Set in it. Plus Set is pretty cool.
That is probably the main reason. I am glad if he gets a "push" because I was going to use him in my old game anyway. Hopefully there will be some nice fluff on him if this happens.
I do not care that they took Tyr and Helm away. I am just going to use Helm anyway because I need him if I restart my old game. Tyr? Meh. If people are that bent out of shape though just keep em in FR. Tadaaaa! Easy peesy.;)
:D
I heard somewhere that Ed's Mulhorondi had Set in it. Plus Set is pretty cool.
That is probably the main reason. I am glad if he gets a "push" because I was going to use him in my old game anyway. Hopefully there will be some nice fluff on him if this happens.
I do not care that they took Tyr and Helm away. I am just going to use Helm anyway because I need him if I restart my old game. Tyr? Meh. If people are that bent out of shape though just keep em in FR. Tadaaaa! Easy peesy.;)
It is it really too much to ask that the designers be a little consistent? It shows they don't have any but arbitary reasons for what they do. It isn't even internaly consistent.
That is all I am asking for really...just ashow that they have actualy thought this though...which I don't think they have.
and as you said if they get rid of Set...what does it matter to you? You'll just use what you want anyway. I mean does it matter to you at all realisticaly if they cut or keep anything? I mean do you even buy the books and if so why?
I mean it is funny that you can be happy that they have decided to give something you like a 'little push' yet you reacted badly when people complain about them cutting things they like. Very much a double standard as I see it here.
I know we are nothing but negative and such...but maybe that is to us there is really nothing to be positive about here. I mean nothing they have done is either logical or makes for a better story in jmy opinion.
I forgot this was an Ask the Designer a question threads. Whoops. My bad.The New Mulhorand -
:D
More like the original Greenwood's, eh... Sorry, but copying Conan, while cool, it's not original eitheir.
Yes, they had put more thoughts and consistance than admitted perhaps.
Yup.
Call them Devas (Utter East), call them Sages (Kara-Tur), call them Padhrasattvas (Tabot, Ra-Khati, Khazari, etc), call them 'Spirits' (the Adama), call them 'local gods, civic gods, or 'beast lords', but whatever, they all boil down to the same exact thing - a group of beings that provide an 'insulating layer' between mortals and true gods.
Personally, I like to think of all of them as 'Archons', but D&D has unfortunely already used that term for angels (which would also be part of that group).
I like to think as them as gods in their own right myself. And it is just the many reason why I won't be buying into the new Realms.
The God Zehir was originally Set I believe.
-Though I don't know who 'Zehir' is, I think this is very unlikely, being as that Set was one of the 'original' deities of the non-unified Egyptian pantheon, one of the oldest civilizations known to history.
(If this has been answered, anyone feel free to point me in the right direction...)
Recently posted images (at EnWorld) of character sheets for the sample D&DE characters show Amaunator as a Patron deity.
Can you comment on that?
Is he really back?
If so.. is Lathander gone? Merged? Transformed? Alive, separated and well?
Thanks.
Question: Will Forgotten Realms follow the core concept of reducing the linguistic diversity of races (such as eliminating Halfling as a separate language), or will it retain the plethora of native languages even for humans with Common as a universal trade language only?
(If this has been answered, anyone feel free to point me in the right direction...)
(Interestingly enough, I don't know if we've ever said what his evening aspect would be. Presumably he would have been in the evening aspect sometime around the 3rd-4th-5th century DR, because you'd suppose that would fall between his last noontime incarnation and his Lathander incarnation, which was definitely in place by the 7th century DR.)
Mr. Baker
Recently posted images (at EnWorld) of character sheets for the sample D&DE characters shows Amaunator as a Patron deity.
Can you comment on that?
Is he really back?
If so.. is Lathander gone? Merged? Transformed? Alive, separated and well?
Thanks.
Question for Rich: What's the East Rift? It was assigned to the Pacific US for the Living Forgotten Realms campaign. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have any idea what the East Rift is. So any chance you can shed some light on the subject, Rich? Thanks.
I guess the novel was pushed back? I thought it was coming out in May.
1) Uthgardt barbarians. I believe they're still around. I suspect they may be roaming farther west than before; Luruar might be a little too settled for their tastes. But I don't think we've gone into many specifics there.
2) Yes. We want racial powers to correspond exactly to racial powers as described in core D&D, at least for something big like this.
5) Yes... at least one of him, anyway.
6) No, I think Candlekeep is pretty much as it was.
I am reposting this, cause I am afraid it might get lost due to the huge number of posts in this thread.
Mr Baker,
can you shed some light into the following? I will understand if you can't yet, but I would appreciate any new comment.
1)Is there any info on the Uthgart Barbarians that you can release? ( I`ve asked this before, but I am not sure if you evaded the question or if you missed it.)
2)Will sun, moon and star elves have the dimensional step ( or whatever it is called) ability of the Eladrin?
3)Can you tell us a little about how Bane might benefit from the imprisonment of Cyric?
4) I am beting that, somehow Yondalla either wont be in the realms anymore or will be an aspect of some other deity. Am I right?
5) Is Manshoon (the main clone) still around?
6) Any major changes to Candlekeep, that you can talk about?
I just want to say that I am starting to enjoy the changes. I was quite skeptical and pessimist at first, but not anymore =)
I have been playing in the realms since I was 10 ( I am 24 now), so I think that the new changes can also eventually please some of the "old timers".
Also, I am very glad to know that Iakhovas is helping in the new capaign setting.
I don't believe we're giving Elminster a full stat block, but he's got the parenthetical treatment -- (male human wizard 3) or something like that. Just kidding, he's a bit higher than 3rd level.
I think so, but I think beings like Hoar, Sharess, and Set will stick around.
Rich, Is Set going to be a bigger influence on the world?I thought I heard somewhere from you guys that Set would be a bigger Faerunwide deity than he was before. Meaning he will have more open temples perhaps in some places. Will the Yuan-Ti just start openly worshipping him if they realize he killed off Sseth?
Rich, will El have stats?
I am fine with what happens to him in the future but I am hoping you do not stat him. Leave him as an Eldritch Device please.
Lathander and Amaunator are the same being. Over centuries, the sun god assumes various incarnations more or less analogous to the various times of the day. He was beginning to shift toward his "high noon" aspect even at the end of 3e, and by 1479 DR, he's firmly in his new aspect.
(Interestingly enough, I don't know if we've ever said what his evening aspect would be. Presumably he would have been in the evening aspect sometime around the 3rd-4th-5th century DR, because you'd suppose that would fall between his last noontime incarnation and his Lathander incarnation, which was definitely in place by the 7th century DR.)
Rich, Jergal used to possess the portfolio of Dusk which he in turn gave to Myrkul. So wouldn't either of those two be that evening aspect spoken of in the heresies of Lathander's Church?
Dawn, Noon, Dusk, Night?
You know, technically wouldn't there be four times in a day?
Dawn, Noon, Dusk, Night?
-No. Night isn't day, thus leaving three.
-No. Night isn't day, thus leaving three.
Oh so we we aren't counting Night then ok. Makes sense, Dusk is when night is taking over day.
As we've pointed out Rich, Jergal and later Myrkul were the Gods of Dusk. Some even say Jergal got rid of the Dusk portfolio so he wouldn't have to die.
Lathander and Amaunator are the same being. Over centuries, the sun god assumes various incarnations more or less analogous to the various times of the day. He was beginning to shift toward his "high noon" aspect even at the end of 3e, and by 1479 DR, he's firmly in his new aspect.
(Interestingly enough, I don't know if we've ever said what his evening aspect would be. Presumably he would have been in the evening aspect sometime around the 3rd-4th-5th century DR, because you'd suppose that would fall between his last noontime incarnation and his Lathander incarnation, which was definitely in place by the 7th century DR.)
Gee, I'm beginning to think that every time I look at the infor for the New Realms I should be playing Queen in the background.
"And another one gone, and another one gone, another one bites the dust"
Lathander and Amaunator are the SAME god? Huh? Uhm, wait a sec, didn;t Lathander cause the Dawn Cataclysm that got Tyche poisoned by Moander and gave us Tymora and Beshaba?
Swordmage is still on for a May publication.
OK, thanks for letting me know.
More like the original Greenwood's, eh... Sorry, but copying Conan, while cool, it's not original eitheir.
Yes, they had put more thoughts and consistance than admitted perhaps.
Once again, don't blow up a single comment more than it is. I believe Greenwood said, as far as he got to detailing Mulhorand in his original Realms (which is to say not much at all), that Mulhorand was an evil nation run by Set cults. He drew influence from REH's Hyboria, but we really don't have enough information to say it was indeed a Stygia clone. Or more importantly, if Greenwood spent time developing Mulhorand whether it would emerge as a Stygia clone at all. At that point in developing the Realms, the Stygian version of Mulhorand was merely a place holder until he got around to detailing it.
However, the Mulhorand as presented in the Old Empires supplement without a doubt lifts heavily from Egyptian culture and myth.
I don't know about you, but given the Egypt clone we have and given Greenwood's previous setting design work, I would wager that his vision of Mulhorand would be far more interested from both a story and gameplay perspective than the current Mulhorand.*
*Not that I dislike the work of the author of the original Old Empires. I have his book from the Mythic Vistas series. The unofficial update to the Old Empires he put out a few years ago remains one of my favorite unofficial FR netbooks. That he spend the time putting it together and gathering his thoughts on how he sees the region developing in the decades since his original contribution speaks volumes about his dedication. If given the chance to let loose a bit, I think he could be a vital and welcomed contributor. (hint, hint Wizards)
Probably the most he ever thought about it was "I want it something along the lines of Stygia", and that was it.
Given Ed's running record, I'm sure it would have been GREAT; The man is the King Midas of the RPG world.
EDIT and SUGGESTION:
Rich... I just heard the sad news about Gary Gygax.
Anyway, could you guys do something special at Gencon... like leave an empty seat at each gaming table?
Some sort of 'Salute' to the man that started it all would be appropriate, don't you think?
Although the Moonshaes in general give off more of the 'Celtic (Pagan) Arthur', I still see some similarities between Azoun (
However, I always felt that Azoun/Cormyr was more like Charlemagne and France - especially now with Cormyr building its own 'Frankish' Empire. Purple Dragon Knights easily translate into Charlemagne's Paladins, and although Charly never made it to the Crusades, I can see a little bit of the Templar Knights in them as well. ;)
Excellent Analogy. :D
Truth is, the Arthur myth includes the Charlemagne thing inherently - the most well known Arthur and Camelot stories were written during the 100 year war period glorifying the past, but applied Charlemagnian technology and sensibilities to a dark ages hero. Even the imperial references are not out of place - a lot of the Arthurian mythology was about a return to the glory that was Rome in Britain.
Quick question about the Wailing Years article...
Druids are given some treatment (Re: Nobanion), but apparently aren't in the PHB. Does this mean that the FRCS will contain additional classes besides the Swordmage, particularly the Druid and (hopefully) Bard?
Also, why was the Time Portal added? Doesn't this create a load of potential continuity problems? I don't recall ever hearing of this before, but I'm certainly not the most lore-wise of FR fans, so I beg your forgiveness if it was pre-existing and I simply missed it.
Also, why was the Time Portal added? Doesn't this create a load of potential continuity problems? I don't recall ever hearing of this before,
Those portals exist since AD&D 2e.
...and yes. Portals. There are more than one.
I gues they had to mention it, 'cause eventually people would bring up that question.
"What about hose 2e time portals? Can we avoid the Spellplague?"
The time-portal originally appeared in the Comanthyr Sourcebook, which I believe is available for FREE download here at WotC.
It used to be, at least.
It used to be, at least.
-They still are. I just checked the page yesterday, to make sure I had everything offered there, just in case. And I did.
Those portals exist since AD&D 2e.
...and yes. Portals. There are more than one.
I gues they had to mention it, 'cause eventually people would bring up that question.
"What about hose 2e time portals? Can we avoid the Spellplague?"
Thanks, yarethon, this is the info I was looking for. When I said I'm not the most lore-wise FR fan, I really meant it
but other people complain that there's too much lore and the people from this forums are "elitist" Druids are given some treatment (Re: Nobanion), but apparently aren't in the PHB. Does this mean that the FRCS will contain additional classes besides the Swordmage, particularly the Druid and (hopefully) Bard?
If they don't, then they'll definitely appear in the PHB2 next year. Same goes for the Bard, Monk, Barbarian, Sorcerer, and psionics.
Bel
No argument, but personally, I'd rather most of the space in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide be used for Forgotten Realms specific info, not as a PHB add-on.
ditto, but i'd rather not wait a whole year either, and i dont want to play a cleric with the plant and animal domains either
I had hoped that since they pushed the release date back for the phb, they would have stuck it in, they would of had the time
so this isnt entirely off topic
I will repeat my last question
with the rangers of the FR still have to choose a nature deity?
I noticed that the character sheets had Good and Unaligned listed as alignments for the characters. Can we take that to mean the Law/Chaos part of the alignment has been taken out of 4E?
I will repeat my last question with the rangers of the FR still have to choose a nature deity?
Why should anyone have to pick a single deity? What is wrong with worshipping an entire pantheon? The PCs believe they all exist and have power within their portfolios, so should be able to pray to amy that are relevant. Why should standard divine spells and class abilities come directly from a specific deity any more than arcane ones do? (Things like cleric domain spells and powers, if they still exist, are more linked to a specific deity, but there should be generic clerics as well as those who specialize as priests of a specific deity.) Why not let nonclerics or generic clerics pray to the divine powers in general to refresh their daily access to divine spells?
If a GM wants to require choice of a specific deity by each divine caster in his campaign, that should be his personal choice, not a core rule of 4e or of the FR setting.
Tom Bollis
also
Will the whole "Wall" deal still exist in 4e?
They say they want to keep all the Feats, classess, etc together, so folks will be able to find stuff easier, but I'm just not seeing that happening, with what we've been told.
It looks like we will still have to thumb through a dozen or so books to find something we want.
Question/Suggestion:
Rich (or whomever), will we have sort of online index to find the stuff we want? It would be a HUGE help if we could just type in the name of a Feat, or PrC, and it would tell us what book(s) said item appears in. Maybe go a step further, and be able to list sub-categories, like "All Monk Feats", or "All Fire-Based Spells". Something like that would be a tremendous resource, and also attract many more gamers to this site.
I understand you planned some sort of Wiki, although I don't recall if it was FR-specific or for all D&D settings. Either way, attaching a universal index to it (as I described above) would be VERY cool (or Awesome, or 'Tubular', or whatever the buzz-word of the week is...)
Question/Suggestion:
Rich (or whomever), will we have sort of online index to find the stuff we want? It would be a HUGE help if we could just type in the name of a Feat, or PrC, and it would tell us what book(s) said item appears in. Maybe go a step further, and be able to list sub-categories, like "All Monk Feats", or "All Fire-Based Spells". Something like that would be a tremendous resource, and also attract many more gamers to this site.
I understand you planned some sort of Wiki, although I don't recall if it was FR-specific or for all D&D settings. Either way, attaching a universal index to it (as I described above) would be VERY cool (or Awesome, or 'Tubular', or whatever the buzz-word of the week is...)
Actually, I think I have your answer Markus. According to the info from D&D Experience, DDI will have a Rules database that is to be updated constantly with all new classes, feats, items, and errata. So, as long as you pay your monthly fee, you should be able to have exactly what your talking about.
Question/Suggestion:
Rich (or whomever), will we have sort of online index to find the stuff we want? It would be a HUGE help if we could just type in the name of a Feat, or PrC, and it would tell us what book(s) said item appears in. Maybe go a step further, and be able to list sub-categories, like "All Monk Feats", or "All Fire-Based Spells". Something like that would be a tremendous resource, and also attract many more gamers to this site.
According to Scott Rouse, you are going to get exactly what you mention on the WotC site for free and, if you suscribe to DDI you also get the complete feat/spell/prc description instead of "find this spell in book X p.YY".
I will repeat my last question
with the rangers of the FR still have to choose a nature deity?
Just a quick question, not sure if you can answer this or not Rich.
I noticed that the character sheets had Good and Unaligned listed as alignments for the characters. Can we take that to mean the Law/Chaos part of the alignment has been taken out of 4E?
No, they're not divine spellcasters anymore. Rangers are characters of the martial power source. I think most rangers will *probably* choose a nature-oriented deity as a patron, but that's a roleplaying choice.
well....... no matter, there were reasons i liked being able to cast minor healing spells, but since they are not anymore, that is good, becuase in 3.x I was sick of not being able to have a moon elf ranger that worshiped Corellon Larethian, because of some dumb rule in the F&P book, that they must worship nature deity.
hmmmm i wonder if paladins can still cast spells.........
any way thank you mr Richard (awesome) baker
Rich, Will players be able to worship enire Pantheons and not be put into the Wall?
also
Will the whole "Wall" deal still exist in 4e?
They gone or not.
*shakes hand*
Come on.
Throw us a BONNNNEee
Law and Chaos aren't out, but it doesn't work the way it used to. 'Fraid I can't say more than that right now.
Thanks, some of us were wondering about that.
-In the 4e preview books, Titania and Oberon were not listed as the Queen and King of the Seelie Court. Did something happen to them?
Question/Suggestion:
Rich (or whomever), will we have sort of online index to find the stuff we want? It would be a HUGE help if we could just type in the name of a Feat, or PrC, and it would tell us what book(s) said item appears in. Maybe go a step further, and be able to list sub-categories, like "All Monk Feats", or "All Fire-Based Spells". Something like that would be a tremendous resource, and also attract many more gamers to this site.
From what I understood from the public briefing at D&DXP, DDI will have a complete ruleset for subscribers (including page references), and it will have only the titles and page references for non-paid subscribers. Sounds like a win-win to me.
From what I understood from the public briefing at D&DXP, DDI will have a complete ruleset for subscribers (including page references), and it will have only the titles and page references for non-paid subscribers. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Hmmmmm... depending on the price plan, I may just change my mind about the DDi. As of now, I really don't see it as being very useful - its been all 4e advertisements disguised as articles. If they start adding truly useful resources, then there's a good chance I'll change my tune.
So, Rich, what about the Mulhorandi and Mazticans?
Charles, they've already told us that Maztica is gone in 4e... unless those Jaguar Warriors are REALLY good swimmers, I don't see how they can still be around (maybe on Abeir, but not on Toril).
And Mulhorand is getting the 'Stygia' treatment, from what little hints have been droped (ie, "closer to Ed's original concept")
Hmmmmm... depending on the price plan, I may just change my mind about the DDi. As of now, I really don't see it as being very useful - its been all 4e advertisements disguised as articles. If they start adding truly useful resources, then there's a good chance I'll change my tune.
$10/month for a yearly subscription, full rules access, all books, the on-line is considered correct (rules wise). Character generator is just a fill in for none subscribers, or has all rules 'built in' for subscribers.
Also using the on-line tool for the occasional player who cannot attend seems truly useful and feasible from the demo I saw if one has a laptop for the gaming table. The orthogonal views of dungeon maps looked pretty cool, and the control of initiative order, tracking of conditions and HP etc was well done. They will even have an attractive one-day use (for the guy who cannot show) at under $5 for a 1 day session - still cheaper than bus fare or gas for most.
Without the snacks, it just ain't D&D. :P
Law and Chaos aren't out, but it doesn't work the way it used to. 'Fraid I can't say more than that right now.
Thanks for the quick reply Mr. Baker.
I meant the Maztican gods.
Charles, they've already told us that Maztica is gone in 4e... unless those Jaguar Warriors are REALLY good swimmers, I don't see how they can still be around (maybe on Abeir, but not on Toril).
And Mulhoran is getting the 'Stygia' treatment, from what little hints have been droped (ie, "closer to Ed's original concept")
-As long as they retain some worshippers on Faerûn- Mazticans in Amn, for example- the Maztican deities have worshippers. And, as they have worshippers, they should continue to exist- albeit, weakened due to a massive drop in their worship base. Same thing with the Mulhorandi pantheon.
-As long as they retain some worshippers on Faerûn- Mazticans in Amn, for example- the Maztican deities have worshippers. And, as they have worshippers, they should continue to exist- albeit, weakened due to a massive drop in their worship base. Same thing with the Mulhorandi pantheon.
Could be cool if some of the old maztican gods were reduced to Exarchs by the spellplague. Some of them could still roam the jungles were the dragonborn now live, immortal, powerful creatures, wating for their worshippers to return.
Could be cool if some of the old maztican gods were reduced to Exarchs by the spellplague.
-Odds are, something to that effect is going to happen. Reduced in status, or merged with other, similar deities.
-Odds are, something to that effect is going to happen. Reduced in status, or merged with other, similar deities.
Similar to Nobanion, I'd wager.
At first glance, I'm liking the use of Exarchs. It lends a Robert E. Howard/Fritz Leiber feel to it, which can make for some great tales, if handled properly (but isn't that always the caveat? :P)
That means that the original Mazticans may have come from Abeir, where their religion is much MORE prominent, so that whatever we get in place of Maztica may have them plus quite a few other suprises.
I just hope they come up with something really special.
I'm sorry to say that I'm just not allowed to discuss future product plans beyond what's already appeared in our catalog, or is otherwise widely known. Right now I can confirm most of 2008 (it's the FRCG, the FRPG, and the adventure) but I can't talk about what we're doing in 2009 or later.
Hi Rich first post here, I was wondering if you guys are planning to release books on the various different locations in the Realms as previous editions have and if you have any idea what will be first...?
-As long as they retain some worshippers on Faerûn- Mazticans in Amn, for example- the Maztican deities have worshippers. And, as they have worshippers, they should continue to exist- albeit, weakened due to a massive drop in their worship base. Same thing with the Mulhorandi pantheon.
Well, the Mazticans in Amn might have been wasted by the Stingers. ;)
But really, if Maztica went to Abeir then I would assume their gods would be goin too (or some sort of weird planar shuffling). If Maztica went the way of the dodo bird then I wouldn't be surprised to find out their in a coma, probably for the foreseeable future.
I'm also somewhat happy to hear about the Exarch idea, if only to give the Gods more "hands". My hope is that even the Exarchs won't be taking so much direct action. I'd prefer to see the focus be on the agents of the Gods.
After the Devs said that a high level [30] group should be able to kill a god if they wanted to, kinda made clear who their target audience is doesn't it?
After the Devs said that a high level [30] group should be able to kill a god if they wanted to, kinda made clear who their target audience is doesn't it?
Actually, that happened at the advent of 3e when they first gave gods statblocks. Doesn't anyone remember the cliche - player asks - "does it have a stat block?" and if the answer is yes "Ok, I attack!".
All that I think that the exarchs and the gods will be in 4ED are just the high end of the monsters for the heroes to kill. :raincloud
After the Devs said that a high level [30] group should be able to kill a god if they wanted to, kinda made clear who their target audience is doesn't it?
People killed gods in 1E and 2E as well. Actually I have not met a person who has played those editions that did not kill a deity of some sort. Actually less of the 2e people killed gods than 1e. Still it happened. So ditch that idea of killing gods is a new thing for the kiddies. Seems like nerds of all editions like whacking powerful beings.;)
Me personally, I can do without it.
Then again, we know that Maztica is made up of several branches of Interlopers, both from off-world and several from other parts of Toril itself.
That means that the original Mazticans may have come from Abeir, where their religion is much MORE prominent, so that whatever we get in place of Maztica may have them plus quite a few other suprises.
I just hope they come up with something really special.
This got me to thinking. Supposedly, the dragonborn were natives of Abeir. Perhaps this is also the original home of the saurials as well. We know that many of the FR pantheon were worshipped there, albeit under other names. Could be a globe predominantly occupied by reptilian races.
Does that mean in 4e, you will have to start calling yourselves "Exarchs of Karsus"?
-No. I am not an Exarch, nor are my Hands.
Could be a globe predominantly occupied by reptilian races.
-At this point, it can be whatever you want it to be. As it's heavily tied to Aberrations, odds are they rule the "world".
Kind the best of both worlds, eh? ;)
What book was that in again?
This got me to thinking. Supposedly, the dragonborn were natives of Abeir.
Actually, IIRC it has not yet been revealed which world the dragonborn came from. It's not a given that it's Abeir.
Actually, IIRC it has not yet been revealed which world the dragonborn came from. It's not a given that it's Abeir.
From the Wizard's web article:
Some say that the dragonborn are creations of Tiamat, hatched from vast incubators hidden beneath temples of the dragon-goddess in the cities of Unther. Others believe that the dragonborn are descended from the human population of the old empire, changed by the touch of the Spellplague into something no longer human. But the truth of the matter is even stranger: As it did in many other places in Faerûn, the Spellplague opened the door to some other realm entirely, wrenching the aeries and castles of the dragonborn from their native land—wherever that once was—and depositing them amid the chaos of devastated Unther.
So you are right, it could be from anywhere.
and lost their wings on the way. ;)
Maybe Tiamet pulled them off, the way I do with flys.
Answerable Question:
I found info on a site about there having been a second map for The Jungles of Chult supplement (2e), but it was cut for space. According to Jean Rabe, one of the authors, Several encounter locations in the module reference this missing map. Do you guys think you might still have this kicking around somewhere? I'm currently mapping Chult and would love to have this as a reference.
Thanks - MT
), I want to apologize if this has already been addressed.We know about the (crunch-wise) merging of sub-races, but I was wondering if the racial abilities you can get as you advance in level will be generic to the race (ie. elf, eladrin) or if there will be some tailored to the (sub)races of FR. Like Sun and Moon elf specific abilities?
Oh, one more question if you don't mind. I... am partial to Elves and I'd like to know if we might see anything for Bladesingers in the near future? I remember reading about the Swordmage class being representative of it in 'Races & Classes', but later, in your blog, you state that it isn't.
*Personal note; I'm a longtime fan of the Realms, both the books and the RPG related aspects. I know many 'old' timers like myself have been upset with what we've been shown. I, on the other hand, like what we've seen.
I just wanted to show that not all of the longtime fans are against the way things are going. I can see the reason for and the need for change.
Also, I like the Spell Plague, it's twists and plots and am really looking forward to 4e FR. Thanks Rich and everyone at WotC for keeping the Realms alive and well.
now, back to page 35.....
wood and wild elf get the elf stats from the phb.
the drow get drow stats, and the sea elves and the alvarieal havnt been mentioned.
the FR lifespans are still the same as the 3.x
,star,moon and sun elves get the eldarin stats
wood and wild elf get the elf stats from the phb.
the drow get drow stats, and the sea elves and the alvarieal havnt been mentioned.
the FR lifespans are still the same as the 3.x
Thank you, but I was thinking more along the lines of racial abilities you can choose as you gain levels. Will they be generic for the race (Elf, Eladrin, etc...) or will they be more focused (Sun, Moon, Green, Copper, etc...)
I understand that Eladrins, Elves and the rest will have racial feats in the PHB, but will we see more (sub)race specific ones in the FRCG or PGTF?
Regarding bladesingers, the answer is a little hazy. I thought we might set up bladesinger as a paragon path for swordmage since there's a lot of conceptual overlap, but they're not *quite* the same thing. And, while it's something that FR has embraced for years now, it's also a concept with a lot of traction in core D&D, so it's not exactly clear if the bladesinger belongs in a FR book or a core D&D book. (It appeared in both Races of Faerun and Complete Warrior in 3rd Edition.) But it's a strong name and a popular concept, so it's not going to stay on the sidelines for long.
As I am still reading through this thread (pg 35
We know about the (crunch-wise) merging of sub-races, but I was wondering if the racial abilities you can get as you advance in level will be generic to the race (ie. elf, eladrin) or if there will be some tailored to the (sub)races of FR. Like Sun and Moon elf specific abilities?
Oh, one more question if you don't mind. I... am partial to Elves and I'd like to know if we might see anything for Bladesingers in the near future? I remember reading about the Swordmage class being representative of it in 'Races & Classes', but later, in your blog, you state that it isn't.
*Personal note; I'm a longtime fan of the Realms, both the books and the RPG related aspects. I know many 'old' timers like myself have been upset with what we've been shown. I, on the other hand, like what we've seen.
I just wanted to show that not all of the longtime fans are against the way things are going. I can see the reason for and the need for change.
Also, I like the Spell Plague, it's twists and plots and am really looking forward to 4e FR. Thanks Rich and everyone at WotC for keeping the Realms alive and well.
now, back to page 35.....
*I say possible do to the Swormage class. If you go Swordmage/Wizard, then you're only using the Arcane power source.
Regarding bladesingers, the answer is a little hazy. I thought we might set up bladesinger as a paragon path for swordmage since there's a lot of conceptual overlap, but they're not *quite* the same thing. And, while it's something that FR has embraced for years now, it's also a concept with a lot of traction in core D&D, so it's not exactly clear if the bladesinger belongs in a FR book or a core D&D book. (It appeared in both Races of Faerun and Complete Warrior in 3rd Edition.) But it's a strong name and a popular concept, so it's not going to stay on the sidelines for long.
Whoa, hold on there Rich, the bladesinger is a classic example of something where the Realms team developed something for the 3.0 Realms books, and then the 3.5 books (in this case one of the Complete series) took the FR-themed PrC and customized it for Core. It happened all the time in 3.5, but Bladesingers are from the Realms, not from Core. Just because you (WotC) stole things from the 3.0 Realms and put them into 3.5 Core because they were "cool," does not mean that it should continue to be stolen in the 4e Realms. This total disregard for most anything sacred to the earlier editions of the Realms is one of main things that is causing hate for the 4e Realms...
Are Red Wizards now going to be 4e Core property too? It is a ridiculous concept. Rich, I respect your love for your baby, the Swordmage, but Bladesingers came first. Show some respect for what came before. Please. Actually, Bladesingers are a second edition kit. They're not from the Realms anymore than being from Alaska means you're an eskimo.
Based in the elf class from first edition. Bladesinger are too traditional to be left behind in 4th edition. Without them 4th edition shouldn't even be called D&D.
I am not looking for complete duplicates, the players might want to bring these characters over so I can continue this specific campaign in 4E.
It also sounds like Rich is trying to think of where Bladesinger would fit into the Paragon levels instead of making it a base class. In the end since it was core and not FR specific (and not stolen Hawk) I feel we may just see the Bladesinger class in PHII.
Based in the elf class from first edition. Bladesinger are too traditional to be left behind in 4th edition. Without them 4th edition shouldn't even be called D&D.
His point was that the Bladesinger isn't exclusive to (or even originates from) the Realms.
His point was that the Bladesinger isn't exclusive to (or even originates from) the Realms.
And my point is that they must be kept.
Now, that said, FR's done much more with bladesingers than core D&D in the years since--most notably, in novels. But it's not originally a FR-themed prestige class (or kit, as we're talking about 2e here).
Whoa, hold on there Rich, the bladesinger is a classic example of something where the Realms team developed something for the 3.0 Realms books, and then the 3.5 books (in this case one of the Complete series) took the FR-themed PrC and customized it for Core. It happened all the time in 3.5, but Bladesingers are from the Realms, not from Core. Just because you (WotC) stole things from the 3.0 Realms and put them into 3.5 Core because they were "cool," does not mean that it should continue to be stolen in the 4e Realms. This total disregard for most anything sacred to the earlier editions of the Realms is one of main things that is causing hate for the 4e Realms...
Rich, if my players had some "oddball" races as PCs such as minotaur, imp, kobold, and goblin will they be able to transfer them to 4E?
I am not looking for complete duplicates, the players might want to bring these characters over so I can continue this specific campaign in 4E.
It also sounds like Rich is trying to think of where Bladesinger would fit into the Paragon levels instead of making it a base class. In the end since it was core and not FR specific (and not stolen Hawk) I feel we may just see the Bladesinger class in PHII.
I think you're mistaken. The bladesinger appeared first in the 2e product "Complete Book of Elves," published in 1993. I'm pretty sure that all FR use of bladesingers came after that.
Now, that said, FR's done much more with bladesingers than core D&D in the years since--most notably, in novels. But it's not originally a FR-themed prestige class (or kit, as we're talking about 2e here).
That book rocked for it's time.
I think you're mistaken. The bladesinger appeared first in the 2e product "Complete Book of Elves," published in 1993. I'm pretty sure that all FR use of bladesingers came after that.
Now, that said, FR's done much more with bladesingers than core D&D in the years since--most notably, in novels. But it's not originally a FR-themed prestige class (or kit, as we're talking about 2e here).
Yeah, someone over at Candlekeep told me the same, please accept my apologies...
There's some "monsters as PCs" info in the Monster Manual, so a couple of the more common ones ought to be covered. Can't say more than that.
I am sure the goblin and kobold are covered but I hope I can MacGuyver the minotaur and imp. Their characters are essential to the game.
This total disregard for most anything sacred to the earlier editions of the Realms is one of main things that is causing hate for the 4e Realms...
Now just curious, Hawkinsthedm, if an idea is first introduced in the Realms, why do you dislike the idea of others "borrowing" it?
@Rauric, AFAIK, the new game will still be D20, so I don't understand why you can't just use the older rules in places where there are no new ones, just to fill in the holes.
Granted, I haven't seen the rules, so I have no idea how hard that will be, but since the system still works pretty much the same, I can't see a conversion being overly difficult on a case-by-case basis.
And if you need help, you got all of us. :D
He has already apologized for his error, and 'baiting' is against the Terms of Use.
My response crossed his in the ether. So consider it uneccesary.
I'm wondering, will important NPCs such as Drizzt and Elminster be stated up with the PC or Monster creation rules?
I suspect monster stats, as they aren't likely to be played as PCs.
Tom Bollis
Actually I'm pretty sure I contradicted myself there.
I'm wondering, will important NPCs such as Drizzt and Elminster be stated up with the PC or Monster creation rules?
IIRC, one of the designers stated somewhere that they probably wouldn't be giving them stats beyond one-liners, like Elminster (human male wizard 30), and I suspect they'll list any paragon paths and epic destinies.
I might be misremembering, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
Regards.
I don't believe we're giving Elminster a full stat block, but he's got the parenthetical treatment -- (male human wizard 3) or something like that. Just kidding, he's a bit higher than 3rd level.
@Rauric, AFAIK, the new game will still be D20, so I don't understand why you can't just use the older rules in places where there are no new ones, just to fill in the holes.
Granted, I haven't seen the rules, so I have no idea how hard that will be, but since the system still works pretty much the same, I can't see a conversion being overly difficult on a case-by-case basis.
I have yet to see any evidence that supports it is the same rules...we know for instance that
-Combat
-spellcasting
-races
-classes
-magic items
-leveling(exp needed etc)
-NPCs
-monsters
-skills
All work very differently so while it still uses a d20 it is a completely different from 3.x...that as far as I can see with some of tyhe names staying the same is all I can see being remotely similar.
All work very differently so while it still uses a d20 it is a completely different from 3.x...that as far as I can see with some of tyhe names staying the same is all I can see being remotely similar.
What he is proposing (I think) is that if there is no rule in 4.0 for something, one may be able to use the 3.x rule to "houserule" it. I don't see any fundamental reason why this would not be possible, although there are some reasons why it wouldn't be practical for some rules in some circumstances.
I don't see any fundamental reason why this would not be possible, although there are some reasons why it wouldn't be practical for some rules in some circumstances.
-In most cases, that works fairly easily. I've used d20 Star Wars books in D&D campaigns before.
As long as everything still revolves around a D20 mechanic, then the variables should still fall within the same basic parameters, which means you may have to make some 'fluffy adjustments', but the basic mechanism of any particulare rule should convert easily.
If the game was D6, or percentage-based, then no, conversion would be much harder.
Either way, you'll still have to find appropriate abilities to replace ones that are no longer in the rules, but there should be some form of close equivalent no matter what they are calling it now.
And if the ability doesn't exist at all in 4e, then so much the better, just use the 3e version as-is in 4e.
The only thing I can see screwing up this logic is the fact that ability scores are now open-ended, which could throw a severe monkey-wrench into some conversions.
-In most cases, that works fairly easily. I've used d20 Star Wars books in D&D campaigns before.
Running 1e and 2e D&D I've used rules directly out of other non-D&D systems while sitting at the table - Runequest, MERPs, Rolemaster, Chivalry & Sorcery, etc...
If I couldn't find what I needed in D&D, I found it in another game. It was never all that hard, even when the mechanics were grossly different (Runequest was tough, though).
-In most cases, that works fairly easily. I've used d20 Star Wars books in D&D campaigns before.
d20 or Saga rules? Because trying to fit some d20(Star War) rules in with Saga(star wars) was a pain in the ass.
@MarkusTay63: While it might be possible I really haven't seen anything that says it is worth the effort to do this either. I just don't think it will be as easy as you think it is...but we'll see whwen the rules come out.
d20 or Saga rules? Because trying to fit some d20(Star War) rules in with Saga(star wars) was a pain in the ass.
-I did type in d20, didn't I? :P
-From what I've been told of it, most of the Saga rules fit mostly seamlessly (with a few exceptions, such as Skills) with the "old" d20 Star Wars rules. Taking that as it is, it shouldn't be necessarily too difficult to do that with 3e to 4e.
-Rich, I've asked this before, but it probably got lost in the clutter. So, I'll ask again:
As has been pointed out to me, the Worlds and Monsters preview book mentions unfamiliar names as the rulers of the Seelie Court. What happened to Titania and Oberon?
@MarkusTay63: While it might be possible I really haven't seen anything that says it is worth the effort to do this either. I just don't think it will be as easy as you think it is...but we'll see whwen the rules come out.
True enough.
However, the alternative, at least in Rauric's case, would be to live without the much needed rules until some 4e version comes out... if it comes out.
Personally, I'm not a very patient man - more of the "I want it yesterday" type. So if I don't have the rule I want in front of me, I make do with whatever I have.
If Rauric wants to sit around and wait for a 4e version of Savage Species, when everything we've been told about 4e says Monsters are JUST Monsters, nothing more, and they operate on different rules then PCs, then he may just be waiting a very long time indeed.
Scoop - Paizo Annoucement!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paizo Publishing® Announces the Pathfinder RPG⁚
Pathfinder⁚ to continue under the 3.5 rules.
Tuesday, March 19th, 2008
Paizo Publishing today unveiled the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game that will serve as the anchor for the company's popular line of Pathfinder adventures, sourcebooks, and campaigns. Today marks the beginning of a year-long Open Playtest of the new rules, which are based upon the popular 3.5 rules available under the Open Game License. The Pathfinder RPG is designed with backward compatibility as one of its primary goals, so players will continue to enjoy their lifelong fantasy gaming hobby without invalidating their entire game library. The first Pathfinder RPG Alpha release is available now as a free 65-page PDF download at paizo.com/pathfinderRPG. Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set.
"I'm really excited to work with the playtesters to make this the best game possible," said Jason Bulmahn, Paizo's Lead Designer. "In the spirit of the Open Game movement, the Pathfinder RPG is really your roleplaying game. It's a huge thrill to get to lead the design process."
Paizo will issue additional Pathfinder RPG Alpha releases in the coming months, covering new changes and additions to the 3.5 rules. Gamers can download, read, and participate in the free open playtest by setting up a paizo.com account and joining the discussion with Paizo's design staff at paizo.com/pathfinderRPG. The Pathfinder RPG will be backward-compatible with the 3.5 rules, and the staff has kept this goal as a primary focus since design began in 2007.
This coming August, Paizo will release a massive, full-color, softcover Pathfinder RPG Beta release for $24.99. This book will be available on paizo.com, at Gen Con, as well as through hobby distribution at local game stores. Just like the Alpha releases, the Beta release will be available as a free PDF download on paizo.com. As Wizards of the Coast's core 3.5 rulebooks are expected to go out of print with the release of 4th Edition, Paizo will use the Pathfinder RPG as a replacement for the 3.5 core rules. The Pathfinder RPG Beta release will represent Paizo's first published take on an updated 3.5 system, and playtesting will continue through spring 2009, when Paizo will incorporate the open playtest feedback and create a hardcover Pathfinder RPG for release in the hobby trade, bookstores, and paizo.com in August 2009.
Paizo hopes to support 4th Edition with fan-created online conversions of its Pathfinder products and a complete line from its partner company, Necromancer Games, a trend-setter in the original Open Gaming movement. Necromancer has already announced a new 4th Edition version of their award-winning Tome of Horrors monster encyclopedia, and has plans for additional player and GM support products.
Today, Paizo also announced the hiring of Nicolas Logue to run the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign, a massive mega-campaign to launch at this year's Gen Con. The Pathfinder Society will feature events at major conventions, retail stores, and home play as a way to involve thousands of players in a constantly evolving campaign environment fueled by downloadable scenarios released by Paizo. Nicolas Logue is a long-time Paizo contributor to the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon as well as the Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Modules line. He also co-runs an annual competition at Gen Con called Iron DM that will continue to be co-run by Nicolas Logue and his Iron DM compatriots. Nick begins working at Paizo in April.
"Nicolas Logue is one of the most energetic, personable gamers I have ever met," said Erik Mona, Paizo's Publisher and the co-founder during his tenure at Wizards of the Coast of Living Greyhawk, the largest organized play RPG campaign in history. "Running a successful organized play campaign involves a magical combination of cool ideas, organizational skills, and enthusiasm. Nick is absolutely the perfect man for the job, and I'm thrilled that he will be joining us here at Paizo."
Additional information on the Pathfinder Society campaign can be found at paizo.com/pathfindersociety.
From the CEO:
Dear Friends of Paizo:
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your continuing loyalty and support of Paizo Publishing. In the past year, we've successfully transitioned from the magazine publishing business to become one of the most popular roleplaying publishers in the industry. Through this difficult time, you've been supporting us with your purchases, giving us your feedback through our messageboards, and generally doing your best to build us up. Without you, Paizo couldn't and wouldn't exist, and for that, I and my employees thank you.
Today, we have announced our decision to create the Pathfinder RPG, the flagship game system for all of our Pathfinder products. This roleplaying game will be based on the Open Game License (OGL) and the 3.5 SRD released by Wizards of the Coast. We came to this decision by listening to you, our customers, and also listening to our own hearts. Our Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting was designed around the tropes and values of classic fantasy roleplaying, and the Pathfinder Adventure Path books were designed to provide the best gaming experience using the 3.5 system. After careful evaluation of our options, we believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for Pathfinder.
What's got me really jazzed about the Pathfinder RPG is the fact that, for the first time that I'm aware of in the history of RPGs, there is a fully open playtest available to anyone who wants to get involved! There are no secret playtest groups bound by non-disclosure agreements—anybody who wants to contribute to the process can do so, just by signing up for an account on paizo.com, downloading a FREE PDF of the playtest rules, and telling us—and the rest of the world—what you think. By basing the Pathfinder RPG on the 3.5 SRD, we are taking advantage of the fact that tens of thousands of GMs all over the world have already been playing this game system and have some great ideas about how to improve what we think is already the best rules system in the business. With this kind of brainpower behind the Pathfinder RPG, I know that when we release the finished product in August 2009, it will be the best game that it can be!
We're thrilled to be able to provide continuing support for the most ubiquitous edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game. Paizo will have a steady stream of new products available for 3.5 and the Pathfinder RPG, and this summer, we're even launching an organized play program: The Pathfinder Society, which will be headed up by our good friend Nicolas Logue.
We're sure that lots of roleplayers are going to be thrilled with Wizards of the Coast's upcoming 4th Edition, and we're also looking forward to the 4th Edition products that our partner Necromancer Games will be creating. Paizo may also publish 4th Edition products in the future, but if we do, they won't cross over with our Pathfinder products. We know our fans are a creative bunch, though, so we fully expect to see our community create 4th Edition conversion notes for our Pathfinder products—in fact, some of our fans have already started working on 4E conversions of the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path, as well as one of our first standalone modules.
I'd like to ask that you continue your support of Paizo by getting involved. Help us playtest the Pathfinder RPG. Plan on joining the Pathfinder Society and helping us develop our new organized play network. Consider subscribing to the Pathfinder product lines that appeal to you. If you patronize a local game store, make sure they know what our plans are, and tell them you're supporting us. One of the very best things you can do is spread the word: if each current Pathfinder fan could find just one new person who might like what we are doing, it would help us tremendously. Finally, please continue to be the best fans in the world.
Again, thanks for all that you have done for us in the past. We look forward to helping you run the best RPG games for years to come. We wouldn't be where we are without you, and we hope our gaming paths will continue to cross long into the future.
—Lisa Stevens
March 18, 2008
From the Publisher:
Friends,
Today, Paizo announced the open playtest of the new Pathfinder RPG, a backward-compatible full-service fantasy roleplaying game based on the 3.5 Open Game License. You can download a FREE 65-page Pathfinder RPG Alpha Release PDF right now, to get an idea of our initial thoughts and changes, and we've opened up a new messageboard to collect your ideas, opinions, and suggestions on where the game goes from here.
At this year's Gen Con, we plan to release a print version of the complete Pathfinder RPG Beta Release, which we'll also be giving away as a free PDF download here at paizo.com in August. In the spirit of the Open Gaming movement, the Pathfinder RPG is truly your RPG. We're very interested in your feedback on what in the core 3.5 rules should and shouldn't change, and we'll incorporate many of your suggestions into the finished Pathfinder RPG, which will debut at Gen Con 2009 as a deluxe hardcover book.
Until then, our Pathfinder Adventure Path products will continue to be written for the core 3.5 rules. This includes Curse of the Crimson Throne (the current Adventure Path), Second Darkness (which begins this August), and the Adventure Path which launches in February 2009. Beginning in August 2009, our Pathfinder products will be written to take advantage of the enhancements found in the Pathfinder RPG while retaining compatibility with the core 3.5 rules. Backward compatibility is such an important design goal for the Pathfinder RPG that a character in one system will be able to fight a monster in the other without requiring significant conversion work on your part. You will still be able to use your entire library of 3.5 material with minimal (or even no) conversion. Pathfinder Modules, the Pathfinder Companion, and Pathfinder Chronicles supplements will likewise be written for the core 3.5 rules set until August 2009, after which they will be developed with the Pathfinder RPG in mind (which, remember, will be fully compatible with 3.5).
We know that many of our readers are looking forward to 4th Edition. We still plan to release an entire line of 4th Edition products through our partnership with Necromancer Games, including a brand new Tome of Horrors hardcover monster anthology, adventures, and other exciting products. (Much of this support will depend, of course, upon the terms of the still-in-development Game System License from Wizards of the Coast, but we remain hopeful that Paizo will be a major player in the 4th Edition arena as well.) But we believe that the 3.5 rules provide the best core system for our Pathfinder products, best allowing us to tell the kinds of stories you've come to expect from us.
Basing the Pathfinder RPG on 3.5 also allows Paizo more control over our destiny than simply following along with the latest edition and the newest licensing changes. The 3.5 OGL is eternal; it provides us access to a great game loved by Paizo's entire editorial staff and most of its customers, and it allows us to keep moving forward at our current pace. We also know our customers have invested a lot of time and money into the 3.5 system; we believe that the Pathfinder RPG and its open playtest will allow us to make the best RPG even better, and to give new life to the 3.5 products you already own. We feel we've made the responsible choice for our business and for our customers—a balance we've managed consistently since Paizo began more than five years ago.
I hope you'll join us in the months and years to come. Pathfinder has been a tremendous success story in large part because our audience stuck with us after the conclusion of our license to produce Dragon and Dungeon magazines. I've been with Paizo since the very first day we opened, and I can say with authority that right now we're producing better, more exciting products than at any time in our history. This is a great time to be a part of our staff, and I hope you agree that it's a great time to be a Paizo customer.
So, how can you help? First (and most importantly), if our decision appeals to you I strongly urge you to subscribe to the Pathfinder product lines that interest you. Also, keep an eye on paizo.com for exciting new Pathfinder RPG playtest releases and information about our upcoming Pathfinder Society organized play campaign. Finally, tell your local retailer about our decision to continue supporting 3.5, and that we believe 3.5 products from Paizo and other companies will continue to sell well into the future.
We're in this for the long run, and we plan to publish products for the Pathfinder RPG—for your RPG—for years to come. But we can't do it without you.
I hope you'll join us in this exciting new campaign.
—Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC
From the Lead Designer:
Introduction
Welcome to the first release of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Let me start by saying thank you for taking a look at these rules. We here at Paizo have been working hard to make this game the fantasy roleplaying game you want to play—a game where dragons live in dungeons, goblins lurk in the forest, and noble knights ride off to undertake perilous quests. It can be all of these things and more, depending on the style of game you want it to be. These rules can be used to run a game of high intrigue set in the court of a dying king or they can be used to chronicle the desperate struggle for survival on the borderlands of an evil empire. It all depends on you and your imagination.
This is the first of a number of Alpha releases to culminate in a standalone rules set. Right now, this release gives you the basics of the system that, when combined with the 3.5 rules, allows you to begin play immediately. In the coming weeks, new releases will contain even more parts of the game, covering all the standard classes, spells, magic items, and everything else you need to have a complete campaign. But I don't want this game to develop in a vacuum. I need your help to make this the best game possible.
Before I get into how you can help, it might be best to explain the history and design goals of the Pathfinder RPG. These rules guided me through the design process, and they should help you as you play the game.
History & Design Goals
Back in October 2007, I began a small side project. Since 4th Edition had recently been announced, I began to wonder how many people would stick with the 3.5 rules set. Everyone could agree that 3.5 needed some work, but the system itself was mostly sound. I thought that those folks might want some updated rules, since support was beginning to wane. What started out as a simple side project soon turned into an obsession as the rules document got longer every day. When Paizo started looking for alternatives, my side project was a natural fit, leading us to where we are today.
When work first began on the Pathfinder RPG, I set down a number of principles to guide me. Since this game is based off the 3.5 rules set, I wanted to make sure that it stayed true to the original vision of the game. When taking a look at these rules, please keep the following guidelines in mind as they might help you understand the changes that were made.
Improve the Game: The 3.5 rules set is excellent, but it has its flaws. Over the past few years, a number of common problems have seemed to crop up again and again, problems that delay the game or cause no end of arguments (grapple and polymorph, for example). I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places and adding options in others. You can still grapple in the Pathfinder RPG, but it is no longer the huge headache that it was. I also worked to even out some of the choices. A number of 3.5 skills are far less valuable than others, making them suboptimal choices. In my experience, few rogues took Forgery, but Spot was an incredibly common choice. These rules work to even out some of these choices. So while you might still take Perception over Linguistics, the latter is now a far more useful choice than it was before.
Add Options: Just before design began, a friend of mine asked me why no one ever seemed to take rogue beyond 2nd level or fighter beyond 4th level. This got me thinking. Far too many of the basic classes lose their luster after just a few levels, leading most players to take a host of other classes or a number of prestige classes. While this option is still available, I wanted to add more to all the classes, to give each one of them a reason to be followed up through 20th level. To this end, I have tried to add options to the game whenever possible. This is a tricky path to walk, though. Too many options and you end up with overly complicated classes. Too few and players get bored of their class. This principle goes beyond class powers, as well. From sundering to magic items, there are now more options and choices to make than ever before, each one opening up whole new avenues of character and adventure design.
Compatibility: Of all the goals I set out with when designing this game, compatibility ranked near the top. I wanted to make sure that any rules we changed were adaptable to the extensive body of work that exists for the 3.5 rules set. In addition to being compatible, I wanted to ensure that any conversion work would be minimal. In most cases, this meant adding to existing rules, instead of subtracting. So, while we changed the way turning undead works, we did not remove turning undead from the game. We added options to the fighter without removing any of them. This design philosophy doesn't always hold true, however. Some skills were combined and a few disappeared altogether (goodbye Use Rope). Whenever I broke this rule, it was because the other guidelines took precedence.
What's Next?
That's simple. Play. Incorporate these rules into your existing campaign or start up a whole new campaign using these rules to influence your decisions. We want to know what works and what needs more work, and we can't think of a better way to do that than getting thousands of gamers to help. As we release more rules, incorporate those into your game as well.
Your feedback and playtest reports will be used to help tune these rules. Your experiences will help guide the design from this point forward. By this coming August, we will offer the Beta release of these rules. These rules will hit our website as a free PDF and as a standalone book. While these rules will be approaching their final state, we want to leave the door open for some additional changes and revisions along the way, culminating in the finished Pathfinder RPG, to be released in August 2009. At that point, all Pathfinder products, including Pathfinder, the Pathfinder Companion, the Pathfinder Modules, and Pathfinder Chronicles supplements will convert to these rules. For more information on this process, including how to get involved and where to submit feedback, see the Playtesting chapter at the end of this document.
Once again, thank you for investigating the Pathfinder RPG. We look forward to hearing from you.
—Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
-Sorry Rich I think I will stay 3.5. I will honestly look at the 4E rules, but I think that the Realms are DEAD TO ME NOW.
I will still read the novels, though, and look forward to your next set of Novels Rich.:D LONG LIVE THE REALMS
18DELTA:D
I guess the effort of conversion from 3.5 to 4E is subjective. I like how my campaign is turning out and would like to keep it going but I know my group and I will want to use 4E as soon as it comes out. I would like to pick the campaign back up after we figure out the rules a bit so being able to convert them over is important. I don't think any of us care if it is a perfect conversion, they just want to use their PCs in 4E. If we have a good rules lawyer/number cruncher in our group do you think it is feasable to convert really monstrous pcs over? If you cannot answer now will you be able to do so in a month or so?
DELTA, thank's for the article. I'm reading the PDFs and the changes to the rules seem really good, enough for me to not change to 4th edition.
If, by good enough, you mean cheap, underhanded knock-off of D&D with a pinch of Saga and a dash of 4e, then yes I suppose it is good.
If, by good enough, you mean cheap, underhanded knock-off of D&D with a pinch of Saga and a dash of 4e, then yes I suppose it is good.
For an alpha it's good. I loved the fighter's new class features. That's what WotC should do with 4th edition, improve what's already there, not trash it and build something else.
That allows Paizo to have their cake and eat it too, as they can move in either direction freely as the market dictates. Neither of this, nor Paizo's decision mean anything for a game that has yet to be released. You talk about 4e as if it's been out for 6-8 months and had terrible sales, and Paizo was the last hope for this edition's commercial success.
If you like their stuff, go right ahead, enjoy it. I love much of their work, and if I wish to play it unmodified, I'll use their rules, but I can also purchase, play, and (I hope) enjoy 4e, without having my 1e/2e/3.x/Paizo/GURPS/CP2020/L5R/Palladium/etc. books bursting into flames.
This teapot, it has a tempest.
I have no plroblem with Paizo and Necromancer Games partnering together like that. Paizo see's that there will still be a market for 3.5. WotC keeps talking about NEW PLAYERS AND NEW DM'S playing 4E. I guess I will stay 3.5. I understand the Business aspect, they want to grow the game for the future. That means new players and new dm's. I for one am looking forward to adapting the Pathfinder subscription over to the Realms!:D Unless I really like the default world that it is going to be set in18DELTA
-I did type in d20, didn't I? :P
-From what I've been told of it, most of the Saga rules fit mostly seamlessly (with a few exceptions, such as Skills) with the "old" d20 Star Wars rules. Taking that as it is, it shouldn't be necessarily too difficult to do that with 3e to 4e.
-Rich, I've asked this before, but it probably got lost in the clutter. So, I'll ask again:
As has been pointed out to me, the Worlds and Monsters preview book mentions unfamiliar names as the rulers of the Seelie Court. What happened to Titania and Oberon?
In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
-Rich what is your take on PAIZO STAYING 3.5E?
-Sorry Rich I think I will stay 3.5. I will honestly look at the 4E rules, but I think that the Realms are DEAD TO ME NOW.
LONG LIVE THE REALMS
18DELTA:D
We don't have a tool like level adjustment any more to say "This race is just better than average," so you'll want your minotaurs (or whatever) to start off on fair footing with other characters.
Rich
I guess the effort of conversion from 3.5 to 4E is subjective. I like how my campaign is turning out and would like to keep it going but I know my group and I will want to use 4E as soon as it comes out. I would like to pick the campaign back up after we figure out the rules a bit so being able to convert them over is important. I don't think any of us care if it is a perfect conversion, they just want to use their PCs in 4E. If we have a good rules lawyer/number cruncher in our group do you think it is feasable to convert really monstrous pcs over? If you cannot answer now will you be able to do so in a month or so?
I'm just going to guess, because I didn't write the piece in question, and I don't recall any around-the-office conversation... but in general we're moving toward a mythology that's our own, as opposed to one cobbled together from real-world sources. We didn't come up with Titania and Oberon. There are some notable exceptions to this general trend (Tiamat, for example), but I think that's because the exceptions tend to be names that have played a very big role in D&D for a long time. Titania and Oberon haven't ever been very prominent in any edition of the game.
-Right...So, they've become Tofu...
In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
-Oh, how that quote is going to begin to circulate...:D
Hey Rich, Is there going to be a greater effort on the part of the designers and editors to cut down on the inconsistencies and unclear wording of rules(both in the Realms and D&D in general)? I mean for the most part most of the arguements that start at my gaming tables is mostly due to these.
In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
*chuckles*
Edit; Question, are there any powers that scale with level or do they just get turned in for an upgrade?
That's sort of a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question, isn't it?
Are you saying he's begging the question?
I mean, I don't think you can legitimately dismiss the concern that a lot of the game text in 3.5E books were muddy and unclear, or allowed multiple interpretations. Just hop over to the CO board and check the billions of arguments on what such-and-such passage really meant, "RAW"-wise.
Personally, I think DDI will help this. So this segues perfectly into my question:
Are you guys willing to modify the rules database on DDI (or the individual rulebook PDFs) frequently, now that you can? In 3.5E, errata came about once every six months, and you guys would claim to "save" up errata to be released all at once, except you would end up saving errata for months and months, and sometimes never even release it. Example: I still don't know if Rainbow servant's spell progression table has been errata'd. This is Complete Frickin' Divine from like May 2004. Like four years ago. The last time the errata was updated for CD? Sept 2004.
Hmmm, maybe. Once you see how we set up the other races in the game, you'll have a good model to follow and several examples of different "tools" for racial powers. It shouldn't be too hard to build a new race to that standard. As long as you give New Race X the same amount of ability adjustments and special advantages comparable to the advantages other races get, you should be OK. For example, the monster description in the MM ought to give you ideas for which ability scores the critter ought to get boosts in.
We don't have a tool like level adjustment any more to say "This race is just better than average," so you'll want your minotaurs (or whatever) to start off on fair footing with other characters.
They are ninth level now and will be tenth when 4E comes out I bet. I plan on running another low level game to get us used to the rules then when we get to what their levels should be in 4E will will switch over and try the conversion. Unless they really love my 4E starter game.;)
Thanks
WizO_Chaos
Sorry, but I feel it's sort of bad form to comment on another company's plans. I know most of the guys over at Paizo, and I wish them well.
-Cool I can live with that.;)
In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
-
Rich I have to put that in my sig you know!!!:D And NO you CAN'T have my books!!!:P I live in the FEYWILD dude in case you want to come get my books!!!:fight!: 
:fight!: 18DELTA:D
That's sort of a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question, isn't it?
Um...not really...or are you saying that everything that was in 3.5 clear cut. That the Realms were consistent thoughout the editions?
I mean isn't one of the reasons for the Spellplague to make the older lore less revelent(though not gone) so you guys can tell ther stories you want to tell inthe Realms without some Realms fanatic pointing out all the inconsistency in the story?
Or one of the main goals of 4th edition is to cut down on rules arguements? I mean having clear cut rules would do that wouldn't it?
I mean WotC game books is probably the best edited RPG books out there...though that is like saying it is the fastest snail out there. It has been a problem with the industry since the start.
I was wondering if WotC was going to take this opportunity to correct this problem. It wasn't a trap question and I apologize if you took it as so. It was a honest question.
In related news, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate your 3.5 rulebooks, and force you to convert to the new edition. Where do you live?
Come on Rich be honest the I know the truth
That you guys treated all the 3.x books with a chemical that will cause the books to distingrate on the day before 4th edition was released...
Is Leadership a feat in 4ed? Or is Leadership now like the perform, craft or profession skill? If you want to be a good dancer, you are a good dancer.
What will happen to the Kingdom of Najara? Is the Kingdom now a major player or divided into barbarian tribes?
Are you saying he's begging the question?
I mean, I don't think you can legitimately dismiss the concern that a lot of the game text in 3.5E books were muddy and unclear, or allowed multiple interpretations. Just hop over to the CO board and check the billions of arguments on what such-and-such passage really meant, "RAW"-wise.
He means the answer is obvious - the question is just rhetorical and worded intentionally to make WotC look bad whichever way they answer. The truth is obvious because every successful company makes great effort to release good product. In this case, releasing rules that are clear and unambiguous is an obvious goal. It is clear to me as a player of 3e and earlier that not only have they made great strides in clarity over earlier editions, but also that one can never be perfect, and as the rules are utilized in more and more complex circumstances as players explore all avenues in ways that only table-top rpgs lend themselves to, problems will be uncovered. That certain players and DMs go out of their way to read interpretations favourable to their cause doesn't help matters.
He means the answer is obvious - the question is just rhetorical and worded intentionally to make WotC look bad whichever way they answer. The truth is obvious because every successful company makes great effort to release good product. In this case, releasing rules that are clear and unambiguous is an obvious goal. It is clear to me as a player of 3e and earlier that not only have they made great strides in clarity over earlier editions, but also that one can never be perfect, and as the rules are utilized in more and more complex circumstances as players explore all avenues in ways that only table-top rpgs lend themselves to, problems will be uncovered. That certain players and DMs go out of their way to read interpretations favourable to their cause doesn't help matters.
Um...not really obvious here to me atleast. I have seen no move to better coordinate the novels and game soucebooks among themselves. Like hiring a editor who's job is to keep things straight.
I see alot of editors like Logan Bonner who in didn't even really seem to know the rules of 3.x not only critizing the rules he doesn't even know( Tumble is not a skill that can be used untrained, as Mr. Bonner stated in the Wizards Present Races and Classes book). I mean if the writers can't take a second to double check himself on his facts shouldn't the editor, who's job it is, do so?
Also that is another question will errata be free or do you have to subscibe to DDI to get it? That is highly questionable it would be like if car companies starting to charge their custoners for recalls.
I have even said have seen improvements I am wondering if things are going to improve though I haven't really seen anything that suggests so of yet and I figure I give Mr. Baker a chance to knock my socks off with what they are doing in this regards.
Scarey, huh?
John, what you don't seem to be getting is that THEY ARE DOING THEIR BEST!
Scarey, huh?
What is the old saying...oh yes the reason I laugh at the world is because if I didn't I would cry...something like that.
Now before we get 'erased' by a mod, let's see now...
Question
With the High Ice melting in Northern Anauroch, will the Empyreal Citadel beneath it be revealed, and will it wind up in contention with Shade (New Empire of Netheril)?
It was mentioned in 2e Warriors of Heaven, as a Celestial base against the inevitable Fiendpurge of Hellgate Keep, but I don't believe it was ever actually used for that.
Would make a rather intersting "Point of Light". ;)
Sounds apt...
Now before we get 'erased' by a mod, let's see now...
Question
With the High Ice melting in Northern Anauroch, will the Empyreal Citadel beneath it be revealed, and will it wind up in contention with Shade (New Empire of Netheril)?
It was mentioned in 2e Warriors of Heaven, as a Celestial base against the inevitable Fiendpurge against Hellgate Keep, but I don't believe it was ever actually used for that.
Would make a rather intersting "Point of Light". ;)
Wow, good question Markus, I second this!
Are you guys willing to modify the rules database on DDI (or the individual rulebook PDFs) frequently, now that you can? In 3.5E, errata came about once every six months, and you guys would claim to "save" up errata to be released all at once, except you would end up saving errata for months and months, and sometimes never even release it. Example: I still don't know if Rainbow servant's spell progression table has been errata'd. This is Complete Frickin' Divine from like May 2004. Like four years ago. The last time the errata was updated for CD? Sept 2004.
Regarding Najara, yes -- it's still around in 1479, and it's a significant problem for some of the nearby lands.
Hello Rich
Is Leadership a feat in 4ed? Or is Leadership now like the perform, craft or profession skill? If you want to be a good dancer, you are a good dancer.
What will happen to the Kingdom of Najara? Is the Kingdom now a major player or divided into barbarian tribes?
Come on Rich be honest the I know the truth
That you guys treated all the 3.x books with a chemical that will cause the books to distingrate on the day before 4th edition was released...
Boy! am I ever glad I play 1ED, my books are blessed by Gary Gygax.
Um...not really obvious here to me atleast. I have seen no move to better coordinate the novels and game soucebooks among themselves. Like hiring a editor who's job is to keep things straight.
It seems as though you have quietly slipped from your initial point (which as I recall was about rule clarity and unambiguity) and into some other point. If you have conceded the previous point, say so. If not, say why.
I see alot of editors like Logan Bonner who in didn't even really seem to know the rules of 3.x not only critizing the rules he doesn't even know( Tumble is not a skill that can be used untrained, as Mr. Bonner stated in the Wizards Present Races and Classes book). I mean if the writers can't take a second to double check himself on his facts shouldn't the editor, who's job it is, do so?
So you take something that is either a typo or a mistake, and expand into some kind of over-arching attitude that in your opinion permeates the company? I have been reading books for 40 years and I have yet to find one that does not have a single mistake in it somewhere. Something as complex and large in scope as an RPG game rules book is certain to have a number of errors in it. I personally can hardly write a forum post without finding some error in it just after I hit submit.
I suggest to you the WotC publish materials of perhaps the highest quality in the industry. I have purchased numerous other RPG products, and although occasionally there will be a third party product I find truly outstanding, it is against WotC that I measure it.
Also that is another question will errata be free or do you have to subscibe to DDI to get it? That is highly questionable it would be like if car companies starting to charge their custoners for recalls.
"Will I get a good deal or are you going to rip me off horrendously"? Try that line on the next person working on something you want to buy.
Thats one of the things that leaves me shaking my head when I read a WotC sourcebook. Maybe smaller companies have less to 'control' and keep track of, and thats why blatant lore errors don't creep in constantly.
Just one more reason why RPGs need to stay a 'cottage' industry. ;)
- And I didn't pay for the typos, therefore they aren't mine, and I should return them all to WotC. I only paid for a good product, and thats what I want. If I buy a new car, and the door handle falls off, am I just going to except the salesmen telling me "they must have missed that at the factory".
No... I'm going to buy a different car... from someone else. There is NO excuse for bad editting - its just plain laziness, or they need to hire someone capable of doing the job. I spot EVERY error in a sourcebook the first time through - why can't they?
Hell... I'm not even asking for 'great' anymore, just good.
It seems as though you have quietly slipped from your initial point (which as I recall was about rule clarity and unambiguity) and into some other point. If you have conceded the previous point, say so. If not, say why.
I haven't concede anything...I am still waiting for a reply.
So you take something that is either a typo or a mistake, and expand into some kind of over-arching attitude that in your opinion permeates the company? I have been reading books for 40 years and I have yet to find one that does not have a single mistake in it somewhere. Something as complex and large in scope as an RPG game rules book is certain to have a number of errors in it. I personally can hardly write a forum post without finding some error in it just after I hit submit.
Sorry but perhaps you should read the section I am talking about and how it makes him look like a complete moron. Also it took me a minute to confirm the error. And really it is but one example of mistakes(it was no typo not even close)
I suggest to you the WotC publish materials of perhaps the highest quality in the industry. I have purchased numerous other RPG products, and although occasionally there will be a third party product I find truly outstanding, it is against WotC that I measure it.
I think I have said the same thing several times now but if they looking to improve why not improve on that aspect as well? I see no reason why they shouldn't try.
"Will I get a good deal or are you going to rip me off horrendously"? Try that line on the next person working on something you want to buy.
If a car company saids you will have to pay to fix a recall issue...guess what I don't need to ask that question now do I?
Also as a side note this a question for Richard Baker or any WotC staff member. It wasn't meant as a trap question or anything else. If they don't want to answear that is their right and I don't begggrudge them that right. But your responses are not the point of this thread. I really (no offense) could care less about your opinion here as it is as meanless unless you are a WotC design team or editor. Which you haven't presented yourself as so I'll assume you are not.
If Rich and the rest want to ignore the question then let them.
and said he wouldn't dignify it with an answer. :P
Lets see... I can't keep 'chatting' in here without questions, soooo....
Question:
What, if any, plans do you guys have for other settings, beside FR and Eberron?
Truth be told, I am amazed at the sheer quality of MOST of the 3rd party books I own (and I own quite a lot).
Thats one of the things that leaves me shaking my head when I read a WotC sourcebook. Maybe smaller companies have less to 'control' and keep track of, and thats why blatant lore errors don't creep in constantly.
Just one more reason why RPGs need to stay a 'cottage' industry. ;)
- And I didn't pay for the typos, therefore they aren't mine, and I should return them all to WotC. I only paid for a good product, and thats what I want. If I buy a new car, and the door handle falls off, am I just going to except the salesmen telling me "they must have missed that at the factory".
No... I'm going to buy a different car... from someone else. There is NO excuse for bad editting - its just plain laziness, or they need to hire someone capable of doing the job. I spot EVERY error in a sourcebook the first time through - why can't they?
Hell... I'm not even asking for 'great' anymorre, just good.
Yet you use "thats" instead of "that's" repeatedly, and type "editting" instead of "editing". Not a good indication that your claim of spotting "EVERY error in a source book" is accurate.
Anyone can make mistakes, particularly in large projects. I know I do. I've never seen the source code of a program of significant size that was error-free and and could not be rewritten more efficiently, even from major companies.
I agree that errata should be available at no charge, but mistakes are excusable.
Tom Bollis
Also, were any areas of Toril shunted into Abeir?
Has there been any though given to "opening" Abeir to players, or have these two worlds merged and melted together to form a single planet/Prime Material Plane (what can I say, I'm stuck in my ways ;))
Regarding errors in published works, I have found it necessary to maintain a certain level of tolerance regarding this.
If they don't effect rule interpretations, then, minor typos, grammatical errors, punctuation errors, and extremely minor typesetting errors are tolerable in small doses (maybe one per chapter).
More obvious typesetting errors, unreadable text, unclear/ambiguous/poorly written rules, and/or an abundance of the aforementioned errors are not acceptable.
For instance:
A sample combat scene is given, and the first letter of the name of one character isn't capitalized. I don't care, as it doesn't stop me from using the book in a meaningful way.
Another example (from a company other than WotC)
A paragraph begins describing the effect of a very specific, yet widely available weapon. The paragraph ends mid-sentence and is blank down to the bottom of the page. That is completely and utterly unacceptable. I did not expect an important section to have been so throughly devoid of proof reading. Come to think of it, had I noticed it at the time, I shouldn't have asked the author to sign it at that con, but instead handed it back to him with highlighting marks and asked for a new, corrected book.
Yet you use "thats" instead of "that's" repeatedly, and type "editting" instead of "editing". Not a good indication that your claim of spotting "EVERY error in a source book" is accurate.
You're absolutely right!!!
The HUNDREDS of mistakes I spot must only be the tip of the iceberg!
Thanks for pointing that out... by the way, you missed the two 'r' in 'anymore'. ;)
All that I think that the exarchs and the gods will be in 4ED are just the high end of the monsters for the heroes to kill. :raincloud
After the Devs said that a high level [30] group should be able to kill a god if they wanted to, kinda made clear who their target audience is doesn't it?
Curious. I know people who played the game since 1E and they killed Surter back in the day and split up his sword into mini swords. How did 4E create the whole "god killing" genre if they were already doing it in 1E? Deities and Demigods was just a SUPER Monster Manual to many gamers.
Here is the point. 1E players are not different than 4E players. Some want to kill gods and some just want to roleplay, and some want to do both. You are not better than younger gamers.
Ergo, the people who 'went after the Gods' were not following the rulebook. ;)
Also, there was a creature called "The Assassin of the Gods"... why would he exist if such a thing were not special? Would they ever name something "Assassin of the Orcs? That would just be stupid.
Yes, some people (with serious personality issues) felt they needed to kill the gods in every edition, but that was never a GOAL before. Now it appears that God-Slaying is a built-in feature of Epic games.
I could care less what other people like, but I don't want their (awful) way of playing forced on me. God-Slaying will never be a part of any game I participate in - I'm perfectly comfortable excepting the fact that their are others more powerful then myself.
Besides, everyone knows that if you kill a god in a game, you go to Hell in real life. :P
Another example: You could make an argument that the barbarians of the Ride and the Nar barbarians are essentially the same. If you really wanted to minimalize these elements, you'd do away with the Ride barbarians. But we're keeping them both. As it happens we don't talk about the Ride very much in the new FRCG (it's pretty far out of the way), but we're not going to do away with its distinct barbarians. They're still there.
Rich, I think I see a consistent minimalism in the new design philosophy, whereby setting elements that fulfil roughly the same purpose are reduced. Is that accurate?
Curious. I know people who played the game since 1E and they killed Surter back in the day and split up his sword into mini swords. How did 4E create the whole "god killing" genre if they were already doing it in 1E? Deities and Demigods was just a SUPER Monster Manual to many gamers.
Here is the point. 1E players are not different than 4E players. Some want to kill gods and some just want to roleplay, and some want to do both. You are not better than younger gamers. Get over yourself please. Thanks.
Rauric, did I cut you off in traffic, steal your table in the cafeteria, or some how offend you in a past life?
This is the second thread that I have found you singling me out for what I see as having the massive sin of not being a 4ED fanboy.
You don't seem to like the fact that I play 1ED at all.
Just what is your problem?
If your characters are the most powerful mortal heroes imaginable (i.e. 30th level) it seems pretty reasonable to at least open the door for taking on a god. It could be hard--the characters might have to quest for exactly the right weapon to be used in exactly the right way at exactly the right time--but it doesn't seem out of bounds.
And if you really don't like the idea of PCs being the most powerful mortal heroes imaginable, cap your level advancement at 21st and restart with new characters when your PCs reach epic level.
Another example: You could make an argument that the barbarians of the Ride and the Nar barbarians are essentially the same. If you really wanted to minimalize these elements, you'd do away with the Ride barbarians.
And both are decendents of the wandering Gur from the East (a 'Turkic' people). ;)
Just to comment - I am a BIG fan of reducing mechanics and not flavor, and if that is the way of things in 4e, then that's a positive for me. How many different types of 'flying ships' do we need, if they all basically do the same thing? Keep the fluff seperate from world to world, but one set of rules for each is perfectly exceptable.
You know, like calling the Warforged 'Bloodforged'. :P
And if you really don't like the idea of PCs being the most powerful mortal heroes imaginable, cap your level advancement at 21st and restart with new characters when your PCs reach epic level.
-21st Level hardly makes one the most powerful hero in the world. Just sayin'.
There's plenty of fantasy literature tradition for fighting gods. Michael Moorcock's stuff springs to mind, but even in Tolkien you had things like Elendil's duel with Sauron, or Fingolfin's challenge to Morgoth. Heck, the backstory on Bane, Myrkul, and Bhaal has them challenging Jergal.
If your characters are the most powerful mortal heroes imaginable (i.e. 30th level) it seems pretty reasonable to at least open the door for taking on a god. It could be hard--the characters might have to quest for exactly the right weapon to be used in exactly the right way at exactly the right time--but it doesn't seem out of bounds.
And if you really don't like the idea of PCs being the most powerful mortal heroes imaginable, cap your level advancement at 21st and restart with new characters when your PCs reach epic level.
Hello Rich, I had my players ask about killing Shar more than two and a half years ago. I did not expressly forbid it, I did indeed make it exceedingly difficult . :evillaugh
Their plots involved slowly depopulating the realms of her worshippers, shrines, and temples. A long and arduous quest for the dagger of Jathiman that was used to slay Borem ended up with attempts to use him as a tool against Cyric [bit off more than they could chew there] and trying to use the tarrasque to stalk and hut down Shar's avatars.
They still have more than six months to go on their quest before they see results...I am now getting bribes of pizza and beer in an attempt to sway my decision...:D
My question...yes I do have one! Is that in earlier settings the gods power was based on their worshippers. Would the tactic of slowly killing off a gods power base of worshippers, clerics,shrines and temples still work in 4ED?
Or do the gods get their power in another way?
Thank you for your time!
It was stated by you earlier this year that WoTC intended to cut down the number of gods in FR to between 20 and 30 and most current gods would become divine figures serving these remaining gods. I believe it is probably a good idea to cut down the number of gods in FR however, I was shocked by the number WoTC is planning on cutting (demoting). I think being a lesser or greater deity is a big deal and I really don't like the prospect of some of the popular deities like Loviatar, Red Knight, Sharess or some race specific deities like Rillifane Rallathil, or Arvoreen only being divine figures for other deities. So I have a question for you.
Would WoTC consider producing a future optional FR supplement (Faiths and Pantheons 2 if you will) with some of the popular demoted gods detailed as lesser deities?
I think this sort of book would be popular as it would effectively increase the pantheon to around 50 to 60 and it would be optional so those people who only wanted 20 to 30 deities could still have that.
Would WoTC consider producing a future optional FR supplement (Faiths and Pantheons 2 if you will) with some of the popular demoted gods detailed as lesser deities?
-As of last time he was asked, Rich stated that there were no plans to publish another book like that for 4e. The information contained within the 4e FRCS is going to be "it", for the time being.
-21st Level hardly makes one the most powerful hero in the world. Just sayin'.
Considering that most Inn-Keepers in the Realms were around 18th level (:P ), that would make deicide a fairly common occurrece.
In fact, I would never want to become a god in the 4e game - its the equivalent of painting a target on your back.
There's plenty of fantasy literature tradition for fighting gods. Michael Moorcock's stuff springs to mind, but even in Tolkien you had things like Elendil's duel with Sauron, or Fingolfin's challenge to Morgoth. Heck, the backstory on Bane, Myrkul, and Bhaal has them challenging Jergal.
Sure and they are David Edding works etc. But if I want that I read fantasy literature.
This is D&D. I think you guys forgot that alone the way in the rush of 4th edition and to publish your stories. It is a RPG...it is not meant to be exactly like the books or movies it is a different type of entertainment. Oh well what done is done.
By the way the cake you guys had to celebrate 4th edition was probably the best cake I have ever saw.( What kind of cake was it?)
I find GAME SETTINGS are so much better to set games in.
More proof that it is now a novel setting FIRST, and a game setting SECOND.
I find GAME SETTINGS are so much better to set games in.
Post deleted as it was insultingly unclear...
-As of last time he was asked, Rich stated that there were no plans to publish another book like that for 4e. The information contained within the 4e FRCS is going to be "it", for the time being.
Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if anyone had asked about this before. I did know that Rich had said WoTC wouldn't backtrack on cutting the number of greater and lesser deities in the upcoming 4th Edition FRCS. I just thought it would be great if sometime in the future they promoted some of the popular deities who became divine saints back to lesser deities in some future supplement. If they did this they could still concentrate most of their efforts outlining the deities in the FRCS and do something for the fans of the popular deities they demoted.
Am I missing the point of your post?
That happened when so want to be novelist game designers and editors realized that here they could get published when no one else would...plus it makes them money.
-21st Level hardly makes one the most powerful hero in the world. Just sayin'.
.
when my characters reach that level, they tend to set up shop in some out of the way, hard to find backwoods village.
you wanna find them start looking for them.
question lets see,
Mr. Baker,oh blast i cant think of one, well i could recycle the last one, but its likely falls under the soon answer.
oh okay here is one, will any of the npcs have a stat block in the frcs?(out side elminster)
John, I can't quite make out what you're saying here. It looks to me like you're calling me a wanna-be novelist who couldn't get published anywhere else and therefore decided to wring a few dollars out of the Realms, regardless of the effect on the setting. I sure hope that's not what you meant, because that would be a pretty incendiary attack -- and frankly isn't remotely true.
Am I missing the point of your post?
You are right it could be taken in that context so I'll delete the post in question. I apologize for the insult to you and any other person on the staff. It wasn't just directed your way to start with.
So let me see if I can clear it up.
It seems to me you guys have lost sight about what a great thing a RPG setting is. As you guys seem to be more concerned about setting your storys in it then keeping the elements that made the FR appeal to soo many fans(more than in the long run than I think the new Realms will attract) as a RPG campaign setting...and that is options. I think you guys have lost sight about the strength of a RPG where it is the players imagination is the limit not the games or yours.
One of my biggest disappointments about 4th edition overall is the skill system...I like spending the skill points each level fleshing out my character...I can understand why some people might not like it but they could just pick x skills and just keep them maxed. But in 4th edition I don't have a option to do this now do I?
I think the whole thing about 4th edition that bothers me is the fact that all the options and depth are really the two sacred cows I see being slaughtered on the alter of simplicity. Sure I know(unlike many people who will like 4th edition) that a character is more than the numbers on the character sheet but the best thing about 3.x was that it was that mechanics would support your concept...here I don't see it as much.
In one of the Wizards Presents books you mentioned to decide which race would make the cut or not you pretty much looked around the boards and what people in the office were playing. That is just a small number of players it is not even funny.
I am just thinking to myself the game I play is very different from the games that happen in office. But atleast in 3.x we could sit down at the same table and pretty much enjoy the same game. Now with 4th edition I just don't see it.
I guess my point is that I think you guys have just lost sight what made D&D great. Atleast in my opinion. Anyway sorry for the ramble.
No more setting up shop - you need to go kill gods now. :D
become all powerful, find a god kill him, find another god kill him too, hack and slash your way to immortality and have all the goddesses to yourself.....
naaah.
-I don't think it's a good move, personally, since it subtracts from everything- deities get less room in the 350+ page 4e FRCS equivalent, and everything else gets less room because of the fact that deities are included, taking up that many pages- but, it's not my decision to make...
I don't think cutting to between 20 and 30 deities is a good move either. I don't know which deities are getting demoted. I just know it will be a lot of deities including some very popular ones because they have only killed of a few deities up till now and only so many can be combined to cut the numbers down. I understand why WoTC want to cut down the number of deities in the setting. They think some are never getting used in peoples campaigns. I just think 20 to 30 is too few and 50 to 60 would be a better number to have. 50 to 60 gods in the setting would mean non human races could have 2 to 3 deities of their own and I don't think we would run such a big risk of losing popular lesser deities. I'll not say anything else on the issue I don't want to clutter the thread.
That said if you are reading this Rich I just thought I'd say other than the the above issue and Halruaa blowing up I think you and WoTC are doing a great job with 4th Edition and I'm looking forward to June when the books start to come out.
Are we just trying to find something to b__ch about until the next article? Really, the pantheonic down-sizing is the very least of what they intend to do. Give it a week, and let them do another 'Countdon to Arme... the Realms' feature - this way we we can have brand-new, never-seen-before ammuntition to use.
I hate 4e as much as the next guy, but re-hashing OLD arguments is getting kinda dull.
I don't think cutting to between 20 and 30 deities is a good move either. I don't know which deities are getting demoted. I just know it will be a lot of deities including some very popular ones because they have only killed of a few deities up till now and only so many can be combined to cut the numbers down. I understand why WoTC want to cut down the number of deities in the setting. They think some are never getting used in peoples campaigns. I just think 20 to 30 is too few and 50 to 60 would be a better number to have. 50 to 60 gods in the setting would mean non human races could have 2 to 3 deities of their own and I don't think we would run such a big risk of losing popular lesser deities. I'll not say anything else on the issue I don't want to clutter the thread.
That said if you are reading this Rich I just thought I'd say other than the the above issue and Halruaa blowing up I think you and WoTC are doing a great job with 4th Edition and I'm looking forward to June when the books start to come out.
I think the dieities that get demoted will be around and can still have churches and be prayed to. They just are not the ones granting spells. That is the job of their Patron deity now, the one that helped them through the Planar crisis years ago. So the deities can and will probably exist but just will not be detailed in the main book. The 20 to 30 will Greater gods most likely.
Sure and they are David Edding works etc. But if I want that I read fantasy literature.
This is D&D. I think you guys forgot that alone the way in the rush of 4th edition and to publish your stories. It is a RPG...it is not meant to be exactly like the books or movies it is a different type of entertainment. Oh well what done is done.
So what exactly is your complaint here? That killing gods is not very RPGlike?
I think challenging gods is very D&D. As Rich pointed out you can find storys of powerful mortals destroying gods several times in the history of the FR. The most prominent are Bane, Myrkul, Baal (who killed one of the seven lost gods before fighting theyre way to Jergal) and Finder Wyvernspur.
I don't see how this is inappropriate for an RPG where PCs can be incredibly powerful and exceptional heroes.
-I hope that clears things up.
Rich, Orcs, goblins and hobgoblins are playable in MM right?
How is this done. Will there be two writeups for them?
What I am saying is that first of all it's not really up for debate anymore since clearly most of the new books are already written and will not change due to people cluttering down this thread with complaints and arguments.
Second of all Rich is answering questions. He is probably not interested in reading whole pages of people arguing the pros and cons of the new edition. I know I sure am not. I haven't been on this thread for more than twenty pages or so and already i have seen the same people post the same stuff over and over already to the point where I am sick of it.
I don't really believe in censorship but i do believe that when someone throws you a bone and actually takes the time to answer some questions you don't return the favor by biting his head of every time he pops up and says something or use the this already very long thread for endless repitative whining.
Now with that said on to my question.
I notice that there has been mention of both Sune and Selune in the prerelease buzz. I take it that means that they are both part of the new pantheon. Will this mean that they will actually be mentioned as worshipped deities in some regions. I was wondering because even though the worship of Sune was supposed to be widespread and she was a greater deity with romantic knights running around the countryside questing in her favor very few of the nations in the setting actually even mentioned her in their entries as a good worshipped there. Or will it be assumed that all gods are worshipped in every part of the setting?
Selune was of course a much more obscure deity but one of the coolest of the bunch and with Mystra gone i take it the rivalry between her and Shaar will be a major focus for some parts of the setting and her worship would probably be on the rise right? Possibly many of Mystras more good aligned worshippers actually switched to Selune even once the dust settled a little?
I know you are not supposed to be getting too much into specifics but my question is more about the fact that some deities that were supposed to be major in the setting felt kind of marginalized in the last edition and I was hoping that now that there are less gods perhapps the lady of the lake.. er.. Sune Firehair and Selune will get more limelight.
Oh yeah. Chauntea and several other deities that were supposed to have a really big following was also kind of underused IMO.
This crap is completely uncalled for. Rick Baker comes here and goes out of his way to answer our questions that we might have. We appreciate what he's doing and coming on here to b**** and whine, be a ****head and otherwise muck up this thread with that trash is a disservice to him and the rest of us that actually enjoy the chance we get to talk to a Dev.
Grow up and find another thread to soil.
....Question; Will there be adventures that span all 30 levels that are FR specific?
I think the Epic levels will get you in the "killing Exarchs" range. At that point I think you will be able to kill godlike beings but not the gods themselves.
From what I've read of the 4E rules, PCs will indeed be able to take on actual gods, not just exarchs.
I think the Epic levels will get you in the "killing Exarchs" range. At that point I think you will be able to kill godlike beings but not the gods themselves. Again, I would not run a god killing campaign or really want to be a part of that campaign as a player.
-Exarchs...Deities...They are all the same. At least, we know they are. Someone kills Nobanion the "Exarch", Nobanion is still dead.
-I would never run such a campaign either, and, as a player, I don't think I'd appreciate such a campaign, but, remember one thing: There are people who are. People who, theoretically, while playing Living Forgotten Realms, can kill, say, Nobanion forever more...
This crap is completely uncalled for. Rick Baker comes here and goes out of his way to answer our questions that we might have. We appreciate what he's doing and coming on here to b**** and whine, be a ****head and otherwise muck up this thread with that trash is a disservice to him and the rest of us that actually enjoy the chance we get to talk to a Dev.
Grow up and find another thread to soil.
-That's the beauty of the U.S. Constitution. Said poster can say whatever he wants, so long as it does not violate the WotC CoC, which it does not.
-That's also the beauty of a capitalism. Your boss says, "Hey, will give you an extra $10 a week if you answer questions on the message boards a few times a week", and you do it, getting an extra $10 a week.
We've kicked around the idea that a greater god like Moradin could handle Orcus, but couldn't handle Orcus and Demogorgon together. Hence, the greater gods are cautious about picking fights with demons, because you never know if Demogorgon and Grazzt are hiding just around the corner, waiting to jump out and ambush you. That would suggest that Moradin (or any greater god, really) is maybe something like level 37 or 38. He's going to be out of the reach of even 30th-level PCs. That's why I said that taking on a god might involve a whole chain of epic quests to line things up just right--to find the weapon, the place, and the time where you catch a Bane or Shar at their weakest.
So, to sum up: Any high-epic party will likely do in an archdevil, exarch, or demon prince somewhere in their last four or five levels of adventuring, possibly even two or three if the DM sets up the adventures that way. But taking out a greater power is probably something you only do once, and even then, you only do it if the DM decides to make it the theme of the last big adventure your characters have as mortal heroes. It's hardly working your way through Deities & Demigods in alphabetical order.
From what I've read of the 4E rules, PCs will indeed be able to take on actual gods, not just exarchs.
Now with that said on to my question.
I notice that there has been mention of both Sune and Selune in the prerelease buzz. I take it that means that they are both part of the new pantheon. Will this mean that they will actually be mentioned as worshipped deities in some regions. I was wondering because even though the worship of Sune was supposed to be widespread and she was a greater deity with romantic knights running around the countryside questing in her favor very few of the nations in the setting actually even mentioned her in their entries as a good worshipped there. Or will it be assumed that all gods are worshipped in every part of the setting?
Selune was of course a much more obscure deity but one of the coolest of the bunch and with Mystra gone i take it the rivalry between her and Shaar will be a major focus for some parts of the setting and her worship would probably be on the rise right? Possibly many of Mystras more good aligned worshippers actually switched to Selune even once the dust settled a little?
I know you are not supposed to be getting too much into specifics but my question is more about the fact that some deities that were supposed to be major in the setting felt kind of marginalized in the last edition and I was hoping that now that there are less gods perhapps the lady of the lake.. er.. Sune Firehair and Selune will get more limelight.
Oh yeah. Chauntea and several other deities that were supposed to have a really big following was also kind of underused IMO.
I think the Epic levels will get you in the "killing Exarchs" range. At that point I think you will be able to kill godlike beings but not the gods themselves. Again, I would not run a god killing campaign or really want to be a part of that campaign as a player.
Rich, Orcs, goblins and hobgoblins are playable in MM right?
How is this done. Will there be two writeups for them?
-I would never run such a campaign either, and, as a player, I don't think I'd appreciate such a campaign, but, remember one thing: There are people who are. People who, theoretically, while playing Living Forgotten Realms, can kill, say, Nobanion forever more...
Except that the LFR are strictly controlled in what they release in modules, so such a thing would not happen unless it was intended as a larger plot arc approved by the powers that be.
-That's the beauty of the U.S. Constitution. Said poster can say whatever he wants, so long as it does not violate the WotC CoC, which it does not.
Sure, people can be as unpleasant and unreasonable as they like in public. They do not automatically have that same right on corporate or private property. Likewise, it doesn't mean others can't call him a dumb-arse.
-That's also the beauty of a capitalism. Your boss says, "Hey, will give you an extra $10 a week if you answer questions on the message boards a few times a week", and you do it, getting an extra $10 a week.
Are you assuming Rich gets more money for answering questions here?
Except that the LFR are strictly controlled in what they release in modules, so such a thing would not happen unless it was intended as a larger plot arc approved by the powers that be.
-I don't know anything about that. But, a DM can't just hit the reset button when/if his players do something totally unexpected. They're supposed to, say, slay Orcus, and instead, they betray Moradin, who they are working for, and kill Moradin. Now what? Actually, truthfully, now what? You are a Living Forgotten Realms guy.
Sure, people can be as unpleasant and unreasonable as they like in public. They do not automatically have that same right on corporate or private property. Likewise, it doesn't mean others can't call him a dumb-arse.
-Of course not, which is why I included the "so long as it does not violate the WotC CoC".
Are you assuming Rich gets more money for answering questions here?
-If not money, which was just my hypothetical example, it pads his resume. Customer service experience. That's how I'd exaggerate it, to make me look better.
-I don't know anything about that. But, a DM can't just hit the reset button when/if his players do something totally unexpected. They're supposed to, say, slay Orcus, and instead, they betray Moradin, who they are working for, and kill Moradin. Now what? Actually, truthfully, now what? You are a Living Forgotten Realms guy.
I can't answer all such questions with concrete answers, but having said that, not every LFR event will automatically advance canon (since every game can obviously have different outcomes).
Moradin as a greater god would be much higher level than Orcus (33) - and as a result, much harder to harm. Plus - if I were designing the adventure, I would not put the stats for Moradin into an adventure where the players were supposed to kill Orcus. No stats - no kill.
-If not money, which was just my hypothetical example, it pads his resume. Customer service experience. That's how I'd exaggerate it, to make me look better.
I would hardly call it exaggeration. Answering complaints here should get him a medal, IMO.
Moradin as a greater god would be much higher level than Orcus (33) - and as a result, much harder to harm. Plus - if I were designing the adventure, I would not put the stats for Moradin into an adventure where the players were supposed to kill Orcus. No stats - no kill.
-Rich just said Moradin now will be, more or less, the equivalent of a Level 37 or 38 character. If a party is Level 30 (or above, if an "Epic, Epic" system is developed), with the right zigging and zagging, they could theoretically take down something with 7-8 more levels. The BBEG in my campaign was designed to be specifically 4 levels higher than the highest level PC, and yet, the PCs still whipped his ass (and, I was playing him about 75% effectiveness). It happens.
-And, not every DM has the..."restraint" to apply the "No stats, no kill" concept. Sadly.
Players: "We turn from Orcus, smiling, and attack Moradin!"
DM: "Moradin's contingencies kick-in, and he is automatically telported to his seat in Dwarfhome, where he begins to rally the rest of the Morndinsamman against any further attacks"
Players: "GULP!!!" "Help?"
Orcus: "Yeah... riiiiiight... "
When you are the DM, NOTHING can happen that you do not LET HAPPEN.
I hadn't thought about that before - I had thought the Realms were in worse dire straights once the LFR games kicked in, but those adventures are hand-tailored to affect events in the Realms. They would NEVER create an adventure that would have an outcome against their plans (making the whole 'LFR' concept rather stupid, IMHO - you are being 'lead by the nose' and are merely WotC's 'puppet' to acomplish EXACTLY what they set out to do). LFR DMs can run non-sanctioned games, but those don't count in the LFR canon - they are held 'just for fun'.
Definately not my cup of tea, but at least thats one less thing to worry about. I was afraid the LFR would be re-writing FR lore faster then the designers ever did.
When you are the DM, NOTHING can happen that you do not LET HAPPEN.
I hadn't thought about that before - I had thought the Realms were in worse dire straights once the LFR games kicked in, but those adventures are hand-tailored to affect events in the Realms. They would NEVER create an adventure that would have an outcome against their plans (making the whole 'LFR' concept rather stupid, IMHO - you are being 'lead by the nose' and are merely WotC's 'puppet' to acomplish EXACTLY what they set out to do). LFR DMs can run non-sanctioned games, but those don't count in the LFR canon - they are held 'just for fun'.
-I get all of that, but when there exists a particular DM that thinks it's a cool story, and his campaign just happenes to be an "official one", or the DM is inexperience, or whatever, and rolls with what the players attempt...
When the next sourcebook comes out and it says "a group of adventurers attacked Orcus and drove him form the plane", lots and lots of RPGA people will say "Hey! Thats me!"
But guess what? Thats what would have been printed in the book either way.. your 'fame' is PURE BS, plain and simple. ;)
The whole thing's a con, and thats why I ain't buying it.
And hundreds, perhaps thousands, of 'copies' of that adventure will be run around the globe, and WotC is free to chose whichever particular one they want as the 'canon' version.
When the next sourcebook comes out and it says "a group of adventurers attacked Orcus and drove him form the plane", lots and lots of RPGA people will say "Hey! Thats me!"
But guess what? Thats what would have been printed in the book either way.. your 'fame' is PURE BS, plain and simple. ;)
The whole thing's a con, and thats why I ain't buying it.
-Oh, that's how things work. Didn't know that.
The whole thing's a con, and thats why I ain't buying it.
Since the whole deal is still on the process of being decided, there is nothing to buy, yet.
Since the whole deal is still on the process of being decided, there is nothing to buy, yet.
Now you are just grasping at straws for things others say to complain about.
I hadn't thought about that before - I had thought the Realms were in worse dire straights once the LFR games kicked in, but those adventures are hand-tailored to affect events in the Realms. They would NEVER create an adventure that would have an outcome against their plans (making the whole 'LFR' concept rather stupid, IMHO - you are being 'lead by the nose' and are merely WotC's 'puppet' to acomplish EXACTLY what they set out to do).
It could be done that at a major con, a competition would lead up to the winning players sitting at a table which does decide canon (with obviously a hand picked DM and a well written adventure).
Just an idea. I am not the decision maker. Just saying.
And those 'Malatra' sources are next to impossible to find now.
Anyhow, I can see what you are saying, and I think they may have done something like that in the past, with a single con-game (no pun intended) being picked as the canon version.
Still, no matter which group 'wins the prize', the outcome for the Realms will be exactly as they had planned it. ;)
This place is great! I get answers to questions that I haven't even posted yet.
Thanks again.
Will Players be able to play Fey'ri in 4th edition Realms? Or any planetouched demihumans?
Quick question:
Will Players be able to play Fey'ri in 4th edition Realms? Or any planetouched demihumans?
I bolded the relevant question, we already know that Tieflings and Genasi are going to be playable races in the 4e Realms.
And hundreds, perhaps thousands, of 'copies' of that adventure will be run around the globe, and WotC is free to chose whichever particular one they want as the 'canon' version.
When the next sourcebook comes out and it says "a group of adventurers attacked Orcus and drove him form the plane", lots and lots of RPGA people will say "Hey! Thats me!"
But guess what? Thats what would have been printed in the book either way.. your 'fame' is PURE BS, plain and simple. ;)
The whole thing's a con, and thats why I ain't buying it.
I also don't like that I share that heroic solidarity with a million others. If the world were truly living, they would give the DMs more freedom to run adventures and let the chips fall where they may, maybe make regions a little smaller and each one is a complete world. "So what happened when your DM ran this adventure?" is a lot less cool than "So what happened in your version after this event trigger?"
I also don't like that I share that heroic solidarity with a million others. If the world were truly living, they would give the DMs more freedom to run adventures and let the chips fall where they may, maybe make regions a little smaller and each one is a complete world. "So what happened when your DM ran this adventure?" is a lot less cool than "So what happened in your version after this event trigger?"
Having multiple versions and tracking them would make subsequent adventure writing hard to impossible (I am reminded here of China Mievillle's "possible sword", or Douglas Adam's "Infinite Improbability Drive").
It is an interesting problem, deciding what, if any effect individual games will have on the shared reality and how that will be adjudicated. Probably no one solution will be seen as ideal to all.
When the core rules come out, I think it'll be fairly easy to "kit-bash" custom races if you want 'em in your game. The race mechanics are fairly straightforward. The only tricky part is designing unique racial powers, if any. In the case of the fey'ri, I think you'll have to build a pretty formidable feat tree, because flying, shapechanging, and DR are all too good to give away at 1st level. Off the top of my head I think I'd forget about the DR--it's much less prominent in 4e than it was in 3e across the board--and make flying the major schtick of the race. He'd have to start with gliding or land-each-round flying and improve it with some feat expenditure, I think.
Quick question:
Will Players be able to play Fey'ri in 4th edition Realms? Or any planetouched demihumans?
Longer answer: I think the 3e classes he most resembles are the psychic warrior or the swordsage. He looks a little like a Desert Wind swordsage, but whereas the swordsage is really more of a striker/controller type of character, the swordmage is definitely a defender. The reason I say psychic warrior is because like the psychic warrior he's a guy who uses supernatural powers for melee attacks. We didn't really do all that many of those in 3e.
the swordmage, mr. baker, what will it resemble if anything that we have seen in former editions( aka EK, warmage or duskblade)?
Will Mage Sigils still function in FR?
They were a boon from Mystra, but 'policed' by Azuth. I'm hoping Azuth took them over, because it was another of those 'unique to FR' flavor items.
Hopefully easy, answerable, non-inflamatory Question:
Will Mage Sigils still function in FR?
They were a boon from Mystra, but 'policed' by Azuth. I'm hoping Azuth took them over, because it was another of those 'unique to FR' flavor items.
I'll be happy if Azuth is still in
Although Mage Sigils are awesome in many, many ways!
And, of course, it just kept getting better...
I was reading through Pages from the Mages last night, and there was some coverage in there of Mage Sigils, and I thought "OMG! I hope they survive!"
Yes, I remember when I first read through the 1e FR box, and coming across the Mage Sigils I remember thinking "Cool!"
And, of course, it just kept getting better...
Until recently...
I was reading through Pages from the Mages last night, and there was some coverage in there of Mage Sigils, and I thought "OMG! I hope they survive!"
I doubt they will survive since some writer will want to write a novel where a mage impersonate another mage and well has to use the mage sigil to do so and having Mystra and the rules of word say no just make these writers throw fits...though I am surprised that they respect the law of gravity...
...though I am surprised that they respect the law of gravity...
Ummmm... you have heard about the floating earth Motes, right?
;)
Will rules for playing a half drow character be in the FR Players Guide?
Seriously, you could at least wait until I answer a question before taking exception to what I say.
Yes, I remember when I first read through the 1e FR box, and coming across the Mage Sigils I remember thinking "Cool!"
And, of course, it just kept getting better...
Until recently...
I was reading through Pages from the Mages last night, and there was some coverage in there of Mage Sigils, and I thought "OMG! I hope they survive!"
Will they survive for 4E?
I was going to answer your question, until you added that little jab in the middle. So now I'm not going to.
Seriously, you could at least wait until I answer a question before taking exception to what I say.
No Fair!
John egged me on!
I was trying to be polite, honest I was...
And saying I don't enjoy the newer material as much as I did the older isn't something you should take personal exception to. IIRC, you aren't the only one who designed for 3e, and its more about the presentation then the lore (stat blocks, lack of indexes, that sort of thing).
The comment was NOT aimed at 4e AT ALL, it was aimed at the rather inconsistent PRESENTATION of lore in 3e. I can't comment on the 4e books, because I don't own any. I can hate the lore, and still appreciate the new presentation of the books that you guys keep harping about. The lore and the mechanics are mutually exclusive, and I never had a problem with 3e lore.
You're starting to see insults where there aren't any, and I'm sorry if you took it that way.
What if I asked about Mage Sigils?
Will they survive for 4E?
-Me too what if I ask the same question? Rich what about Mage Sigils?:D Thank You Rich.
18DELTA
So here is a question for Rich: Will Vangy still be alive and kicking in the Realms?
He is, indeed, alive, but he looks somewhat different. ;)
I was going to answer your question, until you added that little jab in the middle. So now I'm not going to.
You tell 'em, Rich! :D
Seriously, though, we do really appreciate you posting on this forum and answering our questions. And I, for one, am looking forward to the new Realms; and I have been with the setting for over 20 years!
My question:
Is there anything you can reveal at this time about my favorite Realms villain, Fzoul Chembryl?
I was going to answer your question, until you added that little jab in the middle. So now I'm not going to.
Would it help if I asked it first? (I did a bunch of pages ago, but it got overlooked, hectic times and such.)
I am also curious to know whether the Mage Sigilis still survive.
I made one for my upcoming LFR PC Valencia, and while Val follows the rules laid down regardless on whether they are enforced, I am curious...
You could always PM it to us... that'll teach em! :D
Btw I liked the 3rd ed lore. I recently picked up books for the Moonsea and the Shining South and they are full of ideas. I still have to get Shadowdale though...
Sheeesh... talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill; maybe people shouldn't have opinions anymore.
Anyway, I keep an updated 4e FR FAQ on several sites, and since I couldn't post an answer to that question, I posted a link to Rich's answer instead. ;)
An answer is an answer, after all. :D
Sheeesh... talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill; maybe people shouldn't have opinions anymore.
There's a time and place for opinions. This thread is not it.
When it comes to mountains and mole-hills, the authors and designers are by definition the ones with the most personal investment in the Realms, and I'm pretty sure none of them is telling us how to do our job...
Rich, What is Ed working on?
Meaning is he working on non-Faerun areas or just the previous places he has detailed?
I don't feel like looking back through the thread, but Rich's exact response should be somewhere around a month or so after the Gencon announcment, IIRC.
Weather any of that material makes into the final cut of the book remains to be seen, but wth the DDi (hopefully) firmly in place by then, perhaps we will start seeing that extra material appear there. Hanging out at CK, I often hear of 'this or that' that was written but cut because of space, and it would be great if got to start seeing some of that, not just Ed's.
EDIT:
Rather then get in trouble (again) for misquoting someone, I did search out Rich's original post -
I'm pleased to report that Ed Greenwood will be able to contribute about 50,000 words to the 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.
(I wanted to say so earlier, but I had to wait and see if we could work out the scheduling questions. Ed's a busy guy and highly in demand for Forgotten Realms novels as well as game product.)
I don't know about you folks, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what Ed comes up with!
It doesn't say ANYTHING about what Ed will be working on, so I can only assume that the information I have that Ed is doing other parts of Toril must have come from Ed himeslf over at CK.
-- sorry if I accidently mislead anyone.
No Fair!
John egged me on!
Did not. R. Baker was offended by the whole " Until recently...
" Crack there I did nothing to egg you on...besides do you really need it...;)I am sorry if my answear did offend you Rich, but that has been the answear I have heard of "Why we had to get rid of x thing" that I liked, is that it intefered with some novelist plot or something to that effect. This is suppose to be a RPG setting not a author paradise to change things (sometimes in the middle of a book) about the world. I mean really can't you just tell these writers they have to do a ounce of research?
Sorry for the rant there..but I like underground dwarven cities...darkvision made sense...but it is gone now because writers can't describe stuff in it...get more creative writers.
Sorry for the little rant there.
It was Kheris that egged me on!
No fair! Do-over! :P
Bel
Hey Rich, can you tell us anything about whether or not Manshoon is still about and what he's doing? Also, are there any juicy Zhent tidbits you can give us?
-Here is a juicy tid-bit,"Oh NO its the headless Zhent RUN fOR YOUR LIVES!!!
RICH WHAT WERE YOU GUYS THINKING WITH THIS...STUFF?18DELTA:embarrass
Is there going to be a part of Faerûn that will be almost not affected by the Spellplague, therefore being almost the same as it is in 3.5 (apart from the years going by)?
Will the standard planes work noticeably different in Forgotten Realms?*
* I don't recall reading a question such as this one, but if it already came up, sorry.
The Swordcoast/North are for the most part unaffected.
Come on people... he answered those already...
Has anyone ever thought about going through this thread and collecting all of Rich and any other dev's responses and the questions they were answering?
This is so wierd...
I just started doing exactly that yesterday.
Freaky...
Headless Zhent... :D
I just checked, and you are quite correct. :embarrass
It was Kheris that egged me on!
No fair! Do-over! :P
Yes! It was totally my fault! Bad, bad, naughty Kheris!
*ahem*
I don't know why this new article is such a big deal, I mean, I've seen plenty of headless Zhents in my time. Hells, one of my groups that went through the Sunless Citadel adventure managed to keep the baby white dragon and used him as a living Zhent disposal :P
How much the campaign book will deal with what happened in the past 100 years? Is it going to go into details or have a timeline or just leave it a blank spot?
How much the campaign book will deal with what happened in the past 100 years? Is it going to go into details or have a timeline or just leave it a blank spot?
-We've already been told that the 100 years inbetween now and then are going to be mostly glossed over. That said, check out the article in online DRAGON about the Spellplague, and running a game (I believe) during those early years, as it comes with an early chronology.
Has anyone ever thought about going through this thread and collecting all of Rich and any other dev's responses and the questions they were answering?
Bel
You mean that you don't like wading through 111 pages of randomness just to get to the 50 or so posts from authors/designers? ;)
Are Orcus and Demogorgon still going to be present?
What's going to be happening to the Nine Hells and the Abyss in 4e? Are we going to see any major demon lords/archdevils getting deposed? How is the Spellplague and all of the death and strife that seems to be coming with it going to be affecting the political structures of said planes? Ultimately will all of the war be increasing or decreasing the power of the fiend lords' cults? What's going to happening with the Blood War?
Are Orcus and Demogorgon still going to be present?
Orcus has been stated to be in the MM. a lot of the rest is described in the accumulated knowledge in enworld's site.
"The Shadowfell is the land of the dead, where the spirits of the deceased linger for a time in a dark reflection of their previous lives before silently fading beyond all ken."
So characters no longer go to their deity after death? You end up in the same (twisted) place regardless of alignment and actions? That sounds like a place where only the faithless should end up.
Another thing, is there any word on whether or not the Blood War will be continuing in 4e? As devils are specifically said to be "trapped" in the Nine Hells.
There are only three methods of getting to the Fugue Plane: as a divine servant collecting a deity's future petitioners, through non-permanent portals from the Nine Hells or the Abyss, or through death.
__________________
this is pretty much the shadowfell, but now with topographical detail (and toss in the plane of shadows and negative energy plane dungeon/adventuring locations)
in the worlds and monsters preview, deities still snatch up some souls who do in fact serve gods after death. Passin thru the shadowfell as if it were a veil, shooting stars moving thru its gloom skies, as they speed to their deity's side.
___________________
question: is organizations like the harpers, the zhents, the iron throne, etc are going to be formated in a similiar style as affilitations in the PHB 2 or Complete Adventure/Cityscape's guilds where to gain benefits you need a feat?
I assume the organizations will be briefed over in the upcoming FR guide, and probably expanded in the Player's Guide.
I was just wondering if you had any clue as to why Woc won't allow Code Monkey to complete datasets for 3.5 with 4E a done deal.
Is there really an issue with people who purchased Etools and wanting to play older edition from time to time something the decision-makers are saying is a no go even after 4E comes out?
Just curious.
In the absence of a Mystra-mandated curse for misusing mage sigils, I think it's still fine if wizards have their own unique marks or "signatures." Whether it's important to say that those can't be duplicated might fall into the realm of a DM preference. If you need a divine curse for forging a mage sigil hanging over your campaign, a deity such as Oghma might be a fine sponsor. Otherwise, the risks of forging a powerful mage's personal signature should be fairly obvious even without a divine curse attached.
I hope we'll address it specifically in a DDi article or a follow-on product at some point in the future. It's a small bit of fluff for the setting, but I always liked the mage sigils too.
And Markus, your time out is over.
What if I asked about Mage Sigils?
Will they survive for 4E?
By standard planes, I'm not sure if you mean the 3e FR cosmology or the core cosmology of 4e D&D default setting. Basically, FR has its own unique cosmology in 4th Edition. In the Astral Sea of the Forgotten Realms setting, you'll find planes such as the Gates of the Moon, where Selune hangs out. There are some significant changes to the Great Tree due to the Spellplague and the passage of 100 years, but I don't know if I would say they work "noticeably differently."
Two questions:
Is there going to be a part of Faerûn that will be almost not affected by the Spellplague, therefore being almost the same as it is in 3.5 (apart from the years going by)?
Will the standard planes work noticeably different in Forgotten Realms?*
* I don't recall reading a question such as this one, but if it already came up, sorry.
And Markus, your time out is over.
:D
I will say this - you can still make me laugh.
And once again, you provided an answer to a question that may not be mechanically important to the setting, but one that is important to the fans, if only because its one of the few bits of 'Mystra Flavor' we can cling to.
Thank You for - you remain ever the gentleman in the face of adversity.
Couple of Things:
I thought the Great Tree was gone? I was pretty sure you said something earlier about FR using the Core Cosmology.
Is that a retraction (you were mistaken), or did you guys change your minds since a few months ago?
Another thing I had down in my FAQ was that you alluded to some changes in Tethyr (other then the obvious changing of the sovereign) - is that no longer true as well?
I'm only asking because I don't want people to get the wrong idea from stuff I've already posted as fact.
Since several people asked... we didn't set out to specifically get rid of them, but I believe they didn't find their way into the new FR 4e books simply because of lack of space and emphasis. They're pretty harmless mechanically, and they didn't have anyone's nose out of joint here at WotC.
Thanks for the answer, a whole bunch of us appreciate it.;)
Ah, well it looks like the stuff they've done is very interesting. As I was browsing the accumulated info I stumbled upon Shadowfell. I find this quote rather irritating:
"The Shadowfell is the land of the dead, where the spirits of the deceased linger for a time in a dark reflection of their previous lives before silently fading beyond all ken."
So characters no longer go to their deity after death? You end up in the same (twisted) place regardless of alignment and actions? That sounds like a place where only the faithless should end up.
That's a good question, but I would like to point out that the information you are referencing refers to the "core" setting, not necessarily the FR setting.
Why should ANYONE be good, if there is no 'final reward'?
If you can follow 'dark powers', that grant you all sorts of 'earthly power' while you are alive, why wouldn't everyone do that? there has to be some sort of system of 'reward and punisment', else the whole concept of religion falls apart.
In FR, I would apply the Core stuff to the Fugue plan. The way I look at it, the closer you are to your god, the quicker you get 'picked up'. If you are lev 35 Pladadin who lead a virtuous life helping the poor and unfortunate, Ilmater himself will be there WAITING FOR YOU when you get to the other side. If you were mostly self-absorbed and only payed the gods lip-service, then you might get lucky if a proxy walks by looking for someone else, and just happens to need to fill his quota... otherwise you're gonna be sitting in the Fugue a LONG time.
In other words, the more of your god's 'work' you do while you are alive, the faster you get out of the Fugue (or the Shadowfel, in Core). I think thats the ultimate punishment for the faithless, to just wander among the shadows for all eternity. The 'wall' in Kelemvor's realms should be more like Purgatory - you followed a god, but weather you didn't do it very well, or turned away from your faith. That would be 'false', not Faithless, but it would fit better in 4e's cosmology, and just make more sense. Why are people who at least paid some sort of tribute to a god punished more severly then those they never believed?
I have a feeling that Fugue Plane should be a special Place within the Shadowfel for the dead. That would make the most sense. The Faithless of FR don't go there, they get stuck in the wall after a quicky 'trial'. Kelemvor's Power should include the ability to 'sift' through the recently departed, and redirect them to his Realms for judgement. Now, if someone from an alternate prime world who was faithless were to die within Realmspace, that would make for an interesting trial.
I think that wall of his is composed almost entirely of Imaskari and Netherease. :D
Why should ANYONE be good, if there is no 'final reward'?
-Though there are logical fallacies in it, read Pascal's "The Wager", and you'll find out.
Why Be Good?
A Historical Introduction to Ethics
Duncan Richter
ISBN13: 9780195325058
ISBN10: 0195325052 paper, 224 pages
Dec 2007
Ah, well it looks like the stuff they've done is very interesting. As I was browsing the accumulated info I stumbled upon Shadowfell. I find this quote rather irritating:
"The Shadowfell is the land of the dead, where the spirits of the deceased linger for a time in a dark reflection of their previous lives before silently fading beyond all ken."
So characters no longer go to their deity after death? You end up in the same (twisted) place regardless of alignment and actions? That sounds like a place where only the faithless should end up.
Another thing, is there any word on whether or not the Blood War will be continuing in 4e? As devils are specifically said to be "trapped" in the Nine Hells.
I think in one of his posts Rich mentioned that they were working on somehow fitting the Fugue Plain to work with the new cosmology, I'll try and find the post.
Bel
Edit: Found it.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13932726&highlight=fugue#post13932726
Hello Rich,
I was just wondering if you had any clue as to why Woc won't allow Code Monkey to complete datasets for 3.5 with 4E a done deal.
Is there really an issue with people who purchased Etools and wanting to play older edition from time to time something the decision-makers are saying is a no go even after 4E comes out?
Just curious.
* We'd like our D&D worlds to share the same basic structure. By that I mean: an elemental chaos, a shadow plane, a faerie plane, and an astral plane. It's important because monster typing and spell interactions refer to these things all the time, so we'd like them to mean more or less the same thing in every D&D world. Astral projection should work the same way regardless of which world you cast it in.
* The exact contents of those planes will, of course, vary significantly from world to world. So the specific astral dominions depend entirely on the pantheon of the world/setting you're using. In the "default cosmology" of the core, the god Pelor hangs out in a plane called Hestavar, the Bright City. In the Faerunian cosmology, Amaunator hangs out in a plane called the Palace of the Four Suns. Both of those are astral dominions, so they share the same broad organizing principle of game mechanic, but the exact locales and personalities are naturally different.
So, is the Great Tree cosmology changing? Well, yes, somewhat--we're making the plane of faerie explicit (it was mentioned in FR before, especially in Elaine Cunningham's Evermeet novel), and we're changing the inner planes to the elemental chaos. But as far as the specific heavens and hells, many of them remain the same. There's still a plane called the Gates of the Moon where Selune lives. There's still a House of Knowledge. There's still a Nine Hells. And so on.
Does that clear things up?
:D
Couple of Things:
I thought the Great Tree was gone? I was pretty sure you said something earlier about FR using the Core Cosmology.
Is that a retraction (you were mistaken), or did you guys change your minds since a few months ago?
Another thing I had down in my FAQ was that you alluded to some changes in Tethyr (other then the obvious changing of the sovereign) - is that no longer true as well?
I'm only asking because I don't want people to get the wrong idea from stuff I've already posted as fact.
You know, even if it that is Core, and not FR, there is still a HUGE problem with that.
Why should ANYONE be good, if there is no 'final reward'?
Because it feels good (for some), and generally makes life more pleasant.
That said, from what I understand about the "core" setting, it's not that there is no afterlife, it's just that the nature of the afterlife is unknown to all (even the gods). I'm not saying there are no problems with that, but for all we know there could in fact be a "final reward".
That said, from what I understand about the "core" setting, it's not that there is no afterlife, it's just that the nature of the afterlife is unknown to all (even the gods). I'm not saying there are no problems with that, but for all we know there could in fact be a "final reward".
Which is boring and only gets you in trouble when discussing it in the table.
Hmmm, I seem to be having a hard time making myself clear on this one. It's a bit of a subtlety, but I'll try again.
* We'd like our D&D worlds to share the same basic structure. By that I mean: an elemental chaos, a shadow plane, a faerie plane, and an astral plane. It's important because monster typing and spell interactions refer to these things all the time, so we'd like them to mean more or less the same thing in every D&D world. Astral projection should work the same way regardless of which world you cast it in.
* The exact contents of those planes will, of course, vary significantly from world to world. So the specific astral dominions depend entirely on the pantheon of the world/setting you're using. In the "default cosmology" of the core, the god Pelor hangs out in a plane called Hestavar, the Bright City. In the Faerunian cosmology, Amaunator hangs out in a plane called the Palace of the Four Suns. Both of those are astral dominions, so they share the same broad organizing principle of game mechanic, but the exact locales and personalities are naturally different.
So, is the Great Tree cosmology changing? Well, yes, somewhat--we're making the plane of faerie explicit (it was mentioned in FR before, especially in Elaine Cunningham's Evermeet novel), and we're changing the inner planes to the elemental chaos. But as far as the specific heavens and hells, many of them remain the same. There's still a plane called the Gates of the Moon where Selune lives. There's still a House of Knowledge. There's still a Nine Hells. And so on.
Does that clear things up?
I'm not certain you can answer this but, I was curious how the Elemental Chaos plane functioned, are there separate areas that would comprise the Abyss or the various elemental planes within the larger plane? If its just a hodge-podge that is essentially swirling around the drain, what separates demons from elementals from slaad from anything else really? I just have a problem with the way everything just got axed I guess...
If you can, apply this question as it relates to FR please
Does that clear things up?
Not entirely...
I still don't know if there is or isn't a Great Tree. I understand it's just a conceptual thing, and pretty much meaningless as far as the true nature of the Universe goes. Will it be a blend of both? FR's Cosmology will be exactly like the Core Cosmology, but the people of Toril will still envision it looking like a Tree?
Also, I was hoping for greater connectivity through the planes to other worlds - are you still keeping Toril's Nine Hells seperate from everyone else's nine Hells (thus making the name Nine Hells somewhat silly, if there's really an infinite number of them).
I liked the old way where everyone got the same Baator, the same Abyss, the same Seven Heavens, etc... Some beings and creatures I can see repeated over and over again, but a being like Asmodeus should be unique.
Is each world in 4e still getting their own little version of the outer planes, as it is in 3e?
Another Minor but Important Question (to some):
Will there be Giant Space hamsters in 4e? :D
That one's is my fault - I listed them as 'status unknown' in my FAQ, and now people are asking about them. Me and my big mouth.
I just have a problem with the way everything just got axed I guess...
Not that I'm in the loop or anything, but from what I gather, mostly from the preview books, is that they got changed because their was a 'playability' issue with them. Sure, they sounded cool on paper, and made sense that way, but how can most people use them when you couldn't go there and die instantly? 'Traction' has become a big part of the developmentt team's design philosophy (and one of the many things I like about the new rules).
Ergo, the Elemental planes were changed not because there was anything wrong with them cosmologically, but because this is a game first, and they need to make some of the more outlandish aspects of the iniverse easier for a DM to use.
And yes, according to the Cosmology article about them, the elements are 'all mixed together '(like chunky soup, not purée). The relevant quote -
All of the cosmos is not tied to the mortal world as closely as the Feywild or Shadowfell. The natural world was created from the infinite expanse of the Elemental Chaos (or Tempest, or Maelstrom), a place where all fundamental matter and energy seethes. Floating continents of earth, rivers of fire, ice-choked oceans, and vast cyclones of churning clouds and lightning collide in the elemental plane.
Accent, mine. ;)
Way to go with the April Fool's Day website! That's very funny. It's good to see you guys can have a sense of humour about all the vitriolic stuff that's been hurled your way. Good job!
Ya know... I KNEW they couldn't be serious with that 'Headless Zhent Horseman' thing. :P
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080401b
Version: 4___
Feydar Vision. That's great.
It really is good to see you guys are keeping a sense of humour about this stuff. I don't know if I could were I to be the target of some of the stuff posted in here. :D
I'm going on vacation, so I won't be checking in for a little while. I'll post and let you all know when I get back to the routine.
Thanks for your patience!
And when you get back, you could tell us all if the rumours are true that WotC is having second thoughts about releasing a 4e OGL/GSL.
BTW, I like that you moved 'D&D-Day' ahead six months just to trump the 3rd party guys. Who does your PR? Attilla the Hun?
P.S. - I wanted to make my 7000th post meaningful. :P
In 4ed will there be better rules to define the creation of magic items & spells?
Hi, folks --
I'm going on vacation, so I won't be checking in for a little while. I'll post and let you all know when I get back to the routine.
Thanks for your patience!
Enjoy your vacation Rich...though who is going to watch Bruce before in inserts Cylons and laser guns into the Realms? ;)
(That was a joke everybody...relax)
I'm not sure if this has been asked. I just don't want to read this entire thread to find out.
In 4ed will there be better rules to define the creation of magic items & spells?
That is probably one of those things he isn't allow to speak about...plus he is on vacation.
-I think it should be safe to say that the new rules should be better than the old ones. I, personally, didn't find the magic creation rules that good. It was a double-edged sword. On one hand, losing EXP enchanting magical creations did make sense, but, at the same time, it didn't, when you factor in that magicians should be gaining EXP for creating items.
That is odd besides the old rules which granted exp for making magical items(which never made sense to me) why does it makes sense that making magic items give you exp.? Or not. I am guessing it really depends on how you define the process...
Also researching spells didn't cost exp. Which was also a part of the question...My only issue w/ researching spells in the FR was that it took 3 days/spell level to research then say Greyhawk or Eberron...
I know Rich is on vacation but I'll ask thins anyway.
Are you guys going to go with the standard 7 day week that most worlds inD&D have or are you guys going to stick with the 10 day week?
This fits in with their "NO more negative modifiers" game plan. Undead will not drain levels, nothing will drain attributes (including racial modifiers), etc, etc... The game is all about positives now (Read: Power Gaming). Considering that all(?) the classes will have a 'Weapon of Choice' now, it makes some sense if Magic Users can easily craft their own (Wands, Staves, Orbs, etc).
That is odd besides the old rules which granted exp for making magical items(which never made sense to me) why does it makes sense that making magic items give you exp.? Or not. I am guessing it really depends on how you define the process...
-What is experience? In laymans terms, it's the combined sum of what you know, and your total life experience. When you enchant and inbue your first magical item, you are adding to that total of what you know, and your total life experience. As such, you should gain EXP (as I said, I also understand how/why it should be accrued as a loss, although, I don't agree that it should be both permanent, and EXP, to begin with). The more you do it, the more familiar you become with the process, and the more experience you are gaining.
You learn much from having created a 'great Work', but also, in the process, you must 'give a little bit of yourself' to create said item. Unfortunely, both of those, when boiled down to game mechanics, equates to exp. That means the two wind up cancelling each other out.
The only other option would be to gain Exp., but lose Con (which is how it worked in 1e, IIRC). At least thats how I used to work it, in the one game we played that got that high up. The thing was, you could regain lost Con, but it took a number of weeks = to the level of the item you were creating. Creating a minor artifact, on the other hand, would have a character 'convalescing' for months, rather then weeks.
It shouldn't effect Exp. either way (which I think was your point).
-Not 100%. You should gain EXP, but lose something else.
The only other option would be to gain Exp., but lose Con (which is how it worked in 1e, IIRC). At least thats how I used to work it, in the one game we played that got that high up. The thing was, you could regain lost Con, but it took a number of weeks = to the level of the item you were creating. Creating a minor artifact, on the other hand, would have a character 'convalescing' for months, rather then weeks.
-Without even having known that, this was what I was thinking. Creating an item physically drains you (CON) for a limited time. Or, some kind of pool made up of relevant ability scores that might effect magic item creation (INT + CON + LEVEL).
So, a staff that had Four effects, the highest of which was level 7, you would lose 7 Con points, and gain one back each month (4 weeks) for seven months.
That was the basic gist of the system we had in place, and there were other ways of effecting 'the cost' - Divine or Infernal help, using others willingllly or unwilllingly (sacrifice), etc...
Fortunetly, we only had two MU's in that campaign, and we each only created one incredible item (so we didn't need rules for EVERY situation).
just curious if there was a specific rule that prevented this loop hole in your game.
That doesn't mean we couldn't find ways to mitigate the damage to begin with (I sacrificed helpless victims to Arioch), but once you received the Con damage, you just had to suffer through it.
-What is experience? In laymans terms, it's the combined sum of what you know, and your total life experience. When you enchant and inbue your first magical item, you are adding to that total of what you know, and your total life experience. As such, you should gain EXP (as I said, I also understand how/why it should be accrued as a loss, although, I don't agree that it should be both permanent, and EXP, to begin with). The more you do it, the more familiar you become with the process, and the more experience you are gaining.
Actualy the more you do something the less you learn. Making a sword +1 10 times should net less experience because it becomes less new and more routine. Though I can see you cutting down on the time. Or if there is some sort of mystical connection then it should show more...
Personaly I always liked the rare material components to craft items rules...but then I guess you need a indegrient list for evey item....and that will be seen as a 'complication' etc.
Actualy the more you do something the less you learn. Making a sword +1 10 times should net less experience because it becomes less new and more routine.
-And, it becomes more 'routine' because you are learning. You are learning the easiest ways to do things, the "right" ways to do things, and so on. Regarding losing experience, does it make sense that you start forgetting things, the more you make an item. You make a magical sword, and as a result, for forget how to, say, cast 3rd Level Spells?
Actualy the more you do something the less you learn. Making a sword +1 10 times should net less experience because it becomes less new and more routine. Though I can see you cutting down on the time. Or if there is some sort of mystical connection then it should show more...
,,, and every time you encounter a similar situation, it should, therefore, be worth less experience, as you have done it before. But, that's not how XP works in D&D; you gain the same XP each time you overcome similar obstacles.
Instead, the amount of XP required to advance levels goes up each time. Rather than gaining less XP for doing the same things, you require more to gain additional benefits.
NPC classes in 3.x gain XP for doing routine things, like earning money in their professions. A weaponsmith gains NPC levels, allowing addition ranks in Craft (weaponsmithing) by crafting and weapons over and over again, mastering his craft. Why not the same for crafting magic items?
Tom Bollis
Screw that... I'm totally in favor of magic as commodity myself. Let the Arcanoindustrial Revolution begin! :D
losing levels or ability drain is a nightmare of bookkeeping that most players get wrong.
it stalled encounters while the math was worked out (often wrongly).
it would have inadvertent effects on other game mechanics (lose some Dex and dodge, mobility, combat reflexes go away etc)
paying XP for magic item creation was unfair to the creator if they created items for others
paying XP for item creation could cause issues for DMs expecting everyone to level at the same time
There are others but I need to get off this post.
In fact, there are quite a few other things that are modifier-based that I hoped they adressed in the new rules. But thats neither here nor there...
This is -
I don't think the new rules not having negative modifiers is about "power gaming", whatever that is.
You are an LFR Event Manager, right?
And you never heard of a 'Power-Gamer'?
Something doesn't quite smell right there. ;)
Maybe your more familiar with the older 'min-maxer', but either way, anyone who plays RPGs knows what that is, or at least should.
So... now that Rich is on Holiday and no one's minding the store...
What's Arkanûl like?
And you never heard of a 'Power-Gamer'?
Something doesn't quite smell right there. ;)
Questioning what is meant by "power gamer" isn't the same as never having heard the term. It is not clearly defined what it means, and different people use the term differently.
But I think most people would agree that it is usually someone who is more about the mechanics, and less about the Roleplaying.
Which I am not saying is a bad thing either. I do quite a bt of 'power gaming' myself, whenever given the chance to play in someone elses game. Sometimes we attach negative conatations to things unneccessarily - Its just another style of play, is all.
Point Taken.
But I think most people would agree that it is usually someone who is more about the mechanics, and less about the Roleplaying.
Which I am not saying is a bad thing either. I do quite a bt of 'power gaming' myself, whenever given the chance to play in someone elses game. Sometimes we attach negative conatations to things unneccessarily - Its just another style of play, is all.
Which supports my point, as I think many use "power gamer" to refer to PCs who prefer min-maxed PCs with the best equipment and spells possible, who can power through adventures with little difficulty. To them, it doesn't relate to mechanics vs roleplaying so much as maximizing effectiveness and showing disdain for those considered ineffective.
I am sure there are several other common variations on what is meant. Some are "a bad thing", as they result in bad will between players and a reduction of fun. Likewise, "roleplayer" is considered a bad thing by some, as they use it to refer to players who overemphasize the character "soing his thing, being true to the concept" when it is disruptive at the table and works against acheiving party objectives.
Let's face it, every gaming style has pricks who give everyone else with that style a bad name... and no set of rules is going to fix that small fact of life. ;)
I don't see it as a question of "gaming style" , but of different people using the same label with different meanings. They refer to different gaming styles when they use the label "power gamer". Without clearly defined labels, you need to be more descriptive of what you mean than merely using such a label if you want to be understood. Sometimes context clarifies your meaning, but people often are misunderstood in discussions because many others don't share their interpretations of such terms.
First off, I'd just like to state that I do not disagree with that decision. I thought negative modifiers were stupid 20 years ago... it's just taken THEM that long to catch up to me. :P
Cool.
You are an LFR Event Manager, right?
Yes.
And you never heard of a 'Power-Gamer'?
Of course I have heard of it.
Something doesn't quite smell right there. ;)
I just consider it a valid play style and don't like to see "power gamer" or "min-maxer" or "role-player" used in a pejorative sense. As I note you have agreed and discussed after my last post.
What's Arkanûl like?
What it is like is described in the few web articles such as here.
What it will be like is being worked out by a community including us (realms administrators), but led by story writers, authors, content management, Ed Greenwood and the wider realms community. I can't tell you too many specifics because I simply don't know that much at this stage, and some of what I know is subject to flux - perhaps the spell-plague will roll over some of the ideas we are discussing at this point ;) .
I recently became interested in Airspur after reading about it in THIS Article, and I'm worried that one of my 'recently discovered treasures' is about to be obliterated.
The city has a large Half-Orc population, trades with Orcs, and is ruled by a Half-Orc! Thats something you don't see everyday, although obviously someone 'up the foodchain' found that boring.
Personally, I find Genasi boring, but to each his own.
My question, if you can answer it at all Dimonic, is if the Half-Orcs just get 'erased' come 4e, or will there still be a heavy population of them in the 'new city'?
And what became of my good friend Khrulis?
P.S. - I can live with bat-winged Orcs.
Orcariels? :P
Read that article, but it doesn't really give any details about Arkanûl.
I recently became interested in Airspur after reading about it in THIS Article, and I'm worried that one of my 'recently discovered treasures' is about to be obliterated.
I too found the area only after I discovered it was to be Canada's region. That may or may not be significant or anything. I then read all the stuff I could find from 1e forward.
The city has a large Half-Orc population, trades with Orcs, and is ruled by a Half-Orc! Thats something you don't see everyday,
Certainly not. I too found it interesting from that point of view.
although obviously someone 'up the foodchain' found that boring.
I don't know that it was boring so much as some people found the typical source of half-orcs to be politically incorrect in some way. It seems they are/have been written out of 4e on that basis.
Personally, I find Genasi boring, but to each his own.
Certainly 3e Genasi were somewhat boring and definitely underpowered - I never liked level adjusted characters at all. I have much higher hopes for 4e. The races released so far have all got excellent character and flavour.
My question, if you can answer it at all Dimonic, is if the Half-Orcs just get 'erased' come 4e, or will there still be a heavy population of them in the 'new city'?
Sorry, can't answer that one.
And what became of my good friend Khrulis?
He for sure will be dead of old age.
P.S. - I can live with bat-winged Orcs.
Orcariels? :P
Hmm, so the "roly poly little bat faced boy" in Paul Simon's song was an Orc?
If Khrulis was able to die of old age, then he wasn't killed by the Spellplague, and that gives me some hope that other Half-Orcs survived.
But then again, you did say that folks found them 'politically incorrect', which means there probably won't be ANY Half-Orcs come 4e.
I suppose, since we can now play Orcs, being Half-Orc isn't nearly so sexy.
Also down with Political Correctness!!
I don't think the new rules not having negative modifiers is about "power gaming", whatever that is. There were many problems with negative penalties:
losing levels or ability drain is a nightmare of bookkeeping that most players get wrong.
it stalled encounters while the math was worked out (often wrongly).
it would have inadvertent effects on other game mechanics (lose some Dex and dodge, mobility, combat reflexes go away etc)
paying XP for magic item creation was unfair to the creator if they created items for others
paying XP for item creation could cause issues for DMs expecting everyone to level at the same time
There are others but I need to get off this post.
I don't get exactly what negative mods you are talking about here...I think getting rid of some of them is just dumb...(like -2 AC when charging, -2 to racial abilities).
As to spending exp for items I just think it made no sense( and I still think the other way of gaining exp makes about the same) I think it should have cost something else to make it worth what you get..
Personaly playing item crafters casters before...they were often more powerful then a character a level or two higher.(though that is dependent on the campaign and the availability of buying magic items though not as much as some people might think). So personaly I think the exp cost wasn't enough...
Also somebody brought up a point that everything in D&D that gains exp is repetive...I am guessing you haven't ever been in many fights in RL. Combat is not repetive. Sitting in your lab making something over and over again is repetive...eventualy you'll master it.
Now, before any of the 'WotC Cheerleaders' decide to atack me on that, I am not being derogatory here. I'm all for faster, intuitive play with little in the way of 'cloudy, grey areas'. When I say less 'Free Thinking', I mean it will NOT be built into the rules - that sort of thing should be left up to DMs to decide. Just like they are leaving all of the 'proffession' skills up to DMs - that falls under the category of 'Roleplay', and we don't really need rules for that sort of thing. If you can' make stuff up on the fly, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to run the game.
Anyhow, if a player wants to create a spell, it will probaly be handled just like it was in th earlier editions - its up to the DM o find a spell of similar power (AOE, range, Dam, etc), and base the spell level off of that. Since power levels and play styles vary from group to group, it would be impossible for WotC to ceate rules that would please everyone. If your game is low-power, then it should takes months to create a single spell. if your all about power-gaming, then you could say the PC only takes a few weeks.
Collecting materials, research, and experimentation are all very good opportunities to Roleplay, and simply having a chart and rolling some dice takes away from that aspect of the game. If the rules told us how to do everything, then we might as well be playing a MORPG.
... The rules are designed with less 'Free Thinking' built in. They are designing them with fast, simple play in mind that younger people can master easily. The idea is to get through encounters quickly, without arguiing over fine points in the rules.
...
If the rules told us how to do everything, then we might as well be playing a MORPG.
Given that WOTC is promising full online play, I suspect that rules simplification will improve cohesion, which will improve online game play. In other words, you may have hammered all around the nail head without quite hitting it. Simplifying the rules would be invaluable (if not essential) for building on online system for 4e.
Please don't take offense. I am aiming for insight, not confrontation.
To further your thought and mine, if you could't do it in a MORPG, then the 4e rules won't cover it.
And since it would be impossible to create your own spells in a computer-managed simulation, then don't expect to see it here either. Thinking 'outside the box' requires the human element (DM), and does not fall under the rules.
From now on, expect ONLY rules that deal specifically with encounters and leveling - everything else is being left up to the DM.
QUESTION:
I heard you guys have no plans to produce ANY FR books past those first two... is that true?
That evrything else FR will be part of the DDi?
Collecting materials, research, and experimentation are all very good opportunities to Roleplay, and simply having a chart and rolling some dice takes away from that aspect of the game. If the rules told us how to do everything, then we might as well be playing a MORPG.
What about those of us who have DM's who don't allow for any of that, who don't even give you a couple of months or role play wise things to say your trying to do in order to just make a spell thats the exact same as Lightning bolt but Ice instead of Electricity. Lightning Bolt to Ice Beam shouldn't require much experimentation time if all your doing is making a ice very of a existing spell, I mean that was the whole point of some meta magic feats and while I'm happy they are gone because the mechanics behind them were bad for the most part, I still want some alternatives to other wise bland repetitive spell casters.
What about those of us who have DM's who don't allow for any of that, who don't even give you a couple of months or role play wise things to say your trying to do in order to just make a spell thats the exact same as Lightning bolt but Ice instead of Electricity. Lightning Bolt to Ice Beam shouldn't require much experimentation time if all your doing is making a ice very of a existing spell, I mean that was the whole point of some meta magic feats and while I'm happy they are gone because the mechanics behind them were bad for the most part, I still want some alternatives to other wise bland repetitive spell casters.
Change your DM, that's the only thing that could allow you to do something like that.
Also, something like that you are right about - a lot of FR spells that appeared in Dragon magazine were like that (flavor change), like a Magic Missiles that just shot 'Ice Bolts' instead. Those sort of things are 'falvor only', and I even think certain spells allow you you to change the way the effect lloks (I remember something bout Magic Missiles looking like daggers, or arrows...).
If someone wanted to create a differnet version of the same spell, then I would just reccomend him researching the spells new effect (by traveling to a 'learned sage'), and then having to procur a certain Tome (Elfigar's book of Cold magics) that was last seen in the hands of a Mage who's tower has lain in ruins these past twenty years...
You get the idea - then the charcter studies the Tome, and the next time he/she plays, they have the new effect. You just have to remember that the new energy type will effect various cratures now differently now.
Or, conversely, they could just take the Energy Sustitution feat and all of their effects can a new twist (Frost Wizard, Force Mage, Electroturge, Sand Sorceror, etc...). As long as your not changing the numbers, just the way the spell looks and its type, a layer shouldn't be penalized for being creative with a character concept.
Markus, you are refering to the Archmage's Elemental Mastery High Arcana, a personal favorite.
-There's that, and there's also the Energy Substitution Feat in either Magic of Faerûn, or the Player's Guide to Faerûn.
I think I'm going through withdrawal...
Rich,
So buffing spells are no more in 4e?
Is counterspelling being dropped in 4e?
How is Detect Magic handled in 4e, as a zone?
None taken - I agree 100%.
To further your thought and mine, if you could't do it in a MORPG, then the 4e rules won't cover it.
And since it would be impossible to create your own spells in a computer-managed simulation, then don't expect to see it here either. Thinking 'outside the box' requires the human element (DM), and does not fall under the rules.
From now on, expect ONLY rules that deal specifically with encounters and leveling - everything else is being left up to the DM.
You never heard of the computer game Daggerfalls: The Elder Scrolls then? I think that was the name where you did design spells. Sure it was very simplistic. (along with otrher things). But you made up your your own spells. Personaly I have a feeling we will see rules very similar to that for spell creation or other type of areas.
I don't get exactly what negative mods you are talking about here...I think getting rid of some of them is just dumb...(like -2 AC when charging, -2 to racial abilities).
The AC penalty when charging is arguable either way - an opposing argument could be "why should I suffer a 2 penalty to AC when I am hurtling towards some poor guy with my weapon reaching out for his face?" The racial ability one I think is indefensible. Can you explain to me why Half-orcs should be worse at initimidate - or why dwarfs should be penalized when tinkering with magical devices or turning undead?
And why have negative racial penalties at all when you can call the level wherever you want and just delineate those areas where a race is superior on average? The rest of the numbers an adventurer has to throw in will tip the balance wherever they want anyway. There really is no need to make it tough to be an "unusual suspect" character - that is just a design decision. In 4e, it will be easier to play unusual suspects than 3e, but still more optimal to choose races that lean towards the prime attributes of the class.
However, the negative mods I was referring to are those negative things that can happen in combat that have ripple effects throughout the mechanics of a character - such as losing 2 point of Dex. Your AC drops, your Ref save drops, you may lose the dodge, mobility, spring attack and others feats that have dex pre-requisites such as two-weapon fighting. Your Dex based skills are reduced. And finally, your ranged attacks are reduced. Where all these effects intended or necessary? And if they were, was it really worth it?
Now consider level drain. Without looking in your book, tell me how many spells of what level a 7th level wizard loses when drained 2 effective levels.
Now consider Con drain. You lose masses of hit points, often you die suddenly (through hit point loss). The Barbarian has to recalculate his rage duration - and may suddenly drop dead through the cessation of his rage.
In each case you have to ask yourself - was this the intent of the effect? Is it fun when it happens? Can this be better expressed as some other penalty?
Will the rules allow for PC's to create their own unique spells? (will their be guide lines for DM's and PC's alike to attempt such a thing?) Can the same be said for non spellcaster related powers like for the rangers and fighters? I ask because practically every well known Faerunian mage had their own unique spell, and most fighter types had at least one trick or maneuver they created or honed to perfection.
The rules are "results driven", meaning that if you can craft a power (read spell) that has level - appropriate results, then you can create that spell.
I think it will be much easier to create character classes, new magic items etc. in 4e because of this. Spells still are difficult because of the sheer range of possibilities they can express.
That being said, since many of the "pitfall" areas of spell design are gone - save or die effects, plot-avoidance spells, most "stone-scissor-paper" type spells, ridiculous rules-hogging spells, (summoning, grappling etc), niche stomping spells - then if DMs understand why this was so and prevent players from re-filling those niches - it should be easier to create new balanced spells.
For those speaking of MMOPRGs vs. DDI - the two could hardly be more different. DDI is the digitization of the game table and the rules, not the application of the rules to virtual characters in a virtual reality. If you take the Internet out of the equation, all you have is your game table on a computer screen instead of on the table. Add the Internet, and you have the ability for Bob in Saskatchewan to join the game, but you still need the DM.
And for those worried about WoW style play - I am old school. I have never played WoW - I have been lucky that people enjoy my company enough to keep a gaming group going these last 30 years. I do not see anything wrong in taking back some ideas from a gaming revolution that has its roots in D&D. If it works, then do it. If it doesn't, then don't. We don't need another religion in the world.
That being said, since many of the "pitfall" areas of spell design are gone - save or die effects, plot-avoidance spells, most "stone-scissor-paper" type spells, ridiculous rules-hogging spells, (summoning, grappling etc), niche stomping spells - then if DMs understand why this was so and prevent players from re-filling those niches - it should be easier to create new balanced spells.
Boring. I'm not going to play a forced Evoker without any other kind of spell. I play Generalists because I pride myself with having the right spell for the right job (and when I have somebody else in the party who can detect traps and deal with them I get free slots to cover any angle my party hasn't), I've never played any specialist at all because I find them too narrow, even when they loose just one school (that's why you'll never see me playing a Red Wizard at all). Wizards in 4th edition have become Archers with Elemental flavor.
Magic is the power to alter the world as you see fit, it's not just blasting, it's changing everything you want to change. If a Wizard develops a spell to find where the BBEG is and kill him without leaving the place then he should be able to do that. Just like he should be able to develop a spell that opens doors, or that allows him to go from one place to another, or killing somebody with a thought, or weakening them, or anything that a Wizard thinks will be useful. Magic is the Ultimate Power for mortals, nothing else should even approach to it's power and possibilities (unless you talk about psionics, which I consider a form of magic). Swinging a sword to kill things will never teach you how to reshape the universe at your will.
Boring. I'm not going to play a forced Evoker without any other kind of spell. I play Generalists because I pride myself with having the right spell for the right job (and when I have somebody else in the party who can detect traps and deal with them I get free slots to cover any angle my party hasn't), I've never played any specialist at all because I find them too narrow, even when they loose just one school (that's why you'll never see me playing a Red Wizard at all). Wizards in 4th edition have become Archers with Elemental flavor.
Omitting broken spells will not leave you with only evocation. It will leave you without broken or unfair spells.
Magic is the power to alter the world as you see fit, it's not just blasting, it's changing everything you want to change. If a Wizard develops a spell to find where the BBEG is and kill him without leaving the place then he should be able to do that. Just like he should be able to develop a spell that opens doors, or that allows him to go from one place to another, or killing somebody with a thought, or weakening them, or anything that a Wizard thinks will be useful. Magic is the Ultimate Power for mortals, nothing else should even approach to it's power and possibilities (unless you talk about psionics, which I consider a form of magic). Swinging a sword to kill things will never teach you how to reshape the universe at your will.
And since you see the Wizard in this role, you are perfectly happy with 3e, since it is all about the Wizard and his sidekicks off to adventure. That is not the game for everyone however, especially those whose ambitions rise higher than "Wizard's Meatshield".
Magic is the power to alter the world as you see fit, it's not just blasting, it's changing everything you want to change. If a Wizard develops a spell to find where the BBEG is and kill him without leaving the place then he should be able to do that. Just like he should be able to develop a spell that opens doors, or that allows him to go from one place to another, or killing somebody with a thought, or weakening them, or anything that a Wizard thinks will be useful. Magic is the Ultimate Power for mortals, nothing else should even approach to it's power and possibilities (unless you talk about psionics, which I consider a form of magic). Swinging a sword to kill things will never teach you how to reshape the universe at your will.
Want to reshape the world with Ultimate Power? Be the DM. Otherwise, arcane megalomania has no place in the hands of a PC. It's a game, and it shouldn't ever be therapy for feelings of inadequacy.
Oh, and you can play "pure fighters" and still have fun at high levels. The fighter of my party is a Fighter 7/Champion of Corellon Larethian 7 and he packs a whallop with each attack. If he scores a critical with his Longsword (and he scores a lot with a Keen Elven Thinblade and his Attack Bonus 20+ in the first attack) he does as much damage as my Wizard with an Electricity Orb. On a horse that character can cut through a line of enemies without breaking a sweat. He's that awesome as a fighter. You just need to know how to play one. The two characters that can deal the most damage in one round are his character and mine. We also have a rogue/bard/arcane trickster, a Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight/Guardian of the Weave, a Druid and a Cleric/Divine Disciple/Swordancer of Eilistraee.
And the Champion of Corellon wants to become a Bladesinger too, therefore all the party members have access to magic. We usually cut through EL three levels over us without problem, that oiled we are as a team.
It has all the place a PC wants. If nobody else on the grop wants to play a Wizard because "it's too hard" they deserve to be under the Spellcasters. Wizard players deserve their reward of Arcane Power if they played smart and stayed alive to reach the level of mastery. Anybody can play a fighter, it's the easy character, that's why his only utility is as Meat Shield (and the fighter is the one who has all the fun for the first six levels, Wizards are forced to cast few spells and too weak), not even counting that Wizards improve with age, Fighters don't. And I never play pure fighters, they are too boring, if I play something else that is not a Wizard I play Rangers, or Bladesingers.
I'm going to have to side with Brian and Dimonic on this one. The game should be fun for everyone. Certain players shouldn't be there just to facilitate someone else's fun.
In fact, the whole "people who aren't smart enough deserve to be used" argument rubs me the wrong way.
As I said the pure Fighter in my group has as much fun as the rest of the party. He even wants to learn magic because he finds it fascinating (He's as Sun Elf and has 16 INT). Of the characters of my party I'll love to play with anyone, they've all become great characters. The fighter is going to get the Warblade when they arrive at Castle Maerimydra (I'm playing CotSQ) and he's going to become even more powerful than he is already.
The Eldritch Knight lost most of his equipement with a Black Pudding, but found the Spellstoring Greataxe and constantly asks my character to get a Disintegrate stored in the Weapon. Against the Shadow Dragon in the Cleft of Sorrow he made over 100 HP of damage with the Greataxe + 26d6 from the Disintegrate spell.
Now that we are in Maerimydra my GF's character is the one who's going to shine most of all, thanks to her high Diplomacy, Bluff (she also has Improved Feint, to deliver Sneak Attacks and bracers that allow her to sneak attack creatures immune to it 3/day) and Sense Motive skills. Nobody is overly dependant of the other (Alediran has Ironguard always prepared therefore the Warrior-types don't need to defend him and they are free to tackle the battle as they want, without having to worry about my character) and that allows all characters to become what they want (even if by CharOp isn't "optimized").
And Brian, if the 4ed makes everybody have fun by nerfing spellcasters instead of powering Fighters (like Paizo did with their beta rules and I LOVE THEM, it's the first time that a Specialist Wizard becomes a viable option for me, like playing a Pure fighter) thank's but no, I'll never touch 4th edition, the new magic system feels to dumb for me, at will powers feel like attacking with a normal bow, and I don't want to make an attack roll to hit with a Magic Missile, it goes against what magic is.
You don't need to aim with a fireball, just throw it to the place you think will have the best effect (and the Fireball is aimed not with the arm of the Wizard, but with his Will, that's why it always lands where the Wizard wants), I find it only acceptable with touch/ranged-touch spells because it has a reason for it, not because it's forced to make Fighter players don't feel bad because they missed an attack. It has a lot more logic that I just send the fireball and everyone who is going to get caught in the explotion makes a Reflex Saving Throw to see if the were ready for it and jump to avoid the effects, it has more logic than one of those in the area takes a Natural 1, meaning he was distracted to notice the Fireball rather than throwing it with an attack roll like it was a the swing of a sword. It makes magic feel just like another weapon instead of what it should be.
If anything, it sounds to me like they made the Spellcaster stronger. Have you ever played an MU in earlier editions?
I have... it was NO fun. You spend the first two or three levels just casting Light or some other utilitarian spell, and then cowering in the back for the rest of the adventure.
Spellcasters always started out incredibly weak (you could have had only 1 HP!), and then got insanely powerful in the upper levels. Meanwhile, everyone else's power-level increased at a steady rate, rather then exponentially.
I understand what you are saying - in the old days, anyone willing to work through those horrid lower levels of spellcasting got a nice pay-off in the end... but a lot of games never got up that high. Most D&D games lose steam after only a few months, and the guys playing the Wizards always got screwed, because they never had a chance to shine.
The new system, if it works half as good as they say it does, sounds like it addresses quite a few balancing issues that earlier editions didn't get right. I'm still not sure if I'm going to use them, and I do indeed like Paizo's offering (being able to use all your old books really 'sweetens the deal'), but I wouldn't knock them until I've taken them out for a spin.
Now 4e FR... thats a whole 'nother ball of wax.
...(you could have had only 1 HP!)...
-Any class can theoretically start off with 1 HP, if you ignore the rule that all classes start off with max HP at first level. A Barbarian with a +0 CON bonus can theoretically roll a 1 on his d12 roll.
And don't forget the Energy Admixture feat... love that one.
Mmmmhmmm. Nothing like that fireball eating away the burnt flesh with some nice stinky acid.
Someone earlier in the thread said something about metamagic feats being done away with. Is this true?
They only made at-will powers because they suck so much that it was just a matter of "flavor" for the Wizard, instead of using a bow you just cast a Magic Missile that fails a lot. Not even counting the reports from one of the Big Guns of Paizo that went to DDXP and said that all Wizard spells do damage and have a secondary tactical effect (that's what I was refering as Forced Evoker), no more Web spells, no more Grease, no more of a LOT of spells that didn't made damage but were often more effective in combat just because they "rob the fun of Fighters".
I'm thinking even a Fireball will not be a common spell for Wizards to cast, just because it's an area attack (and we don't want Wizards killing half the monsters with one attack because it makes the Fighter feel useless, oh no...)
-Any class can theoretically start off with 1 HP, if you ignore the rule that all classes start off with max HP at first level. A Barbarian with a +0 CON bonus can theoretically roll a 1 on his d12 roll.
True - I always houserule everything, and I had Barbs rolling a d10+2 when they were first offered as an option.
Now I give max at first, and a modified d6 roll at each level. Nobody should have 1HP - especially PCs. If you trip and stub your toe, your dead. :P
Anyway, for the longest time I was 90% I wasn't going to use 4e FR, while at the same time, I was 90% certain I WAS going to use the 4e rules. I have always been about training new players, and forcing them to buy 'old edition' books has always been out of the question. In the past, I eagerly embraced each new edition, simply because I wanted the players to have the 'latest and greatest', if only because it was more readily available. Plus, in truth, I really feel D&D improved with each iteration.
Now, however, I am torn. For the first time ever, the old edition will continue to get support by several large companies, so it will continue to remain available. That means worrying about 'newbs' getting their hands on the books isn't a problem. On the other hand, I reallly LIKE the way the new rules sound.
In fact, when it comes down to it, they both have their pros and cons, and I think the one thing keeping me from going full-steam into 4e is FR itself. Since I plan on keeping the setting 3e, I would have to do a lot of converting to use the 4e rules. That means the Paizo/Malhavic Options might be the simplest way for me to go.
So, what it comes down to is this - if they hadn't gone and nuked FR for 4e, I would probably migrate happily to 4e. I think this is a deciding factor for quite a few fans of the setting, and in the long run I think WotC inadvertantly created their own competition, but making the new setting so different.
All those potential 4e rules customers will now stick to older edition rules, because they have to in order to play in the setting they prefer.
Its almost like WotC castrated themselves.
I'm thinking even a Fireball will not be a common spell for Wizards to cast, just because it's an area attack (and we don't want Wizards killing half the monsters with one attack because it makes the Fighter feel useless, oh no...)
This is the honest truth. Any fighter that feels useless IS useless. Fighters and there sub-classes and prestige classes are the crux of a good group. Get your armored butts up and become the M1A1 your group needs. If you have a DM who poo-poos fighters then show him reasons to think otherwise. Or find a new DM if you are set on being the muscle(or tendon for those of you that like Dex.)
Boots on the ground are much more effective than wands in the air. ;)
I think Paizo will support 4E in a year or less. Not because the 3.7 stuff is doing bad but because all of the 4E stuff they are working on right now will be done by then. They will still sell 4E books on their site. Hell collectors will play or buy both systems just like they buy other systems they never use. It is the gamer way.
This is the honest truth. Any fighter that feels useless IS useless. Fighters and there sub-classes and prestige classes are the crux of a good group. Get your armored butts up and become the M1A1 your group needs. If you have a DM who poo-poos fighters then show him reasons to think otherwise. Or find a new DM if you are set on being the muscle(or tendon for those of you that like Dex.)
Boots on the ground are much more effective than wands in the air. ;)
Seriously, I'll love to see a 20 lvl Wizard and a 20 lvl Swashbuckler on a tavern fight, who'll be better at it? I'll bet my money on the Swashbuckler, unless the Wizard has experience in close quarter casting and a lot of touch spells because a Fireball is not an option, then I think the'll be even.
Or a Wizard who can cast spell every round for one hour. A good DM know how to challenge all players, and one of the best ways to make Fighters shine is sending a lot of fodder to leave the spellcasters without magic and then striking with the Big Bad Monster who can only be stoped by the Fighters because the Spellcasters are OOS.
Thanks,
Hawkins
Personally, I think they slowed them down because of the enormous backlash they keep getting from them.
Looking back over the last few Realms Articles, I think I actually preferred Rich Baker's the most (Gasp!), if only because it made me feel like a lot of the setting hadn't changed.
Also, going beyond the 'Countdown' articles, I think the only decent Realmslore articles were all done by him (double Gasp!)
The Wailing Dwarf was practically useless, and told us little more then the intial entry in LoI, and the Headless Zhent Horseman...
I think the big problem at WotC is 'delegating responsibilities' - Keep Rich away from answering questions here (he's like a 'lightening rod'), and just have him write all the Realmslore articles.
Ship Bruce Cordell off to Eberron to work on the Delkyr - he should feel right at home there (sorry Bruce, I like your writing style, but it doesn't belong in FR). Maybe we can trade him for Wyatt? Well... a man can dream, can't he? :P
Do an intervention on Chris Perkins...
Everyone has things they are good at, and I think they have just been bungling all the job assignments.
Oh... and most importantly... put Ed in charge of FR story development (with Steven Schend as his 'second'). They seem to be the only two who actually understand the setting. And Make George Krashos 'Continuity Engineer'. ;)
Brian, I doubt that you can answer this (either because they are not keeping you "in the loop," or because you are not aloud to say), but can you inform us as to when we will be getting the next "Countdown to the Realms" article? Both Chris Perkins and Rich Baker made it sound like they were going to be coming out a lot more frequently then they have been.
Thanks,
Hawkins
More lies?
That was my interpretation from what Chris said in his blog and in the GRZ interview a few months back, it seemed as if he was taking responsibility.
Oh... and most importantly... put Ed in charge of FR story development (with Steven Schend as his 'second'). They seem to be the only two who actually understand the setting. And Make George Krashos 'Continuity Engineer'. ;)
Oh hell yeah!!! 100% behind this concept. I still do no understand why they did not just ask Ed how he thought it best to bring about the end of the Weave and the introduction of the Realms into 4e. He is very in tune with the Realms fan base. My only addition would be to add Brian to the mix of the other three.
I'm not aware of what articles other designers are working on. I *can* tell you that my next article is tenatively scheduled for the May timeframe, and covers Cormyr in 1479DR.
Thanks for that.
1479, eh? Will that be a Countdown article, or a Realmslore article?
BTW, no insult meant toward you in my above post (I feel like I'm apoloogizing a lot lately) - What I meant by liking Rich's Countdown article is that he focused more on what was the same, where as you and BC(?) focused more on the changes. Regardless, I enjoyed your article despite the information it contained, which is really saying something. ;)
I only realized how much I liked Rich's Realmore articles while looking back through the ones I saved under my 'favorites'. Its a damn shame he takes all the flak around here, when most of the FR's new direction wasn't even up to him.
Doesn't really matter what I or anyone else has to say anymore anyway... the die is cast and the chips are going to fall where they may. I just hope FR is strong enough to survive the coming storm.
Ya see that? I am not all in love with all of the changes.;)
Excellent idea about one member of a gaming group signing up for it - that could help offset the cost (everyone put in $2 a week), and it really makes no sense what-so-ever for everyone in a group that meets in person to have to pay for all the online-gaming stuff. The DM could just take up a collection, and pass around printed hand-outs at each session.
See I'm actually thinking I will get the online stuff, because $10 is pretty cheap...
-To you, maybe! :P
:D Costs about as much as one movie ticket these days!Sometimes I spend more on frivolous things, like...well, nevermind.:P
Beauty creams for example :P
That's true! There are tons of cosmetic products that cost more than $10.
Ten dollars is cheap, cheap, CHEAP!
-Yeah, yeah, yeah...
Costs about as much as one movie ticket these days!
-The last movie I saw? X-Men 3. I wish I didn't. Before that? Revenge of the Sith...
-Yeah, yeah, yeah...
-The last movie I saw? X-Men 3. I wish I didn't. Before that? Revenge of the Sith...
*chuckles* I figure that having D&D Insider for one month might be worth more than the price of a movie ticket (at least, if the movie turns out to be not that great, and D&D Insider is actually worthwhile...).
Ten dollars is cheap, cheap, CHEAP!
Sometimes I spend more on frivolous things, like...well, nevermind.:P
-Do tell.;)
18D
Seriously, I'll love to see a 20 lvl Wizard and a 20 lvl Swashbuckler on a tavern fight, who'll be better at it? I'll bet my money on the Swashbuckler, unless the Wizard has experience in close quarter casting and a lot of touch spells because a Fireball is not an option, then I think the'll be even.
Or a Wizard who can cast spell every round for one hour. A good DM know how to challenge all players, and one of the best ways to make Fighters shine is sending a lot of fodder to leave the spellcasters without magic and then striking with the Big Bad Monster who can only be stoped by the Fighters because the Spellcasters are OOS.
That's the thing- 4E is all about WOTC trying to design D&D for the lowest common denominator, for better AND for worst.
Think about it - If you give us the map now, curiousity will get the better of most people, and they WILL buy the FRCG regardless of prior convictions. Sure, I have an ulterior motive here (I LOVE Maps!)... but what I said is STILL 100% true. Learn from Drug Dealers - you always give them a little taste first to get them hooked. ;)
*chuckles* I figure that having D&D Insider for one month might be worth more than the price of a movie ticket (at least, if the movie turns out to be not that great, and D&D Insider is actually worthwhile...).
Being on a fixed income, $10 a month doesn't really fit into my budget (nor do movies).
There was a time when I'd hand that out to a guy on the street asking for change, but things have changed quite a bit for me in the last few years.
Anyhow, I WAS planning on getting it anyway, because I figured for the online versions of Dungeon and Dragon magazines it would be worth it, not to mention all of those online-playing goodies and DM aids.
However, I have yet to see ANYTHING remotely similar to either of those magazines come out - just a bunch of cleverly-disguised ads for 4e. Also, with all the 'wonkiness' of the site, and Gleemax still being in its 'Alpha' Stage, I have absolutely no hope that the DDi will be anything but unstable crap and useless drivel.
I remember buying the 3rd edition PHB and DMG, and this really cool disc came with it! It had a really great interface and allowed you to build characters. They promised that that was just a 'demo version', and the full version would be even cooler, and you'd be able to add-in all the options available from future splatbooks.
I'm still WAITING for that...
They lied, plain and simple. The product we were promised NEVER came out - it was all a lie to get more people to buy the books.
And now they are trying to pull the SAME EXACT CON! Watch - the new 'DDi' won't be ready when the 4th edition releases - but we will be promised that it is 'coming soon'.
Don't believe it... it's 'vaporware'. If they include a demo disc in the PHB and DMG this time out, you can pretty much gaurantee that they are doing the same thing AGAIN.
I remember when this company was more then 90% BS.
Question: Will we be getting a High-Res Campaign/World map made available here at WotC, as we did with 3e? If so, when will it be available? Is there a snowball's chance in hell we can get a 'peak' at it sooner?
Think about it - If you give us the map now, curiousity will get the better of most people, and they WILL buy the FRCG regardless of prior convictions. Sure, I have an ulterior motive here (I LOVE Maps!)... but what I said is STILL 100% true. Learn from Drug Dealers - you always give them a little taste first to get them hooked. ;)
Being on a fixed income, $10 a month doesn't really fit into my budget (nor do movies).
There was a time when I'd hand that out to a guy on the street asking for change, but things have changed quite a bit for me in the last few years.
Anyhow, I WAS planning on getting it anyway, because I figured for the online versions of Dungeon and Dragon magazines it would be worth it, not to mention all of those online-playing goodies and DM aids.
However, I have yet to see ANYTHING remotely similar to either of those magazines come out - just a bunch of cleverly-disguised ads for 4e. Also, with all the 'wonkiness' of the site, and Gleemax still being in its 'Alpha' Stage, I have absolutely no hope that the DDi will be anything but unstable crap and useless drivel.
I remember buying the 3rd edition PHB and DMG, and this really cool disc came with it! It had a really great interface and allowed you to build characters. They promised that that was just a 'demo version', and the full version would be even cooler, and you'd be able to add-in all the options available from future splatbooks.
I'm still WAITING for that...
They lied, plain and simple. The product we were promised NEVER came out - it was all a lie to get more people to buy the books.
And now they are trying to pull the SAME EXACT CON! Watch - the new 'DDi' won't be ready when the 4th edition releases - but we will be promised that it is 'coming soon'.
Don't believe it... it's 'vaporware'. If they include a demo disc in the PHB and DMG this time out, you can pretty much gaurantee that they are doing the same thing AGAIN.
I remember when this company was more then 90% BS.
You do know that E-Tools was released- right? The interface sucked, and they had to turn to Code Monkey to save the project, but it did get released.
The original was beautiful... Too bad it was all just a 'pretty lie'.
For the complete lack of support it got, I suppose E-Tools was 'adequate', but in this day and age, if you can't even be bothered with making the program look good, its gonna fail. Also, WotC did now allow all of the stuff in the splatbooks into E-Tools (and probably never will), which limits the program severely, IMHO.
That's true! There are tons of cosmetic products that cost more than $10.
Trust me, Rino, I've seen you. You don't need beauty creams.
Trust me, Rino, I've seen you. You don't need beauty creams.
- 10 + 2 does make 12, you know.
Trust me, Rino, I've seen you. You don't need beauty creams.
Well, thanks.:embarrass Some moisturizers are helpful for any type of skin though.
I'm aware that $10 a month doesn't fit into everyone's budget--I just felt like being a bit silly before!
Any chance this whole spellplague thing is just a horrible joke in poor taste?
-No.
The AC penalty when charging is arguable either way - an opposing argument could be "why should I suffer a 2 penalty to AC when I am hurtling towards some poor guy with my weapon reaching out for his face?" The racial ability one I think is indefensible. Can you explain to me why Half-orcs should be worse at initimidate - or why dwarfs should be penalized when tinkering with magical devices or turning undead?
Charging...because you are focused and moving quickly to get to attack the one target. A charge is by defination a reckless move.
Can you explain why x race is better at x? Then why have racial mods at all?
And why have negative racial penalties at all when you can call the level wherever you want and just delineate those areas where a race is superior on average? The rest of the numbers an adventurer has to throw in will tip the balance wherever they want anyway. There really is no need to make it tough to be an "unusual suspect" character - that is just a design decision. In 4e, it will be easier to play unusual suspects than 3e, but still more optimal to choose races that lean towards the prime attributes of the class.
Never had a problem in 3.5 playing 'unusual suspects' as a matter of fact it was actualy fun both from a Role Playing and a mechanical standpoint overcoming limitions...now I got no interest indoing it in 4th. You know what playing a half-orc was really great fun because it was a challenge...now it is easy...
However, the negative mods I was referring to are those negative things that can happen in combat that have ripple effects throughout the mechanics of a character - such as losing 2 point of Dex. Your AC drops, your Ref save drops, you may lose the dodge, mobility, spring attack and others feats that have dex pre-requisites such as two-weapon fighting. Your Dex based skills are reduced. And finally, your ranged attacks are reduced. Where all these effects intended or necessary? And if they were, was it really worth it?
I don't get the complexity of this? Or why it wouldn't happen if you did sap somebodys Dex...it makes sense to me.
Now consider level drain. Without looking in your book, tell me how many spells of what level a 7th level wizard loses when drained 2 effective levels.
Ok maybe you just don't know how to play...you just take the two highest levels spells(or slots) he can cast. If you are looking in the book then you are looking at the wrong spot...try the character sheet he should have a spell list of what spells he has prepared. I personaly trust my players and they prove trust worthy...if you can't then you have a problem that any rules edition won't fix.
Now consider Con drain. You lose masses of hit points, often you die suddenly (through hit point loss). The Barbarian has to recalculate his rage duration - and may suddenly drop dead through the cessation of his rage.
Loss of HP = to level x Con mod lost. Not that hard and might not be a 'mass'. Sure you can die suddenly....but some people acrualy find the game boring if you can't die suddenly. As for the barbarian rage...
In each case you have to ask yourself - was this the intent of the effect? Is it fun when it happens? Can this be better expressed as some other penalty?
Actualy I think if you drain something the effects pretty much makes sense....
As to the fun aspect...well all I have to say is that some people play the game to be challenged. Personaly I like challenges and this edition just makes everything soo easy.
Heck Meals promised that you can't make a mistake in character gen...um some of my favorite characters(and sometimes the most powerful) resulted from these 'mistakes' as they overcame them. Sorry if I am not overcome with happieness as I see them taking a great game and destroying what I liked about it. Hope you enjoy this game though.
Can you explain why x race is better at x? Then why have racial mods at all?
-Genetics and general societal influences (keeping in mind that the "man raised by the wolf" situation isn't exactly common).
-Genetics and general societal influences (keeping in mind that the "man raised by the wolf" situation isn't exactly common).
Ok so would genetics account for races not being dextrous or as intelligent or as charimatic? (My arguement was that if a race gets bonuses why can't they have penalties...did you read the post?)
I mean can anybody really explain why halfling no longer get a strength penalty? I mean how does this make any sense at all?
Ok so would genetics account for races not being dextrous or as intelligent or as charimatic? (My arguement was that if a race gets bonuses why can't they have penalties...did you read the post?)
-Of course, and they do. An Avariel is graceful and dexterous (+DEX), but because of this, their bones are frail and brittle (-CON).
I mean can anybody really explain why halfling no longer get a strength penalty? I mean how does this make any sense at all?
-By Human standards (as Humans are the stereotypical middle ground), the average Halfling isn't as strong as the average Human, because of their size. Being smaller doesn't usually lend itself towards being strong.
-I honestly don't see what the problem is.
Though on the case of being level drained and losing spells... its probably only going to drain one level of spells for a wizard or cleric, given that they advance a spell-level every other level IIRC. Kinda depends for sorcs though... I seem to recall that their advancement was a tiny bit irregular compared to a wizard or cleric.
You know what playing a half-orc was really great fun because it was a challenge...now it is easy...
For some, it was fun for roleplaying reasons; for some, it was fun for the darkvision and greater Str; for you, because the mechanics were a challenge. I don't think you were typical.
I don't get the complexity of this? Or why it wouldn't happen if you did sap somebodys Dex...it makes sense to me.
Sure, it made sense, but the mechanics of ability score reduction are more complicated than for increases, with the loss of prerequisites for feats and prestige classes.
Ok maybe you just don't know how to play...you just take the two highest levels spells(or slots) he can cast. If you are looking in the book then you are looking at the wrong spot...try the character sheet he should have a spell list of what spells he has prepared. I personaly trust my players and they prove trust worthy...if you can't then you have a problem that any rules edition won't fix.
It never made sense to me that a wizard would "forget" any spells written in his spell books so that they were no longer written there. Being unable to cast when caster level is too low made sense, but not the erasing of what was written.
Loss of HP = to level x Con mod lost. Not that hard and might not be a 'mass'. Sure you can die suddenly....but some people acrualy find the game boring if you can't die suddenly. As for the barbarian rage...
Actualy I think if you drain something the effects pretty much makes sense....
More complex for level drain, where you lose HP for last class level, including from Con bonus, lose stat bump in some cases, lose feat sometims, lose class abilities, must adjust rangeds and melee to hits, saving throws, AC, skill ranks (and possibly modifiers), grapple modifiers, etc. on the fly.
Many players do not like unexpected sudden death with no chance of prevention. One reason I would not play a raging barbarian, in spite of the benefits. Whether the risk is apealing is purely a personal judgment.
Heck Meals promised that you can't make a mistake in character gen...um some of my favorite characters(and sometimes the most powerful) resulted from these 'mistakes' as they overcame them.
So, deliberately create a PC with disadvantages, such as lower ability scores in key abilities, racial or class features that don't match your chosen role. Nothing, other than the other players at the table also wanting to have fun, stops you from creating your own personal challenges. You don't need mistakes in character generation to give you a challenge.
A Avariel would have more pliable, slimmer and more hollow bones, not brittle, no creature that can fly has brittle bones as that makes flight impossible.
-Semantics. You know what I mean.
Do you guys have ANY plans to produce regional books? I'm not talking about material in the DDi, I mean actual, physical sourcebooks?
I think you just gave something away! :D
If Khrulis was able to die of old age, then he wasn't killed by the Spellplague, and that gives me some hope that other Half-Orcs survived.
But then again, you did say that folks found them 'politically incorrect', which means there probably won't be ANY Half-Orcs come 4e.
I suppose, since we can now play Orcs, being Half-Orc isn't nearly so sexy.
Didn't WotC say that there would be optional rules for half-orcs on DDI?
Also, I might add that Akanûl is going to be a really fun and interesting region to play around in. There's no other place quite like it in the Realms. I'm really looking forward to the LFR adventures that will come out of it. They should be very unique, and very cool.
I am a long-time Realms fan (since '92) and greatly looking forward to the new Realms ala 4th Edition. You've taken some heat, so here's some ice.
Great job, keep it up, and don't be stingy with those previews. My group and I are looking forward to the full release. Can't wait! :D
Just a nature geek, :D
No slight meant, Lord K,
-I didn't take it that way, so don't worry. If I did, your parents would be dead, your house on fire, and all of your creative endeavors would suddenly disappear. ;)
I think you just gave something away!
If Khrulis was able to die of old age, then he wasn't killed by the Spellplague, and that gives me some hope that other Half-Orcs survived.
But then again, you did say that folks found them 'politically incorrect', which means there probably won't be ANY Half-Orcs come 4e.
I suppose, since we can now play Orcs, being Half-Orc isn't nearly so sexy.
Their excuse is beyond lame.
It's ok to play characters that make pacts with beings of great evil such as demons and devils (hence, the tiefling race being core and more demonic and the warlock class being core) yet the possible concept that some (not all) half-orcs are spawned by **** isn't ok? So it's ok to sell your soul to the devil but not have a character possible conceived through ****?
Their logic is more chaotic than Limbo (oh, wait, there is no Limbo...it magically vanished!)
WotC, let the darn players of the game figure out how their half-orc came to be. Just cause the only thing you can think of is **** doesn't mean we lack the creative sense to come up with something else.
Their excuse is beyond lame.
It's ok to play characters that make pacts with beings of great evil such as demons and devils (hence, the tiefling race being core and more demonic and the warlock class being core) yet the possible concept that some (not all) half-orcs are spawned by **** isn't ok? So it's ok to sell your soul to the devil but not have a character possible conceived through ****?
Their logic is more chaotic than Limbo (oh, wait, there is no Limbo...it magically vanished!)
WotC, let the darn players of the game figure out how their half-orc came to be. Just cause the only thing you can think of is **** doesn't mean we lack the creative sense to come up with something else.
No, the canon of the Realms, and D&D as a whole, considers Half-Orcs as coming solely from ****. Go ahead, open up your 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, you know the one with the centaur and the red dragon in bad art? You'll find that Orcs are a pack of cowardly, malicious torturers, and rapists.
Well, up until Eberron, that is. Oh, wait, now you're saying that you want the Realms to adopt something from Eberron? Wasn't that a chief complaint of the new edition?
Look, not everything that I've read about the new Realms fills my heart with joy. Hell, of my four favorite gods, two are dead (Helm and Mystra), one is MIA (Azuth), and one changed, possibly radically (Lathander/Amaunator), but saying that "half orcs are a product of **** because you guys are lame!!!111oneonebbq" is an outright delusion.
Oh, it was also said that if you wanted to play a Half Orc at launch to just use the Orc and describe him as looking like a Half Orc.
No, the canon of the Realms, and D&D as a whole, considers Half-Orcs as coming solely from ****. Go ahead, open up your 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, you know the one with the centaur and the red dragon in bad art? You'll find that Orcs are a pack of cowardly, malicious torturers, and rapists.
Well, up until Eberron, that is. Oh, wait, now you're saying that you want the Realms to adopt something from Eberron? Wasn't that a chief complaint of the new edition?
Look, not everything that I've read about the new Realms fills my heart with joy. Hell, of my four favorite gods, two are dead (Helm and Mystra), one is MIA (Azuth), and one changed, possibly radically (Lathander/Amaunator), but saying that "half orcs are a product of **** because you guys are lame!!!111oneonebbq" is an outright delusion.
Oh, it was also said that if you wanted to play a Half Orc at launch to just use the Orc and describe him as looking like a Half Orc.
Wrong, in FRCS, you know tha one with the wierd symbol on the cover(published LONG before Ebberon btw) in pg. 209 states than in the city of Phsant orcs live in peace with humans working in mines and in farms, they also marry human women. Why people want to keep up with old lore. Isn't that one of the chief compains of the "FR haters"?
Don't get me wrong I like Eberon(and I'm not saying that "they are trying to make FR more like Eberon) , but its a different setting for diferent taste. ;)
Also, that bit of unpleasantness was directed solely at Razz, as his own disrespect deserves the same in response.
These forums (all of the WotC official forums that I've had the stomach to read) are a cesspool. Not because people disagree with Wizards (they're here for people to voice their opinions) but because only a small handful can do so politely. Perhaps the mods could be a little more thorough in here, including my post if need be.
I should have kept my mouth shut, and ignored the troll, but I chose to grapple him instead.
General statement. It doesn't help to make these boards more filled with acerbity than they already are at times. That's how things escalate. As tempting as it is to some don't go complaining about the complainers and wonder why the atmosphere is the way it is.
Ok, I was wrong, and I never saw that entry. Ody, you (and the other handful of non-jerks here) have my apologies.
Also, that bit of unpleasantness was directed solely at Razz, as his own disrespect deserves the same in response.
These forums (all of the WotC official forums that I've had the stomach to read) are a cesspool. Not because people disagree with Wizards (they're here for people to voice their opinions) but because only a small handful can do so politely. Perhaps the mods could be a little more thorough in here, including my post if need be.
I should have kept my mouth shut, and ignored the troll, but I chose to grapple him instead.
You are cool
-And, to reiterate for everyone:
Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide: August 18th, 2008
Forgotten Realms Player's Guide: September 16th, 2008
Scepter Tower of Spellgard: September 16th, 2008
In 2e, Steven Schend 's wonderful Lands of Intrigue product. Check out the entry for Purskul (Amn) - both Orcs and Humans live - AND INTERMARRY - in the town!!!
Believing that all Half-Orcs are products of **** is just as narrow minded as the old RW idea that all Malato children were products of **** (and people really did believe that). Guess what? Now we know that some white women liked sleeping with black men!
Automatically believing a child of mixed parentage is a product of **** is the worst form of bigotry, and we have SEVERAL examples in established canon of quite the opposite.
And I'm not calling blacks Orcs - far from it. I'm just trying to give an example of how people's percepions can be skewed just because of their beliefs. I'm sure if we had Orcs in the RW, there would be some women that would find it fun to 'dawdle' with them. As far back as ancient Rome, we have examples of fine-bread noble women 'slumming' for a little action.
If the designers think that ALL Half-Orcs are products of ****, they need to re-read their sourcebooks, and perhaps talk to someone about their disturbing 'fantasies'.
Will the d12 get any action in 4e? I have close to 20 of them for no real reason. (No I didn't buy them all. Most came as gifts with other sets of dice)
Mr.Baker
Will the d12 get any action in 4e? I have close to 20 of them for no real reason. (No I didn't buy them all. Most came as gifts with other sets of dice)
Hey Rich, Bruce, Phil and the rest of the FR design team:
I am a long-time Realms fan (since '92) and greatly looking forward to the new Realms ala 4th Edition. You've taken some heat, so here's some ice.
Great job, keep it up, and don't be stingy with those previews. My group and I are looking forward to the full release. Can't wait! :D
QUESTION:
Do you guys have ANY plans to produce regional books? I'm not talking about material in the DDi, I mean actual, physical sourcebooks?
No, the canon of the Realms, and D&D as a whole, considers Half-Orcs as coming solely from ****. Go ahead, open up your 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, you know the one with the centaur and the red dragon in bad art? You'll find that Orcs are a pack of cowardly, malicious torturers, and rapists.
Actually, as far as the Realms goes, that's not quite true. Ed Greenwood has (on Candlekeep) discussed how love matches between orcs and humans have happened. So, while it might still be true to say that MOST half-orcs in the Realms are the result of ****, it's not true that all half-orcs were born from ****.
General statement. It doesn't help to make these boards more filled with acerbity than they already are at times. That's how things escalate. As tempting as it is to some don't go complaining about the complainers and wonder why the atmosphere is the way it is.
I agree, totally.
Or are they just superfluous when you could play an orc?
-Would you consider Half-Elves superfluous when Elves are availible as PC races?
-Would you consider Half-Elves superfluous when Elves are availible as PC races?
-Would you consider Half-Elves superfluous when Elves are availible as PC races?
Obviously, since he said as much in his next sentence. Quite frankly, there are too many elves and their look-alikes in 4e. it is my only serious beef with it so far, what with Eladrin, Elves and Half-elves, and Drow coming in FR. I would have liked a serious "muscle" race myself - Orcs will do, given their new story (thanks Salvatore), and I am hoping the new Genasi will be much much better than the old.
Half-anything should be a template, not a race.
Sorry, can't talk about plans for products that haven't yet appeared in our catalog. That means I can't say anything about 2009 and on right now.
I wish you could have provided more info, but thanks for taking the time to answer.
Yes, but you're going to see them in the Player's Handbook anyway. :P
-The Half-Elves don't like you, either. They feel they have rights, as sentient beings, and feel they deserve more respect. ;)
Little half-breed mongrels - should be Euthanized at birth. :P
-Euthanized, I don't agree with. But, I don't like Half-Elves, either.
Maybe they should just say that the it requires 'magical help', and Mystra's Weave provided that. With it gone, no more Half-anythings - unless someone performs a powerful magical ritual to overcome the problems with different species breeding (which is exactly what Wizards do when creating cross-breeds).
Of course, that means that all the Half-Elves and Half-Orcs would be able to create their own races now, but then they should be renamed. I think most Half-Orks these days are in fact created by other Half-Orcs, rather then interbreeding (like in Palashuk).
I think in my own games, I will make it thus. They exist, but they will be renamed and have their own cultures (I think Half-Elves of Eberron are like that).
I think I'm starting to lean toward an Amalgam of old and new Realms once again... but it depends on how much they changed the maps this time.
I think in my own games, I will make it thus. They exist, but they will be renamed and have their own cultures (I think Half-Elves of Eberron are like that).
-Many Half-Elves of the Realms have their own culture. Look at the Half-Elves of the Yuirwood. And, same thing with Half-Orcs. They have Palashuk.
Its really not so bad - there are inumerable examples of that with RW cultures blending together to form something new.
I'm starting to 'except' 4e FR again (although I'm still not sure if I'd play in it). I think the Dragonborn (:yuck
, and how they 'nuked' Halruaa, are the only things that still make my skin crawl. I don't mind the Genasi Kingdom, but its placement is absolutely assinine - they took one of the few regions that didn't have have a 'Middle-Eastern' flavor and stuck genies there?
I guess they are also trying to make it look like Al-Qadim... which still exists to the south.
The Genasi Kingdom should have appeared in the Calim Desert, or Southern Mulhorand, or even on the northern coast of Zakhara (just south of where Halruaa used to be). One of the biggest complaints about this setting from the very beginning was the over-abundance of 'Middle-Eastern' cultures, all spread willy-nilly across Faerûn, and they went and decided to add a new one, rather then change-up one of the old ones into something new?
They took a potentially great idea and dropped the ball again. If I wanted Al-Qadim, I would just play in Zakhara and be done with it. The fact that Zakhara still exist, and they are putting the genie kingdom in the north shows you just how little these guys think about their decisions.
The fact that Zakhara still exists...
-So we think...Shh...
I have high hopes for some Kara-Tur information come 4e, but I'm fairly certain they will just be ignoring Zakhara forever.
Who knows? Made the DDi will have something... but then you and I will never see it, eh? ;)
All they need is someone extremely knowledgable about the East to write (right?) those articles...
Someone with vision...
"Perhaps the Weave and the current gods were made to dismiss Abeir and keep it and it inhabitants trapped "elsewhere". With the Weave gone it has tried to reclaim the planet. During the 100 years the gods or mortals are able to stop the Abeir invasion but not before it reclaimed parts of Toril."
I'm starting to 'except' 4e FR again (although I'm still not sure if I'd play in it). I think only the Dragonborn (:yuck
I don't mind the Genasi Kingdom, but its placement is absolutely assinine - they took one of the few regions that didn't have have a 'Middle-Eastern' flavor and stuck genies there?
I guess they are also trying to make it look like Al-Qadim... which still exists to the south.
The Genasi Kingdom should have appeared in the Calim Desert, or Southern Mulhorand, or even on the northern coast of Zakhara (just south of where Halruaa used to be). One of the biggest complaints about this setting from the very beginning was the over-abundance of 'Middle-Eastern' cultures, all spread willy-nilly across Faerûn, and they went and decided to add a new one, rather then change-up one of the old ones into something new?
They took a potentially great idea and dropped the ball again. If I wanted Al-Qadim, I would just play in Zakhara and be done with it. The fact that Zakhara still exist, and they are putting the genie kingdom in the north shows you just how little these guys think about their decisions.
agreed, I had a genasi realm in Calimshan for a long time, it's not that much the over-abundance of Middle-Eastern cultures (Phoenicians would be interesting), but of Arabic ones
Halruaa blowing up and dragonborn also bothers the most
Halruaa blowing up and dragonborn also bothers the most
Yeah...
the "WHY?" factor comes heavily into play here. The Dragonborn could have been placed somewhere like Veldorn, which has had next to nothing about it since the beginning, or even on one of those 'other lands'. As for Halruaa... I sure hope they have a plan, and it wasn't just someone's personal dislike of the place.
The Genasi Kingdom being placed in one of the few areas with no 'Arabian' influence just blows my mind...
All they need is someone extremely knowledgable about the East to write (right?) those articles...
Someone with vision...
-Not necessarily. Kara-Tur =/= Southeast Asia.
-I'd be nice to see someone like...US! (Hint! Hint!)
-Eh? Eh?
Rich, Am I close?
"Perhaps the Weave and the current gods were made to dismiss Abeir and keep it and it inhabitants trapped "elsewhere". With the Weave gone it has tried to reclaim the planet. During the 100 years the gods or mortals are able to stop the Abeir invasion but not before it reclaimed parts of Toril."
-That doesn't fit with the timeline of 'Abeir'. GK and BRJ have already 'confirmed' that 'Abeir' was flung away in -31,000 DR. Mystra, and the Weave, would have been created long before that.
I was not a fan of the half-elf till I saw what Eberron did with them. If FR (or any setting) can make them as strong and influential a race as EB has done then I will want to play them more. Right now I would only be a halfie in Eberron. I might consider being a moonshae half-elf, but that is for a storyline purpose not because I love halfies in FR.
Half breeds make excellent story fodder, but mechanically, they are a waste. The 3.x half elf, other than Eberron, has no definitive 1/2 elven trait. They can multiclass freely like their human parent and are charming like their elven parent? No bonus feat, no bonus weapon proficiencies even if raised by elves. You are better off rolling up an elf or human and roleplaying your halfness.
Eberron goes a little further by giving the half elves a Dragonmark house. However, the mark isn't particularly half-elfish, replace all reference to half elves with humans and not many would notice, other than being more capable with the whole bonus feat.
If the primary draw of the half race is the unique story of a character with a foot in two worlds, you don't need separate mechanics. Use one parent or the other. It is the same issue as sub-race proliferation, but Andy Collins got gun shy on the half elves.
Half breeds make excellent story fodder, but mechanically, they are a waste. The 3.x half elf, other than Eberron, has no definitive 1/2 elven trait. They can multiclass freely like their human parent and are charming like their elven parent? No bonus feat, no bonus weapon proficiencies even if raised by elves. You are better off rolling up an elf or human and roleplaying your halfness.
-There are at least 3 Half-Elf alternative stat threads in the D&D General Races section every other day.
-What I've done is basically seperate the Half-Elf race into two seperate "paths", for a lack of better terms. One favors the Human side, and the other favors the Elf side. The one with the Human focus has the stats of a Human, and the one that favors the Elf has the stats of an Elf. Easy enough.
As I said before it is the victors who write history. If I were the new gods I would want to wipe away all pre-Toril history from any tome or ruin. I would then rewrite history strating from the New Gods "beginning" till now. What you and Toril knows as Lore has been tampered with slightly by the gods to make sure people don't start worshipping the Old Gods again and give them enough power to return. Now that the Weave (the thing that was holding them back) is gone they can enter Toril again and take it over, slowly.
-That's not how it works. 3e sourcebooks and novels are (unless specificed) told in the 3rd party omniscient viewpoint. There is no "history was tampered with" angle.
"But in this book it says..." as reason for why it could not happen. Perhaps the Weave was strenghtened or changed as a buffer zone after the Old Gods were kicked out. Who knows?
Well there was they just have not written about it yet.
-What?
-Let's continue this discussion in one of the other threads we're talking about this in, and not in this one. ;)
Half-anything should be a template, not a race.
I wish you could have provided more info, but thanks for taking the time to answer.
I sort of agree. There should be general rules for crossing race x with race y. Half-elf and half-orc should just be examples, rather than separate races.
Counselors and Kings is an excellent trilogy. It clearly show how a great adventure can be done even in a kingdom filled with Wizards. The trilogy is one of the few I read that use the Unseelie Court and Elaine uses them masterfully.
indeed, I understand how Halruaa can be a burden to PCs and why it's unpopular, but Halruaa is very undeveloped, 3e did nothing new, there was a paraphrased 2e version plus the Shadow Weave threat
, Counselors and Kings have been a step in the right direction, but instead of building on that and developing more complex, with more intrigues and more dynamic society they blow it up. Halruaa had a great potential. Hope that some stuff survives, like the Jordaini.Are 1/2 orcs out because of PC reasons? Or are they just superfluous when you could play an orc? I am glad they are gone, mechanically, because they were a waste of page count. Unfortunately, half-elves were not axed as well.
Half-orcs are not "out", they just won't be in the first PHB.
"The weave may have nothing to do with ousting the Old Gods. It could be the reason they are being allowed to "replace" Toril with Abeir though. The chaos on the Planes and magic goign loopy for years left the gods trying to get things under control. They were not keeping an eye on Abeir and what those pesky Old Gods were up to though. BAM! Maztica and Unther are replaced. Perhaps the 4E book will open with the current Pantheon sealing off Toril again or it could be that Toril is under constant threat of being consumed. Who knows?" QUOTED by Rauric.
Perhaps the Old Gods existed and were swept away by something creating the Weave, then the current gods came to life?
I just want to add that even with 3e's 'omnipotent 3rd person' approach, any information that comes from the time period of the Creator Races can be considered Myth.
Now, before folks start challenging me on this, think about it. Since the first appearance of the "Creator Races", information about them, and what races actually comprise them, has been constatnly changing. New information that sheds light on a prehistoric period should be perfectly exceptable, and I don't feel it's as much a retcon as say, something hapening more recent, like the founding of Cormyr, or the erecting of the Standing Stone.
We have a canon precedent (several actually) of the Creator Race information being falible, and that historic period that goes along with them. If Mystra's Church was able to spread that propaganda about her Weave being the 'end all, be all' of magic (which it obviously wasn't), then its perfectly feasable that other 'lies' were inbedded in the 'Truth' Mystra's church has been spreading since the beginning. The world may have been 'Weavless' at the start of the Creator-Race period, and the Weave was added in -31,000 DR.
Which would explain why the all-powerful Sarrukh, along with the Batrachi and Aeriee, felt it was neccessary to study the 'primitive' magics of other peoples. If they used Raw Magic, then this 'New Weave Magic' would have facinated them, and I can see why they would have collected everything they could about it with that organization (Be'atith? Not at home right now). Over the years, Mystryl would have 'fine tuned' the weave, and left many of it's secrets forgotten - thats why the Nether Scrolls contained secrets about the weave long hidden. As time went on, she made the weave more and more 'idiot proof', but someone with both the knowledge and wherewithal could find their way into the inner workings of the Weave, and access immense power (as karsus did).
I just want to add that even with 3e's 'omnipotent 3rd person' approach, any information that comes from the time period of the Creator Races can be considered Myth.
-If the information is not presented as such, then, no, that's not how it works. If it is, then it is specifically mentioned as such. The birth of Shar, Selûne, Mystryl and Chauntea, for example, has been cited numerous times in 3e sourcebooks, but is specifically mentioned as myth. Page eight of AGHotR is not. It is fact. As is the rest of that book, excluding the side-bar passages that are specifically written 'in-character'.
Bear in mind though, that OUR FR books are written from notes taken from Elminster (canon), which means that anything we read has passed through his hands. As a Chosen of Mystra, all the information we have is merely propaganda passed on by her priesthood (whom I now realize was an even more insidious evil on Toril - control through ignorance).
She probably had help from that other poser, Corellon... :P
Bear in mind though, that OUR FR books are written from notes taken from Elminster (canon), which means that anything we read has passed through his hands.
-Only 2e materials had his "stamp of approval". 3e materials ended this (in my opinion) silly practice.
-I'm continuing this in that other thread, so...
Ed would NEVER do that - I read those "Wizards Three" articles, and they were good friends.
Maybe when he was on vacation, WotC sent a squad of mercenary Ninjas to Ed's house, and they ambushed El while he was still suffering from 'teleport haze'.
That means they probably brought him all trussed up to the WotC offices, and Chris Perkins killed him and took his stuff!
Or worse... they got Uri Geller to transfer a piece of their collective psyche into Elminster's head, and thats why he hears voices in 4e...
Now, poor old El can only mumble "Rich Baker must be stopped" in his more lucid moments. :P
Hows that for a storyline?! :D
I have to get to work on an adventure where the PCs travel to earth and attack WotC Headquarters to save Elminster.
I have to get to work on an adventure where the PCs travel to earth and attack WotC Headquarters to save Elminster.
-therealmsvault.com is looking for people to write and submit adventures...
I have to get to work on an adventure where the PCs travel to earth and attack WotC Headquarters to save Elminster.
That's SO Mage: the Ascension :D
Are you saying Ed killed Elminster and took his stuff?
Ed would NEVER do that - I read those "Wizards Three" articles, and they were good friends.
Maybe when he was on vacation, WotC sent a squad of mercenary Ninjas to Ed's house, and they ambushed El while he was still suffering from 'teleport haze'.
That means they probably brought him all trussed up to the WotC offices, and Chris Perkins killed him and took his stuff!
Or worse... they got Uri Geller to transfer a piece of their collective psyche into Elminster's head, and thats why he hears voices in 4e...
Now, poor old El can only mumble "Rich Baker must be stopped" in his more lucid moments. :P
Hows that for a storyline?! :D
I have to get to work on an adventure where the PCs travel to earth and attack WotC Headquarters to save Elminster.
-Markus YOU ROCK!!!!
18D;)
Who can we write to in regards to the cancellation of Elaine Cunningham's Reclamation, with the aim of getting the decision reversed?
She told them SHE couldn't finish it, and they said "oh... Okay... I guess".
That was it - no decision was made. They stood to make a lot of money off of the book; they wouldn't cancel it.
She simply lost her 'muse' (will?) to finish said work - it happens.
THEY had NOTHING to do with it.
She told them SHE couldn't finish it, and they said "oh... Okay... I guess".
That was it - no decision was made. They stood to make a lot of money off of the book; they wouldn't cancel it.
She simply lost her 'muse' (will?) to finish said work - it happens.
Oh it's on!!!!
I have to get to work on an adventure where the PCs travel to earth and attack WotC Headquarters to save Elminster.
"There is no greater blasphemy than this..."
Elminster in Hell was published May 1, 2002
Elminster in WORSE Hell? :P
Mr Baker.
Who can we write to in regards to the cancellation of Elaine Cunningham's Reclamation, with the aim of getting the decision reversed?
Liz Schuh is the director of our book publishing business team. Bill Slavicsek is the director in charge of the book publishing editorial team. Phil Athans is the editor in charge of the team. However, I don't know what they'll be able to do at this point.
Probably nothing, short of forcing Elaine to finish a (problematic) manuscript.
I agree with Markus (and you, Rich) on this. Reclamation was cancelled because Elaine simply couldn't finish it. I'm sad about Reclamation being cancelled, but it wasn't because WotC wanted to lay the smackdown on it.
So...serious question. Any chance this whole spellplague thing is just a horrible joke in poor taste? I feel like I'm having a nightmare only when I pinch myself I don't wake up
Someone needs to look up the word "perspective". ;)
So, what you are saying is that if I were somewhere in Alpha Centauri, and using the Hubble Telescope to view Earth, the Spellplague wouldn't look nearly as bad?
Good point. ;)
For some, it was fun for roleplaying reasons; for some, it was fun for the darkvision and greater Str; for you, because the mechanics were a challenge. I don't think you were typical.
I guess we'll see. Though for those who liked higher str. and darkvision well they had that in 3rd and I could enjoy it too. Now that is no longer possible.
Sure, it made sense, but the mechanics of ability score reduction are more complicated than for increases, with the loss of prerequisites for feats and prestige classes.
Um...no it was really not that complicated.
It never made sense to me that a wizard would "forget" any spells written in his spell books so that they were no longer written there. Being unable to cast when caster level is too low made sense, but not the erasing of what was written.
What are you talking about here? I really don't get what you are trying to say here.
More complex for level drain, where you lose HP for last class level, including from Con bonus, lose stat bump in some cases, lose feat sometims, lose class abilities, must adjust rangeds and melee to hits, saving throws, AC, skill ranks (and possibly modifiers), grapple modifiers, etc. on the fly.
Again what are you talking about? You loose none of that from negative levels. Perament Level frain might cause some of that but not as complicated as you say especialy since you'll have a whole day before things do get perament in most cases. Also I don't get how you would loose AC?
Many players do not like unexpected sudden death with no chance of prevention. One reason I would not play a raging barbarian, in spite of the benefits. Whether the risk is apealing is purely a personal judgment.
Again the rules are being written for one style of play...I think that is a bad idea.
So, deliberately create a PC with disadvantages, such as lower ability scores in key abilities, racial or class features that don't match your chosen role. Nothing, other than the other players at the table also wanting to have fun, stops you from creating your own personal challenges. You don't need mistakes in character generation to give you a challenge.
This just funny I am not going to reply to this.
In my opinion 4th edition is taking the min. out of min/max.
Again what are you talking about? You loose none of that from negative levels. Perament Level frain might cause some of that but not as complicated as you say especialy since you'll have a whole day before things do get perament in most cases. Also I don't get how you would loose AC?
I was talking about "level loss", not "negative levels". As when a creatrure fails his save 24 hours after gaining a negative level, or on being raised from the dead, either of which can happen during an adventure. Loss of a wizard level in LG caused the loss of spells from the spellbook. A monk could lose AC as a result of level loss, Dex reduction, or Wis reduction. A dragon disciple could lose natural AC due to level loss. Many characters reduce AC if they reduce Dex.
In my opinion 4th edition is taking the min. out of min/max.
How? If ability scores aren't rolled randomly or pre-assigned, you will be able to meximize some while minimizing others, min/maaxing the character. Racial choice won't lower selected scores, but will add to selected scores. with a different bse from 3.5. You aren't likely to get the same stats as a charaxter of the same race in 3.5, but racial choice will still affect min/maxing.
18D;)
-Rich I got to give it to ya...that Warlord looks mighty intriging!
18D;)
(sorry if this has already been asked, I didn't see it . . . )
-Sorry Rich multiple questions, please answer if you can. Thanks.
18D:D
Why cant their be a Chosen of Mystra Epic Destiny?
It would never represent what means to be a Chosen of Mystra. Even a first level character could be a Chosen if Mystra decides that the character will be an excelent choice in the future.
A Chosen should be able to fefend themselves. A 1st level is not really up for the task.
-Yes, and no. Chosen are another term for Proxies. On Hallowed Ground says, on individuals becoming Proxies, that it "it takes some serious doing". It does on a bit more, but this is the most relevant part of the passage. Obviously, this is going differ from campaign to campaign. Depending on the deity, and the campaign, a 1st level character can be up to the task, while with other deities, in other campaigns, they might not be up to the task.
First, some paragon paths clearly imply the existence of other characters who are following that same path. If your paragon path is "Knight of the Chalice," there's clearly an Order of the Chalice, with other knights in it. Likewise, there are plenty of demigods out there in the cosmos. Your epic level PCs aren't the only ones.
Second, I'm sure that some DMs will prefer to custom-build signature NPCs and give them every choice or option that a PC of similar level gets. That's a little dangerous for encounter balance, since a 17th-level PC fighter is not the same as a 17th-level monster in the brute or soldier role. Hit points and damage output might not match up right. But some amount of DMs want that level of verisimilitude, so they'll do it anyway.
Finally, a campaign signature character like Drizzt or Elminster or Storm is clearly a cut above "the villain you fight in this adventure." Were we to stat them out in detail, I guess that yes, we'd probably pick out a path and destiny for a character of that significance. I don't think any are specifically statted out, other than short stat lines like "Elminster (human wizard 22)" (or whatever), so it's not an issue we dealt with head-on for NPC allies/advisors. Some of the villainous NPCs are statted out, and they're handled more like "standard" NPCs since we're statting them for the possibility of fighting PCs, albeit with a few special abilities thrown in.
Rich, I'm seeing a lot of interesting things here! A quick question popped in my head as I was reading the 'Tiers of Play' article. Will the famous Realms NPC's have Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies and the abilities that come with them? Or will those be reserved for PC's alone?
(sorry if this has already been asked, I didn't see it . . . )
We're certainly looking at a "Chosen of..." epic destiny, since that's a well-established Realms-specific fate for powerful characters. I'm afraid Mystra won't be one of the available options in 1479 DR, though.
I don't think we have path/destiny creation rules in the DMG, but it might be a topic for a later sourcebook. The formats are pretty straightforward, though. People should be able to "fake it" pretty well if they want to try designing a few for themselves.
-Hey Rich I got a question about these forums when 4E is released. What is going to happen to them? Will they get closed down, archived, or will they still be up. Also is their going to be an ASK THREAD IN THE 4E FR FORUMS? Thanks, also here is a bonus question, Why cant their be a Chosen of Mystra Epic Destiny? Cant blame me for trying. Heck here is another question, will the 4E DMG, have rules for creating Paragon Paths, and Epic Destiny?
-Sorry Rich multiple questions, please answer if you can. Thanks.
18D:D
Generally, we see paragon paths and epic destinies as things that are for player characters. They're designed and presented that way. If you're making up a 21st-level wizard to be the bad guy for your next adventure, you shouldn't have to pick out a path and destiny too. However... I think there are some exceptions to that when the rubber meets the road.
First, some paragon paths clearly imply the existence of other characters who are following that same path. If your paragon path is "Knight of the Chalice," there's clearly an Order of the Chalice, with other knights in it. Likewise, there are plenty of demigods out there in the cosmos. Your epic level PCs aren't the only ones.
Second, I'm sure that some DMs will prefer to custom-build signature NPCs and give them every choice or option that a PC of similar level gets. That's a little dangerous for encounter balance, since a 17th-level PC fighter is not the same as a 17th-level monster in the brute or soldier role. Hit points and damage output might not match up right. But some amount of DMs want that level of verisimilitude, so they'll do it anyway.
Finally, a campaign signature character like Drizzt or Elminster or Storm is clearly a cut above "the villain you fight in this adventure." Were we to stat them out in detail, I guess that yes, we'd probably pick out a path and destiny for a character of that significance. I don't think any are specifically statted out, other than short stat lines like "Elminster (human wizard 22)" (or whatever), so it's not an issue we dealt with head-on for NPC allies/advisors. Some of the villainous NPCs are statted out, and they're handled more like "standard" NPCs since we're statting them for the possibility of fighting PCs, albeit with a few special abilities thrown in.
Wow, thanks for the big answer, Rich! There's a lot of information there. I'm glad to see the statblocks be cut back, ie Elminster (human wizard x), leaving a lot of leeway for the DM.
thanks.
18D
I don't think any are specifically statted out, other than short stat lines like "Elminster (human wizard 22)" (or whatever), so it's not an issue we dealt with head-on for NPC allies/advisors.
This is something I can get onboard for.
I'm tired of all those write-ups for NPCs I'll never use - if I plan to use him/her that much where I'll need a full stat-out, I can do that myself (A little extra work, as opposed to hundreds of useless stat-blocks, is an excellent trade-off, IMHO).
Can you tell us whether there will be special warlock pacts specifically for the Forgotten Realms? Or will there only be the three generally disclosed: infernal, fey, star? Also, any sneak-tidbits about your Warlock Knights of Vassa? Inquiring minds want exclusive information!
Forgotten Realms 4e is three books, period, done, end of line: Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Player’s Guide to FR, and DM’s Guide to FR. All settings will be done like that, one per year, until they run out of settings. They mentioned Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer as settings on their list! Eberron, of course, is the ‘09 setting release (same three books), but it will also get DDI updates starting in June.
And on a more general note, as this question relates to all the campaign settings you're planning on publishing, is there any chance of WotC licensing out those settings to third party publishers after you publish their three books (Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and DM's Guide)? Any chance that's the plan, because personally, I think it'd be beneficial to all parties involved.
First off, the fans would benefit, as they'd get further support for their favorite settings beyond the three books that WotC is planning on putting out. I can definitely see Sovereign Press putting out supplements for a 4E Dragonlance, for instance. Arthaus getting its hands on Ravenloft would be fantastic, too. And maybe it's just me, but I think it'd be neat if Ed Greenwood and some other old Realms stalwarts formed a third party publishing company to put out Forgotten Realms supplements.
Secondly, the third party publishers would definitely benefit, as they'd get to produce supplements on settings which WotC isn't interested in continuing to develop beyond the initial three books. It'd be great seeing Arthaus putting out Gazetteers and Van Richten's Guides, again, for example. I imagine you guys wouldn't make a whole lot of profit on a supplement on Luiren, for instance (Which, I imagine, is why you may no longer be producing more setting specific books beyond the initial three), but a small third party publisher could probably turn a profit on a product like that.
And thirdly, WotC would definitely benefit from such a deal. After all, the whole idea of the OGL, and now GSL, is to sell more copies of the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. Likewise, licensing out those settings would only aid in selling the three setting books you put out. So long as people still need to buy the Player's Guide, Campaign Guide, and DM's Guide from you, someone else producing product for those settings can only help you. Having a third party publisher putting out supplements on Rashemen, the Moonshaes, Silverymoon, etc, can be beneficial to WotC, so long as they require the use of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, and Forgotten Realms DM's Guide. Someone else supports the setting, produces the supplements which individually don't make a lot of money, and works to increase the Realms fanbase, and WotC benefits from that in the form of increased sales for the three core books they put out for each setting.
So any chance we might see WotC licensing out one or more of those settings to third party publishers, Rich? Thanks.
-Yes, and no. Chosen are another term for Proxies. On Hallowed Ground says, on individuals becoming Proxies, that it "it takes some serious doing". It does on a bit more, but this is the most relevant part of the passage. Obviously, this is going differ from campaign to campaign. Depending on the deity, and the campaign, a 1st level character can be up to the task, while with other deities, in other campaigns, they might not be up to the task.
In 3rd ed proxies are a separate thing (they have their own template)
is there any chance of WotC licensing out those settings to third party publishers after you publish their three books (Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and DM's Guide)?
No Monster Manual for each setting? Is that what the 'DM's Guide' is for? Or does every setting get the same exact monsters now?
If all the settings have the same rules and monsters, and they won't be developed beyond the first couple of very vague books, what is the point of WotC to have more then one setting? Unless, of course, you're going to go back to the way it was in 2e, and have multiple settings on one world (like FR in it's glory days).
Lets see... a setting with a hundred or so books (Old FR), or one that will never be developed beyond three...
Tough choice there.
for those of us that have them. ;)
I realized over the last year all ya need is a core book and a bit of info to run a game. All that detail was really just TSRs way of making money. After rereading some of those 2E books I realized why they may have went out of business. They were not as good as I thought they were when I was in my teens. Delusional Nostalgia will do that to ya. Some are very good though.
Anyway continue with the cryfest.
If that were true then White Wolf wouldn't be making tons of lore books. They make one book for each group in everyone of their games. Mage: the Awakening has so far 5 organization books: Free Council, Guardians of the Veil, Mysterium, Adamantine Arrow, Banishers. And there are at least two more organizations that are waiting for two more: Silver Ladder and Seers of the Throne.
Hey, Rich. According to a blogpost from this site, the 4E Forgotten Realms line will only consist of three books. Is that true? Here's the specific quote from the blog post in question.
So any chance we might see WotC licensing out one or more of those settings to third party publishers, Rich? Thanks.
I don't think this will happen. They still want to sell us the information that used to be in sourcebooks, the difference is that from now on that information will be found in D&D insider. Is way more lucrative for them: just 3 basic books (basic books are the ones who sell more anyway) and pay monthly for the rest of the info.
Luckily enough we have more than enough material from past versions to last an entire lifetime of playing.
All of those sourcebooks for FR made TSR a fortune back in the day - it was publishing certain other crap settings that did them in (which shall remain nameless).
They are not just talking about a whole new rules set or Forgotten Realms here; WotC is trying to re-establish the business model that RPG settings revolve around.
You buy something, and then move onto the next 'cool' thing. Its not the way RPGs work, its the way TOY companies work. Whats next? "Tickle me Elminster"?
If that were true then White Wolf wouldn't be making tons of lore books. They make one book for each group in everyone of their games. Mage: the Awakening has so far 5 organization books: Free Council, Guardians of the Veil, Mysterium, Adamantine Arrow, Banishers. And there are at least two more organizations that are waiting for two more: Silver Ladder and Seers of the Throne.
They only produces that many books for Vampire, Werewolf and Mage, as those are Whitewolfs tentpole lines. For Promethean, Changeling and next years Hunter there is and will be a limited 5 book run.
I for one like the idea of a small number of books per setting. A lot more is left for the creativity of DMs and because of the limited space they will be forced to use only the best stuff. It's true that many of the older setting splats were mediocre at best, so i'm looking forward to the new tighter focus. Also, for those who want an expanded, more detailed setting, DDI will surely run articles on the Realms.
Lore books that BUILD upon the setting is a staple of RPG worlds - WotC's current model is bizarre, to say the least.
I don't think it's bizarre. The Campaign Guide and some Adventures are actually what most DMs need to run their game. I guess region specific books just don't sell very well, so it's understandable for WotC to change their publishing priorities.
All of those sourcebooks for FR made TSR a fortune back in the day - it was publishing certain other crap settings that did them in (which shall remain nameless).
uh... not really. What killed TSR was not the publishing of other settings, but supporting ALL settings at the same time. Their settings had to compete with one another. From the look of it that's not going to happen again.
If that were true then White Wolf wouldn't be making tons of lore books. They make one book for each group in everyone of their games. Mage: the Awakening has so far 5 organization books: Free Council, Guardians of the Veil, Mysterium, Adamantine Arrow, Banishers. And there are at least two more organizations that are waiting for two more: Silver Ladder and Seers of the Throne.
Please correct me if I am wrong (I am genuinely quite unfamiliar with White Wolf's current products), but in Mage, isn't membership in one or other organization somewhat central to the game experience? So if that is the case, then aren't these organization books more analogous to the class or race splat-books which WotC publishes?
They only produces that many books for Vampire, Werewolf and Mage, as those are Whitewolfs tentpole lines. For Promethean, Changeling and next years Hunter there is and will be a limited 5 book run.
But five books is more than just 3. And each WW book has six times the fluff that WotC have. Just the core books for each game have enough material to be at the level of the FRCS.
I've already finished Mysterium for Mage: the Awkaening and it took me three weeks of constant reading to finish it (it has very few mechanics that are easy to understand and aren't needed all the time). I've already read Tome of the Watchtowers, Tome of Mysteries, Secrets from the Ruined Temple, Legacies the Ancient, Legacies the Sublime and Astral Realms; they took me more time to read than every 3ed FR book.
I for one like the idea of a small number of books per setting. A lot more is left for the creativity of DMs and because of the limited space they will be forced to use only the best stuff. It's true that many of the older setting splats were mediocre at best, so i'm looking forward to the new tighter focus. Also, for those who want an expanded, more detailed setting, DDI will surely run articles on the Realms.
Not for me, I love having lots of books because they give me more tools to improvise. When I have a setting that is detailed to the last flower I don't need to make things, I just use my skills for threading improvised stories on the run. Thank's to the Realms level of detail I don't need to prepare anything when I DM, I just let my imagination flow.
Please correct me if I am wrong (I am genuinely quite unfamiliar with White Wolf's current products), but in Mage, isn't membership in one or other organization somewhat central to the game experience? So if that is the case, then aren't these organization books more analogous to the class or race splat-books which WotC publishes?
No, there are two different things that define a character in one of the nWoD games: a Clan/Path/Auspice/Seeming and a group. The first is what defines your class/race (being an Obrimos Mage is different from being an Acanthus Mage, just like being a Daeva Vampire is different from a Nosferatu Vampire), groups are more like The Harpers and the Zhentarim. You can play characters who don't belong to any group in WW's games. For example, Changelings without court (group) are considered courtless. And you can change your group if you feel it's important for your character.
In 3rd ed proxies are a separate thing (they have their own template)
-I have never seen this. That aside, 2e Proxies are 3e Chosen, meaning that, at least in the Forgotten Realms, there is no difference in terms.
No, there are two different things that define a character in one of the nWoD games: a Clan/Path/Auspice/Seeming and a group. The first is what defines your class/race (being an Obrimos Mage is different from being an Acanthus Mage, just like being a Daeva Vampire is different from a Nosferatu Vampire), groups are more like The Harpers and the Zhentarim. You can play characters who don't belong to any group in WW's games. For example, Changelings without court (group) are considered courtless. And you can change your group if you feel it's important for your character.
So how many players would not belong to a given group at any particular time - on average?
So how many players would not belong to a given group at any particular time - on average?
Depends on the kind of campaign you play. The DM could be making a renegades adventure and have all the PCs not belong to a group, or a story heavily invested in manipulation when the group-less characters try to put the groups to fight for them or between them. You could also play a one-group campaign, where all characters belong to the same organization, which would be centered on the chosen group.
Group books are mostly for DMs, with specific chapters that players should read before making a character from that group. They aren't obligatory to play. It's even encouraged that players don't read them, if you want to play characters before becoming supernaturals, and want to roleplay the whole training and introduction to a group.
Sorry - POOR busines model.
Over the years, I have found that Home Depot has been carrying less and less of the more 'esoteric' things I need. I asked about this (including when I worked for them), and was told that they want to 'move away from products that don't have a big turnover'.
Hmmmm... so if I want to buy paint, I should go to them, but if I neeed a container of sand add-mixture to match a certain texture, I now have to go to the paint store anyway?
At the price of gas, I might as well just buy everything from the paint store. I have found this true of many different products they carry (electrical, plumbing, etc), and find myself going to the 'smaller guys' again more and more. I hadn't been in there in months (and I used to go at least once a day), and I was only able to find 3 of the 7 items I needed.
Never Again.
A company needs to carry stuff it DOESN"T make money off of, to keep customers coming in for the other stuff.
Do you think McDonalds makes anything off a 99¢ double Cheesburger? NO! They get you on the $2 soda they pay only 5¢ for.
If there's one thing I understand, its business - I had my own very successful one for 15 years. Keeping customers happy is THE #1 priority... something WotC has lost site of.
I'm just try to understand their business model, which is very confusing to me. They want new, younger players - players who tend not to read books. Older players read novels, but those aren't the people they are tergeting with this new edition. So now, they are jeopardizing their lucrative novel line by catering to the kids... unless they plan on going 'young adult', and cashing in on Harry Potter's popularity, I'm just not seeing it.
I just wish I could be a fly on the wall at some of their meetings, because as of right now, I'm thoroughly confused by their strategems.
A company cannot do business just by relying on the 'items that make money'.
Sorry - POOR busines model.
There's a huge difference between a retail business model and a manufacturer business model. Retailers will take a loss on some items to get you in the door. Manufacturers don't need to do that (with a few exceptions). If Wizards can't make money on a book how does it help them? How does taking a loss help foster good will?
There's a huge difference between a retail business model and a manufacturer business model. Retailers will take a loss on some items to get you in the door. Manufacturers don't need to do that (with a few exceptions). If Wizards can't make money on a book how does it help them? How does taking a loss help foster good will?
EVERY company does it. Pepsi gives away 'gear', and Marlboro does the same. Companies hold contests, and promos, and give coupons or free samples.
WotC did that, with the FREE online content they always offered. Soon, they will no longer be giving that away for free.
When I had my Home Improvement/Property Management Company, I used to do 'freebies' all the time for customers, from changing out a sparking wallswitch, to burying a dead cat! You want people to keep you in mind for the 'big stuff', you got to do a little 'back scratching'.
Thats what some of the regiaonal books were - I'm sure they didn't loose money off of them, but they might have not made enough to make them worthwhile for a large corporation (Note: TSR would have found ANY profit worthwhile). If they make customers happy, and keep people interested in the setting, then the books were making money for them in a different fashion. They just couldn't see that, becasue you can't represent something like that on a pie-chart in a 'quarterly earnings meeting'.
WotC/Hasbro wants to make all of the money, without taking any of the hits. I suppose it's possible, but even a Toy company knows that if you produce a line of action figures, you have to include some 'crappy ones' not many people want. Its all part of the line, just like regional books are for us. You don't just sell 'Han Solo' and 'Luke Skywalker' - you got to have your 'Greedo' and 'Bib Fortuna' too.
EVERY company does it. Pepsi gives away 'gear', and Marlboro does the same. Companies hold contests, and promos, and give coupons or free samples.
WotC did that, with the FREE online content they always offered. Soon, they will no longer be giving that away for free.
WotC organize events like D&D Game Day, where they give free dice and minis away and i bet they're going to do more like that. Also, several parts of DDI will remain free (like the Dungeon Maker).
When I had my Home Improvement/Property Management Company, I used to do 'freebies' all the time for customers, from changing out a sparking wallswitch, to burying a dead cat! You want people to keep you in mind for the 'big stuff', you got to do a little 'back scratching'.
Thats what some of the regiaonal books were - I'm sure they didn't loose money off of them, but they might have not made enough to make them worthwhile for a large corporation (Note: TSR would have found ANY profit worthwhile). If they make customers happy, and keep people interested in the setting, then the books were making money for them in a different fashion. They just couldn't see that, becasue you can't represent something like that on a pie-chart in a 'quarterly earnings meeting'.
What they could see was, that the huge setting book bloat was part of something that scared new players off and kept them from buying into the Realms.
WotC/Hasbro wants to make all of the money, without taking any of the hits. I suppose it's possible, but even a Toy company knows that if you produce a line of action figures, you have to include some 'crappy ones' not many people want. Its all part of the line, just like regional books are for us. You don't just sell 'Han Solo' and 'Luke Skywalker' - you got to have your 'Greedo' and 'Bib Fortuna' too.
Sorry man, i just don't think that managing a Home Improvement/Property Management Company is the same as managing a part of a multi-million dollar 'toy' company.
Just because you can't relate to their business decisions doesn't make them stupid or wrong. I do believe that your right on track when you say that you're not the target audience.
I read the news posted from GAMA today and was very saddened to see that there will only be three Forgotten Realms print products in 4E. I have a few questions about that:
1) Will there be regular, announced-in-advance FR features on DDI/Dragon/Dungeon?
2) If so, will these be similar to FR regional sourcebooks, Web Articles (like the Voonlar articles by Ed Greenwood or Mintiper's Chapbook) or will they be adventures?
3) Why have you as a company decided to move away from FR print products?
Many of us want to stay faithful boosters of FR and D&D, but lack of support could really pull a lot of my enthusiasm and money out of the hobby...
However, given that WotC is now owned by (the very large) Hasbro, there is going to be a very big push coming down from the top involving improving the margin. Regional books likely have a pretty low margin; they (and similar books, like Champions of Valor, et al.) likely exist to help drive the lifespan of the books with higher margins, such as the FRCG and FRPG....which of course, exist to support and extend the demand for the real product: novels (especially those with RAS etched on the spine).
DDI is the ultimate lean initiative for WotC: drastically reduced overhead and operating costs. No more paying for the paper, paying to have it printed & bound, paying to have it shipped, paying to have it shipped back when it didn't sell. They release 3 fairly high margin books, which in addition to supporting novel sales, drive revenue to the very high margin pay-for-content website. $10/month, automatically renewed on the card of your choice until you wade through 7-10 pages of unsubscribe "exit interview" pages. Pay the freelancers magazine rates (fixed amount) rather than book rates (no residuals). Open up the quality guidelines for submissions, run them through a spellchecker (but not a factchecker), and we can offer scads of content for little cash.
The one downside is that they also took advantage of the opportunity to completely hack apart their most popular setting - and stuff in everything that was popular in other settings - so they don't have to check for continuity errors can attract a younger audience. Oh, wait, that means that someone like myself - having bought the Grey Box shortly after release - is provided the perfect opportunity to throw their hands up in disgust, set aside their favorite hobby, and find other ways to spend their time and disposable income...much to the delight of the SO
Rich,
I read the news posted from GAMA today and was very saddened to see that there will only be three Forgotten Realms print products in 4E. I have a few questions about that:
1) Will there be regular, announced-in-advance FR features on DDI/Dragon/Dungeon?
2) If so, will these be similar to FR regional sourcebooks, Web Articles (like the Voonlar articles by Ed Greenwood or Mintiper's Chapbook) or will they be adventures?
3) Why have you as a company decided to move away from FR print products?
Many of us want to stay faithful boosters of FR and D&D, but lack of support could really pull a lot of my enthusiasm and money out of the hobby...
Its my understanding that if WoTc does not support the realms, the lincense reverts back to Ed. So while that would be the best thing that could happen, I doubt WoTC would allow it.
If there's one thing I understand, its business - I had my own very successful one for 15 years. Keeping customers happy is THE #1 priority... something WotC has lost site of.
Don't believe all the anti-hype that has been blowing around. Nothing you have posted has led me to believe that there is anything in 4e that will cause you to refuse to pay for it. As for 4e FR, I believe that most will get great use out of the FRCS, and having bought it, then you can decide whether to use it as a model to convert your existing 3e (and older) material, or run with the new campaign world. It really is a choice, and it really is quite a reasonable choice. You can have your cake and eat it.
I'm just try to understand their business model, which is very confusing to me. They want new, younger players - players who tend not to read books. Older players read novels, but those aren't the people they are tergeting with this new edition. So now, they are jeopardizing their lucrative novel line by catering to the kids... unless they plan on going 'young adult', and cashing in on Harry Potter's popularity, I'm just not seeing it.
Why do you think young people read less than older folks? Do you have statistics to back that up? I had heard that there was a literacy revival going on. When I go to the book store, I see thousands more titles in every category. Who is buying these books? Certainly not middle aged business managers - who can barely read the dozen words per page of the Sun Tsu classic Art of War. I'm sorry, but I really don't buy into the "ignorant button pushing youth of today" old man's rant (and I have a 23 and a 20 year old son to prove it).
Its my understanding that if WoTc does not support the realms, the lincense reverts back to Ed.
-Of course, the word 'support' can be stretched in many ways.
So while that would be the best thing that could happen, I doubt WoTC would allow it.
-Ugh, no offense to you- so don't think I am specifically singling you out, because I'm not- but this is not the best thing that can happen. In fact, it's the worst thing that can happen. Should the Forgotten Realms suddenly not be a WotC (or whoever) product, that's the end of the setting. Ed Greenwood can find a third-party publisher to print things, but WotC is, by far, the best RPG company out there, in terms of quality in their products, be it illustrations, materials, editing, whatever. And, don't forget, many specific concepts that are central to the many parts of the Forgotten Realms- Spelljamming, various deities, various locales, and so on- magically can no longer be used.
I had an idea/question that I am unsure if has been brought up. I know on the new D&D Insider (I think that is what they are calling it), that it has a "character viewer" where you can create a 3d representation of you character and import them onto the 3d maps there. How about being able to order a custom made miniature based on the character created in the "character viewer" to use in our campaigns around the real table. I think it would be incredible to have a custom made miniature. What do you think of the idea and/or what are the chances of something like this happening? Thank you for your time.
Actually, the issue of "digital printing" was raised at D&DXP, and the answer was that Wizards are moving in that direction (although they were not quite there yet). Therefore, on the technical front, the capability you describe is close to being available. As for the commercial side - only time will tell.
Let's be honest and say that Spelljamming was a niche thing and not really essential to FR. Most FR fans that I know in RL hate the concept. The other things I agree with. TSR droppedthe ball with the jamming though IMO. Darksun and Plansecape were awesome though.;)
-Spelljamming is a personal favorite, which is why I used that example. Replace that with anything else, though- Kara-Tur, The Great Wheel planes, whatever you want. The effect is the same.
I read about 3D digital printing several years ago, and I know Games Workshop was looking into it. Basically, they were toying with the idea of a 'vending machine' at the LGS, where you make choices from an extensive menu - similar to how you create your character's look in a video game - and the machine 'prints' up the mini.
It's really just a solid block of cardboard that gets 'carved' by a laser - pretty neat tech; I hope it comes to pass.
You'd still have to paint it yourself, though (which comes out better anyway).
WOTC has the dough to put out nice looking books and put them out on time.
Really?!
So... where's my Dragon magazine, hmmmm?
I don't know, I personally find MANY 3rd party books that are SUPERIOR to WotC products - stuff from Malhavoc, or Sword & Sorcery, or Privateer Press, etc, etc....
With page counts over three hundred!
Which WotC is obviously incapable of....
Certainly! :D
I've been doing so since 1979, before I even had a world. Had my own, and then Greyhawk, and then my own again...
Them ruining FR doesn't ruin my enjoyment of D&D, just FR. Even if I decided to play in Eberron in 4e (an idea I've been toying with), I would still be very interested in the FR setting, because I enjoy the lore/stories. Regardless of what setting I game in, I would have still read the novels and bought the sourcebooks.
Now, I won't. I don't know who any of these new NPCs are, and I just don't care about them. Why should I? They were created out of someone's LAZY need to not know the setting as it was, or do the research. Such 'cardboard cut-outs' could NEVER hold a candle to Ed's NPCs.
As far as I'm concerned, they should just have named this new shlock 'Lazy World', the setting for people who "can't be bothered".
-Ugh, no offense to you- so don't think I am specifically singling you out, because I'm not- but this is not the best thing that can happen. In fact, it's the worst thing that can happen. Should the Forgotten Realms suddenly not be a WotC (or whoever) product, that's the end of the setting. Ed Greenwood can find a third-party publisher to print things, but WotC is, by far, the best RPG company out there, in terms of quality in their products, be it illustrations, materials, editing, whatever. And, don't forget, many specific concepts that are central to the many parts of the Forgotten Realms- Spelljamming, various deities, various locales, and so on- magically can no longer be used.
True. I should not have said the best thing that could happen. The best thing that could happen is a retcon within WOTC. I should have said better than what is happening
As far as playing D&D?
Certainly! :D
I've been doing so since 1979, before I even had a world. Had my own, and then Greyhawk, and then my own again...
Them ruining FR doesn't ruin my enjoyment of D&D, just FR. Even if I decided to play in Eberron in 4e (an idea I've been toying with), I would still be very interested in the FR setting, because I enjoy the lore/stories. Regardless of what setting I game in, I would have still read the novels and bought the sourcebooks.
Now, I won't. I don't know who any of these new NPCs are, and I just don't care about them. Why should I? They were created out of someone's LAZY need to not know the setting as it was, or do the research. Such 'cardboard cut-outs' could NEVER hold a candle to Ed's NPCs.
As far as I'm concerned, they should just have named this new shlock 'Lazy World', the setting for people who "can't be bothered".
yeah, yeah, we got it. Ed is the best, a god, anyone else (especially in this condition) is an hack.
This is biaised and opinionated. Why would they not have done researches? You may not like the direction taken, it is not necessarly 'worse' there.
This is quite elitist - 'we have the truth and the tastes and the creativity'. Not even giving the new stuff a chance.
Ugh. All that warring over it...
A FR without much of those other tackon areas would be very much what Ed's Realms were before TSR Europefied it. Not sure if it would sell well though just for the reason you said.
-Now, take a moment? Would the Forgotten Realms be better if they were more like Ed's Realms? I for one say "No way!"
WOTC has the dough to put out nice looking books and put them out on time.
-Indeed, another point for WotC. One of their competition- Steve Jackson Games, or something to that effect- that someone (Keryth?) mentioned, has a whopping 25 employees, and made a total of about 2 million dollars last year. I'd rather that the large WotC.
This is quite elitist - 'we have the truth and the tastes and the creativity'. Not even giving the new stuff a chance.
-This is where I do not understand you. Though this is not the place to talk about it, as this is Rich's thread, why does one have to literally try the "new stuff", and give it a try, when it contains large elements of something one does not like already? You say, "Try, try, try!", but why should one try, when they do not like settings without deities of magic, or settings without Mesoamerican locales, or...and so on and so forth. I don't like mushrooms, so should I try that steak with the mushroom sauce?
-This is where I do not understand you. Though this is not the place to talk about it, as this is Rich's thread, why does one have to literally try the "new stuff", and give it a try, when it contains large elements of something one does not like already? You say, "Try, try, try!", but why should one try, when they do not like settings without deities of magic, or settings without Mesoamerican locales, or...and so on and so forth. I don't like mushrooms, so should I try that steak with the mushroom sauce?
This, I don't understand. The analog to "don't like settings without..." would be "don't like food without...". That you like worlds with deities of magic and Mesoamerican locales wakes sense, but refusing to try a settling without them makes as little sense as someone who likes steak refusing to try any meal without steak.
One can never expand one's tastes if one refuses to ever try anything new.
This, I don't understand. The analog to "don't like settings without..." would be "don't like food without...". That you like worlds with deities of magic and Mesoamerican locales wakes sense, but refusing to try a settling without them makes as little sense as someone who likes steak refusing to try any meal without steak.
One can never expand one's tastes if one refuses to ever try anything new.
I have never tasted crap but somehow I know I wont like it. How? Because I can smell it! If the previews smells(to me) like crap is really likely that the probuct will taste like crap(again, to me). Make sense? ;)
I have never tasted crap but somehow I know I wont like it. How? Because I can smell it! If the previews smells(to me) like crap is really likely that the probuct will taste like crap(again, to me). Make sense? ;)
Unfounded, based on what you posted. Your complanted was the lack of thinks in the setting, based on prieview info, not the presence of somthing you don't like. You are rejecting LFR based on what was removed, not on what remains or was added (of which only some has been prviewed). The smell may be produced in your senses, nit the reality.
You're free to reject whatever you want, for any reason or none, but is this really a good forum for such blanket negativity?
If by "regular" you mean a monthly column, I'm not sure that is in the plans. But I would hope to see FR-specific content showing up every issue or two. That depends a little bit on what you guys tell the Dragon editorial staff that you want to see. As far as announced in advance, usually they'll tell people about next month's feature articles. I would expect to see a mix of background/setting info (Brian James has a great Cormyr article on the way, for example) and FR-themed Dungeon adventures. Again, public feedback to the magazine editors will influence how much FR material they try to line up.
As far as moving away from print product goes, part of it is simply the fact that any FR game sourcebook we produce appeals to only a subset of the broader D&D audience. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a FR book creeping back onto the schedule eventually. We're not working on any right now, but the right opportunity/product is going to come around sooner or later.
Rich,
I read the news posted from GAMA today and was very saddened to see that there will only be three Forgotten Realms print products in 4E. I have a few questions about that:
1) Will there be regular, announced-in-advance FR features on DDI/Dragon/Dungeon?
2) If so, will these be similar to FR regional sourcebooks, Web Articles (like the Voonlar articles by Ed Greenwood or Mintiper's Chapbook) or will they be adventures?
3) Why have you as a company decided to move away from FR print products?
Many of us want to stay faithful boosters of FR and D&D, but lack of support could really pull a lot of my enthusiasm and money out of the hobby...
Rich,
Sorry if its been asked, but I am curious about something, which I'm almost sure is not going to get an answer, but I find myself wondering just how the Harpers, presuming they survive in some incarnation, are going to function without bards, as that class seems rather integral to them. Some hint perhaps of how this is going to be resolved, or perhaps if it isn't going to be an issue... a breadcrumb maybe?
First of all, this post is not meant to be “snarky” or insulting in any way –- I only wish to comment on an issue which has weighed on my mind for a while.
I’m not sure if this has been discussed for a while here (if it is, my apologies), but it came up on EnWorld –- namely, whether the Weave “permeates” all of Faerun and all its inhabitants. A poster called Mirtek pointed out that it’s said on page 9 in ‘Magic of Faerun’, and indeed, it more or less *does* say so.
As for the Weave being the “upholder” of all life on Faerun, I’m pretty sure that Ed has said so on Candlekeep.com, and isn’t his word considered official (canon) unless directly contradicted by another official source?
This is an interesting quote from a poster called The Historian (on EnWorld):
A number of posters in this thread have advanced their own opinions on whether or not Ed Greenwood's postings on Candlekeep and elsewhere are "canon" or not.
The truth is this: as a former TSR legal eagle, I can attest that in the original Realms purchase agreement, it is stipulated (I'm paraphrasing the legalese here) that anything Ed Greenwood "publishes" about the Realms, in any media that exists now or in the future IS "official" (canon) as anything printed in any TSR (now WotC, but only because they own TSR) product, UNTIL they contradict something specific that Ed has said, in a future product. In other words, anything Ed says at a con, writes in a published article or product, or posts on the Web IS canon. Until contradicted. To reiterate: until specifically contradicted, any Realms material Ed Greenwood posts IS canon.
*SNIP*
These are the facts, regardless of anyone's opinions. (I've even heard WotC staffers deny this, but it doesn't change the applicable law or the original agreement.) I find it odd, frankly, that this is ever argued over.
Therefore, if this particular poster is to be believed (and I think other “lorelords” have also said that Ed’s word counts as official while their doesn’t), I think it may indeed be canon that the Weave is the upholder of all life on Toril (unless I’m completely messed up and Ed has never said so). I also heard that you've promised a reward for anyone who can quote a canon source, so perhaps someone greedier than I would like to claim it and find a quote on Candlekeep.com?
Rich,
Sorry if its been asked, but I am curious about something, which I'm almost sure is not going to get an answer, but I find myself wondering just how the Harpers, presuming they survive in some incarnation, are going to function without bards, as that class seems rather integral to them. Some hint perhaps of how this is going to be resolved, or perhaps if it isn't going to be an issue... a breadcrumb maybe?
They better not get rid of the Harpers
One can never expand one's tastes if one refuses to ever try anything new.
-And, as I said, if you don't like mushrooms, why try the steak with mushroom sauce? Sure, you like steak, but the mushroom sauce kills the joy you have in eating it, because you don't like the taste of mushrooms. One can like the core of the 4e Forgotten Realms that is remaining (mostly) as is, but all of the changes that have been done to the setting kills your love for it.
-All uses of 'your' are in the general sense, of course. PM me with a response, if any, to avoid clutter.
But seriously, do we really need another thread screwed with the 4e hate thing? Better just to drop it I say...
This is biaised and opinionated. Why would they not have done researches? You may not like the direction taken, it is not necessarly 'worse' there.
Of course it's biased and opinionated!!!
Its MY opinion!
I have stated, numerous times over, in a plethora of threads that I have no idea weather the new Realms will be successful or not. What I do know is that I HATE certain aspects they have added, like the Dragonborn. One of the primary reasons I never played Dragonlance was because of the Draconians, and when the group I was playing with switched from FR to DL, I soon left. I'm not going to start liking them NOW because Chris Perkins clipped their wings and inserted them into FR. I also know lots and lots of people played DL, and loved the Draconians, so, more power to them. I'm NOT a Lemming, and just because many other people like something doesn't mean I have to, and it doesn't matter weather 4e FR succeeds and becomes the 'second coming' or not - I still won't like it, based on what we've heard so far.
Putting "The Forgotten Realms" on the new setting doesn't make it so, any more then my naming my fourth child "Zachary Taylor" makes him the 12th President of the United States. Its just a name - it's what they put into it that makes a setting Great.
With THAT in mind, you are talking about TWO YEARS of 'creativity', as opposed to Ed Greenwood's 40 years! It's not a matter of 'talent' - it's the amount of time invested, and we already know the current design team feels "learning the lore" is a chore, so how 'in depth' do you think this new setting will really be?
This is quite elitist - 'we have the truth and the tastes and the creativity'. Not even giving the new stuff a chance.
See Above.
I have never lived in Uganda, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to. I don't speak Mandarin, nor do I wish to. I have never tried 'Fresh Monkey Brains', or 'Choclate covered Bees', but I'm fairly certain I won't like them. Other People like them, and thats all well and good, but I don't need to "try everything". I have tried dozens (over a hundred) different D&D settings in my day, and I can honestly say that no other one ever drew me in like FR. It is that very level of detail that makes it so real, and it is that very level of detail that they plan on obliterating (as per their own stated agenda).
The use of the word "Entitlement" in the podcast is a slur aimed at those of us who were willing to read all the books and learn the lore. Now they are belittling our efforts, and turning FR into something that can be enjoyed by the 'casual gamer'.
Well, guess what? Casual Gamers don't have over three thousand dollars worth of gaming books and materials on their shelves - us 'Entitled' folks do.
Unfounded, based on what you posted. Your complanted was the lack of thinks in the setting, based on prieview info, not the presence of somthing you don't like. You are rejecting LFR based on what was removed, not on what remains or was added (of which only some has been prviewed). The smell may be produced in your senses, nit the reality.
You're free to reject whatever you want, for any reason or none, but is this really a good forum for such blanket negativity?
I have answered your first quarry above - I don't need to see someone's body to know I don't find them attractive - the face is all I need.
If your kid or your parents got into a car accident and died, but they showed you someone at the other end of the hospital that benefitted from their organs, would that make you happy for that person? Would you be glad your loved ones died so that others may live?
If you do, then you're a better person then I.
As to the second part of your statement - you are quite correct. I forgot which thread I was on when posting above. I promised myself not to be negative in this thread (there are so many others for that), and I accidently broke my promise.
I apologize, and I will refrain from posting here again unless I have a legitimate question. :embarrass
That's why I find ridiculous that people who get paid to do what I do for pleasure are whinning about reading Realmslore. I would gladly take their jobs.
They better not get rid of the Harpers
It seems they are keeping the Harper and are joining the Moonstars back with the Harpers. It's just that all of the 'Bardic' characters of the Harpers might not be appearing until the second Player's Handbook comes out. So I figure they will focus on the more core class members like Elminster who will be a Wizard!
It seems they are keeping the Harper and are joining the Moonstars back with the Harpers. It's just that all of the 'Bardic' characters of the Harpers might not be appearing until the second Player's Handbook comes out. So I figure they will focus on the more core class members like Elminster who will be a Wizard!
A realms without bards is not the Realms
Not many people read "Cosmos" ever. So most likely you may be in that minority I was talking about Alediran. Not that you don't matter but business is business. Again I do understand why some people are upset about the changes. Just realize you might be in the minority. The internet crowd might not matteras much as you think it does. Sorry.
RPG players are naturaly smart and cultured, they love to read, just learning to play, not even learning fluff, requires a person with a intelectual level that is over the norm. What WotC is trying to do is capture people who don't fit the RPG player profile to increase their sales. And that is not going to work because RPGs are a niche market. They may try to make the game easier to play and less fluffy, but average people still lack the most fundamental piece that separates good RPG players from the rest of the human race: creativity. Without creativity and a powerful imagination a person can't become a good RPG player, the most he can aspire is to become a decent Roll-Player, and nobody can give that to people, it's something that one has or one doesn't.
Putting "The Forgotten Realms" on the new setting doesn't make it so, any more then my naming my fourth child "Zachary Taylor" makes him the 12th President of the United States. Its just a name - it's what they put into it that makes a setting Great.
-Can I ask? Did you actually name your fourth kid Zachary?
What if only a small group of consumers like very detailed settings with lots of lore?
First off, I'd like to thank Rauric for his level-headed approach to these discussions.
There are people on both sides that just toss around words like "DIE!!!" and "Grognard", and they DO NOT help at all. Rauric is someone I respect and listen to, despite our differing stances.
I agree with you 100% Rauric. A business would rather sell 1 book to 100,000 people, then 10 books to 1000 people.
I cannot begrudge them that - it's their job to make their company money. The quality of the products is only secondary to the amount they can 'offload'. This is a very short-sighted approach, and one that will probably see PnP D&D disappear over the next twenty years.
No one bought "Tickle me Elmo" the second Christmas it was out.
And no one will be buying the Forgotten Realms in 2009, which, of course, is exactly their plan - a new setting each year, to catch the attention of the 'Instant Gratification' generation. It doesn't have to be good; like everything else, parents will buy it, and by next week it will be sitting in a closet 'till the end of time.
Now, since I made a promise (and kept the above civil)...
Question:
Rich, I note that we won't be getting an FR Montser Manual this time out - will those be in the DM's guide now?
What if only a small group of consumers like very detailed settings with lots of lore?
Who says thats the case? Campaign worlds have a limited number of prospectie buyers to begin with. Seems to me the Realms, was their most successful one. Brillant idea to completely change it. Absolutely brillant.
And no one will be buying the Forgotten Realms in 2009, which, of course, is exactly their plan - a new setting each year, to catch the attention of the 'Instant Gratification' generation. It doesn't have to be good; like everything else, parents will buy it, and by next week it will be sitting in a closet 'till the end of time.
If that is indeed true, then I just wish the folks at WoTC would be honest with us just this once and release a press release that says something along the lines of
"Dear longtime fans of the Forgotten Realms, We don't give a damn about any of you."
What if only a small group of consumers like very detailed settings with lots of lore? A company wants to get their product into the hands of the masses not the just a select group of people. It is a shame because I do not think you need to learn all the lore either to play in the setting but many people think this way. By making the setting feel newer they hope to get more people into it. Yes it will tick off some people, but it also might bring in new folks and bring back people who left for other settings.
Well, it seems WotC wants a setting that is more or less the exact opposite of what the Realms are: a shallow (as in: not very detailed), easy to grasp plug-and-play setting that requires a lot of work from the individual GM (which is why your Realms will differ vastly from my Realms because we have to insert all the details the setting doesn't provide for us). And you know what? That's great. Settings like these have their customer base, too, and if WotC wants to profit from it, more power to them. But that's not what the Realms are. They bury 20 years of published lore and cut the customers out of the most detailed setting there is by not continuing the product line and putting something into that slot that's the exact opposite - almost no other setting even comes close as far as the level of detail is concerned. (Only DSA, Germany's biggest RPG, is as detailed - which is why it's the most successful setting over here. But of course it's of little use to English speakers.)
So why do they have to change the Realms so drastically to achieve this? Why don't they say, "All right, we don't want to put up with doing so much homework even for a small article, and the Realms as a setting are unusable anyway. We decided to let it rest in peace and move on. And here is our shiny new setting: Realms of Arkania!" (Or whatever.)
Because the name still draws customers. In spite of how clunky, unwieldy, over-populated by
If that is indeed true, then I just wish the folks at WoTC would be honest with us just this once and release a press release that says something along the lines of
"Dear longtime fans of the Forgotten Realms, We don't give a damn about any of you."
Hear hear! :evillaugh
Bards, druids, barbarians, sorcerers, etc., are on the way. They weren't in the first Player's Handbook, but they're not out of the game. In fact, I'd expect to see at least a couple of those classes available in DDi content by this summer, and they'll be in print in 2009. So there are a few places in the FRCG where we refer to classes that just aren't out yet, but will be pretty soon. Harpers still, well, harp.
Rich,
Sorry if its been asked, but I am curious about something, which I'm almost sure is not going to get an answer, but I find myself wondering just how the Harpers, presuming they survive in some incarnation, are going to function without bards, as that class seems rather integral to them. Some hint perhaps of how this is going to be resolved, or perhaps if it isn't going to be an issue... a breadcrumb maybe?
Because the name still draws customers. In spite of how clunky, unwieldy, over-populated by
From your response, am I to gather that any mechanics that come out in the DDi will be available in print format at a latter time?
OK, then... well, first, I'd like to know who exactly "The Historian" is before I agree that he's in a position to accurately cite the 20-year-old-plus contract. People hiding behind screen names claim to have inside information all the time. Heck, I was the Realms creative director for years, and I have only the broadest familiarity with the terms of the deal.
In any event, we've already contradicted that "the Weave is necessary for life itself" statement on numerous scores, going all the way back to the Time of Troubles. People don't drop like puppets with their strings cut when they walk into a dead magic zone. Some people *live* in dead magic zones (remember the Tuigan Horde?) That's been around since the early years of 2nd Edition. If that's the case, then it's crystal-clear to me that life gets along OK without the Weave.
Hi Rich!
First of all, this post is not meant to be “snarky” or insulting in any way –- I only wish to comment on an issue which has weighed on my mind for a while.
I’m not sure if this has been discussed for a while here (if it is, my apologies), but it came up on EnWorld –- namely, whether the Weave “permeates” all of Faerun and all its inhabitants. A poster called Mirtek pointed out that it’s said on page 9 in ‘Magic of Faerun’, and indeed, it more or less *does* say so.
As for the Weave being the “upholder” of all life on Faerun, I’m pretty sure that Ed has said so on Candlekeep.com, and isn’t his word considered official (canon) unless directly contradicted by another official source?
This is an interesting quote from a poster called The Historian (on EnWorld):
A number of posters in this thread have advanced their own opinions on whether or not Ed Greenwood's postings on Candlekeep and elsewhere are "canon" or not.
The truth is this: as a former TSR legal eagle, I can attest that in the original Realms purchase agreement, it is stipulated (I'm paraphrasing the legalese here) that anything Ed Greenwood "publishes" about the Realms, in any media that exists now or in the future IS "official" (canon) as anything printed in any TSR (now WotC, but only because they own TSR) product, UNTIL they contradict something specific that Ed has said, in a future product. In other words, anything Ed says at a con, writes in a published article or product, or posts on the Web IS canon. Until contradicted. To reiterate: until specifically contradicted, any Realms material Ed Greenwood posts IS canon.
*SNIP*
These are the facts, regardless of anyone's opinions. (I've even heard WotC staffers deny this, but it doesn't change the applicable law or the original agreement.) I find it odd, frankly, that this is ever argued over.
Therefore, if this particular poster is to be believed (and I think other “lorelords” have also said that Ed’s word counts as official while their doesn’t), I think it may indeed be canon that the Weave is the upholder of all life on Toril (unless I’m completely messed up and Ed has never said so). I also heard that you've promised a reward for anyone who can quote a canon source, so perhaps someone greedier than I would like to claim it and find a quote on Candlekeep.com?
Rich, it's not that you die as soon as you get in a DMZ, the death is slow, more like a body without food, which is what the Weave is, food for life. Areas inside a DMZ tend to become arid (Myth Drannor hasn't because the DMZ moves all the time)
How did you figured that out?
How did you figured that out?
Simple logic, most places that have DMZ aren't filled with trees and cute tiny squirrels, they are usually places with little or no life at all, and since nobody dies just by entering a DMZ then the only logical conclusion is that life needs the Weave in the same way it needs food, it can live some time without it, but little by little he would start to deteriorate.
The lifedrain dweomers of the Phaerimm caused DMZs. Or viewed from my theory, the lifedrain dweomers were actually DMZ spells casted bt the Phaerimm to weaken the Netherese Mages, and without the Weave life started to die. That's why the Anauroch desert was created. Even now it has some DMZs and it hasn't become fertile again because the climatic conditions of the area changed to those of a desert, so even with the Weave again in the Anauroch area it still needs other factors to restore it's former state.
Simple logic, most places that have DMZ aren't filled with trees and cute tiny squirrels, they are usually places with little or no life at all, and since nobody dies just by entering a DMZ then the only logical conclusion is that life needs the Weave in the same way it needs food, it can live some time without it, but little by little he would start to deteriorate.
The lifedrain dweomers of the Phaerimm caused DMZs. Or viewed from my theory, the lifedrain dweomers were actually DMZ spells casted bt the Phaerimm to weaken the Netherese Mages, and without the Weave life started to die. That's why the Anauroch desert was created. Even now it has some DMZs and it hasn't become fertile again because the climatic conditions of the area changed to those of a desert, so even with the Weave again in the Anauroch area it still needs other factors to restore it's former state.
Meh, It can also be the fact that DMZ have a sense of "dread" that makes animals and humans uneasy
Meh, It can also be the fact that DMZ have a sense of "dread" that makes animals and humans uneasy
That dread is caused by the instinctual knowledge that DMZ are dead places, and the living fear death.
That dread is caused by the instinctual knowledge that DMZ are dead places, and the living fear death.
As good and as logical as it sounds this are your personal deductions, and not canon so... And this is not the forum for this... let's open one or look for one more appropiate if you wanna keep on the subject ;)
-The fate of the Seven
Show
(Six)
Seems to me the Realms, was their most successful one. Brillant idea to completely change it. Absolutely brillant.
Seems to me they changed alot, but also retained alot. That is a good way to get people who liked what was already published to buy more, as well as to expand the market.
The old lore hasn't gone away. Tt's still part of the history of the setting. Some things remain similar, some have evolved, some have changed significantly, and some have been replaced. It's still FR, but the setting isn't static, it's experienced a major catastrophe that has merged in "new" lore from a sister world, and continues on with modified mechanics.
Question: Will there still be multiclassing?
Now, as Rich has stated, it was never really the same, and I have theorized (on several other threads) that the "Weave = Life" was part of the 'Mystryl cover-up', and was merely part of the Dogma of her church. As events have unfolded since the ToT, we have found many of 'Mystra's tenets' to be falshoods spread by her church (like the Weave being the only source of magic, when in fact we know that is certainly NOT so).
Now, I'm not sayig this was Ed's original intent, but it has been a progression of events since the ToT, and one of the few things I have found to be logical within recent lore.
By the same token, we can take all the info that we had about the Shadow Weave being 'part of' the Weave to also be a falsehood. This is something that has bounced back and forth for some time, and Rich answered it difinitively when I questioned him about it MUCH earlier in this thread. The info in The tearing of the Weave can be taken as mere 'hearsay of the Mystran church', once again, since it quite clearly depends on a completely different 'power source' (using the 4e terminology here).
Saying a twenty year old contract is no longer valid, BTW, would be something for a Judge to decide, not a WotC designer. Considering the company has changed hands, TWICE, Hasbro does have a case that the deal originally formed with TSR is null and void, and the guys at WotC 'humour' Ed by letting him continue producing lore for the setting on his own (probably to avoid 'bad feelings' amongst fans).
This point is moot, however, because as a CURRENT WotC designer, any lore Rich produces (including his answers here) 'trumps' Ed's lore anyway, even if the original contract were in effect. ;)
Question: Will there still be multiclassing?
I'm not Rich, but that question has been addressed already--yes, 4E will have multiclassing in some form.
-Rhymanthiin (and it's denizens) post-Spellplauge: destroyed, forgotten, or just conveniently omitted?
I'm not Rich (obviously), but Steven Schend has a novel in the works called Blackstaff Tower, which is sort of a sequel to his Blackstaff. Because of this, I doubt the Hidden City will be utterly ignored.
-What exactly is going to keep the Epic tier Shade Princes/Manshoon/Szass Tam from swooping in and wiping out the PCs destined to defeat them while the PCs are still in their heroic/paragon tiers and the traditional pillars of opposition/isolation for these epic foes are no longer there.
That's a great question, and I'd like to hear what Rich has to say on it.
Rich, it's not that you die as soon as you get in a DMZ, the death is slow, more like a body without food, which is what the Weave is, food for life. Areas inside a DMZ tend to become arid (Myth Drannor hasn't because the DMZ moves all the time)
-Living within a Dead Magic Zone does not kill you.
-And, The Weave! =/= Life!. As KtM liked to say, "Making the Weave go away does not make Toril go boom".
Thank You for taking the time, once again, to field questions Rich.
From your response, am I to gather that any mechanics that come out in the DDi will be available in print format at a latter time?
I think it's like the iPhone. People who bought it early got to have and use it first, gloating over it to their friends. While those who waited got a price drop. Basically the all too common story of the Early adopter being screwed.
Except these guys will like be those players/DMs who have to play/use a druid or bard in their game. Like a realms player using the harpers. So to them it might be worth it. I can see the site advertising it to people for free to convince them to buy the online issue.
I liked that "The Weave IS Life" as part of the fluff of FR, but mechanically, it really made little sense. It does confuse the issue of exactly 'what' the Life-draining magics of the Phaerimm do, since it seems to drain life and 'damage' magic. I think, perhaps, certain creatures who are magical in nature, like Dragons (and perhaps Archmages) would feel 'sickened' by the absence of magic (the Weave), but only because they are tied to it on a very deep and personal level, much the way a drug addict gets sick when denied their drugs.
Now, as Rich has stated, it was never really the same, and I have theorized (on several other threads) that the "Weave = Life" was part of the 'Mystryl cover-up', and was merely part of the Dogma of her church. As events have unfolded since the ToT, we have found many of 'Mystra's tenets' to be falshoods spread by her church (like the Weave being the only source of magic, when in fact we know that is certainly NOT so).
Now, I'm not sayig this was Ed's original intent, but it has been a progression of events since the ToT, and one of the few things I have found to be logical within recent lore.
By the same token, we can take all the info that we had about the Shadow Weave being 'part of' the Weave to also be a falsehood. This is something that has bounced back and forth for some time, and Rich answered it difinitively when I questioned him about it MUCH earlier in this thread. The info in The tearing of the Weave can be taken as mere 'hearsay of the Mystran church', once again, since it quite clearly depends on a completely different 'power source' (using the 4e terminology here).
Saying a twenty year old contract is no longer valid, BTW, would be something for a Judge to decide, not a WotC designer. Considering the company has changed hands, TWICE, Hasbro does have a case that the deal originally formed with TSR is null and void, and the guys at WotC 'humour' Ed by letting him continue producing lore for the setting on his own (probably to avoid 'bad feelings' amongst fans).
This point is moot, however, because as a CURRENT WotC designer, any lore Rich produces (including his answers here) 'trumps' Ed's lore anyway, even if the original contract were in effect. ;)
Unless you have Hasbro smart enough to see the money Ed can bring then and create a new deal with him and his lawyers. Ed might not be super-rich as some CEO, but I bet he does have lawyers. Ed was likely told a head of time or heard rumours of the major sells and was smart enough to re-negotiate a deal with Wizards and then Hasbro. Of course, we could just ask him on Candlekeep.
Remember, Ed may be creative but I doubt he's stupid!
Ed would have no say over anything when WotC bought the failing TSR, and even less when Hasbro bought WotC. Ed, for all his incredible creativity, is just a teeny, tiny fish in an incredibly huge pond.
I think it's like the iPhone. People who bought it early got to have and use it first, gloating over it to their friends. While those who waited got a price drop. Basically the all too common story of the Early adopter being screwed.
Except these guys will like be those players/DMs who have to play/use a druid or bard in their game. Like a realms player using the harpers. So to them it might be worth it. I can see the site advertising it to people for free to convince them to buy the online issue.
-Good thing comes to those who wait...
-So, Rich, what kind of stuff can we expect with this DDI? Now (as in upon release), and in the future?
Hear hear! :evillaugh
I have to agree with Merrik. It's very rude, what they've done, and I think that is what is making people so easily provoked.
I noticed that there is a new section in the Boards Index labeled 'Designers Blogs'. Are you going to be posting things there, for future reference?
I read about 3D digital printing several years ago, and I know Games Workshop was looking into it. Basically, they were toying with the idea of a 'vending machine' at the LGS, where you make choices from an extensive menu - similar to how you create your character's look in a video game - and the machine 'prints' up the mini.
It's really just a solid block of cardboard that gets 'carved' by a laser - pretty neat tech; I hope it comes to pass.
Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyZtBYG0QOg
And apparently, it's not just cardboard. You can even make metal models (How sweet would it be to get painted pewter models from a 3d printer?).
"-What exactly is going to keep the Epic tier Shade Princes/Manshoon/Szass Tam from swooping in and wiping out the PCs destined to defeat them while the PCs are still in their heroic/paragon tiers and the traditional pillars of opposition/isolation for these epic foes are no longer there."
DMs. DMs control the game and can give a number of reasons why the big bad might not wipe out the PCs. There are big bads in every campaign world and they are busy beavers. Most are spending their time defending themselves agaisnt other big bads, not adventurers that are "mere annoyances". Anyway that is my take on that subject. =
The Simbul said,
"-What exactly is going to keep the Epic tier Shade Princes/Manshoon/Szass Tam from swooping in and wiping out the PCs destined to defeat them while the PCs are still in their heroic/paragon tiers and the traditional pillars of opposition/isolation for these epic foes are no longer there."
DMs. DMs control the game and can give a number of reasons why the big bad might not wipe out the PCs. There are big bads in every campaign world and they are busy beavers. Most are spending their time defending themselves agaisnt other big bads, not adventurers that are "mere annoyances". Anyway that is my take on that subject. =
-This is the exact reason why certain other NPCs were simply eliminated.
The Simbul said,
"-What exactly is going to keep the Epic tier Shade Princes/Manshoon/Szass Tam from swooping in and wiping out the PCs destined to defeat them while the PCs are still in their heroic/paragon tiers and the traditional pillars of opposition/isolation for these epic foes are no longer there."
DMs. DMs control the game and can give a number of reasons why the big bad might not wipe out the PCs. There are big bads in every campaign world and they are busy beavers. Most are spending their time defending themselves agaisnt other big bads, not adventurers that are "mere annoyances". Anyway that is my take on that subject. =
I refuse to actually buy preview books but if memory serves (feel free to disprove me anyone), one of the 4E themes listed in Worlds and Monsters is toning down evil vs. evil conflicts. So provided that my memory is right, back to the Simbul's questions evil isn't fighting itself anymore and some genius decided hey "let's wipe out 90% of the powerful good guys" why do the PCs stand a chance? If Elminster and the 7 could be bothered to handle every lesser matter a player could imagine in 3.x then why can't the major evils that are being held to use as challenges be bothered to devote 10 minutes to providing a total party kill in 4E now that there aren't any counterparts with half the strength needed to stand in their path. Are we wiping out 90% of the major evils which just means we have a low level world?
evil isn't fighting itself anymore and some genius decided hey "let's wipe out 90% of the powerful good guys" why do the PCs stand a chance?
The lack of major faction wars among the evil creatures doesn't mean there isn't conflict between individuals and groups. Just because mortals don't know what is taking up the attention of major demons, devils, and evil gods doesn't mean that they aren't preasuring each other, or conflicting with powerful good or neutral creatures. Something keeps them from much direct action on material plains, where they normally act through agents of one sort or another.
If a DM doesn't want even epic PCs to have a chance of survival in a situation, they will have no chance; it's up to the DM (and module writers and editors) to keep challenges to appropriate levels. We can assume that the fact that all potential heros haven't been wiped out already implies that something is keeping the major baddies in check, and that PCs will have a good chance of prevailing in their encounters, if they don't adventure beyond their capabilities (such as heroic characters attempting an epic adventure). Heroic characters can just assume that some epic creatures are dealing with the epic dangers while they deal with the ones with which they have a chance.
-This is the exact reason why certain other NPCs were simply eliminated.
It is why good NPCs were taken out. There are still big bad NPCS to give the other big bads a hard time.
@Masked One. Does a book tell you how to run a game? If you need a reason to tie up a baddie then have him/her/it be busy with something else (big bad NPC). In my EB game the players just really messed with the Cult of Tiamat. SOme members of the Cult may be after them but the Cult is having problems with other Rakshashas that are upset with its rise in power. So other groups are plotting to slow down their ascendence not just the PCs.
High level NPCs were meant to tone down some of Eds PCs I think. There was a lot of god slaying going down in the 80's methinks from talking to other 1E and 2E players and reading KODT a bit. People want to say the 90's or now is where powergaming is at but I don't think it is any worse than back then. TSR then WOTC statted and powered up the NPCs (due to the fans I think) and that was a mistake. I think they realized that now. Plus all of the novels about those earth shaking NPCs was also a mistake. If ya kiked the NPCs keep em in your game. Have your pcs start a quest to "find/free" them or something.
It is why good NPCs were taken out. There are still big bad NPCS to give the other big bads a hard time.
Not so.
They have already stated that evil will no longer fight evil. That, in and of itself, means the Realms are no longer the Realms.
So, two uber-powerful evil dudes who both want to take over the world would have absolutely NO problem with each other.
Riiiiiight.... and I thought FR was fantasy before.
Question:
Why did FR need to be shoe-horned into the 4e ruleset? Couldn't you have just left the Realms 'Forgotten'? 4e was an IDEAL time for you guys to come up with a new setting, or resurrect a defunct one like Mystara. I, and so many others, just don't understand the need to so drastically alter the setting. If you were having trouble marketing it to a new audience, why bother with it at all? I think the 'FR haters' will still be haters, and now a lot of FR fans are 4e FR haters. I just don't see any positive reason for having to do what you guys did. The only people that might be attracted to the setting are BRAND NEW RPGers, and they don't know FR from Middle Earth - you guys could have went with anything. A pirate-based game to cash-in on the current popularity of that genre, or a Renaissance/modern game based off of kids learning magic in a wizard school (once again, attracting new players with current trends). I truly do not see the purpose behind 'nuking' the Realms, other then that certain people felt they could 'make them better'. In hindsight, was it really worth the effort, considering all the negativity you guys generated?
It probably would have been for the best if the Realms were 'Forgotten' - I'm actually jealous that GH is getting ignored.
@Masked One. Does a book tell you how to run a game?
Obviously pre-4e books told players to run their games with the prominent good NPCs stealing the PCs' thunder left and right, so I guess WotC wouldn't want to repeat this "mistake".
If you need a reason to tie up a baddie then have him/her/it be busy with something else (big bad NPC).
No, according to numerous posters (and thus to WotC who wish to cater to them), it's wrong to say NPCs are just "busy" with doing something else. There has to be a good reason for every instance in which you can say, "Why doesn't Elminster take care of it?" Since the mere existence of good NPCs who could theoretically handle something is such a major problem, I don't see how the existence of über-powerful BBGs who could just take what they want unopposed isn't one.
DB
People seemed to have a problem with good npcs folks. Every anti NPC post I have ever seen on these forums or any anti-npc fan I met has always talked about the chosen or other uber good npc. It is like the Eberron model I guess. Not many high level good npcs unless you level them up yourselves but there are numerous low/mid/high level big bads with their own plots. Other high level big bads are ok with the players because that means there is something for them to go up against.
I am trying to be nice here but I am a bit exasperated that nobody can understand this concept.
Now, in theory, that seems reasonable - give it a year or so, and every Monty-Haul DM/Campaign will have characters with Exarchs, running around slapping down Szass Tam and Manshoon. Taking the 'Living FR' into consideration, we may even hear about some of these super-PCs who save the world all the time... making them NPCs in our own campaigns... hmmmmm...
Bit of a problem there...
Anyhow, the biggest problem I see is at start-up - you have all those extremely powerful NPCs, with no PCs strong enough to oppose them yet. That means, if this were taking place in the RW, those BBGs would take over the world the day the new books hit the shelves in August - why wouldn't they? The only way to explain that is to say that there already are Exarch PCs in the world, fighting the good fight. But wait! Doesn't that make them NPCs?
I figure all the characters that they are using for play-testing (the designer's characters :ahem
are these super-PCs that are holding things together until our PCs get experienced enough to join in those high-level battles.But once again, I have to ask - just what the hell is the difference between an NPC, and a PC from ANOTHER campaign? If Bob from Idaho's Exarch character 'Gorbag the Strong' stops a Thayan invasion of Rashemen, just how is that different then a sourcebook NPC doing it, from my player's point of view?
They set out to fix a problem that didn't exist, and instead actually created the problem they were supposedly trying to get rid of. My players are now being 'outshined' by Bob from Idaho - way to go.
No, according to numerous posters (and thus to WotC who wish to cater to them), it's wrong to say NPCs are just "busy" with doing something else. There has to be a good reason for every instance in which you can say, "Why doesn't Elminster take care of it?"
Please give an actual reference to a WotC statement to that effect. I can see 4e not being set up to deal with wars between the major CE and LE powers, or all Good gods vs all Evil ones, but that doesn't mean there aren't such rivalries, or wars
between evil organizations. The rules are set up for what the PCs will encounter. PCs should never encounter overwelming opposition against which they have no chance - such doesn't require stated
creatures, the DM can merely say "You have no chance and are dead" (obviously not fun for the players, so it should't be done).
Epic tier PCs will have a chance against very powerful beings, or even small groups of them, so
epic adventures can deal with some such, but heroic tier PCs should never encounter them directly.
I see no reason why we should know what Elminster deals with on a day by day basis, as it
doesn't affect the PCs dirrectly. Only what affects them need be specified. The simple answer to "why doesn't Elminster deal with this" should normaly be "he is busy"; what we need reasons for is "why is Elminster dealing with this" when it's something PCs or lower level NPCs could handle.
We don't need reasons why Elminster isn't handling things in LFR, he just isn't. The PCs are doing things that are significant.
Please give an actual reference to a WotC statement to that effect.
Let me quote myself: "No, according to numerous posters (and thus to WotC who wish to cater to them), it's wrong to say NPCs are just "busy" with doing something else." Said posters can be found in this very thread (and a dozen more). That WotC wants to cater to them has been said by Mr. Baker himself in the one and only "Ask the Realms authors / designers" thread where he gave the reasons for killing off most of the prominent good guys.
DB
Let me quote myself: "No, according to numerous posters (and thus to WotC who wish to cater to them), it's wrong to say NPCs are just "busy" with doing something else." Said posters can be found in this very thread (and a dozen more). That WotC wants to cater to them has been said by Mr. Baker himself in the one and only "Ask the Realms authors / designers" thread where he gave the reasons for killing off most of the prominent good guys.
DB
I know what you said, but it doersn't make the posters right. What is an actual reference to a representative of WotC indicating that it's wrong to merely say NPCs are just busy? I see it as they have tried to avoid questions of that nature, as they are irrelevant to adventures; what is relevant is why an NPC is involved in an adventure.
There is no need to know why Elminster isn't helping to guard a caravan, retrieve a kidnapped child, stop an assassin, etc. The world is too big for him to do everything he could possibly do. He has his life and the PCs have theirs.
So, they are catering to those guys who show up at the LGS and conventions that want to tell EVERYONE who will listen all about their super-cool character... you know the ones - they're the people everyone else is trying to avoid.
And since I promised to ask a question whenever I posted in this thread -
Will Shoon VII play a major role in 4e FR? Might we see a re-emergence of the Shoon Imperium in the south?
It is why good NPCs were taken out. There are still big bad NPCS to give the other big bads a hard time.
-So, it's not alright for some NPCs to exist, but it's okay for other NPCs to exist, even though most of these other NPCs meet the same criteria for being removed that the ones who were removed fit?
I know what you said, but it doersn't make the posters right. What is an actual reference to a representative of WotC indicating that it's wrong to merely say NPCs are just busy? I see it as they have tried to avoid questions of that nature, as they are irrelevant to adventures; what is relevant is why an NPC is involved in an adventure.
-Chris Perkins, in either his designer journal, or one of the original interviews done by G0 (I believe it was the latter) cited the fact that Mystra's Chosen were the "Justice League" of the Forgotten Realms, and that having such do-gooders exist (note, however, they are not, by any means, do-gooders, in the traditional sense of the world) to fixi the problems that PCs are supposed to handle. A complaint is that people feel they need to pin down exactly where Elminster is, at all times, and figure out why he doesn't intervene in every single situation, be it Level 1 to Level 20+. A number of responses and back-and-forths can be found in the 4e Forgotten Realms section of the boards.
-That- to our perception- the group of designers are changing things to eliminate this percieved problem (which, in actuality does not exist as a problem in and of itself), we can only assume that they agreed with this notion that Elminster, and other NPCs, must be located and kept in account at every stage of the game. By eliminating them, the percieved problem is fixed (though, other NPCs that are higher level than 1st level PCs still exist, and can still do the same things other NPCs were percieved to do in the past). I don't know if I am being especially eloquent, but I think I got the point across and answered what needed to be answered.
Will Shoon VII play a major role in 4e FR? Might we see a re-emergence of the Shoon Imperium in the south?
-Hmm...Given that about 100 years have passed since he was freed, and the guy does crave power, and is a schemer, I should hope so! Perhaps not a Shoon Imperium, but Shoon VII had better have begun putting the cogs in motion.
I would be delighted if they took it ina new direction... but they won't. We'll probably see a 'poor-man's' Warhammer Tomb Kings empire based around Shoonach - the necromancy 'Mythal' and Shoon just screams 'Undead controlled mummy-region'. The new Dryads are carbon-copies of Warhammer's, so I expect a little more 'dipping' will have occurred.
Not that I would mind that all that much - that is a terrific setting (although I only have done mass-combat there, not RPG).
And once again, I am forced to ask a question, because I have posted -
Is the core Feywild EXACTLY the same thing as FR's Faerie, or will one be a part of the other? I'm asking this because in previous editions, the realm of Faerie was the same for EVERY setting, regardless of which world you entered it from. Is this what the Feywild will be like? Almost like a transitive plane, that connects all others? I'm thinking this because the Shadowfel was set-up as it's 'opposite', and the Shadow Plane WAS connected to all others in 3e.
I know what you said, but it doersn't make the posters right. What is an actual reference to a representative of WotC indicating that it's wrong to merely say NPCs are just busy?
I didn't want to enter nit-picking territory, but here we go: To me, the above reason ("Elminster is not at home, and Lhaeo doesn't have the faintest idea where he is, what he's up to and how long it'll take, so you're on your own.") seems to be a perfectly valid explanation for why he doesn't solve every single problem the PCs might encounter. According to numerous posters (I italicized this before for a reason) it isn't - many 4e threads should be evidence enough for that. Mr. Baker said - and this is not an exact quote - that he, too, feels this is a good enough explanation, but that he's also aware that many detractors of the Realms don't think so, and that the setting is supposed to appeal to them, too.
I still don't get what's so ambiguous about what I said
There is no need to know why Elminster isn't helping to guard a caravan, retrieve a kidnapped child, stop an assassin, etc. The world is too big for him to do everything he could possibly do. He has his life and the PCs have theirs.
That's more or less what several posters and myself have said over and over and over again. A number of other posters don't seem to agree.
edit: Lord Karsus was a little faster than me. Thanks, LK.
DB
Its up to 'Joe Policemen' to stop the muggers, burglers, and rapists.
Screw asking a question... I'm running out of them. :P
-Chris Perkins, in either his designer journal, or one of the original interviews done by G0 (I believe it was the latter) cited the fact that Mystra's Chosen were the "Justice League" of the Forgotten Realms, and that having such do-gooders exist (note, however, they are not, by any means, do-gooders, in the traditional sense of the world) to fixi the problems that PCs are supposed to handle. A complaint is that people feel they need to pin down exactly where Elminster is, at all times, and figure out why he doesn't intervene in every single situation, be it Level 1 to Level 20+. A number of responses and back-and-forths can be found in the 4e Forgotten Realms section of the boards.
-That- to our perception- the group of designers are changing things to eliminate this percieved problem (which, in actuality does not exist as a problem in and of itself), we can only assume that they agreed with this notion that Elminster, and other NPCs, must be located and kept in account at every stage of the game. By eliminating them, the percieved problem is fixed (though, other NPCs that are higher level than 1st level PCs still exist, and can still do the same things other NPCs were percieved to do in the past). I don't know if I am being especially eloquent, but I think I got the point across and answered what needed to be answered.
To my perception, you have jumped to an invalid conclusion. AS I have said, I see no reason why we should know why Eliminster, and others, good or evil, don't interfere in aevery situation, only why they do in situations in which they do. "Elminster is too busy", or "he thinks it's beneath him", or "he doesn't know about it" are all more than sufficient answers, and not even that much should be required.
The problem is with the player who expects answers, not the existence of high level NPCs. We have no need for full stat blocks for such characters, as the PCs aren't likely to interact directly with them, nor do we need to know what thet are up to in more than a general way. They should not be used to deal with situations PCs can handle, but I see nothing wrong with ocational references to them existing and doing their thing (particularly in novels).
FR is not about new things. Mulhorndi, The Moonshaes, Unther, Calimsham, Amn, Evermeet ect... The setting has hordes (Gengis Khan?) of real world references or things torn from LOTR. It was always a jumble and hodgpodge of junk and thankfully the writers were decent enough to make it all work (sort of). It was so popular because it was supported and Greyhawk was not. If GH got as much support as FR had or more support than FR you would all be upset because of what they are doing with Geoffry and why Iuz is dead. After saying this I still liek the Realms, it is just not superduper original, at least the TSR version isn't. Ed's may have varied.
When I run/play a game I try not to metagame as little as possible. Some BBEGs of mine do dumb things because they are very prideful and arrogant or some just run and hide because they are cowards. I do not have BBEG show up when the PCs are at low level because that would make for a crappy game. I have seen DMs abuse players with NPCs (good and evil) and it is not fun and not good gaming. Simple as that. If they blow up a big bads house that is something totally different though. ;)
They are catering to people who want to have fun. Not just 12 year olds and obessive ego gamers. They want everyone to have fun and buy there games.
If more people think something is fun more people will buy it and then WOTC makes money. I am 33 and my group are decent RPers. They like the combat and a bit of th roleplaying elements that I throw in. They are happy that I don't just run a wagontrain adventure or something mundane like that (unless it leads to something more fun).
For the same reason that crime still exists in the DC and Marvel universes - Superman and Captain America can't be everywhere at once, and they are usually off saving the world somewhere.
Besides Cap, like the Realms, is dead
Until we found out he's really a plant, and his Kryptonian Chlorophil kicked-in and the sun made him all healthy and alive again.
Either way, you get the idea - anyone who thought the Chosen were a problem were idiots, and those are the people that the designers built 4e for.
A GOOD DM controls his game, it doesn't control him.
I can see your point Rauric, but the opposite of that should hold true as well. If we can rationalize that the BBG is occupied and find it acceptable, why can't we make the same rationalization about the BGG and find that acceptable as well? Its a rhetorical point ultimately... if we can keep around , the why can't we have kept around as well? If the rationale for 'nuking' (to borrow a phrase) them is actually valid, why is the inverse of that rationale not valid is the point that's being made I think.
Seconded, this is pretty much where I was gonna take my line of reasoning and in a more compact and polite manner.
As a Fan of Elves in Realms, I was really excited with the Last Mythal series and very happy that Elves decided to stay and reclaim Myth Drannor and from what I have learned about 4th Edition FR, the Elven Realm is still thriving in Cormanthor.
Few things I wanted to ask
- Are they gonna be in major role in 4th Edition FR, in other words Is there gonna be a lot of info about the Realm in 4th Edition FR Campaing Book?
- Are there still Elven High Mages in 4th Edition FR, and are they maybe available for Paragon/Epic Path for Players?
- Next, What about the Star Elves from Sildëyuir, did they survive the Spellplague? And if they did, Are they in 4th Edition FR or in some future release of DDI?
Finally, I just read the Swordmage and It was great. Thank you!!
Hope Geran returns to Myth Drannor and we'll see how it has grown since end of Last Mythal series. There was so little info in Final Gate and in Swordmage about that.
And Sorry about the things about the novels, I know ppl arent suppose to talk about them in here.
Either way, you get the idea - anyone who thought the Chosen were a problem were idiots, and those are the people that the designers built 4e for.
A GOOD DM controls his game, it doesn't control him.
You know, i have a hard time believing you're not just trolling when you start insulting the designers...
I was not a big fan of the Chosen but then I just ignored them, but other people I knew would never run in FR because of the Lore and NPC deal. They are not dumb people or idiots, just a bit ignorant of the setting. Just like when I tell people on these boards to ignore the god situation or missing NPCs and they tell me they can't. It makes no sense to me. If some people cannot imagine how to keep the NPCs in the new Realms then you can see how people might not want to play in the Old Realms with all of those NPCs.
Finally I think the masses that buy FR like it because it is a supported setting.
They may be avid gamers but casual FR fans. They may not really care about the changes as long as Waterdeep, Thay and Cormyr are still there as well as some of the popular places that they used to play in. Like myself they be excited that some less popular places are changed so it will give their players new places to go adventure. Many casual fans picked up a few or many books but were not Lore junkies and again just used it for source material. I do not view the fans here or Candlekeep as the masses. I could be wrong but the net crowd is always a niche group. SO a niche group likeing a niche gameworld is a small group indeed IMO.
Again I am sorry they messed wit hthe world and Timeline many of you preferred.
P.S. @Stigger. Yes we can rationalize the same thing. Good and Evil NPCs can both be "occupied" by other things and events. WOTC wants to get rid of past stigmas and make the setting fresher. They feel that the lore people should be happy because much of the lore is still there and if they wish they can play in an openended (kinda) world with 100 years to do what they want. I think EBs success was that it felt new and fresh. I know alot of FR fans that tried it out and either picked it up along with FR or just dropped FR for it. There are alot of reasons for the change. It wasn't to just snub older, diehard fans. This was most likely due to the Suits. Don't ya think Rich or the others might have said "Uh, this is gonna tick alot of people of." and the Suits responded "BOTTOMLINEBOTTOMLINEBOTTOMLINEBOTTOMLINE!"
You know, i have a hard time believing you're not just trolling when you start insulting the designers...
I didn't insult the designers - I'm extremely careful how I word things.
I insulted the people they cater to. ;)
Now, I'm fairly certain you are a designer (I watch people's posting habits as well), and if that is true, then you know I am absolutely correct (except, maybe, the part where I call people idiots). Rich and several other designers have already stated, quite clearly, that FR needed to be 'wiped clean' because of people's PERCEPTIONS of the Realms, not because of any actual fault the Realms had.
What that means, in a nutshell, is that the game was redesigned around the folks who didn't understand the setting.
Now, where I come from, when someone doesn't understand something, I call them an idiot. I know thats not very nice, but neither am I. I have zero tolerance for ignorance.
Being mentally handicapped is different, and I would NEVER insult someone with special needs, but in this day-and-age, 'repairing' one's ignorance is only an internet site away, and there is NO excuse for it.
Bottom Line - If those people didn't bother to learn about FR the last time, what makes the designers think they will bother this time out? When I don't like something, I rarely give it a second chance; thats human nature.
Truth be told, at this point, I hope 4e FR succeeds, despite my very obvious dislike for it. I think it will work like a 'culling' of sorts amongst new gamers. The 'casual gamers' will continue to use the new two-book setting, and those who want something deeper will discover the real FR. I see that as the only way for new players to get to know 'old school' FR, now that it has effectively been killed off.
If 4e FR fails, then no one will bother to get to know the true Realms, and FR will slowly die off. So the only hope I, and others here, have of continuing to 'nurture' pre-Spellplague FR is that those who are looking for something more will seek us out, and learn what it was like before the Apocalypse.
Superman died too...
Until we found out he's really a plant, and his Kryptonian Chlorophil kicked-in and the sun made him all healthy and alive again.
Either way, you get the idea - anyone who thought the Chosen were a problem were idiots, and those are the people that the designers built 4e for.
A GOOD DM controls his game, it doesn't control him.
True enough. But the fact they have no clue and seeminingly ruined a great place can still leave you angry
Seeing it showing up so heavily in the sneak-peeks I've seen in the 4e Realms stuff, and the fact that Mr. Bruce 'Aberration' Cordell is heading things up, gives me little hope that the Realms in 4e are going to be something that will suit my tastes. Prior to this it was a sidenote that could easily be ignored without changing too much of the flavor... though it was one of the reasons I wasn't all that keen on the COS:W book.
For me, the lack of appeal the 4e Realms has been cumulative. The 'nuking' (a very distasteful term that could have been much better phrased) of NPC's, the obliteration of the pantheons, the whole Abeir thing, the Spellplague, the PoL concept, the catering to uninformed perceptions, etcetera and so forth... straws that piled on to finally break the back of the Realms for me. Could it be ignored? Sure, it could be, but why bother when I'd just have to virtually rewrite things to have them suit my gaming needs more? Easier just to stick with the 2e/3e Realms and convert them to 4e, so no real incentives for buying into 4e, barring it being an outstanding product that I can't ignore.
Beyond that, my wife is utterly opposed to the whole concept with the whole Stalker (Cyric) kills his Victim (Mystra) aspect of it all... while I think her view is a bit extreme, she sees the 4e Realms as going from a very 'estrogen-friendly' setting to a 'testosterone-heavy' setting. I do find myself wondering just how pervasive this attitude is among women, given that all of the female gamers I know (roughly about 15-20, depending on if we include fairly casual gamers or not), most of whom played in the Realms) have roughly the same sentiment.
While I don't really agree with the more extreme aspects of that sentiment, I can can see some of their points. The lack of inclusion of Bards and Druids (which I can totally understand from a mechanical point of view), the redefinition of the fae and sylvan creatures from beautiful flitty things to monsters to be battled (this in particular has really ticked off most of them with that dryad preview picture), focusing more on combat and action rather than story, destroying strong female NPCs and deities (Mystra and the Seven), turning Tymora into a weak battered wife going off with her man submissively... I doubt any of this stuff was done with the intention of 'putting women in their place', but its a perception that should be addressed I think.
So, to put that into the form of a question...
Mr. Baker,
Are there any elements in the 4e Realms that have been specifically designed with the female gamer in mind, and given things like Astrid's Parlor and Shelly's book and articles, has there been any effort in to make D&D in general, and the Realms in particular, more appealing to female gamers?
D&D worlds are NOT the RW, and Ed worked VERY hard to make FR the embodiment of equality - something TSR couldn't get right, despite all their efforts. Almost all game settings (or fantasy worlds, for that matter) wind up being clichés of medieval mentality, where women were second-class citizens, and not allowed to fight or think for themselves.
I have seen MORE female gamers playing in FR then every other setting combined, and I think that had a lot to do with Ed's delicate balncing act of the genders - a balance that has been thrown completely out-of-kilter in 4e FR.
There is a reason why Anime is just as popular amongst young Japaneses girls as it is boys (and perhaps moreso). Most Anime have strong female leads, and young females embrace this concept of the 'Strong Female'.
I think, perhaps, Stigger has discovered a very major flaw in the new design - the destruction of the Seven Sisters and most other female leader-types will knock D&D back into it's 'stoneage'.
Are there any elements in the 4e Realms that have been specifically designed with the female gamer in mind, and given things like Astrid's Parlor and Shelly's book and articles, has there been any effort in to make D&D in general, and the Realms in particular, more appealing to female gamers?[/b]
Isn't that part on the reason for downplaying half-orcs (the origin via **** issue)? LFR should treat the sexes more equitably, and there should be more noncombat encounters contributing to experience, as well as more cooperation within parties, with not just the most brutal characters contributing.
Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyZtBYG0QOg
And apparently, it's not just cardboard. You can even make metal models (How sweet would it be to get painted pewter models from a 3d printer?).
Very cool, but probably expensive.
To my perception, you have jumped to an invalid conclusion. AS I have said, I see no reason why we should know why Eliminster, and others, good or evil, don't interfere in aevery situation, only why they do in situations in which they do. "Elminster is too busy", or "he thinks it's beneath him", or "he doesn't know about it" are all more than sufficient answers, and not even that much should be required.
How does that contradict what LK said? His paraphrased quote by Chris Perkins was correct (I remember it).
The problem is with the player who expects answers, not the existence of high level NPCs.
Well, yeah, that's what those of us who don't hate the goodly high-level characters of the Realms have been arguing for a long time, now. It's why we don't think they needed to be depowered to removed from the setting. But Rich himself has said, in this thread, that the perception of these characters is a problem, even if that perception is not true.
It was so popular because it was supported and Greyhawk was not. If GH got as much support as FR had or more support than FR you would all be upset because of what they are doing with Geoffry and why Iuz is dead.
I like Greyhawk, and I would be POed if they did that.
After saying this I still liek the Realms, it is just not superduper original, at least the TSR version isn't.
If that's true, who cares?
How does that contradict what LK said? His paraphrased quote by Chris Perkins was correct (I remember it).
Well, yeah, that's what those of us who don't hate the goodly high-level characters of the Realms have been arguing for a long time, now. It's why we don't think they needed to be depowered to removed from the setting. But Rich himself has said, in this thread, that the perception of these characters is a problem, even if that perception is not true.
I believe he also said Elminster, for example, will still be around, with a minimal stat block. Such NPCs aren't gone, just not detailed for encounters. Thus, I assume, they remain part of the lore, that posters have jumped to conclusion when claiming that they are gone from the campaign, or that we will be informed why they don't deal personally with every challenge.
Elven high magic in its 3rd Edition form (a subset of epic level spells) isn't exactly around in the 4e setting, because the nature of magic has changed. And, of course, the mechanics of the 4e epic tier wizard don't match the mechanics of the 3rd Edition Epic Level Handbook. That said, we intend to work up an elven high mage as an epic destiny at some point. I don't think we got them into the FR Player's Guide, but I think we'll visit that topic in DDI sooner or later.
How did you get your hands on Swordmage??? I'm glad you liked it, but it isn't supposed to release until May 6th. Did you see one of the review copies, or are you Australian?
(For some bizarre reason the Aussies sometimes get our books weeks early. My theory is that the International Date Line is much more powerful than most people understand it to be.)
Questions for Richard Baker.
As a Fan of Elves in Realms, I was really excited with the Last Mythal series and very happy that Elves decided to stay and reclaim Myth Drannor and from what I have learned about 4th Edition FR, the Elven Realm is still thriving in Cormanthor.
Few things I wanted to ask
- Are they gonna be in major role in 4th Edition FR, in other words Is there gonna be a lot of info about the Realm in 4th Edition FR Campaing Book?
- Are there still Elven High Mages in 4th Edition FR, and are they maybe available for Paragon/Epic Path for Players?
- Next, What about the Star Elves from Sildëyuir, did they survive the Spellplague? And if they did, Are they in 4th Edition FR or in some future release of DDI?
Finally, I just read the Swordmage and It was great. Thank you!!
Hope Geran returns to Myth Drannor and we'll see how it has grown since end of Last Mythal series. There was so little info in Final Gate and in Swordmage about that.
And Sorry about the things about the novels, I know ppl arent suppose to talk about them in here.
...but Myth Drannor is as detailed as, say, Amn or Luruar (Silver Marches).
-Is there any specific reason the area is being called Luruar in sourcebooks again?
I mean, you know that Indiana Jones is going to survive to the end of the movie, no matter what happens. If you thought about it real hard, you'd realize that you shouldn't find any of the challenges or threats he faces all that interesting, because he's got infinite plot armor. But you enjoy the movies anyway because you agree that the author/scriptwriter doesn't have to kill Indy in order to prove that the movie was realistic.
To answer more "in-world," I'd point out that there are still plenty of forces for good in the world. If your sense of verisimilitude demands it, then yes, you can imagine that good-aligned deities, surviving Chosen/Sisters, or kindly archmages actively frustrate the efforts of Szass Tam to murder young adventurers in their figurative cribs. Some of those people are still around and still doing more or less what they've always done; we're just trying to help DMs move the spotlight away from them.
-What exactly is going to keep the Epic tier Shade Princes/Manshoon/Szass Tam from swooping in and wiping out the PCs destined to defeat them while the PCs are still in their heroic/paragon tiers and the traditional pillars of opposition/isolation for these epic foes are no longer there.
-Oh, and another question, if you don't mind:
I noticed that there is a new section in the Boards Index labeled 'Designers Blogs'. Are you going to be posting things there, for future reference?
Beyond that, what sort of campaign features/elements would you say demonstrate design aimed at female players?
So, to put that into the form of a question...
Mr. Baker,
Are there any elements in the 4e Realms that have been specifically designed with the female gamer in mind, and given things like Astrid's Parlor and Shelly's book and articles, has there been any effort in to make D&D in general, and the Realms in particular, more appealing to female gamers?
Second, keeping a promise made long ago to the fans at a GenCon seminar. That's the name they chose for the area. Better late than never!
-Is there any specific reason the area is being called Luruar in sourcebooks again?
As to what constitutes appeal to female gamers... probably several answers to that, but for starters, I'm hoping we keep the strong female percentage of rulership over various cities and townships for one, positions of authority in ecclessiastic circles, a good presence among famous adventurers, maybe a shade more representation among major NPC villains would be nice as well (Scyullua or however you spelled that was a good touch really, though the reference to her as the "***** in the trees" was very offputting for many of the women I knew... heard that one endlessly.), stuff along those lines I suppose is the sort of stuff my wife was referring to.
We discussed it somewhat at length, and to keep this somewhat reasonable in length, she mentioned that women tend to prefer to know about personal relationships and details of people and societies, while men tend to prefer to know about heirarchical (is that a word?) relationships and details of places and things. It was made as a very broad generalization mind you, but I think it held at least a grain of truth to it.
The Article on Angels in 4E is pretty sweeet!18D;)
I bought Swordmage from Finland in a Gaming/Fantasy Book Store, I was suprised that it was released since I thought it was coming out in May too, but they said that it had arrived early. So I just quickly bought one for myself and started reading rightaway... :D
Few Questions :
Spellscared another great and interesting Idea, I dont know if ppl have already asked these but here they are.
- Do all Spellscars have positive or negative effect or both?
- And are some Spellscars only cosmetic or do they all start that way and develop from that, sort of like Dragonmarks of Eberron?
- And Can any Race/Creature get/manifest a Spellscar?
- Also Can you give any examples of Spellscars?
Dragonborns, Great Finally a Dragonlike race to playwith.
- Are Dragonborn in 4th Ed. FR same as Dragonborn in 4th Edition D&D or is there some changes in rules.
- What does the Architecture of Dragonborn look in FR.
Sorcerers, Hopefully soon, considering they arent released in PH1 I dont know how much you can tell me about them but here goes anyway... :D
- Are there many Sorcerers in 4th Edition of FR or are they sort of rarity.
- Are Sorcerers in FR gonna be same as those released in PH2 or DDI or is there gonna be some major differences?
- Is there maybe gonna be some links between Sorcerers, Spellscared, Spellplague maybe?
- Did the Spellplague harm Sorcerers the sameway it did with Wizards, like make them lose they spells,make them go mad, etc...
- And If there are references to Sorcerers in 4th Edition FR books or do we get a Update about them in FR when they are released for normal D&D Rules?
Few Questions about Magic
- Can you still make Skyships, Flying Cities and Mythals in 4th Edition, Like in form of High Level Rituals/Item Crafing?
Or are those that survived the last ones.. Considering that most of those were made with higher than 9th level spells, and by old rules Mystra sort of prohibited them unless you used Epic Spells.
- From previews I gathered Shadow Weave is still somewhere there, Do you have to choose which Weave you are using when you create a Spellcaster or is Shadow Weave still obtainable through Feats.
Also, Richard Do you have a site,forum or mail where ppl can ask you about your novels, since this forum isnt for them?
Okay, I think thats enough for now..
They have already stated that evil will no longer fight evil.
Hello. Would you provide a reference for who (associated with WotC) said that or in what document? As yet, I had not read or been told that. Thanks.
Keith
I believe he also said Elminster, for example, will still be around, with a minimal stat block. Such NPCs aren't gone, just not detailed for encounters. Thus, I assume, they remain part of the lore, that posters have jumped to conclusion when claiming that they are gone from the campaign, or that we will be informed why they don't deal personally with every challenge.
I still don't see what the point of contention is here, sorry.
First of all: Thanks for clarifying on where you got the book. I've noticed that Finland, Denmark, and a couple of other countries also get stuff early, so I guess I'm not surprised.
I'm going to duck the questions on spellscars and dragonborn for now, because I don't want to scoop too much too soon.
Regarding sorcerers, yes, they're still around in 4e realms. They were affected much as wizards were affected by the Spellplague, but with the passage of time, they've also "reinvented" their spellcasting. They'll match up with core D&D sorcerers for the most part, no special rules sets for FR sorcerers are planned. A few sorcerers are mentioned in the upcoming FR Campaign Guide, and I featured one as a character in Swordmage.
The Shadow Weave is still out there, in a manner of speaking. It's basically going to survive into 4e as the Shadow power source (as opposed to the Arcane power source). So necromancers, and possibly illusionists, may appear as "wizardly"-type characters who draw on the Shadow power source instead of the Arcane power source.
Finally, I don't have a website of my own, but you can find some discussion of my novels over at www.candlekeep.com. I suppose I ought to get off my duff and build myself a website one of these days.
Elven High Mage as Epic Path sounds good. Thank you..
I bought Swordmage from Finland in a Gaming/Fantasy Book Store, I was suprised that it was released since I thought it was coming out in May too, but they said that it had arrived early. So I just quickly bought one for myself and started reading rightaway... :D
Few Questions :
Spellscared another great and interesting Idea, I dont know if ppl have already asked these but here they are.
- Do all Spellscars have positive or negative effect or both?
- And are some Spellscars only cosmetic or do they all start that way and develop from that, sort of like Dragonmarks of Eberron?
- And Can any Race/Creature get/manifest a Spellscar?
- Also Can you give any examples of Spellscars?
Dragonborns, Great Finally a Dragonlike race to playwith.
- Are Dragonborn in 4th Ed. FR same as Dragonborn in 4th Edition D&D or is there some changes in rules.
- What does the Architecture of Dragonborn look in FR.
Sorcerers, Hopefully soon, considering they arent released in PH1 I dont know how much you can tell me about them but here goes anyway... :D
- Are there many Sorcerers in 4th Edition of FR or are they sort of rarity.
- Are Sorcerers in FR gonna be same as those released in PH2 or DDI or is there gonna be some major differences?
- Is there maybe gonna be some links between Sorcerers, Spellscared, Spellplague maybe?
- Did the Spellplague harm Sorcerers the sameway it did with Wizards, like make them lose they spells,make them go mad, etc...
- And If there are references to Sorcerers in 4th Edition FR books or do we get a Update about them in FR when they are released for normal D&D Rules?
Few Questions about Magic
- Can you still make Skyships, Flying Cities and Mythals in 4th Edition, Like in form of High Level Rituals/Item Crafing?
Or are those that survived the last ones.. Considering that most of those were made with higher than 9th level spells, and by old rules Mystra sort of prohibited them unless you used Epic Spells.
- From previews I gathered Shadow Weave is still somewhere there, Do you have to choose which Weave you are using when you create a Spellcaster or is Shadow Weave still obtainable through Feats.
Also, Richard Do you have a site,forum or mail where ppl can ask you about your novels, since this forum isnt for them?
Okay, I think thats enough for now..
- From previews I gathered Shadow Weave is still somewhere there, Do you have to choose which Weave you are using when you create a Spellcaster or is Shadow Weave still obtainable through Feats.
-The Weave does not exist come the 4e Forgotten Realms.
(Scyullua or however you spelled that was a good touch really, though the reference to her as the "***** in the trees" was very offputting for many of the women I knew... heard that one endlessly)
I see your point there, but I'm going to play devil's advocate (I am after all a woman myself) and remind those who didn't like it that the guy being quoted is an evil villain. I guess my point is, would it be better if he was a "non-sexist" evil villain? Fzoul isn't nice, and he's the type who would knock those who fail him (especially to make it look like he wasn't in part at fault).
True enough, can't say I found it particularly offensive myself, evil and all that, but it did upset several of the women I know, for whatever reason. Not all of them, not even half, but the 6-7 of those upset ranted about it ad nauseum, so I figured it was worth mentioning.
Of course.
It makes for an interesting discussion.Rich, So in a sense the Weave exists also but in a different way?
So in a sense the Weave exists also but in a different way?
-The Weave, as a metaphysical thing no longer exists. A Arcane Power source now exists to "cover" for it. In D&D terms, nothing is going to be different. In terms of the setting itself, there is a big difference.
-The Weave, as a metaphysical thing no longer exists. A Arcane Power source now exists to "cover" for it. In D&D terms, nothing is going to be different. In terms of the setting itself, there is a big difference.
The question was actually more for the designer in the know, I should have labeled it as such. Unless...
The question was actually more for the designer in the know, I should have labeled it as such. Unless...
-I just answered the question. We've been fielding questions that already have answers since Page whatever, now.
I am asking because you guys have stated before that you were trying to keep the rules straight acroos the various D&D worlds and one of mine little pet peeves was that things with a week recharge time(some magic items or artifacts) took longer in the Realms. Or Spell research took longer. I always just kept the length of time to be 7 days. Though I have had DMs who kept it to a week be it 10 days or 7 days.
So are you changing the Realms week length to be more standard or have you guys just done away with a week recharge time and week/ level spell research type of things...or have you just left it alone.
With the modification on the magic, can a character benefit the effect ofthe Nether scrolls if the character read it ?
Thanks for your future answer.
Hello. Would you provide a reference for who (associated with WotC) said that or in what document? As yet, I had not read or been told that. Thanks.
Keith
Do you work for WotC?
If you do, then I would understand why you are the only person who HASN'T heard that.
It's in the preview books, which I don't own - Rinon is the one who first brought it to my attention, so perhaps she would be kind enough to elaborate.
Since hearing about it from the previews, I have read something to that effect in someone's blog, and it was also briefly mentioned in the last podcast.
Don't remember which blog, but it was definately in the preview books when that little 'tidbit' was released to us.
Evil only fights the good guys now, meaing the PCs. I suppeose this is part of the same 'plan' that killed off the major good NPCs - they only want PCs to 'handle bad guys'.
It's in the preview books, which I don't own - Rinon is the one who frst brought it to my attention, so perhaps she would be kind enough to elaborate.
Sure, although I don't have my books with me at the moment.
I don't think the preview book in question (Worlds and Monsters) said that one evil creature would never ever fight another evil creature. However, the new setting is trying to avoid story arcs about evil fighting evil (such as the Blood War), because it makes it seem like evil is keeping itself in check, rather than being held in check by the PCs. Yes, the focus is going to be on the PCs as the ones who are holding back the forces of evil.
Does that help any? Also, keep in mind that I'm playing "objective reporter" here--I didn't say that I agree with every single line of reasoning put forth in the preview books.
Sure, although I don't have my books with me at the moment.
I don't think the preview book in question (Worlds and Monsters) said that one evil creature would never ever fight another evil creature. However, the new setting is trying to avoid story arcs about evil fighting evil (such as the Blood War), because it makes it seem like evil is keeping itself in check, rather than being held in check by the PCs. Yes, the focus is going to be on the PCs as the ones who are holding back the forces of evil.
Does that help any? Also, keep in mind that I'm playing "objective reporter" here--I didn't say that I agree with every single line of reasoning put forth in the preview books.
Of course this could be just for the General world. The realms still might have bad guy verses bad guy...
I don't think the preview book in question (Worlds and Monsters) said that one evil creature would never ever fight another evil creature. However, the new setting is trying to avoid story arcs about evil fighting evil (such as the Blood War), because it makes it seem like evil is keeping itself in check, rather than being held in check by the PCs. Yes, the focus is going to be on the PCs as the ones who are holding back the forces of evil.
The more I hear about Fourth Edition, the worse it gets...I suppose they are also trying to avoid story arcs where good/neutral allies with evil in order to combat mutual threats?
They are 'getting back to basics' with this edition, to try and recapture the feel of the original game. Back then, the world did not interact or move forward in any noticable way unless the PCs were present. Basically, it was the players who drove the story forward, not the world itself.
That, in and of itself, is not neccessarily a bad thing, and fits quite well in some settings (like Eberron).
I don't think it fit very well in the Realms, whose story was always driven by intrigues happening in the background - intrigues the characters could get caught up in and take control over, once they became powerful enough.
The designers used the term 'mature setting' applied to the 3e realms in that last Podcast (I just now listened to it again, trying to find something else), and also said that was a 'bad thing', and needed to be changed. According to them, too many little details had been filled in, and they needed to get rid of the big 'over-story' so players could 'better enjoy' FR.
I'm personally not buying that, nor do I feel that there wasn't room for two different styles of game in 4e, but that is just my opinion. Their #1 credo from the outset of the Gencon announcment has been "one rules to rule them all", and that is why FR needed to take the biggest change in direction of ALL the D&D settings. The world will now revolve around the PCs, not the NPCs.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next year or two.
And I know I promised not to post in here anymore, since my questions are being ignored, but I felt this conversation was just a continuation of my answer - and thank you for fielding that request, Rinon. ;)
The more I hear about Fourth Edition, the worse it gets...I suppose they are also trying to avoid story arcs where good/neutral allies with evil in order to combat mutual threats?
Nobody knows since the books are not released yet.
I made my Players the center of my Nesme' game and still had a few intrigues that went on behind the scene. I do not believe the new edition takes away much of that since that is a DM thing in the long run. I know many groups that powergamed in the Realms. One player told me his one DM had a DMpc Shade wizard that was a were-panther and led the powergaming group to slay all the orces in the north and maybe giants as well. That's pretty scary bad to me but for some of the palyers I guess it was great.
Rich, Will there be generic Adventures like Red Hand and how many a year do ya think we will see?
The more I hear about Fourth Edition, the worse it gets...I suppose they are also trying to avoid story arcs where good/neutral allies with evil in order to combat mutual threats?
I think people are blowing things out of proportion because they want to find fault. 4e setting, such as FR, are being designed for PCs to play significant roles, so the official adventures and story arcs will have that in mind, and not deal with major confrontations of evil with evil, or even good with evil. Heroic PCs will deal with appropriate threats, and the same for Paragon and Epic PCs, once they are in the campaigns. They doesn't stop there beinging evil vs evil and good vs evil conflicts in the background, involving characters of renoun, but don't expect them to play direct roles in the campaigns.
If you are DMing your own campaign in the setting, you are still free to have BBGs and BGGs as active in your stories as you want, evin in direct conflict with each other.
The spellplague is the dirrect result of deity vs deity conflict, so the concept isn't gone from 4e FR.
Nobody knows since the books are not released yet.
I hate this argument. It is not true, from all of the "previews" and "excerpts" that we have seen so far, it gives us a damn good clue as to which direction everything is being taken. Just because we do not have the final product, does not mean that we do not have a damn clue as to what we are talking about. It does not mean that we should make our final decision about the product until it has been released, but it does mean that we can make decisions about what has been released about the product.
Fourth Edition Rules are not bad - its how they were applied to the Realms that makes most of us just shake our head.
I feel the opposite. In my opinion, the changes to the Realms are not all that great either, but it is the ruleset that I really dislike. Yes, we have not seen it in its entirety, but we have seen enough to be able to tell that the designers either consciously decided to purge simulationism from the rules or just decided not to pay attention to it at all in the design of the rules. This simply does not jive with my playstyle (and even less with my DMing style and I am most often the DM) and hence 4E will not be a game I will be getting. I have tried to delay this decision for long, hoping something would salvage the ruleset for me, but it is now abundantly clear from the already-released rules that the direction 4E is taking is not for me, at least not in PnP terms - I may still buy 4E D&D computer games, where I have different expectations from the rules.
Do you work for WotC?
If you do, then I would understand why you are the only person who HASN'T heard that.
It's in the preview books, which I don't own - Rinon is the one who first brought it to my attention, so perhaps she would be kind enough to elaborate.
Evil only fights the good guys now, meaing the PCs. I suppeose this is part of the same 'plan' that killed off the major good NPCs - they only want PCs to 'handle bad guys'.
No, I don't work for WotC, unless you count having written RPGA adventures and received payment (much like a freelance author) for those adventures.
I do own the 4E preview book, Worlds and Monsters. I assume the reference is on page 14 in a section written by Matthew Sernett.
My interpretation of the meaning appears to be a bit different than yours, but I will quote the short paragraph so that all may judge for themselves.
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and archdevils war on each other rather than threatening the PCs. We don't want to waste space on things players can't use. Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun."
Keith
I suppose they are also trying to avoid story arcs where good/neutral allies with evil in order to combat mutual threats?
I will quote the short paragraph so that all may judge for themselves.
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and archdevils war on each other rather than threatening the PCs. We don't want to waste space on things players can't use. Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun."
Not only does this sound exactly like what Rino depicted, but it seems that my question is answered as well. "Things players can't use," indeed!
I feel the opposite. In my opinion, the changes to the Realms are not all that great either, but it is the ruleset that I really dislike. Yes, we have not seen it in its entirety, but we have seen enough to be able to tell that the designers either consciously decided to purge simulationism from the rules or just decided not to pay attention to it at all in the design of the rules. This simply does not jive with my playstyle (and even less with my DMing style and I am most often the DM) and hence 4E will not be a game I will be getting. I have tried to delay this decision for long, hoping something would salvage the ruleset for me, but it is now abundantly clear from the already-released rules that the direction 4E is taking is not for me, at least not in PnP terms - I may still buy 4E D&D computer games, where I have different expectations from the rules.
Odd - I am the most "simulationist" of my gaming group, and I devoted a whole website and way too many hours trying to make 3e more "realistic". I can say that categorically 4e is more simulationist in the sense I was striving for - which was to say, mechanically more consistent with the world it is supposed to simulate.
That cannot possibly be what people are upset about? This does not mean that evil in FR or 4E itself cannot fight amonst itself, it just will not be given much detail. Again it does not mean it cannot happen.
As I have said before (someplace) high level evil NPCs can be too busy with other plots against them to worry about low level pcs that are foiling the Big Bads other plots. In my games I could rationalize it that good and evil NPCs are keeping hte bigbad busy. I can even use that rationalization in the newer FR even though most high level good NPCs are not around. I can make some up myself pretty easily. Why would I do this? For a better game IMO.
Rich, So will evil be able to attack each other in 4E or the new FR for that matter?
Am I (won't speak for others) spectacularly worked up about that line? No, though it was an amusing side point. I am severely annoyed however the best reason for the PCs to live past level 10 is the same reason that epic good NPCs should never have been a problem. Either epic struggles can occupy epic characters enough to keep them out of the action, or epic struggles can't occupy epic characters sufficiently. If epic struggles can occupy epic NPCs enough to keep them out of 95% of the action, then why are epic good guys being used as target practice for WotC's version of a strategic arsenal because it can't be that they're outshining the PCs. If epic struggles are not adequate to keep epic NPCs from interfering then how do the PCs intend to live past level 15. No Szass won't start gunning for them at level one but by level 15, they start gaining influence and the capacity to really annoy (not actually hurt mind you, merely really annoy) him in the long run so what prevents Szass or another local epic from devoting 15 minutes to a total party kill against targets that are still too weak in personal conflict to be worth experience?
Because as DMs we're not competent enough to keep epic good NPCs out of our games, but we ARE competent enough to explain why epic evil NPCs aren't smart enough to nip potential threats in the bud.
Am I (won't speak for others) spectacularly worked up about that line? No, though it was an amusing side point. I am severely annoyed however the best reason for the PCs to live past level 10 is the same reason that epic good NPCs should never have been a problem. Either epic struggles can occupy epic characters enough to keep them out of the action, or epic struggles can't occupy epic characters sufficiently. If epic struggles can occupy epic NPCs enough to keep them out of 95% of the action, then why are epic good guys being used as target practice for WotC's version of a strategic arsenal because it can't be that they're outshining the PCs. If epic struggles are not adequate to keep epic NPCs from interfering then how do the PCs intend to live past level 15. No Szass won't start gunning for them at level one but by level 15, they start gaining influence and the capacity to really annoy (not actually hurt mind you, merely really annoy) him in the long run so what prevents Szass or another local epic from devoting 15 minutes to a total party kill against targets that are still too weak in personal conflict to be worth experience?
I don't understand MaskedOne's reasoning here. The same thing is stopping Epic BBGs from going after lower level parties as will stop Epic level PCs from going after all low level baddies - they have more appropriate situations to deal with. PCs should not be playable in adventures that aren't a possible challenge (no Epic PCs in Heroic adventures), and so no Epic NPCs or monsters as combatants in Heroic adventures.
We can just assume that appropriate opposition is keeping them busy. If a Paragon party is almost Epic, an Epic opponent might be an appropriate challenge, as a large enough number of Paragon opponents might be an appropriate challenge for a low Epic party. If the writers and DMs don't keep the challenges appropriate, there is no game, as has always been the case iun PRGs. We don't need exact stats for a god of war if the PCs don't stand a chance against him; if we have PCs with a chance, then he can be fleshed out and used in an adventure as a challenge, but such should not occur during the first few years of LFR.
If the players aren't likely to face something, there is no need for the core books to waste space on it. The general rules should indicate how to add such detail if a campaign needs it.
I had no problem with figuring out why epic heros or epic villains never strolled into my game and caused problems for my groups, it is because I didn't want them there! I could always come up with some reason for NPCs to stay away and hte best thing is I never had to tell the players about it because this world (or others) does not have CNN. I have played/DMd in a few games where something bad happens and PCs rush to the local high level whatever so the NPC can stop it. I was always confused with that logic. I didn't know the people I was play with or DMing for had gone from hero to commoner in one round.:D
That's not the point Rauric. I'm sure we're all well aware of how to sidestep the issue with a tiny amount of applied logic, at least I hope we are. The point is that if the designers use the logic that high level good NPCs need to be eliminated to put the PCs on top, then it creates an illogical shift in the balance of power if they then retain the high level evil NPCs without a counterbalancing force. I know we can get around that with an ounce of sense, but it implies a rather fundamental flaw to some of the reasoning that's going into the design of the new 4e regions, and is going to create a headache and a bit of a timesink for a DM when they have to come up with those good counterbalances themselves rather than saving themselves time and trouble by having them mentioned from the start.
I agree with the luminous being.
[Y]ou know that Indiana Jones is going to survive to the end of the movie, no matter what happens. If you thought about it real hard, you'd realize that you shouldn't find any of the challenges or threats he faces all that interesting, because he's got infinite plot armor. But you enjoy the movies anyway because you agree that the author/scriptwriter doesn't have to kill Indy in order to prove that the movie was realistic.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar enough with all of your postings to tell whether this is meant sarcastically.
Obviously, the Indiana Jones series, in keeping with almost everything that George Lucas has written, are popcorn movies intended for the amusement of children and teenagers. As an adult, one can enjoy them for their visuals, for their touches of humor, and out of a sense of nostalgia.
But any adult who considers them "realistic," "interesting," or suspenseful should, frankly, be disenfranchised. (And I own a bunch of them.)
I'm concerned by the logic behind the whole paragraph: are you suggesting that the 4E design imperative sees the Indiana Jones movies, and the like, as legitimate sources of inspiration?
How can you have PCs or NPCs then? There are no "characters" in the Indy movies. They're all archetypes. In fact, if you can name one "character" in any of the post-American Graffiti Lucas movies who resembles anyone you know in the real world, I'd love to hear it.
Is that the path that 4E is embracing - you don't create a character, you create a baby archetype, just waiting to grow up and embrace it's epic destiny?
D&D has always been about Player Characters = PCs Capn. 4E is like past editions, it is meant to be played and enjoyed.
We can just assume that appropriate opposition is keeping them busy.
-Of course. That is the correct answer.
-The trouble that is being illuminated, however, is the awkward and lopsided way in which this concept was "passed around" and applied. NPCs that are, more or less, benevolent (that will hereafter be refered to as "Good" NPCs) were either outright removed, or "handicapped" in such a way to 'cripple' them, as to not "bother" future PCs. For whatever reason, it was not deemed (by whomever) acceptable that these Good NPCs were just being kept in check by the appropriate opposition. So, for example, now Elminster has (effectivley) lost his Wizard levels. He is no longer capable of swooping in and doing the PCs' job (this was a false assertion to begin with, but apparently, was widespread enough).
-One would think this principle would be applied equally- Szass Tam, let's use- should be equally "handicapped", so that he doesn't swoop in and do the job of PCs who are evil. But, he, and many other malevolent (that will hereafter be refered to as "Evil" NPCs) NPCs have not been altered based on this design strategy. Apparently, in their case, it IS enough to simply say that they are being held in check by the appropriate opposition, where as it is- based on actions- NOT enough to say the same about Good NPCs.
-This is where the problem is.
I am saying as intellegent beings if you liked those things they can be brought back.
-Yes, Rauric, yes they can. As I've said before to you, we are not talking about these changes as a game. We are talking about things as a setting, throwing out any "D&D game" connotations, and as in design philosophies.
I thought Alediran said once that smart and creative people played this game...:P. Seriously though yes you could have used high level good NPCs to tie up villains just like you could have used high lvl big bads to tie them up. DMs could use this methog in every edition. There was a perception thing on good npcs though and blah blah blah you have heard that one all before. Again for the gamers out there if you wish to keep the gods the way you want or keep certain NPCs around I am sure you can figure out a way to do it. If me saying this over and over again nauseates some of you then you can understand how I feel sometimes with the "They ruined it!" attitude I see around here. If you hate everything they have done though changing a few NPCs and gods back to the way they were probably won't help ya much. Sorry.
I had no problem with figuring out why epic heros or epic villains never strolled into my game and caused problems for my groups, it is because I didn't want them there! I could always come up with some reason for NPCs to stay away and hte best thing is I never had to tell the players about it because this world (or others) does not have CNN. I have played/DMd in a few games where something bad happens and PCs rush to the local high level whatever so the NPC can stop it. I was always confused with that logic. I didn't know the people I was play with or DMing for had gone from hero to commoner in one round.:D
Of course its easy to keep them out of games. I'm never going to have a game where, when the PCs begin to become an annoyance to the BBEGs operations, he's going to swoop in and murder them all long before they're prepared or potent enough to face him. Anyone with a functioning brain can keep higher level NPCs, good or evil, from causing problems.
The issue is the way it was handled. If they make the absurd assumption that good NPCs are going to show up and overshadow the PCs every game then why not make the same assumption about the evil ones? The truth is it's more reasonable to think Szass Tam is going to go handle an emerging threat to him before it becomes a real one, than it is to think Elminster is going to show up to save the day.
And I know I promised not to post in here anymore, since my questions are being ignored, but I felt this conversation was just a continuation of my answer - and thank you for fielding that request, Rinon. ;)
You're welcome.
I'm concerned by the logic behind the whole paragraph: are you suggesting that the 4E design imperative sees the Indiana Jones movies, and the like, as legitimate sources of inspiration?
Well cripes, you make it sound like this would be a BAD thing.
Ignoring the fact that the Indiana Jones character probably has at least as much if not more character development across the media spectrum than any Forgotten Realms character... What the heck would be the problem with making a game that captured the spirit of a great action movie?
I wish I could create a game that was half as exciting as Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Well cripes, you make it sound like this would be a BAD thing.
Ignoring the fact that the Indiana Jones character probably has at least as much if not more character development across the media spectrum than any Forgotten Realms character... What the heck would be the problem with making a game that captured the spirit of a great action movie?
I wish I could create a game that was half as exciting as Raiders of the Lost Ark.
For that you have Eberron. FR doesn't needs to become Indiana Jones.
Well cripes, you make it sound like this would be a BAD thing.
Ignoring the fact that the Indiana Jones character probably has at least as much if not more character development across the media spectrum than any Forgotten Realms character... What the heck would be the problem with making a game that captured the spirit of a great action movie?
I wish I could create a game that was half as exciting as Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I think his point wasn't that the Indy movies are crap, but that Mr. Baker called them "realistic" - which made me chuckle, too.
I'd love official adventures to resemble an Indy movie more - but then again, said movies have far too much plot and variety and not enough fighting, I'm afraid :D
DB
I'm pretty sure Rich Baker wasn't literally saying that the Forgotten Realms were turning into Indiana Jones.
No, but fourth edition in general seems to be heading that way.
I think his point wasn't that the Indy movies are crap, but that Mr. Baker called them "realistic" - which made me chuckle, too.
But that's not what he said. It's in fact the opposite of what he said. Rich Baker's point was that we don't need to account for every detail of the Forgotten Realms (like keeping track of the doings of the big and powerful at all times) in order to tell a compelling story or run a fun game.
Indiana Jones was simply an illustration of this principle. I don't know if it was a perfect analogy, but it works--we get exactly as much narrative in an Indiana Jones movie as we need to to hold things together, no more and no less.
We didn't want to have to do it, but really, we couldn't imagine any other way to encourage the Dungeon Masters to play with the players, rather than playing with themselves.
OK, now, in all seriousness... of course evil can fight evil in your game if that's important to you. There is nothing in 4e Realms that makes this harder to do than it was in 3e, 2e, or 1e (with the possible exception of the Blood War, which we've evolved a bit so that you can have demons and devils working for the same dark lord and not feel like you're being a bad DM when you do so). If the DM wants to create adventure plots that revolve around getting bad guys to fight each other more, great! Tell the stories you want to tell.
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and archdevils war on each other rather than threatening the PCs. We don't want to waste space on things players can't use. Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun."
That cannot possibly be what people are upset about? This does not mean that evil in FR or 4E itself cannot fight amonst itself, it just will not be given much detail. Again it does not mean it cannot happen.
As I have said before (someplace) high level evil NPCs can be too busy with other plots against them to worry about low level pcs that are foiling the Big Bads other plots. In my games I could rationalize it that good and evil NPCs are keeping hte bigbad busy. I can even use that rationalization in the newer FR even though most high level good NPCs are not around. I can make some up myself pretty easily. Why would I do this? For a better game IMO.
Rich, So will evil be able to attack each other in 4E or the new FR for that matter?
Unfortunately, no. We've got a rule in the DMG that reads thusly: "Evil creatures attacking other evil creatures automatically miss. When evil creatures want to attack other evil creatures, they have to find unaligned or good creatures to serve as their proxies. Dungeon Masters who choose to ignore this rule will be fined $500.00 per infraction, payable to the charity of their choice."
We didn't want to have to do it, but really, we couldn't imagine any other way to encourage the Dungeon Masters to play with the players, rather than playing with themselves.
.
Priceless, as always :D
That said, of *course* Indiana Jones is a legitimate source of inspiration. D&D and FR adventures don't aspire to be anything more than great adventure yarns. If playing the courageous, sword-swinging, steely-eyed hero strikes you as boring, immature, or childish, well jeeze, we're guilty as charged. You're gaming in the wrong genre if you're expecting something more out of Dungeons & Dragons.
If you want to play a game of nuanced character development, riveting emotional drama, etc., etc., there's no rule set in the world that can help you do that. Some D&D games do exactly that, but it's not because of any rules we're creating. They work that way because the DM's got the skill and interest to run his game like that.
I'm concerned by the logic behind the whole paragraph: are you suggesting that the 4E design imperative sees the Indiana Jones movies, and the like, as legitimate sources of inspiration?
How can you have PCs or NPCs then? There are no "characters" in the Indy movies. They're all archetypes. In fact, if you can name one "character" in any of the post-American Graffiti Lucas movies who resembles anyone you know in the real world, I'd love to hear it.
Is that the path that 4E is embracing - you don't create a character, you create a baby archetype, just waiting to grow up and embrace it's epic destiny?
For whatever reason, it was not deemed (by whomever) acceptable that these Good NPCs were just being kept in check by the appropriate opposition. So, for example, now Elminster has (effectivley) lost his Wizard levels. He is no longer capable of swooping in and doing the PCs' job (this was a false assertion to begin with, but apparently, was widespread enough).
I still don't see where you are getting this. As far as I've seen, Elminster is still around, as an Epic wizard. He's not set up with a full stat block as an NPC because he isn't likely to particiate directly in player adventures. He's not a challenge for PCs to overcome, granting XP to the successful PCs, nor is he someone the PCs are expected to rely on for assistence in adventures. Other Epic characters are also still around, doing their thing in novels and legend, but PCs aren't likely to interact with them before they are of similar level.
Enemies of higher level than the PCs will sometimes be part of apropriate challenges, but also don't need full NPC stat blocks, as they will be treated as monsters in the encounters.
I see the BBGs and BGGs as both still around, but a waste to detail. They are justly considered to be better left undetailed so that there is no perseption that they may show up at any time to dominate adventures. They are out there somewhere doing their thing, but the PCs are also playing significant roles in the setting, vs suitable challenges.
"Less Evil Fighting Evil: Too much in previous editions deals with evil fighting itself: Demon lords and archdevils war on each other rather than threatening the PCs. We don't want to waste space on things players can't use. Make sure conflicts are important and useful to making the game fun."
Does no one have any imagination any more? Geesh. Yes, the Blood War was evil against evil. Tanari against Baalor, with Yugoloths as mercinaries to both sides. And guess what? It WAS useful to players, if it was used as more than backdrop. I've run several campaigns where my PC's have USED the Blood War to avoid fighting a bunch of demons or devils. Times where they've set them up to fight one another, or attack the fortress they're trying to get into. I even had one PC Spend XP to gate in a Baalor they had fought previously, and do so in a room where a Pit Fiend was in the next room, and had them go at it rather than the PC's.
But, I guess that doesn;t matter now in this new vision of only the PCs matter and nothing happens without them.
Does no one have any imagination any more? Geesh. Yes, the Blood War was evil against evil. Tanari against Baalor, with Yugoloths as mercinaries to both sides. And guess what? It WAS useful to players, if it was used as more than backdrop. I've run several campaigns where my PC's have USED the Blood War to avoid fighting a bunch of demons or devils. Times where they've set them up to fight one another, or attack the fortress they're trying to get into. I even had one PC Spend XP to gate in a Baalor they had fought previously, and do so in a room where a Pit Fiend was in the next room, and had them go at it rather than the PC's.
But, I guess that doesn;t matter now in this new vision of only the PCs matter and nothing happens without them.
Now, the balor won't automatically fight the pit fiend and leave the PCs alone. The balor and the pit fiend would both be enemies to deal with. The PCs might get them to fight each other.
The potential for creative handling of situations is still there, but you can't rely on a Blood War between all deons and all devils to override all other concerns.
Likewise, we shouldn't expect all demons to automatically ally with each other against the PCs. It should be in their nature for each to be out for itself, as willing to turn on others of its kind as on the PCs, if there is enough incentive. I expect well handled monsters to be treated truer to their natures, rather than part of one allignment faction against another.
I still don't see where you are getting this. As far as I've seen, Elminster is still around, as an Epic wizard.
-Have you read the Countdown to the Realms article (I believe it was one of them) that states that Elminster no longer uses his arcane skills, for fear of releasing the "voices in his head", which are seemingly malevolent, based on his fear? But, as I said, Elminster is a single example, as he was in the category of Good NPC, which includes multiple individuals. Pick and choose whichever you like, if Elminster doesn't do it for you.
-That said, you are completely missing the point of what I am saying. I don't know if you read all of what I said, because you only quoted a few sentences of the entire response. Read all of it. If you already have, reread it.
-The argument was made that higher level Good NPCs interfere with a DMs ability to run his/her game. Presumably, this would also extend to Evil NPCs, because the motivations that a Good NPC would have to interfere with the PCs would also be present in Evil NPCs. That this was not done- Szazz Tam, the example of an Evil NPC that I used, is actually further empowered, having complete control of the Red Wizards of Thay in the 4e Forgotten Realms- shows a reasoning and design (or whatever you want to call it) flaw.
-You can't have your cake and eat it, too, or however that saying goes.
You seem to be missing my point. High level Good and Evil characters both still exist and have power, but they aren't appropriate for encounters with low level PCs. There should be no reason given for them not interfering directly with the PCs in adventures, whether 4e or 3e rules are used. Having them set up as fully statted NPCs makes it more tempting to have them step in and overpower adventures. Leaving them with minimal stat blocks and assuming they have more pressing issues to deal with leaves the PCs able to play significant roles. Sure, an Epic character could wipe out alot of low level potential opposition before it becomes a significant threat, but there is too much opposition of all levels for it to be effective, and it just doesn't focus on the PCs (many NPCs many be assumed to have been dealt with, but the PCs were overlooked).
You're inventing a fault that doesn't exist. BBGs and BGGs exist and will be encountered to the extent the writers/DMs desire, and are of no immediate concern otherwise. As it should be.
-Have you read the Countdown to the Realms article (I believe it was one of them) that states that Elminster no longer uses his arcane skills, for fear of releasing the "voices in his head", which are seemingly malevolent, based on his fear? But, as I said, Elminster is a single example, as he was in the category of Good NPC, which includes multiple individuals. Pick and choose whichever you like, if Elminster doesn't do it for you.
-That said, you are completely missing the point of what I am saying. I don't know if you read all of what I said, because you only quoted a few sentences of the entire response. Read all of it. If you already have, reread it.
-The argument was made that higher level Good NPCs interfere with a DMs ability to run his/her game. Presumably, this would also extend to Evil NPCs, because the motivations that a Good NPC would have to interfere with the PCs would also be present in Evil NPCs. That this was not done- Szazz Tam, the example of an Evil NPC that I used, is actually further empowered, having complete control of the Red Wizards of Thay in the 4e Forgotten Realms- shows a reasoning and design (or whatever you want to call it) flaw.
-You can't have your cake and eat it, too, or however that saying goes.
The problem however is that the fault that doesn't exist was apparently a factor in the decision to 'nuke' certain NPCs from the setting. Its a fallacy that snuck its way into the design process for the 4e Realms, that's the part that people have a problem with. It shouldn't be an issue at all, I think we can all agree with that, but as the Chosen were held up as a prime example of NPCs who were stealing the spotlight from the PCs, its a pretty good conclusion to reach that it was indeed a factor. What is ultimately a case of poor DMing was turned into a reason to 'nuke' iconic NPCs is the problem I think most of us are having.
But, it has been indicated that there will still be Chosen, just not of Mystra. Individuals are gone during the hundred years that have passed, but there being such characters has not been "nuked".
I get the impression that some people just don't like change and will object to almost anything different.
Any DM running a campaign in the FR setting can retain as many NPCs as he wants, especially with time gates available to bring them forward in time; he just has to evolve them to fit the changes to the rules.
You seem to be missing my point. High level Good and Evil characters both still exist and have power, but they aren't appropriate for encounters with low level PCs.
-Of course. And, they never were. But, this has never stopped DMs, for whatever reason, from utilizing them, or keeping "tabs" on them, or having PCs want seek their aid, instead of persuing the problem themselves. This, I understand, and was never questioning.
There should be no reason given for them not interfering directly with the PCs in adventures, whether 4e or 3e rules are used.
-Again, agreed. Not my point.
Having them set up as fully statted NPCs makes it more tempting to have them step in and overpower adventures. Leaving them with minimal stat blocks and assuming they have more pressing issues to deal with leaves the PCs able to play significant roles. Sure, an Epic character could wipe out alot of low level potential opposition before it becomes a significant threat, but there is too much opposition of all levels for it to be effective, and it just doesn't focus on the PCs (many NPCs many be assumed to have been dealt with, but the PCs were overlooked).
-Agreed. You are preaching to the choir. But, still, this is not the point I am expressing. See below.
You're inventing a fault that doesn't exist. BBGs and BGGs exist and will be encountered to the extent the writers/DMs desire, and are of no immediate concern otherwise. As it should be.
-I agree. This is the right position to have. It is, however, one that is apparently in the minority (apparently).
-An aft cited criticism of the Forgotten Realms is that Elminster, the Chosen of Mystra, Mystra herself, and many other NPCs that fall into the Good NPC category exist. This places an individual DM in a quandry, as he/she supposedly has to account for their whereabouts at every step of the game, else players go to these NPCs to fix the problems in the campaign that need fixing, or to prevent players who questioning why a certain NPC is not interfering in the campaign when there is a conflict that has a dire (for the campaign) impact on Faerûn at large. They sometimes uses these NPCs in a way that completely minimalizes the PCs, having 'X' swoop in at the end of the day, fix whatever problem there is, and pat the PCs on the head. That Chris Perkins referred to the Chosen of Mystra as "superheroes" (which is absolutely false), and many of said NPCs are having their capability to "interfere" with PCs demonstrates at, at least subconsciously, the design team agrees with this principle, that higher level NPCs interfere with a DMs ability to run his/her game without having to keep tabs on all NPCs, at all times, lest they do the work of the PCs, or that there is a large problem explaining why 'X' isn't running around solving everyone's problems to begin with.
-What I am saying is that the same would need to be extended to NPCs that fall into the Evil NPC category as well. After all, if you are playing as a Zhentarim thug, what is to stop Fzoul from waltzing into your campaign and solving the problems at hand? If you are a Red Wizard, what is to stop you from gaining Szass Tam's aid in whatever conflict in the campaign there is, and having him ultimatley solve it for you?
-The principle that eliminating certain NPCs, most of whom seem to fall into the Good NPC category, or eliminating their capability to be able to act upon the benevolence in their hearts that makes them want to help others, in and of itself, isn't a notion that I think is particularly good for the setting, but it eliminates the problem of NPC "interference", percieved or not. I personally think it's very heavy handed, but that's just my opinion. The problem is that, if you do this to prevent NPCs from "stealing the show" from the PCs, as Chris Perkins' statements, as well as the entire 4e mantra of 'The Players Come First', lead me (and many others) to believe, the principle needs to be applied evenly. As I discussed above, Szass Tam has the same exact potential that a Good NPC had to overshadow the PCs when used by a DM who wants to do so, intentionally or unintentionally. You can't have your cake, and eat it, too: Either all of the higher level NPCs from both 'camps' need to be "pruned", or none of the higher level NPCs from either 'camp' should be pruned. We know that many a NPC that falls in the Good NPC camp have been "rewritten" to minimalize their impact on the world at large for the 4e Forgotten Realms. Many NPCs who would fall into the Evil NPC camp have not had their role "rewritten" in this way. And, at times, as I cited Szass Tam earlier, it seems that the exact opposite is actually being done.
Odd - I am the most "simulationist" of my gaming group, and I devoted a whole website and way too many hours trying to make 3e more "realistic". I can say that categorically 4e is more simulationist in the sense I was striving for - which was to say, mechanically more consistent with the world it is supposed to simulate.
I can certainly appreciate differences in attitude towards 4e. After all, people have different preferences and ideas of what is fun.
Your post, however, leaves me outright mystified. Although 3e is not exactly a 'simulationist' game, for me at least it reaches a sufficient threshold of simulationism that I enjoy it. 4e does several things that greatly decrease the amount of simulationism. A sampling of some important counter-simulationist changes in 4e that spring to mind:
1) Skill System: The Impossibility to be bad at a skill at higher levels.
All skills rise at a rate of 1/2 point per level, so high level characters having spent their lives on featurless plains are actually proficient climbers; those having spent their lives in deserts are good swimmers; yet others who were in a society without horses suddenly surpass jockeys in riding skill now that they enter a new land where mounts are abundant.
In my attempt to salvage this situation, I suggested that there could be a system of flaws that would stop the progression of a skill at the rate of 1/2 point per level level (with some compensating benefit, such as gaining another class skill) for characters whose concepts suggest they should be bad at a skill. This would make simulationism possible for those who want it. In reality, though, there is nothing to indicate that being bad at something will be possible within the scope of the rules.
2) Per-Encounter Effects/Powers: This is a case of a purely metagame duration/frequency that does not refer to anything in-game.
Again, I tried to make myself overlook this counter-simulationist design philosophy by suggesting that instead of explicit per-encounter powers (as in powers that are 'explicitly' defined as being per-encounter in terms of duration or frequency), 4E could instead use implicit per-encounter powers, meaning powers that work out to be effectively per-encounter, but are not defined as such, but are rather defined as something else (perhaps the duration = concentration and the frequency of use is based on the power being usable upon taking some action(s) that are not practical during combat, but can be done in principle [these are just examples]), which would preserve the simulationist objective. Not surprisingly, it seems that explicit per-encounter powers were chosen, because simulationism is being purged or at least ignored in game design.*
*Note: I am following 4e news less and less these days, but I caught something about 5 minute rests being used to separate the frequency of per-encounter powers. If this is true, that is simulationist enough for me (indeed 5 minute frequencies was one of the possibilities I suggested for implicit per-encounter powers and a need for 5 minute rest, if true, would im my opinion be an even better implicit per-encounter rule than a 5 minute frequency). Nevertheless, even if true, this would still leave the problem of per-encounter durations (as opposed to frequencies) untouched.
3) Hit Points: Further hit point abstraction.
Hit points are not a terribly simulationist rule in the first place, but they are a decent compromise with simplicity. In 4E, however, the abstraction with hit points has gotten to the point, where they virtually don't represent physical damage at all and are almost purely the province of luck, plot device and tiredness. This can be seen in the death rules, healing surges, full heal after a 6-hour rest and several other rules that have been showcased. In 3E, hit points were also a mixture of luck, plot protection and tiredness, but they at least included physical toughness in the mix.
4) The Grid: Diagonals and adjacent/contiguous squares are treated equally.
Diagonal movement is now 1-1-1, fireballs are squared... this is a definite and significant sacrifice of simulationism for the sake of only a minor decrease in complexity.
5) Monsters: Non-combat abilities/powers have been purged.
What it says in my subtitle. I have little to add other than that this is clearly yet another hit to simulationists.
I suppose this last one could be rectified by releasing a supplement that would have a second stat-block for all monsters in the Monster Manual with non-combat abilities/powers for those of us who want them. I doubt that's going to happen though - it goes against the new philosophy of the game.
This is my sampling of some of the areas where simulationism has taken big hits, even though in some of those fields it would have been possible to accomodate us simulationists if some attention had been paid to that. Too bad I guess. Maybe 5E will return the ruleset back to a direction I enjoy. In the meantime, I will be sticking with DMing either 3.5E or perhaps its outgrowth, Paizo's Pathfinder RPG.
As to flavor (this is no longer a simulationism issue), I actually like many of the changes made here when taken individually. Overall, however, the effect is different, because the designers made so many of these individually likable changes (and a few less likable ones) that the 4E game lost its D&D vibe for my taste and D&D feel is what I want from the game...
I still don't see where you are getting this. As far as I've seen, Elminster is still around, as an Epic wizard.
Was it confirmed that Elminster is an epic wizard in the 4E Realms? That's not a given, as one of the recent Spellplague articles mentioned that wizards would have relearn how to use magic.
They are justly considered to be better left undetailed so that there is no perseption that they may show up at any time to dominate adventures.
Which of course, they cannot do (statted up or not) unless the DM wants them to, as they are fictional characters.
I get the impression that some people just don't like change and will object to almost anything different.
You seem to be a pretty smart guy--please don't resort to tossing out such a weak (and exhaustively used) personal attack.
-An aft cited criticism of the Forgotten Realms is that Elminster, the Chosen of Mystra, Mystra herself, and many other NPCs that fall into the Good NPC category exist. This places an individual DM in a quandry, as he/she supposedly has to account for their whereabouts at every step of the game, else players go to these NPCs to fix the problems in the campaign that need fixing, or to prevent players who questioning why a certain NPC is not interfering in the campaign when there is a conflict that has a dire (for the campaign) impact on Faerûn at large. They sometimes uses these NPCs in a way that completely minimalizes the PCs, having 'X' swoop in at the end of the day, fix whatever problem there is, and pat the PCs on the head. That Chris Perkins referred to the Chosen of Mystra as "superheroes" (which is absolutely false), and many of said NPCs are having their capability to "interfere" with PCs demonstrates at, at least subconsciously, the design team agrees with this principle, that higher level NPCs interfere with a DMs ability to run his/her game without having to keep tabs on all NPCs, at all times, lest they do the work of the PCs, or that there is a large problem explaining why 'X' isn't running around solving everyone's problems to begin with.
-What I am saying is that the same would need to be extended to NPCs that fall into the Evil NPC category as well. After all, if you are playing as a Zhentarim thug, what is to stop Fzoul from waltzing into your campaign and solving the problems at hand? If you are a Red Wizard, what is to stop you from gaining Szass Tam's aid in whatever conflict in the campaign there is, and having him ultimatley solve it for you?
-The principle that eliminating certain NPCs, most of whom seem to fall into the Good NPC category, or eliminating their capability to be able to act upon the benevolence in their hearts that makes them want to help others, in and of itself, isn't a notion that I think is particularly good for the setting, but it eliminates the problem of NPC "interference", percieved or not. I personally think it's very heavy handed, but that's just my opinion. The problem is that, if you do this to prevent NPCs from "stealing the show" from the PCs, as Chris Perkins' statements, as well as the entire 4e mantra of 'The Players Come First', lead me (and many others) to believe, the principle needs to be applied evenly. As I discussed above, Szass Tam has the same exact potential that a Good NPC had to overshadow the PCs when used by a DM who wants to do so, intentionally or unintentionally. You can't have your cake, and eat it, too: Either all of the higher level NPCs from both 'camps' need to be "pruned", or none of the higher level NPCs from either 'camp' should be pruned. We know that many a NPC that falls in the Good NPC camp have been "rewritten" to minimalize their impact on the world at large for the 4e Forgotten Realms. Many NPCs who would fall into the Evil NPC camp have not had their role "rewritten" in this way. And, at times, as I cited Szass Tam earlier, it seems that the exact opposite is actually being done.
This is where I disagree with your understanding. I believe that 4e LFR will treat Good and Evil NPCs similarly. As I said, some individuals are gone, but there are and will be others. But, neither Good nor Evil Elite beings will be swooping in to solve the problems. I think your concern isn't justified. Where is your proof that BBGs will swoop in? that a larger proportion of BBGs remain than BGGs?
I will give WotC the benefit of the doubt and wait until the actual books are out before I will concider such negativism. And, even if you turn out to be right, I will put faith in some DMs to customize campaigns in the FR setting to compensate.
Unfortunately, no. We've got a rule in the DMG that reads thusly: "Evil creatures attacking other evil creatures automatically miss. When evil creatures want to attack other evil creatures, they have to find unaligned or good creatures to serve as their proxies. Dungeon Masters who choose to ignore this rule will be fined $500.00 per infraction, payable to the charity of their choice."
Yes, well, that's not nearly as intriguing as the mythical automatic "I Win" button I heard all 4E PCs come equipped with!:P
Was it confirmed that Elminster is an epic wizard in the 4E Realms?.
Rich said something to that effect several pages back on this thread (something like Elminster (wizard 23)).
You always have to actually make an excuse for why Elminster or whoever wouldn't interfere and help (when it comes to him I believe he is quite busy and also a bit mad in the old FR if i remember correctly). Either you make then totally busy thwarting greater schemes all the time or you make them mostly ignore lesser problems and focus on the big picture. Which would make them more like neutral characters fighting on the "team" of good. Or you put them somewhere where the PCs can't easily reach them and ask for their help (a tower in Shadowdale isn't really such a place) which is pretty lame when you consider that good characters are normally defined by actually liking people.
Either way for a good DM it's not really that big of a problem to come up with why he should not involve epic good guys. It's just annoying that one should have to at every turn because really why would you as a good guy if you had the power to stop a bunch of low level marauders with one spell not do so if there isn't ALLWAYS an evil epic plot for you to thwart.
Another thing is that all these characters had books about them and kept moving around and messing stuff up. Becoming leaders of whole parts of the setting and whatnot. Another thing (and i might be wrong about this since i'm no expert) is that they all seemed to live in the northern parts of the setting leaving the more southern parts pretty much a low level area in comparison.
Also looking at the realms before just throwing a glance at it the first time i even saw a map and read through the book i was kind of displeased to find out that most of it was pretty well designed fantasy and then suddenly some lazy person a while back made the decision that instead of make another fantasy kingdom he would just use the egyptian and babylonian pantheons and take some people from earth and put them in the middle of things. While i love both those settings in the realms they just give me a feeling of bad craftsmanship.
So all in all me and my 15+ friends who play with me seem to be pretty much the target group for all these changes. And if anyone is wondering i am 31 years old and have been playing roleplaying games since i was 8 years old so I am not in any way new to roleplaying. I just never bothered much with the realms before this.
My point is that I think even though most of you might not like WOTC probably made the correct decision when they designed the new realms even though most of you do not seem to like it. Which is understandable. I was pretty damn angry a few years ago with that whole Gehenna fiasco over at another RPG company.
Oh yeah i actually almost forgot my question. I wanted to ask how much the feywild will be integrated in the realms from now on. Not talking about the obvious places like the Moonshaes and the High Forest here but more in general. It seems from the previews so far that a lot of the Feywilds inhabitants seem very rooted in western mythology and thus might not fit in so well in places like Calimshan and Thay for example.
Rich said something to that effect several pages back on this thread (something like Elminster (wizard 23)).
That was not a confirmation of Elminster's new level, it was just an example of how NPCs would be described in the books.
If I am wrong, and Elminster is written in stone as a level 23 wizard, Rich may of course correct me.
Does no one have any imagination any more? Geesh. Yes, the Blood War was evil against evil. Tanari against Baalor, with Yugoloths as mercinaries to both sides. And guess what? It WAS useful to players, if it was used as more than backdrop. I've run several campaigns where my PC's have USED the Blood War to avoid fighting a bunch of demons or devils. Times where they've set them up to fight one another, or attack the fortress they're trying to get into. I even had one PC Spend XP to gate in a Baalor they had fought previously, and do so in a room where a Pit Fiend was in the next room, and had them go at it rather than the PC's.
But, I guess that doesn;t matter now in this new vision of only the PCs matter and nothing happens without them.
Did you read Rich's answer to this whole Evil vs Evil concept? It is the last post on page 124.
And I'm only 23 years old and I don't have any of the problems you describe. I only have five players that know almost nothing about FR, except one who has played some of the FR games and read something. And nobody in my group complains or constantly asks if Elminster of somebody else isn't doing what they do, because they know each character in the world has a purpose, both high powered and low powered. They've already met Alustriel when they were in Silverymoon, they've met Storm after they became Harpers, they've met an Elven High Mage, and they haven't complained about their power because they know one day they'll be in their place.
Meanwhile, they enjoy their current status while it lasts.
And I'm only 23 years old and I don't have any of the problems you describe. I only have five players that know almost nothing about FR, except one who has played some of the FR games and read something. And nobody in my group complains or constantly asks if Elminster of somebody else isn't doing what they do, because they know each character in the world has a purpose, both high powered and low powered. They've already met Alustriel when they were in Silverymoon, they've met Storm after they became Harpers, they've met an Elven High Mage, and they haven't complained about their power because they know one day they'll be in their place.
Meanwhile, they enjoy their current status while it lasts.
I started reading FR books in junior high back in the early 90s and have played games in the Realms just as long. As a player and a DM. Never once have I encountered those problems either. In the decade and a half I've been playing FR I've never once had a group where anyone asked where the Realms big guns were.
I believe that 4e LFR will treat Good and Evil NPCs similarly. As I said, some individuals are gone, but there are and will be others.
-And, as I have demonstrated with the data we have thus far, the scale is, so far, tipped in one direction, when it should be even. As I already said, I don't agree with "deleting" the abilities of certain NPCs to prevent bad DMs from turning them into problem solvers, but this needs to be done to everyone- good, evil and everything in between.
But, neither Good nor Evil Elite beings will be swooping in to solve the problems. I think your concern isn't justified. Where is your proof that BBGs will swoop in? that a larger proportion of BBGs remain than BGGs?
-Am I not making myself clear enough? Many DMs complain that the abundence of higher level NPCs makes their lives harder, as they have to be aware of where all of these individuals are at any given moment to keep the 'intrgrity' and 'realism' of their campaign. A "good guy" is as likely to help the PCs as a "bag guy" is to hinder them. The branches on the "Good Guy" tree are trimmed a bit, while the branches on the "Bad Guy" tree are allowed to grow a little but more. The same exact problem is still going to exist, only now concerning the "Bad Guys".
-Is anyone else understanding what I am saying?
And, even if you turn out to be right, I will put faith in some DMs to customize campaigns in the FR setting to compensate.
-Again, this is a problem cited by the DMs themselves. See Anarchclown's response.
Rich said something to that effect several pages back on this thread (something like Elminster (wizard 23)).
-I believe that Rino is correct, in saying that this was just an example of the new statblock format. Regardless, however, Elminster does not use his magic, in the fear that it releases the beings who are inhabiting his head, whoever they are (I presume they are evil). This effectivley strips him of any caster levels, if he refuses to use the actual magic he has accesss to.
But I also see Tom's point that he thinks other major good NPCs will step up to take their place. From what we know of the whole "PCs as the Superstars" vibe that the devs (Mr. Perkins I think it was) are going with, I think he's being far too optimistic on that point. I hope he's right to be honest, but I doubt he is.
It just seems like 4e is doing a lot to make my life as DM easier, which is good for my game, but also by the same token going a bit too far into the remedial side of things to attempt to compensate for inexperienced DMs, which no rules can actually accomplish, while simultaneously being somewhat insulting to the good DMs out there by dumbing down things to cater to the lowest common denominator. Guess we'll find out when the books hit the shelves.
-And, as I have demonstrated with the data we have thus far, the scale is, so far, tipped in one direction, when it should be even. As I already said, I don't agree with "deleting" the abilities of certain NPCs to prevent bad DMs from turning them into problem solvers, but this needs to be done to everyone- good, evil and everything in between.
I've seen you state it and give a few examples that you think support it, but don't think you have demonstrated that the data shows that BGGs in general are gone or disempowered while BBGs to a much greater extent remain and are empowered and setup tempt DMs to have them swoop in and wipe out the forces of good, particularly PCs. A few examples, before the release of the actual rule books, are insufficient.
-Am I not making myself clear enough? Many DMs complain that the abundence of higher level NPCs makes their lives harder, as they have to be aware of where all of these individuals are at any given moment to keep the 'intrgrity' and 'realism' of their campaign. A "good guy" is as likely to help the PCs as a "bag guy" is to hinder them. The branches on the "Good Guy" tree are trimmed a bit, while the branches on the "Bad Guy" tree are allowed to grow a little but more. The same exact problem is still going to exist, only now concerning the "Bad Guys".
You have been clear. It seems that initially in 4e FR the BBGs and BGGs won't be stated as NPCs, but will exist. The help and hinder you mention are not implied re Good Guys or Bad Guys. In the past, the problem was with Good Guys, because they were the ones some players wanted to call upon to bail them out, or some DMs used to nurse the PCs, while the Bad Guys could only be invoked by the DM. There is no way to stop the DM from inappropriately using BBGs or BGGs, but the minimal stat blocks require more effort on their part to do so. If the players want to call in the big guns istead of the PCs handling things themselves, the DM has the excuse that they aren't sufficiently detailed to be used on the fly, and can just say they aren't available, no in-game reason necessary. Just as he need give no reason why the the opposing big guns don't swoop in.
-I believe that Rino is correct, in saying that this was just an example of the new statblock format. Regardless, however, Elminster does not use his magic, in the fear that it releases the beings who are inhabiting his head, whoever they are (I presume they are evil). This effectivley strips him of any caster levels, if he refuses to use the actual magic he has accesss to.
Yes, it was presented as just an example, but Elminster was chosen and wizard was used with an Epic level. The arguments given that "demonstrate" that BGGs are "nuked" while BBGs aren't are similarly based on examples that may not end up being accurate.
It doesn't matter whether or not Elminster is currently an active Epic wizard. It should have no effect on the playability of adventures, and he is still available for use in novels or general lore if desired. Similar for other powerful characters, good or bad. The setting won't encourage the dirrect use of either in adventures, but won't stop DMs from doing whatever they want with any of them. People are overreacting to how WotC seems to have handled them in the 4e FR setting.
People had problems with Good NPCs getting in the way not Bad NPCs. Bad NPCs are supposed to get in the way. ;)
If you want to play a game of nuanced character development, riveting emotional drama, etc., etc., there's no rule set in the world that can help you do that. Some D&D games do exactly that, but it's not because of any rules we're creating. They work that way because the DM's got the skill and interest to run his game like that.
I beg to differ. Sure, trying to come up with rules to govern the points mentioned above would be silly. But there's a big difference between a rulebook that tries to convey to the reader that the above points are in fact important (or at least are worth including and / or aspiring to) and rulebooks which focus only on the hack'n'slay aspect.
DB
A Deadlands and Vampire book is very story driven because it portrays rules and a specific campaign setting with specific flavor. It still won't make you become a roleplayer though. I was in many Deadlands game with at least two Hackers. I played pretty powerful pcs in those games but I also had lots of roleplaying moments. Yes the flaws in both of those games can "force" you to roleplay but often those times are overlooked IMO.
I started reading FR books in junior high back in the early 90s and have played games in the Realms just as long. As a player and a DM. Never once have I encountered those problems either. In the decade and a half I've been playing FR I've never once had a group where anyone asked where the Realms big guns were.
I have to echo your sentiments...I have gamed since 1978, I have never had a single player complain about the high level NPC'S...EVER!
The only place I have EVER heard these comments and complaints...is right here on these forums...
Something to think about isn't it?
I have to echo your sentiments...I have gamed since 1978, I have never had a single player complain about the high level NPC'S...EVER!
The only place I have EVER heard these comments and complaints...is right here on these forums...
Something to think about isn't it?
Yep, especially when some people think that these forums represent what the majority of the FR fanbase is feeling. I do not believe the NPCs get in the way however but I have seen the perception that they do on the forums and with people I have met.
Unfortunately, no. We've got a rule in the DMG that reads thusly: "Evil creatures attacking other evil creatures automatically miss. When evil creatures want to attack other evil creatures, they have to find unaligned or good creatures to serve as their proxies. Dungeon Masters who choose to ignore this rule will be fined $500.00 per infraction, payable to the charity of their choice."
Humour and bizarre analogies to get your point across?
You learn well, Grasshopper... the force is strong in this one. ;)
So Rich, will you be playing and/or DMing (not just writing novels) in the 4e Realms?
Actually, in that last podcast, he said he was looking forward to playing in the "really cool areas Ed is doing".
Ironic, eh? :D
About some of the things that were discussed on the last two pages:
I think LordKarsus hit the nail on the head. MY Realms has always vastly differed from the official one. I've read here that many people do that - make all sorts of 'crazy' changes. LK himself has stated on numerous occasions that he doesn't even game in the Realms...
So why the problem, then?
As LK so adroitly pointed out - Our game world can be whatever we want, and we can still have all the evil organizations fighting each other, and have Chosen and the Harpers staving off all the powerful BBG's... even if the 'Real' Realms will be down-playing that aspect. However, the canon Realms is the one we read about, and who's story moves forward. With only two sourcebooks, I really don't see the storylines progressing anymore - sort of like the way Eberron is (not saying that is a bad thing - I prefer a game world where 'time stands virtually still' in source, or at least moving forward at a crawl). So that leaves the novels to move the story forward, and they've already made it clear that they don't want to do anymore RSE's, and rather focus on 'smaller stories' about individuals. That is also good, if they stick with that plan.
So everyone's problem with the new Realms stems from what has happened to the 'Novel Realms', not the game Realms, which most of us don't stick to religously anyway. In essence, they've destroyed the Realms story, not the Realms themselves. That really doesn't effect our games (mine will stay as it is, or not... whatever), but it does effect why we love the Realms, and have stuck by it through the years. So, while my own game will be mostly unaffected by whatever they publish, the 'Realms Story' I have grown to love is changing. Its like switching from LotR to WoT - just a different setting with different characters. I have no idea if that new story will be any good, but the one I was a fan of is now gone. Like Robert Jordan's passing ended the Wheel of Time series, it seems almost poetic that Gygax passed just before the release of 4e (no disrepect there AT ALL - we all owe the man much).
A planet does NOT make a setting, the characters in it do. Realms fans have lost their setting, but gamers have gained a new one.
Absolutly NO negativity in this post, just observations.
And Rich, I've put myself on timeout. :P
So Rich, will you be playing and/or DMing (not just writing novels) in the 4e Realms?
That said, the concept of faerie can be pretty broad. Arabian myth had the "invisible kingdoms" of the genies, after all--supposedly the Empty Quarter was full of them. Genies in D&D are elemental in nature, but I see no reason why you couldn't imagine an Arabic-themed eladrin realm of hidden cities in oases in the fantastic painted desert that's the Feywild analogue to the Calim Desert. (We don't actually touch on what's in Calimshan's Feywild in the new FRCG, so I'm making this up only to illustrate the point that the concept of "faerie" might encompass a lot more philosophical breadth than standard western themes.) For that matter, the spirit folk of Kara-Tur could represent another take on "faerie" that's not very western.
Oh yeah i actually almost forgot my question. I wanted to ask how much the feywild will be integrated in the realms from now on. Not talking about the obvious places like the Moonshaes and the High Forest here but more in general. It seems from the previews so far that a lot of the Feywilds inhabitants seem very rooted in western mythology and thus might not fit in so well in places like Calimshan and Thay for example.
For that matter, the spirit folk of Kara-Tur could represent another take on "faerie" that's not very western.
FTW
Excellent observation, and thanks for info.
Could you find your way to responding to me, one last time? It's concerning the above, and a question I asked a day or two ago about the same subject...
Question:
Is the Feywild the Shadowfel's 'opposite'?
I'm picturing them both as 'transitive planes', that one can travel through and the re-emerge in other parts of the world, or even on other worlds (like the Astral and Ethereal used to be). Is this correct? Or is the Feywild more 'localized', and the Shadowfel more multi-spheric (like the 3e Shadow & Negative Planes)?
Thanks in advance.
-Is anyone else understanding what I am saying?
I am.
-Again, this is a problem cited by the DMs themselves. See Anarchclown's response.
Exactly...
In the past, the problem was with Good Guys, because they were the ones some players wanted to call upon to bail them out, or some DMs used to nurse the PCs...
As far as I know, there's no solid proof that was a common problem. If there is, please tell me about it.
Yes. In fact we've got a new game starting in just a couple of weeks. I'm thinking about playing a genasi warlord from Airspur (I think the party could use a leader).
Next question: Why did you not play in the Realms before it was changed (I am really trying hard to diplomatic and not use other words here) by 4th Edition? Earlier interviews/blogs/et cetera have described the 3e Realms as something that WotC employees "borrowed stuff" for their own campaigns, but for some reason, no one (including you with your extensive knowledge of at least parts of the Realms, and an evident passion for the Realms) ran or played in a Realms game.
Anyway I know people that were FR fans and they didn't like the super-NPC feel of the Realms and went to a new setting where there were bad guys NPCs of high level.
I'm sure we all know someone who would agree with whatever points we are trying to argue--that hardly makes any particular argument more cogent.
And of course, people who are dissatified with something tend to be noisier about it (that is, it's possible the problems that people talk about were never a problem for the silent majority). I'm aware that that works both ways, too.
I have the feeling you'd be the first to agree with me about that.
Non-creative DMs, who read a friggin Elminster of Drizzt book - and then tried to run an adventure around those guys because they enjoyed the story so much!
I have NEVER had any group of PCs meet up with a famous NPC (plenty on non-famous ones), and I never had a problem. I even had one group go looking for Elminster... but he wasn't home (is he ever?). Once these 'fan-boys' started wrapping their games around novels, the 'limelight' was taken off the PCs entirely.
I gamed (briefly) with a DM who did this, and literally ran an adventure right out of a Dragonlance novel (he was reading through the book at the table!). It was awful - we weren't allowed to take any actions that the story characters didn't. The DM thought it was such a terrific story, that we would enjoy taking part in it.
Boy was he wrong. Talk about 'railroading'... but that was probably the worst case of that I have ever seen (and turned me off to DL for life).
I have seen hundreds of cases like this, Rinon, where DMs put the NPCs in the spotlight, and the PCs were 'just along for the ride'. It is a case of horrific DMing, and unfortunately, the setting got blamed for it.
It was a victim of it's own popularity.
I have seen hundreds of cases like this, Rinon, where DMs put the NPCs in the spotlight, and the PCs were 'just along for the ride'. It is a case of horrific DMing, and unfortunetly, the setting got blamed for it.
Oh, I don't doubt that campaigns like that have occured.
However, as you might already know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, which means I like to see ironclad proof of things. In other words, arguments that start with, "I know someone who knows someone who says they had this problem!" aren't going to hold water with me if someone is trying to get me to believe that said problem is one that is commonly-occured and affects many people. And of course, you have to take for granted that what's being said is true to begin with...not exaggerated, misinterpreted, or simply made up from scratch.
Also, an NPC need not be famous to be misused by a DM. A DM might simply have a favorite character that he made up himself, and said character steals the limelight whenever he somes into play because the DM doesn't have a great sense of perspective.
It was a victim of it's own popularity.
I think you make an important point, because the more popular a setting is, the more likely it's going to be DMed poorly simply because more people are using it.
How many "How do I kill Drizzt?", or "How do I kill Elminster?" threads have there been? How many times have we seen people post their campaign ideas, and they are centered around 'helping Drizzt', or 'finding Elminster'?
Even the 'gods' get 'bad press' - the novels lead one to believe that the gods are ALWAYS behind everything. DMs who don't know better use them this way, and after awhile, they start to feel their characters are getting railroaded... which they are, if a god is telling them what to do.
Don't get me wrong - I 'railroad' with the best of them, but I make sure they never know it. When the characters leave town in certain direction, it doesn't matter which way they go... thats the direction the first encounter will be in. ;)
You have to create the 'illusion' that the players are choosig their own path, not give them mandates by gods, NPCs, or 'gov't officials' (okay... maybe Gov't officials - that one never really gets old).
DMs who try to stick too close to the story (in a novel, or even in a module) will start to find his players making 'arbitrary decisions' just to screw with his plans. Now, NPCs stealing their spotlight is even worse, and you will find, in most cases, that the group will be 'gunning for' the NPC, rather then helping them.
I've seen it so many times in game stores, blogs, posts, and even in the Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine. You stick Drizzt in an adventure, and at least one of your players is going to try to kill him.
Adaptation is the key. And they have fought along Drizzt during a scene in the first chapter. Nobody in my group tried something stupid as attacking him because I have mature players. I don't DM for spoiled brats, because I would become the Ebil DM who loves torturing their players, simply because egotistical teenagers who play RPGs get on my nerves.
Look at past posts on these boards alone for your proof...
With all due respect, that takes us right back to what was said in this thread not too long ago--those who post on messageboards do not necessarily represent the majority of people gaming in the Realms.
I do agree with you that the way certain characters have been represented in novels has likely contributed to many negative (or simply mistaken) perceptions people have about them.
I've seen it so many times in game stores, blogs, posts, and even in the Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine. You stick Drizzt in an adventure, and at least one of your players is going to try to kill him.
Drizzt's not the best example, though, I think. His novels sell pretty well, and he's survived all the way into the 4E Realms.
Drizzt actually kind of supports my point about "silent majorities", because the people who wail and gnash their teeth about him most likely don't represent the majority of those who are exposed to him. And I say that as someone who isn't in love with Drizzt (though I don't hate him, either).
It is a form of jealousy at a fictional character (I don't even want to go down that psychological road), wherin the player has to prove he is 'cool' by taking out the toughest guy around.
IF I really felt a need to place a powerful NPC in a story-arc (so far I haven't), I would put them in the position of needing help - not as in "come along and follow me", but rather like they find him in a cell inside some dank, dark keep. In that way, the players automatically become COOLER then the NPC, because he needed them, not the other way around. I haven't done that, because I don't want anything unforseen to happen, which is all too likely when a powerful NPC is present.
My 19 year old, who has never read a Drizzt novel, and is only passingly familiar with the Realms, would DEFINATELY try to kill him, just because he plays Warcraft.
At last count, I think there was something like 10,000 'Drizzt Clones' running around the WoW servers... and all of them a__holes.
@Alediran - It sounds like our styles are very compatible - I like what you did with the portal there.
I could not find any real roleplaying mentality when I was a kid reading the Red Box or the 2E handbooks.
Neither could I, believe me. That's what saddens me: In terms of game mechanics D&D has evolved; in terms of roleplaying it hasn't evolved one bit. Still it's considered the "mother of all RPGs", which is ironic since D&D has never cared much about roleplaying and has been quickly surpassed in this department (in the mid-eighties at the very latest). In fact, when I look at the 4e previews (and especially the designer blogs) I get the impression that roleplaying isn't involved at all in most of the designers' and authors' groups. Which is okay, I guess - to each his own -, but why not call it a tactical wargame then?
DB
My 19 year old, who has never read a Drizzt novel, and is only passingly familiar with the Realms, would DEFINATELY try to kill him, just because he plays Warcraft.
At last count, I think there was something like 10,000 'Drizzt Clones' running around the WoW servers... and all of them a__holes.
Well, regarding the Drizz't clones, as a veteran WoW player, yea, there are plenty of Night Elves with a form of Drizzt. There's also various Legolas and Sephiroths too. However, the attitude I do not think has so much to do with the name as with the maturity level of the people playing these characters. They are no differen't from the players who name themselve IPWNUALL and such. So, this really has no weight on Drizzt. And yes, when I made my night elf hunter (named Keryth, odd that
) I made him look as much like a drow as I could. why? Cuz I thoguht the look would be cool. And I try to be a helpful player in WoW, not an annoying one.Now, on to Drizzt. Personally, I do not think he is a problem. Do I think he's worn out and his books should be retired? Yes. I think he ran his course back before they brought Wulfgar back from the dead. However, he is good for the hobby. He gets people interested in D&D and the Realms. Remember back to when you first played. You had a favorite character and wanted to play that character (you do NOT want to know how many Frodo Baggins and Boromir's I played in the past, not to mention Luke Skywalkers and James T. Kirks.) So, if Drizzt and Elminster novels are what get players to the table, I'll deal with them wanting to 'be like Drizzt'. It is the job of us veteran players to show the younger ones that there's more to this game than 'kicking butt and chewing bubblegum', shooting Evil in the Face, and looting the corpses.
And as for GMing style, well, I try to be pretty loose and easy going. I keep track of my bad guys and their plans, drop some hints here and there, and roll with the groups decisions. I come to the table with an idea of what could happen, and roll with the punches, making most of it up as I go along, and then figuring out how the villain's plans have been foiled or advanced in between sessions. Doesn;t mean I don;t have dungeons and mosnters planned out, I just try to be more of a referee and guide the story along than to make things happen in a specific order.
Neither could I, believe me. That's what saddens me: In terms of game mechanics D&D has evolved; in terms of roleplaying it hasn't evolved one bit. Still it's considered the "mother of all RPGs", which is ironic since D&D has never cared much about roleplaying and has been quickly surpassed in this department (in the mid-eighties at the very latest). In fact, when I look at the 4e previews (and especially the designer blogs) I get the impression that roleplaying isn't involved at all in most of the designers' and authors' groups. Which is okay, I guess - to each his own -, but why not call it a tactical wargame then?
DB
Well, to be honest, have you ever seen any real rules in any system for Role Playing? I was astounded when I picked up the serenity RPG and saw one of the ways to get hero points (or whatever they call em) was through RP, a system built into the game to ENCOURAGE RP.
However, I also fondly remember reading through the 1st Ed PHB and DMG and the Red Box Basic Set (the Erol Otus box) and reading through the sample adventures and thiniing how much I wanted my games to be like that (anyone remember 'I squash the nasty thing with my mace!"?). Took me many years though before I found a group more into RP than in Combat and loot. And even then, we still tend to enjoy our weekly combats
However, I have to agree with DB on the point of the feeling coming from the devs of 4e. Between the rules and their blogs, there is such a focus on combat that makes one wonder where the RP is
Question: Will there be a mentioning of Role Playing and what it is in the PHB/DMG? Perhaps a sample adventure to let people know D&D is more than just kill and loot?
Next question: Why did you not play in the Realms before it was changed (I am really trying hard to diplomatic and not use other words here) by 4th Edition? Earlier interviews/blogs/et cetera have described the 3e Realms as something that WotC employees "borrowed stuff" for their own campaigns, but for some reason, no one (including you with your extensive knowledge of at least parts of the Realms, and an evident passion for the Realms) ran or played in a Realms game.
-While I am not Rich, I think that it was mentioned that there were no games IN THE OFFICE at the time.
And people do not play in settings they feel are 'broken'.
Not taking sides here, just pointing out the obvious.
I'm trying to work on the thing I love - FR lore, and D&D settings in general rather then get caught up in all the negativity once again...
It's hard, but I enjoy myself here more when I avoid it. ;)
For that matter, the spirit folk of Kara-Tur could represent another take on "faerie" that's not very western.
Sounds nice
. While we're talking about Kara-Tur:Will Kara-Tur be featured in any way in the new FRCG (like a one or two page spread) or will it be mentioned only?
Sorry if you answered this one before, i just couldn't remember ;)
@Sorry to disappoint you but i'm not a developer ;) I can't even retrace how you'd come to this conclusion
And yeah, i missread your initial statement about the designers being idiots, sorry.
I have to agree thats thats a bit of baiting, Hawkins. Its pretty obvious that he and the other designers think there was something wrong with FR, otherwise they would not have gone to all the trouble of 'fixing' it. You do not 'fix' Jessica Alba, you 'fix' Phylis Diller. :P
And people do not play in settings they feel are 'broken'.
Not taking sides here, just pointing out the obvious.
I'm trying to work on the thing I love - FR lore, and D&D settings in general rather then get caught up in all the negativity once again...
It's hard, but I enjoy myself here more when I avoid it. ;)
I am just trying to really understand the why of it all. And I apologize if it was baiting, that was not my intent. But it just seems (and this very well might just be my impression, because it may very well be that from my paradigm that there isn't a satisfiable answer) as to why they (WotC) thought that the Realms was so unplayable. It is their best-selling campaign setting. They have outright said that. And why take such a big gamble with your most successful campaign setting? If Ed Greenwood, Mr. Forgotten Realms himself (and who is arguably quite in touch with the fans), argued and advised against many of these changes, then why take such a big chance of completely screwing your best money-making campaign setting to the nine hells? As investors of hundreds, for some, and thousands, for others, of dollars in their game product, we deserve to know why they are apparently driving us away.
Anyways, I guess we will not really be able to tell quite how well the "new" Realms will do until the FRCG is published and it either does or does not sell well. I honestly, seeing what I already know has been done to the Realms (as in what they have officially told us that they have done, Rauric), IMO it is going to take an awful lot of spin doctoring by Ed for them to sell the "new" Realms to the fans who are loyal to it and who made it popular through their dedication.
Now for another question. I think it was somewhere in one of the articles that Thesk would pretty much be a wasteland these days. Does this mean that the silk road (Or whatever it was called) is gone and the telflammar shadowlords and nine golden swords are no more?
I must be one of the oddest RPG players. My first character was Alediran ad he was never a clone of any famous character. Maybe it's because I'm more of a Method Actor and I made him with the best aspects of myself mixed with Sun Elf and Wizard.
I agree with what you are saying, but I didn't take what Keryth said (ie. wanting to be like Drizzt or Elminster) literally. I think it was more about being fascinated and inspired by a character one reads about (especially a heroic character), and then wanting to create a character of one's own through which one can enjoy, vicariously, the adventure and pleasure of being such an amazing hero--a hero not unlike the famous character.
If someone reads about Drizzt and falls in love with him, so to speak, it's not surprising at all that they might later want to create a character of a similar nature. It's common, and IMO it's part of the fun of playing this game.
Some people get too derivative and make actual clones, but I think everyone gets inspired by established characters now and then.Since I asked the question in this thread Ill answer it for anyone else who was curious. Shield of Weeping Ghosts is set in 1376...
Where'd you learn that?
I can certainly appreciate differences in attitude towards 4e. After all, people have different preferences and ideas of what is fun.
Your post, however, leaves me outright mystified. Although 3e is not exactly a 'simulationist' game, for me at least it reaches a sufficient threshold of simulationism that I enjoy it. 4e does several things that greatly decrease the amount of simulationism. A sampling of some important counter-simulationist changes in 4e that spring to mind:
1) Skill System: The Impossibility to be bad at a skill at higher levels.
There are many skills (and actions) which one cannot do untrained. Therefore, being untrained, one is "bad" at those skills. Examples would be Arcana - no skill training, no roll.
The system has also largely done away with fixed DCs, so the DM has a range of DCs by level to create level appropriate difficulties. Therefore, trained characters, especially those with decent attribute and item bonuses will have a much better chance at these skills than those who only have the "trained" bonus, and those who are not at all trained will be trailing significantly.
However, the system does prevent high level characters from falling to the bottom of cliffs on roped climbs (which I don't really think was much fun, even though it could be seen as more simulationist).
All skills rise at a rate of 1/2 point per level, so high level characters having spent their lives on featurless plains are actually proficient climbers; those having spent their lives in deserts are good swimmers; yet others who were in a society without horses suddenly surpass jockeys in riding skill now that they enter a new land where mounts are abundant.
At the level of climbing, swimming and riding, I hardly think it breaks the game to allow that all heroic PC characters are going to be able to do these things. Sure, it is not a simulation in that respect. I hold that in respect of the entire game world being a feasible simulation - 4e is far superior because it has completely rewritten the magic system. As it stood in earlier editions, one side or other would have gotten the drop on their enemies, and since so much was save or die - and D&D favours the attacker - the whole idea of some vast standoff between good and evil was patently ludicrous to me. Now at least, save or die is dead, and there seems to be little that can absolutely guarantee victory even for a character 2 or 3 levels higher than his foe, I can see stand-offs being much more likely.
2) Per-Encounter Effects/Powers: This is a case of a purely metagame duration/frequency that does not refer to anything in-game.
And somehow selecting 2 magic missiles, 1 sleep, and a Ray of Enfeeblement as "per day" effects is not? Be serious here. It is just as believable to have only the energy, presence and precision to cast one of ones better spells in the midst of furious melee, running bodies and flying projectiles.
*Note: I am following 4e news less and less these days, but I caught something about 5 minute rests being used to separate the frequency of per-encounter powers. If this is true, that is simulationist enough for me (indeed 5 minute frequencies was one of the possibilities I suggested for implicit per-encounter powers and a need for 5 minute rest, if true, would im my opinion be an even better implicit per-encounter rule than a 5 minute frequency). Nevertheless, even if true, this would still leave the problem of per-encounter durations (as opposed to frequencies) untouched.
You do indeed require a 5 minute request to recover an encounter power. Per encounter durations are merely a game convenience that in my experience does not detract at all from the game. How often in a 3e game has your combat gone beyond 5 rounds? And how often has a spell or effect not lasted that long? The only time durations have been important for us is when the duration is minutes, and we are asking the DM if less than (say) 10 minutes have passed since the beginning of the last encounter. The DM then hand waves this whichever way he feels - how is that for simulationism.
3) Hit Points: Further hit point abstraction.
Hit points are not a terribly simulationist rule in the first place, but they are a decent compromise with simplicity. In 4E, however, the abstraction with hit points has gotten to the point, where they virtually don't represent physical damage at all and are almost purely the province of luck, plot device and tiredness. This can be seen in the death rules, healing surges, full heal after a 6-hour rest and several other rules that have been showcased. In 3E, hit points were also a mixture of luck, plot protection and tiredness, but they at least included physical toughness in the mix.
This is really how you choose to perceive it. Truth is, in 3e, loss of HP had absolutely no effect on the character until you reached 0. Then you were terribly injured, and below that, you were down and dying. 4e has "bloodied", a condition that has in game effects (both for and against), and various other powers and conditions can depend on this condition.
Recovering up to one quarter of ones HP in an encounter due to taking standard action to have a "healing surge" doesn't sound like much of a stretch of anything to me. Note that anything more requires what is essentially the "magical" intervention of one of the traditional healer types.
4) The Grid: Diagonals and adjacent/contiguous squares are treated equally.
Yeah, personally I preferred a hex grid, but they like squares. However, it is all topologically the same. From an abstract perspective, whether one measures distances with a tape, or counts squares, one can always find advantageous moves, positions and areas, and the difference in the end is not worth the hassle of counting the diagonals.
Diagonal movement is now 1-1-1, fireballs are squared... this is a definite and significant sacrifice of simulationism for the sake of only a minor decrease in complexity.
But if you actually play it out either way, half a dozen times, I defy you to find that the old way was better, or even significant in any way.
5) Monsters: Non-combat abilities/powers have been purged.
Ok, so how many people worry about what the monster does when they are not fighting it?
This is my sampling of some of the areas where simulationism has taken big hits, even though in some of those fields it would have been possible to accomodate us simulationists if some attention had been paid to that.
I meant simulationist from the perspective that the game world would not erupt in a welter of violence and quickly settle down into a rigidly hierarchical magocracy. If I wanted simulationist in the war game perspective, I wouldn't be looking at D&D.
Too bad I guess. Maybe 5E will return the ruleset back to a direction I enjoy. In the meantime, I will be sticking with DMing either 3.5E or perhaps its outgrowth, Paizo's Pathfinder RPG.
You will not find 3e derivatives any better at simulating anything except unnecessary complexity.
As to flavor (this is no longer a simulationism issue), I actually like many of the changes made here when taken individually. Overall, however, the effect is different, because the designers made so many of these individually likable changes (and a few less likable ones) that the 4E game lost its D&D vibe for my taste and D&D feel is what I want from the game...
Have you tried it?
Ok, so how many people worry about what the monster does when they are not fighting it?
-I do, in so much as I have to populate my campaign setting, and have to find motives/ways for monsters to do what they do.
Why the big change? I think they knew that it was going to be tough to sell another Waterdeep book in another setting. ;) Seriously. Two editions worth of fluff and some of it was just a repeat of what they did in the previous edition. Could they pull that off again? Probably only with something that changes the status quo a little, like a big time jump. That is just one reason I think they had for the change. Who knows?
They do share the property of both being "echo worlds," in which the general topography of the world is duplicated.
While we haven't said so explicitly, I think that you can get from Toril's Shadowfell to Oerth's Shadowfell *somehow*. But you're probably better off to go to Sigil and find a door leading to the world you want.
FTW
Excellent observation, and thanks for info.
Could you find your way to responding to me, one last time? It's concerning the above, and a question I asked a day or two ago about the same subject...
Question:
Is the Feywild the Shadowfel's 'opposite'?
I'm picturing them both as 'transitive planes', that one can travel through and the re-emerge in other parts of the world, or even on other worlds (like the Astral and Ethereal used to be). Is this correct? Or is the Feywild more 'localized', and the Shadowfel more multi-spheric (like the 3e Shadow & Negative Planes)?
Thanks in advance.
The reason why I wasn't playing in a FR game when the question was asked is simply that I generally avoid DMing when I've got a big after-hours job running, and I've been tied up with my writing for most of the last three-four years. On the last two occasions that I've sat down in the DM's chair, I ran short (about 3 months each) FR campaigns each time. It's my preferred setting, unless I'm fiddling with a homebrew. One of those FR games was the playtest for Prison of the Firebringer, and the other was a low-level game in the Silver Marches.
When I'm not DMing, I gotta roll with what the DM wants to run. My DMs over the last few years included Ed Stark (didn't run FR), Warren Wyman (did run FR), and Dave Noonan (ran Dark Sun and then Eberron). Part of finding a game here at the office is finding the right night that works for the rest of your schedule, so you kind of have to take the games you get. There have been FR games running in different quarters of the company, but my gaming night opportunities just haven't lined up.
Next question: Why did you not play in the Realms before it was changed (I am really trying hard to diplomatic and not use other words here) by 4th Edition? Earlier interviews/blogs/et cetera have described the 3e Realms as something that WotC employees "borrowed stuff" for their own campaigns, but for some reason, no one (including you with your extensive knowledge of at least parts of the Realms, and an evident passion for the Realms) ran or played in a Realms game.
Well, the question was, "Are you playing in a FR game *right now*?" -- and at the moment it was asked, the answer was that I wasn't. But most of us at WotC have played in FR campaigns before, and some of us have played in the Realms a *lot*. So it's not really correct to say that we refused to play in the Realms pre-4e.
The reason why I wasn't playing in a FR game when the question was asked is simply that I generally avoid DMing when I've got a big after-hours job running, and I've been tied up with my writing for most of the last three-four years. On the last two occasions that I've sat down in the DM's chair, I ran short (about 3 months each) FR campaigns each time. It's my preferred setting, unless I'm fiddling with a homebrew. One of those FR games was the playtest for Prison of the Firebringer, and the other was a low-level game in the Silver Marches.
When I'm not DMing, I gotta roll with what the DM wants to run. My DMs over the last few years included Ed Stark (didn't run FR), Warren Wyman (did run FR), and Dave Noonan (ran Dark Sun and then Eberron). Part of finding a game here at the office is finding the right night that works for the rest of your schedule, so you kind of have to take the games you get. There have been FR games running in different quarters of the company, but my gaming night opportunities just haven't lined up.
-Come back here, to this side of the coast, and I'm sure my DM will figure out a way to fit you in the campaign.
Where'd you learn that?
I have the book. I chose not to get Swordmage because of the time it is set in but I did get Shield of Weeping Ghosts due to it being pre Spellplague.
Go for it, Rich. There are many skills (and actions) which one cannot do untrained. Therefore, being untrained, one is "bad" at those skills. Examples would be Arcana - no skill training, no roll.
...
However, the system does prevent high level characters from falling to the bottom of cliffs on roped climbs (which I don't really think was much fun, even though it could be seen as more simulationist).
Right, I do consider that to be counter-simulationist and I do think it can be interesting or even fun to fall of a cliff even as a high level character. I recognize that not all people want that, but the least they could have done is provided some kind of flaw system that would enable a player to consciously make his character bad/not improving in a skill (note the word 'consciously' and thus aware of the potential consequences coming with that choice). That would have probably crossed the sufficient simulationism in the skill area threshold for me (depending on skill combinations [as I mentioned I follow 4E news less and less, so I don't know which skills were combined to form a condensed skill list], since the skill list has been cut down - combining the movement modes [swiming, climbing, jumping, etcetera] into one skill as some have suggested they would like to see would be a big no no for me).
At the level of climbing, swimming and riding, I hardly think it breaks the game to allow that all heroic PC characters are going to be able to do these things. Sure, it is not a simulation in that respect.
Well, we agree that it is not simulationist. Whether that breaks the game for you or improves it then becomes a matter of personal opinion. For me, the possibility of being bad at a skill is important (though I wouldn't say that alone is sufficient to break 4E for me - it is a combination of factors).
I hold that in respect of the entire game world being a feasible simulation - 4e is far superior because it has completely rewritten the magic system. As it stood in earlier editions, one side or other would have gotten the drop on their enemies, and since so much was save or die - and D&D favours the attacker - the whole idea of some vast standoff between good and evil was patently ludicrous to me. Now at least, save or die is dead, and there seems to be little that can absolutely guarantee victory even for a character 2 or 3 levels higher than his foe, I can see stand-offs being much more likely.
We are obviously thinking of different things when we say 'simulationism', which explains your statement to the effect that 4E is not less simulationist than 3.5E. Under your definition of simulationism, where you look at the power balance in the world, the two editions are probably equally simulationist - one or another might be more, depending on the nature and structure of the campaign world in question.
As to save or die effects, yes there were some problems with them, but the 4E approach is not optimal here either. It entails that archetypal fantasy abilities, such turning somebody into stone, are either gone or gutted in such a way that they become far removed from the fantasy tropes they stem from.
And somehow selecting 2 magic missiles, 1 sleep, and a Ray of Enfeeblement as "per day" effects is not?
No, it does not refer to a metagame timeframe. It refers to the in-game timeframe of an in-game day.
You do indeed require a 5 minute request to recover an encounter power.
Ok, a 5-minute rest needed to recover these powers is indeed a very reasonable rule that is consistent with simulationism.
Per encounter durations are merely a game convenience that in my experience does not detract at all from the game. How often in a 3e game has your combat gone beyond 5 rounds? And how often has a spell or effect not lasted that long? The only time durations have been important for us is when the duration is minutes, and we are asking the DM if less than (say) 10 minutes have passed since the beginning of the last encounter. The DM then hand waves this whichever way he feels - how is that for simulationism.
Again, a 10 minute duration does not refer to a metagame concept, like a per-encounter duration does, but rather to an in-game amount of time. Whether the DM hand waves it is of course up to him and not really relevant.
This is really how you choose to perceive it. Truth is, in 3e, loss of HP had absolutely no effect on the character until you reached 0. Then you were terribly injured, and below that, you were down and dying. 4e has "bloodied", a condition that has in game effects (both for and against), and various other powers and conditions can depend on this condition.
Recovering up to one quarter of ones HP in an encounter due to taking standard action to have a "healing surge" doesn't sound like much of a stretch of anything to me. Note that anything more requires what is essentially the "magical" intervention of one of the traditional healer types.
As I said, the 3E hit points were already a mixture of the things I mentioned, but in 4E the physical aspect of hit points seems to have been removed almost fully.
So you require a healer type to recover all your hit points after the 6-hour rest? That is not the way I understood it from one of the preview documents, but as I said I am less and less in the loop on 4E as I read fewer and fewer news on it, so if I understood it incorrectly do feel free to rectify that.
Yeah, personally I preferred a hex grid, but they like squares. However, it is all topologically the same. From an abstract perspective, whether one measures distances with a tape, or counts squares, one can always find advantageous moves, positions and areas, and the difference in the end is not worth the hassle of counting the diagonals.
It is not really a hassle to count diagonals. The new rule is clearly counter-simulationist to a great degree and the lowering of complexity it achieves (which was clearly the point of the new rule) is very minor. I am sorry, but square fire balls, bursts and other radius effects just don't cut it for me and nor does 1-1-1 movement. This may or may not be houserulable to 1-2-1 movement and circular areas of effect in 4E depending on how much the ruleset is integrated with the oversimplified 1-1-1 movement/square areas of effect.
But if you actually play it out either way, half a dozen times, I defy you to find that the old way was better, or even significant in any way.
Well, I am afraid that's not going to happen, since I am definitely not going to introduce 1-1-1 movement and squared areas of effect into my campaign. It would be unreasonable to introduce a rule that I already really dislike into a campaign just so that I can try it, when I enjoy the current rule and it does not cause problems for my group.
Ok, so how many people worry about what the monster does when they are not fighting it?
I most definitely do. This would bother me less as a player, since then the other DM has to worry about making it work. I am primarily a DM, however, so yes it does concern me.
There is more to it than that though. It has to do with my DMing style (and I would guess many others might share this style of DMing). In simplified terms: When I start a campaign, I decide on an overarching story (in approximate terms) that I will tie the characters into, which they may nevertheless refuse to take up (though that rarely happens, since I tie them into it reasonably strongly). That said, much of the world around them is a simulationist world - by which I mean that I don't plan it or make it with the PCs in mind, but rather it just is/exists/moves along and reacts to what the PCs do and if appropriate I develop these reactions into other plots for the PCs to crack. The point is, that I want rules that enable me to have the monsters/NPCs interact with the PCs in a reasonable/consistent manner also in non-combat situations. I often hear the argument that in 4E I should just give the monsters/NPCs any abilities I want that are good for the plot and I do that anyway even in 3.5e, when I want to. But frequently (probably most of the time), I don't mind either way about the outcome of the interaction (say the NPC blacksmith is trying to make the PC fighter a better sword), and want consistent rules to adjudicate it. 4E apparently does not support this type of DMing style, or more accurately it makes it much more difficult/uncomfortable, by forcing me as the DM to make arbitrary mechanical decisions about all these interactions where I have no preference for success or failure and want to simulate it.
As I pointed out, this would bother me less as a player, as some other DM would than be forced to constantly make these calls - it would be his problem. DMing in 4E, however, would be a much more difficult and arduous task for me and similarly simulationist DMs than DMing in 3.5E, despite 4E's claims that it helps DMs. As I am the DM, I am clearly better off staying with 3.5E on this account too.
I meant simulationist from the perspective that the game world would not erupt in a welter of violence and quickly settle down into a rigidly hierarchical magocracy.
Nor would it in 3.5E, or it might (in either 3.5E or 4E) - that depends on the structure of the campaign world and how that structure interacts with the rules.
You will not find 3e derivatives any better at simulating anything except unnecessary complexity.
I disagree. D&D 3.5E is a game I enjoy and I like much of what I am seeing in the Alpha 2 release of the Pathfinder RPG derivative of 3.5E. 3.5E is not overly complex for my tastes and I enjoy DMing this edition of the rules.
Have you tried it?
No, of course not - nobody outside WotC and a select few other has tried it yet - after all the ruleset has not been officially released. One doesn't necessarily need to try something to be able to form valid opinions about it. I have read numerous preview articles, news-pieces and other sources of information on 4E to the extent that I feel that I can reasonably judge that the changes in flavor have been substantial and although (as I have mentioned) many of them I would favor individually, when so many have been made, the game has lost its D&D feel for me. The threshold at which a game loses a certain feel is, of course, subjective and others might have a higher tolerance in this regard, so I can only speak of my personal feeling on the matter.
Note: Lest you think I instinctively dislike absolutely everything about the 4E ruleset, that is simply not true. There are some things that it does better than 3.5E from my perspective - for example the fact that every class gets interesting abilities at every level (the fact that every class uses the same resource management system is something I am much less keen on, but the fact that all gain interesting abilities at all levels more than compensates for that part). I also like the removal of the idea of experience points as resources to be spent. Also, the 4E approach to epic levels is in my mind clearly superior to that taken in 3.5E. These are what springs to my mind in the spur of the moment. Some of those benefits of 4E(notably the first two I mentioned), however, are being addressed by the 3.5E derivative Pathfinder RPG. Epic levels are not being addressed, but I don't tend to DM such campaigns anyway (though admittadly I probably would if the rules were better).
Right, I do consider that to be counter-simulationist and I do think it can be interesting or even fun to fall of a cliff even as a high level character.
D&D has always been a pretty "high fantasy" game. Part of the problem some people have with it is when they try to make it something it isn't. I like it more gritty, but most player don't. If I want something more gritty, I either change the rules, or play something else.
The biggest, most pervasive change made to the game is this: you don't need casters to save your ass from everything. You can do almost anything to a limited degree - heal a little between combat, heal up overnight. Every character has a decent chance to make an easy climb using a rope. Every character beyond 10th level can save themselves from drowning in a still lake.
What is fun at low levels (climbing a steep cliff, rescuing a friend from storm tossed seas) is already ho-hum at mid levels in 3.5. "I cast fly/spider climb/feather fall/water breathing/levitate/dimension door/ whatever to instantly solve the problem.
I recognize that not all people want that, but the least they could have done is provided some kind of flaw system that would enable a player to consciously make his character bad/not improving in a skill (note the word 'consciously' and thus aware of the potential consequences coming with that choice).
It is much easier to add on a simple "flaw" system to a well designed structurally consistent game, than to fix the structural issues in a Gordian knot of tangled game mechanics. In 3.5, when I homebrewed a lowered magic game, once I had lowered the caster spell acquisition rates, I then had to effectively modify the CR of every monster in the game, since many depend on specific magical capability to occur by a given level.
combining the movement modes [swiming, climbing, jumping, etcetera] into one skill as some have suggested they would like to see would be a big no no for me).
Eh - as a confirmed skill-monkey player, I still see the flexibility of the new system, and I still look forward to my first 4e multiclass rogue/wizard to max out my skill flexibility! Combining the skills is quite successful in Star Wars Saga Edition.
The old system was a mess. Fixed DC stuff became way too easy for skill monkeys, and of course nigh impossible for everyone else. Tumble to make mobility completely useless. Opposed checks became abused game shticks, such as diplomacy, bluff for improved feint for trip-monkeys or sneak attacks. The designers have carefully designed things to avoid these types of traps.
Would Lord of the Rings have been better if Gandalf wobbled about precariously on the tricky rock slopes in Moria? Or was it better that as a superior - perhaps Epic hero, he strode confidently across the inches wide bridge? I like the more heroic version myself, I look for more "realism" in the overall integration of setting and system.
We are obviously thinking of different things when we say 'simulationism', which explains your statement to the effect that 4E is not less simulationist than 3.5E. Under your definition of simulationism, where you look at the power balance in the world, the two editions are probably equally simulationist - one or another might be more, depending on the nature and structure of the campaign world in question.
The campaign worlds like Eberron where designers have explored the ramifications of magic and incorporated it into day to day life in the setting, as well as lowering the general magic level, and providing lower level NPC caster classes do make more simulationist sense, and will be an even better fit for 4e. However, it remains difficult in 3e to imagine a stable world where 20+ level casters of both good and evil alignments dot the landscape and for the most part leave each other alone.
As to save or die effects, yes there were some problems with them, but the 4E approach is not optimal here either. It entails that archetypal fantasy abilities, such turning somebody into stone, are either gone or gutted in such a way that they become far removed from the fantasy tropes they stem from.
The fantasy tropes they stemmed from were monster abilities. Making them accessible to PCs and NPC casters made them abusable. Nothing wrong with tracking down the mythical beast that can turn folk into stone and vanquishing it. The problem occurs when a combat gets wonky because of fluky save or die effects.
No, it does not refer to a metagame timeframe. It refers to the in-game timeframe of an in-game day.
So you think it is so much better to imagine that the spell lasts 36 seconds rather than the duration of the fight. And that precisely 6 attacks happen in those 36 seconds. And that your players and you can be trusted, and expected, to countdown accurately the durations of every spell effect or timed ability their characters have throughout every combat.
Again, a 10 minute duration does not refer to a metagame concept, like a per-encounter duration does, but rather to an in-game amount of time. Whether the DM hand waves it is of course up to him and not really relevant.
It become entirely relevant when the DM hand waves it every time, so the actual duration becomes irrelevant.
So you require a healer type to recover all your hit points after the 6-hour rest? That is not the way I understood it from one of the preview documents, but as I said I am less and less in the loop on 4E as I read fewer and fewer news on it, so if I understood it incorrectly do feel free to rectify that.
No, instead of the healer either casting all his spells that night and healing everybody, or using the ubiquitous wand of CLW, PCs do recover.
In a grittier campaign, you could easily house rule that players can only spend
1 or 2 healing surges per night. It was much harder to "fix" 3e healing since it means modifying magic items and caster lists, or the effects those spells had, non of which people took to anyway.
It is not really a hassle to count diagonals. The new rule is clearly counter-simulationist to a great degree and the lowering of complexity it achieves (which was clearly the point of the new rule) is very minor. I am sorry, but square fire balls, bursts and other radius effects just don't cut it for me and nor does 1-1-1 movement. This may or may not be houserulable to 1-2-1 movement and circular areas of effect in 4E depending on how much the ruleset is integrated with the oversimplified 1-1-1 movement/square areas of effect.
You are arguing appearance here, you have not countered my mathematical similarity argument.
Well, I am afraid that's not going to happen, since I am definitely not going to introduce 1-1-1 movement and squared areas of effect into my campaign. It would be unreasonable to introduce a rule that I already really dislike into a campaign just so that I can try it, when I enjoy the current rule and it does not cause problems for my group.
And again, it would be far simpler to stay with alternate diagonal counting in a cleanly structure game, than to fix all the play issues with 3.x.
I most definitely do. This would bother me less as a player, since then the other DM has to worry about making it work. I am primarily a DM, however, so yes it does concern me.
This is the stuff that it is easy as a DM to make up. I would rather have more monsters, than detailed descriptions of what the monster does in his time off. I actually prefer stuff like that in fluff articles in DDI (previously dragon), where more space can really do it justice.
There is more to it than that though. It has to do with my DMing style (and I would guess many others might share this style of DMing). In simplified terms: When I start a campaign, I decide on an overarching story (in approximate terms) that I will tie the characters into, which they may nevertheless refuse to take up (though that rarely happens, since I tie them into it reasonably strongly). That said, much of the world around them is a simulationist world - by which I mean that I don't plan it or make it with the PCs in mind, but rather it just is/exists/moves along and reacts to what the PCs do and if appropriate I develop these reactions into other plots for the PCs to crack.
As do I.
The point is, that I want rules that enable me to have the monsters/NPCs interact with the PCs in a reasonable/consistent manner also in non-combat situations. I often hear the argument that in 4E I should just give the monsters/NPCs any abilities I want that are good for the plot and I do that anyway even in 3.5e, when I want to. But frequently (probably most of the time), I don't mind either way about the outcome of the interaction (say the NPC blacksmith is trying to make the PC fighter a better sword), and want consistent rules to adjudicate it.
I am grateful that the designers have focussed on the character class design, and left the rest of the stuff for me to adjudicate. I have never been particularly happy with their rules for non-combat stuff anyway, and now they are getting out of the way and letting me do it my way, without any chance of players honing on it and telling me "no fair".
4E apparently does not support this type of DMing style, or more accurately it makes it much more difficult/uncomfortable, by forcing me as the DM to make arbitrary mechanical decisions about all these interactions where I have no preference for success or failure and want to simulate it.
As I say, I see it that they are getting out of the way. D&D has no place in the "off-camera" areas of the nation.
DMing in 4E, however, would be a much more difficult and arduous task for me and similarly simulationist DMs than DMing in 3.5E, despite 4E's claims that it helps DMs. As I am the DM, I am clearly better off staying with 3.5E on this account too.
I would rather spend 4 hours knocking together a crafting system once, than spending 2 hours prior to each game session creating detailed NPC stat blocks for levelled monsters that will be killed in 3 rounds. I enjoy game mechanics far more than I enjoy the grunt work of flipping through five or six source books and making calculations.
Nor would it in 3.5E, or it might (in either 3.5E or 4E) - that depends on the structure of the campaign world and how that structure interacts with the rules.
We are in the FR thread here, and I had more trouble with FR than other game systems precisely because 3e lends itself so poorly to such a highly developed fantasy world as FR.
I disagree. D&D 3.5E is a game I enjoy and I like much of what I am seeing in the Alpha 2 release of the Pathfinder RPG derivative of 3.5E. 3.5E is not overly complex for my tastes and I enjoy DMing this edition of the rules.
Enjoy creating those stat blocks.;)
No, of course not - nobody outside WotC and a select few other has tried it yet
Try bits of it. I can recommend you import the "death and dying" rules into your home game. Also, the Epic destinies have been presented for 3e play.
I agree with the stuff you said you liked, so no debate there.
In summary - D&D as a genre is a poor fit for highly simulationist games. 4e is more mechanically consistent than 3e, so if you are willing to make the changes, it would be easier to retrofit 4e than 3e.
One of those FR games was the playtest for Prison of the Firebringer
-Why do I like the sound of that!!!:D Could you PLEEEASE tell us more about that Rich. Or is that something we should look forward to? Pleeeeeeeeease....
18D
I agree with what you are saying, but I didn't take what Keryth said (ie. wanting to be like Drizzt or Elminster) literally. I think it was more about being fascinated and inspired by a character one reads about (especially a heroic character), and then wanting to create a character of one's own through which one can enjoy, vicariously, the adventure and pleasure of being such an amazing hero--a hero not unlike the famous character.
If someone reads about Drizzt and falls in love with him, so to speak, it's not surprising at all that they might later want to create a character of a similar nature. It's common, and IMO it's part of the fun of playing this game.
Also depends on your age when you get started. I got into D&D in 4th Grade, so I was like 8 years old and had just finished reading LOTR when I started playing. I also knew NOTHING about Role Playing at all. I just knew it was a fantasy game and so when I played a halfling it was logical to name him Frodo.
D&D has always been a pretty "high fantasy" game. Part of the problem some people have with it is when they try to make it something it isn't. I like it more gritty, but most player don't. If I want something more gritty, I either change the rules, or play something else.
I agree that 3.5E was/is not exactly a simulationist game, but as I pointed out, it was/is sufficiently simulationist for my tastes in that I do enjoy running the game. Naturally, everybody's threshold for what is sufficient in this regard differs.
The biggest, most pervasive change made to the game is this: you don't need casters to save your ass from everything. You can do almost anything to a limited degree - heal a little between combat, heal up overnight. Every character has a decent chance to make an easy climb using a rope. Every character beyond 10th level can save themselves from drowning in a still lake.
What is fun at low levels (climbing a steep cliff, rescuing a friend from storm tossed seas) is already ho-hum at mid levels in 3.5. "I cast fly/spider climb/feather fall/water breathing/levitate/dimension door/ whatever to instantly solve the problem.
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree on what is fun and how much of the time in this respect.
It is much easier to add on a simple "flaw" system to a well designed structurally consistent game, than to fix the structural issues in a Gordian knot of tangled game mechanics.
Perhaps, but 4E does not have such a flaw system (or another way [short of DM fiat, but that is not a rule] that would enable me to create a character that is really bad at some kind of skill - something I often enjoy doing both for NPCs and for PCs).
In 3.5, when I homebrewed a lowered magic game, once I had lowered the caster spell acquisition rates, I then had to effectively modify the CR of every monster in the game, since many depend on specific magical capability to occur by a given level.
I have never experimented with lowering caster spell acquisition rates, so I don't know how it would work out, but I will venture a guess that if you did that in 4E, the casters would also be much weaker and you would have to correspondingly modify CRs.
What I have done is decreased magic item acquisition rate and I found that the alleged problems of magic item dependence were nowhere near as bad as many would have had me believe.
Eh - as a confirmed skill-monkey player, I still see the flexibility of the new system, and I still look forward to my first 4e multiclass rogue/wizard to max out my skill flexibility! Combining the skills is quite successful in Star Wars Saga Edition.
Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to the combining of skills in principle. Use rope, for example, is truly a pathetic skill and really shouldn't be separate. Combining Listen, Spot and Search into Perception, or Move Silently and Hide into Stealth, or Balance and Tumble into Acrobatics is something I have often seen suggested and I would be fine with it (though in some cases I would like to see sub-uses of the original skills for these skills specified, but it probably would be anyway). These make some sense (at least with my stipulation in brackets), but the skills for movement modes (Climb, Swim, Jump, etcetera) need to stay separate. I don't know how far 4E went with the idea of skill consolidation.
The old system was a mess. Fixed DC stuff became way too easy for skill monkeys, and of course nigh impossible for everyone else. Tumble to make mobility completely useless. Opposed checks became abused game shticks, such as diplomacy, bluff for improved feint for trip-monkeys or sneak attacks. The designers have carefully designed things to avoid these types of traps.
I like opposed checks where they make sense and fixed DCs where those make sense. Tumble, for example, should clearly have been an opposed check rather than a fixed DC check. I definitely dislike the alternate idea of scaling DCs by level. Not only does it make level progression meaningless, but also why should a rough stone wall suddenly become more difficult to climb as characters advance in level? That just does not make any sense. Now I could see a list of walls (rough stone wall, smooth stone wall, wall of ice...) and assign them something akin to CRs, but the idea that the same wall would change its difficulty of being climbed based on the level of the characters makes me shudder.
Would Lord of the Rings have been better if Gandalf wobbled about precariously on the tricky rock slopes in Moria? Or was it better that as a superior - perhaps Epic hero, he strode confidently across the inches wide bridge? I like the more heroic version myself, I look for more "realism" in the overall integration of setting and system.
I don't the story could be good either way - good stories can be woven with just about any ruleset - it is the simulationism issue that I would be more concerned about. Let me repose the question - there is a character in this story who has vertigo from heights who tries to cross the beam... wait I cannot make such a character in 4E... or rather he can be made, but his lack of balance skill will not be supportable in the rules.
The campaign worlds like Eberron where designers have explored the ramifications of magic and incorporated it into day to day life in the setting, as well as lowering the general magic level, and providing lower level NPC caster classes do make more simulationist sense, and will be an even better fit for 4e.
I don't really know much about Eberron, so I cannot comment. Sorry about that, but I don't remember much more than that it gave me a steampunk vibe judging from the previews.
However, it remains difficult in 3e to imagine a stable world where 20+ level casters of both good and evil alignments dot the landscape and for the most part leave each other alone.
It depends. The real world has numerous countries that dislike one another, yet they don't often go to war (or nowhere near as often as would seem likely based on your reasoning for high level NPCs).The fantasy tropes they stemmed from were monster abilities. Making them accessible to PCs and NPC casters made them abusable. Nothing wrong with tracking down the mythical beast that can turn folk into stone and vanquishing it. The problem occurs when a combat gets wonky because of fluky save or die effects.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that these effects were gone altogether rather than merely from PC spell lists (so monsters don't have them either). Or if not gone, than gutted almost to the point of no recognition as the archetypical power they should represent.So you think it is so much better to imagine that the spell lasts 36 seconds rather than the duration of the fight.
Sure, I far prefer the idea that a spell lasts 6 rounds than for the duration of the fight. As to trusting my players, yes I would say I trust them.It become entirely relevant when the DM hand waves it every time, so the actual duration becomes irrelevant.
So what you are saying is that DMs can handwave this every time to in effect have per-encounter durations, yet those of us who want to track it (whether approximately or exactly) can do so... that sounds like a win-win situation to me in 3.5E as opposed to per-encounter durations in 4E that only satisfy one side.No, instead of the healer either casting all his spells that night and healing everybody, or using the ubiquitous wand of CLW, PCs do recover.
So they do recover every night automatically... ouch. I have not had experiences with ubiquitous wands of cure light wounds - I don't know where it comes from - my players rarely get/find any and they don't always have clerics or druids or others capable of magical healing with them either. Hence I don't see the similarity. Besides, if the PCs could for example, teleport to wherever they wanted after every rest without using magic, I would not find it as acceptable if they say had a spell that could do this once per day. It's just not the same thing.In a grittier campaign, you could easily house rule that players can only spend
1 or 2 healing surges per night.
Fair enough - houseruling it would probably be possible.You are arguing appearance here, you have not countered my mathematical similarity argument.
I guess I am not sure what you mean.And again, it would be far simpler to stay with alternate diagonal counting in a cleanly structure game, than to fix all the play issues with 3.x.
Yes, as I said, it may be possible to houserule alternate diagonal counting back into 4E, but it might not be possible (or at least would be very difficult), if the ruleset is inherently tied to the 1-1-1 diagonal movement notion. We don't really know whether that's the case, since the ruleset is not out yet.This is the stuff that it is easy as a DM to make up. I would rather have more monsters, than detailed descriptions of what the monster does in his time off. I actually prefer stuff like that in fluff articles in DDI (previously dragon), where more space can really do it justice.
This may be easy for you to make up, but for me it is not easy. Perhaps you are better at DMing than I am or are better at constant ad-hoc rule adjudication - I do not know, but I do know that for me this is an issue.As do I.
OKI am grateful that the designers have focussed on the character class design, and left the rest of the stuff for me to adjudicate. I have never been particularly happy with their rules for non-combat stuff anyway, and now they are getting out of the way and letting me do it my way, without any chance of players honing on it and telling me "no fair".
Our opinions differ diametrally on this one. I am not happy to be forced to adjudicate all of these non-comabat matters ad-hoc and would have much preferred that they spent some time on this so that I don't have to unless I specifically want to make a change.As I say, I see it that they are getting out of the way.
For me though, they are not getting out of the way, but rather giving me extra work to do. The very notion of getting out of the way is deceptive anyway, since if I felt something were getting in the way I could just ignore it change it anyway, but if nothing is there in the first place I have to either make up everything from scratch or do everything in an ad-hoc manner or some combination of the two.I would rather spend 4 hours knocking together a crafting system once, than spending 2 hours prior to each game session creating detailed NPC stat blocks for levelled monsters that will be killed in 3 rounds. I enjoy game mechanics far more than I enjoy the grunt work of flipping through five or six source books and making calculations.
The craft thing was just an example I used. This is an issue of non-combat abilities in general.We are in the FR thread here, and I had more trouble with FR than other game systems precisely because 3e lends itself so poorly to such a highly developed fantasy world as FR.
I have admitedly never DMed FR and am relatively new to the setting. My prior experience of the settings entailed only the FR computer games (e.g. Baldur's Gate II or Neverwinter Nights II: The Mask of the Betrayer). Apart from the two campaigns I currently run myself, I do currently play in a campaign set in Forgotten Realms with a DM who knows it well. She does not plan on switching to the 4th edition (she dislikes the changes being made to FR).Enjoy creating those stat blocks.;)
Don't worry! ;)
Seriously, yes, statblocks can be annoying but not nearly enough to make me want to lose the simulationist aspects of the game.Try bits of it. I can recommend you import the "death and dying" rules into your home game. Also, the Epic destinies have been presented for 3e play.
I might try doing Epic destinies for 3.5E, since the current 3.X Epic rules are simply horrible. For the "death and dying" rules I currently use my own houserule:
Characters become disabled at 0 and remain disabled until they reach -(10 + Constitution bonus) hit points at which point they are unconscious and dying. Characters die when they reach -(20 + 2 x Constitution bonus) hit points. When disabled, characters taking a strenuous action lose 1d6 hit points. Upon reaching unconsciousness and dying, character lose 1d6 hit points per round.I agree with the stuff you said you liked, so no debate there.
Fair enough. I also like the fact that race is expected to remain mechanically relevant over the entirety of a character's career, a number of new powers/abilities and a few other mechanical things.
Well, the question was, "Are you playing in a FR game *right now*?" -- and at the moment it was asked, the answer was that I wasn't. But most of us at WotC have played in FR campaigns before, and some of us have played in the Realms a *lot*. So it's not really correct to say that we refused to play in the Realms pre-4e.
The reason why I wasn't playing in a FR game when the question was asked is simply that I generally avoid DMing when I've got a big after-hours job running, and I've been tied up with my writing for most of the last three-four years. On the last two occasions that I've sat down in the DM's chair, I ran short (about 3 months each) FR campaigns each time. It's my preferred setting, unless I'm fiddling with a homebrew. One of those FR games was the playtest for Prison of the Firebringer, and the other was a low-level game in the Silver Marches.
When I'm not DMing, I gotta roll with what the DM wants to run. My DMs over the last few years included Ed Stark (didn't run FR), Warren Wyman (did run FR), and Dave Noonan (ran Dark Sun and then Eberron). Part of finding a game here at the office is finding the right night that works for the rest of your schedule, so you kind of have to take the games you get. There have been FR games running in different quarters of the company, but my gaming night opportunities just haven't lined up.
Thank you for your concise and well-thought-out reply. I am beginning to feel as though at least some of you see us as people who are (or were) passionate about your product and not just currency to pay your bills.
Perhaps, but 4E does not have such a flaw system (or another way [short of DM fiat, but that is not a rule] that would enable me to create a character that is really bad at some kind of skill - something I often enjoy doing both for NPCs and for PCs).
I have never experimented with lowering caster spell acquisition rates, so I don't know how it would work out, but I will venture a guess that if you did that in 4E, the casters would also be much weaker and you would have to correspondingly modify CRs.
I don't think it would be necessary in 4e. My main incentive to do it in 3e was to push back some of the more game breaking spells into higher levels, while still allowing characters to level up and obtain there cool abilities in a playable (and DMable) game. 4e has completely revamped the spell lists so no classes get really game breaking abilities.
What I have done is decreased magic item acquisition rate and I found that the alleged problems of magic item dependence were nowhere near as bad as many would have had me believe.
I agree - with a smart group of players, having only the expected magical weapons and armour will usually allow them to tackle most level appropriate encounters with reasonable difficulty. That is why, along with changing the spell progression, I also drastically reduced cash in my campaign - to 10% of the default. However, some of the players quit after 2 or 3 sessions, preferring to play the default game.
Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to the combining of skills in principle. Use rope, for example, is truly a pathetic skill and really shouldn't be separate. Combining Listen, Spot and Search into Perception, or Move Silently and Hide into Stealth, or Balance and Tumble into Acrobatics is something I have often seen suggested and I would be fine with it (though in some cases I would like to see sub-uses of the original skills for these skills specified, but it probably would be anyway).
And I think you will be happy so far.
These make some sense (at least with my stipulation in brackets), but the skills for movement modes (Climb, Swim, Jump, etcetera) need to stay separate. I don't know how far 4E went with the idea of skill consolidation.
From what you have said, I think your best bet is to take the combo skills as they are, and make up a few simple flaws, like "fear of heights", or "cannot swim". I used the idea for flaws from Unearthed Arcana in 3e, and extended them.
The problem with skill systems is that they either attempt to detail all the skills one can do (3e), and then you end up with what you have - a problem of finding enough skill points to be good at the things you ought to be good at, or you combine similar types of skills (that people who are good at one will have a propensity to be good at related skills), but then you would need exceptions for the types of circumstance you describe.
I definitely dislike the alternate idea of scaling DCs by level. Not only does it make level progression meaningless, but also why should a rough stone wall suddenly become more difficult to climb as characters advance in level? That just does not make any sense. Now I could see a list of walls (rough stone wall, smooth stone wall, wall of ice...) and assign them something akin to CRs, but the idea that the same wall would change its difficulty of being climbed based on the level of the characters makes me shudder.
The same wall does not get more difficult. Just as you don't typically throw standard goblins at 10th level characters, you choose skill challenges for appropriate levels. At 1st level, scaling a 20 ft loose stone wall is a challenge. At 10th level, you should be considering a smooth, overhanging 60 ft tower. The "level scaling" is advice for the DM in selecting DCs.
Let me repose the question - there is a character in this story who has vertigo from heights who tries to cross the beam... wait I cannot make such a character in 4E... or rather he can be made, but his lack of balance skill will not be supportable in the rules.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the average character who is good at acrobatics in general, will have good balance. Vertigo is a very specific phobia, and phobias, flaws and other pathological conditions have never been well developed in D&D.
Now I am very good at character creation, but still, it takes me quite some time to create, say, a 10th level multi-classed skill monkey, specifically navigating the rules and the math for allocating skill points. it is actually harder to develop a character organically, and qualify for some target prestige class while still making optimum skill allocation choices with each level.
You have to look well ahead and consider which classes will give how many skill points, that can be legally allocated to which skills i order to assign the points optimally. Frankly, I actually enjoyed this aspect of the game - for my characters. However, helping 1 or 2 other people round my table attempt the same thing was just a chore. I always ended up making mistakes with my own stuff while being interrupted to help others.
I don't really know much about Eberron, so I cannot comment. Sorry about that, but I don't remember much more than that it gave me a steampunk vibe judging from the previews.
It is unfortunate that you did not give it a shot. At the very least, its rules for NPC casters are perfect for other, non 'steam punky' settings. Its organized "houses" and Rune magic are good. In terms of usable crunch, it is head and shoulders above most of the complete books and I see it as good bargain even if you never use the setting.
It depends. The real world has numerous countries that dislike one another, yet they don't often go to war (or nowhere near as often as would seem likely based on your reasoning for high level NPCs).
The real world superpowers had MAD to restrain them. In D&D terms, many of the protagonists had no "constituencies" that they cared to bring through alive, and in any case, unlike today's countries, they have powers that allowed for very selective pin-point nuking of their adversaries.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that these effects were gone altogether rather than merely from PC spell lists (so monsters don't have them either).
I doubt you will see instantaneous, save or die powers for monsters in WotC published 4e.
Or if not gone, than gutted almost to the point of no recognition as the archetypical power they should represent.
Check out the (amusing) beholder interview WotC. I don't think it makes the ability "unrecognizeable", in fact it perhaps increases the dramatic tension. The affect encroaches gradually, but the victim can attempt to save each round... until it is too late.
Sure, I far prefer the idea that a spell lasts 6 rounds than for the duration of the fight. As to trusting my players, yes I would say I trust them.
I don't see it as trust in the sense of intentional cheating. I see it as too complex for the benefit it delivers. The margin of benefit is perceived "realism". For the benefit of saying that for a Wizard of level X, will cast a spell who's duration is X rounds (which is usually slightly more than the duration of the fight anyway - 9 times out of 10, at mid levels and beyond, a "rounds per level" spell lasts for the duration of the encounter, and not enough beyond to be significant. Given that at mid levels, players may have anywhere between 1 and 6 different spell effects with various durations effective on them, including "conditions" (such as fatigued, nauseated, frightened), is it worth the cost in bookkeeping to track each and every effect during combat, for the sake of the improved margin of realism?
So what you are saying is that DMs can handwave this every time to in effect have per-encounter durations, yet those of us who want to track it (whether approximately or exactly) can do so... that sounds like a win-win situation to me in 3.5E as opposed to per-encounter durations in 4E that only satisfy one side.
I am saying that 4e went the way many people have been playing it for years, which is to say, beyond 3rd level, it is not worth tracking rounds/level spells.
So they do recover every night automatically... ouch. I have not had experiences with ubiquitous wands of cure light wounds - I don't know where it comes from - my players rarely get/find any and they don't always have clerics or druids or others capable of magical healing with them either.
And therefore you are not playing the default 3e game - you have become frustrated with some of its design parameters yourself. I take it that you don't like that it centres too much on full casters, and too much on an arsenal of equipment.
Hence I don't see the similarity. Besides, if the PCs could for example, teleport to wherever they wanted after every rest without using magic, I would not find it as acceptable if they say had a spell that could do this once per day. It's just not the same thing.
I am not sure I follow what you are saying here. For a default game in 3e, the cleric (or a wand) would heal everybody up every night. In 4e, everyone would be healed up through natural abilities. For the default game of each, there would be little change in results - however, the flavour would be less about the dominance of casters and items in 4e.
If you want a tougher, more realistic game, 4e is actually easier to houserule than 3e - as you agreed. Just cut down the number of overnight healing surges that can be used. One change, vs. the several changes you would need to make in 3e.
I guess I am not sure what you mean.
What I am talking about is the effective tactical identity between a square, a circle and a square made of circles. The circle looks better, but in terms of the game effects, no tactical options or abilities are taken off the table by using the square. The only difference is the visual. Therefore, one could use hexes, 3e style shapes, or 4e squares and the game would play out the same. As long as everyone plays using the same understanding, it works. That being said, it would be another easy thing to houserule, since its only effect is cosmetic.
This may be easy for you to make up, but for me it is not easy. Perhaps you are better at DMing than I am or are better at constant ad-hoc rule adjudication - I do not know, but I do know that for me this is an issue.
I don't mind a lot of ad-hoc adjudication, but I would rather develop a sound system for dealing with these things. I think the way the given system works, adding on to it in the same style is going to be easier because the system is more consistent to start with. I would suspect that subsequent products as well as 3rd party products will fit together better than 3e expansions.
For me though, they are not getting out of the way, but rather giving me extra work to do. The very notion of getting out of the way is deceptive anyway, since if I felt something were getting in the way I could just ignore it change it anyway, but if nothing is there in the first place I have to either make up everything from scratch or do everything in an ad-hoc manner or some combination of the two.
Providing something broken for me is harder, since often it appears attractive to players, and then I have to be the "Ogre" to remove the capabilities.
The craft thing was just an example I used. This is an issue of non-combat abilities in general.
Perhaps some examples would help me understand the issue better.
I do currently play in a campaign set in Forgotten Realms with a DM who knows it well. She does not plan on switching to the 4th edition (she dislikes the changes being made to FR).
Pity.
I might try doing Epic destinies for 3.5E, since the current 3.X Epic rules are simply horrible. For the "death and dying" rules I currently use my own houserule:
Characters become disabled at 0 and remain disabled until they reach -(10 + Constitution bonus) hit points at which point they are unconscious and dying. Characters die when they reach -(20 + 2 x Constitution bonus) hit points. When disabled, characters taking a strenuous action lose 1d6 hit points. Upon reaching unconsciousness and dying, character lose 1d6 hit points per round.
Cool. It really proves the point about the existing rules, though. Mike Mearls put it best when he said that Fighters would rather be knocked unconscious in one shot than left at 5 HP in a mid or high level encounter.
I also like the fact that race is expected to remain mechanically relevant over the entirety of a character's career, a number of new powers/abilities and a few other mechanical things.
Absolutely, and things like weapon choice will have neat mechanical abilities added on.
Could you guys take your discussion to PM? Or perhaps agree to debate one point at a time in the interest of terseness?
It's an interesting discussion, but it's getting a little long-winded.
Thanks!
The most memorable moment: a fomorian hopping over a rampart to "overrun" (i.e., squash) the paladin and his warhorse at the base of the wall. I figured if you've got Fast Healing 5, you wouldn't really care about 10 or 20 points of falling damage.
Second most memorable: The monk attacking Bazim-Gorag in the middle of what seemed to be friendly negotations, and the slaad lord rolling a 1 on his save against stun. B-G was down a third of his hit points before he even got a chance to act... but he chased off the PCs after that, and now he knows not to accept sandwiches from strange monks.
-Why do I like the sound of that!!!:D Could you PLEEEASE tell us more about that Rich. Or is that something we should look forward to? Pleeeeeeeeease....
18D
That was a DUNGEON magazine adventure I wrote a couple of years ago themed around Bazim-Gorag in his prison under the Dungeon of the Ruins.
The most memorable moment: a fomorian hopping over a rampart to "overrun" (i.e., squash) the paladin and his warhorse at the base of the wall. I figured if you've got Fast Healing 5, you wouldn't really care about 10 or 20 points of falling damage.
Second most memorable: The monk attacking Bazim-Gorag in the middle of what seemed to be friendly negotations, and the slaad lord rolling a 1 on his save against stun. B-G was down a third of his hit points before he even got a chance to act... but he chased off the PCs after that, and now he knows not to accept sandwiches from strange monks.
-Darn and here it was I thought you let something slip!;) So what Dungeon mag was that? So will Bazim-Gorag be in 4E? Heck will the Dungeon of the Ruins be in 4E?
18D
I don't think it would be necessary in 4e. My main incentive to do it in 3e was to push back some of the more game breaking spells into higher levels, while still allowing characters to level up and obtain there cool abilities in a playable (and DMable) game. 4e has completely revamped the spell lists so no classes get really game breaking abilities.
Right, I assume you mean spells like Teleport or Wish or some of the Divination spells. It is probably easier to do that by increasing the spell level of these spells (I have done that with some of these spells, such as raise dead, resurrection and others - it does not seem to unbalance the game to do this), rather than cutting caster spell progression.
Yes, I agree that 4E has dealt with the problems these spells pose, but from the looks of it, 4E seems to have done so by simply removing them altogether. I can't say I am very happy with that kind of solution, as these are iconic fantasy abilities that I would like to have in existence in my game.
Supposedly, some of them may have been moved to being rituals - if so this is a good idea and I like the idea of rituals in principle, though we don't know anything about the implementation (unless something has been released on the matter since I decreased my attention to 4E news). I guess the jury is still out on this one - it all depends on how those rituals work and how many of those iconic abilities made it from spells to rituals (rather than being removed completely from the game) - but yes, the idea itself of making them lengthy rituals is a good one.
I agree - with a smart group of players, having only the expected magical weapons and armour will usually allow them to tackle most level appropriate encounters with reasonable difficulty. That is why, along with changing the spell progression, I also drastically reduced cash in my campaign - to 10% of the default. However, some of the players quit after 2 or 3 sessions, preferring to play the default game.
I am sorry to hear that you lost some players over this. Don't take it hard on yourself, though, people simply have different expectations from the game. But yes, I too pay little heed to the wealth per level guidelines.
And I think you will be happy so far.
From what you have said, I think your best bet is to take the combo skills as they are, and make up a few simple flaws, like "fear of heights", or "cannot swim". I used the idea for flaws from Unearthed Arcana in 3e, and extended them.
The problem with skill systems is that they either attempt to detail all the skills one can do (3e), and then you end up with what you have - a problem of finding enough skill points to be good at the things you ought to be good at, or you combine similar types of skills (that people who are good at one will have a propensity to be good at related skills), but then you would need exceptions for the types of circumstance you describe.
I was hoping that the core system would already enable players to make their characters be bad at something (either through a flaw system or through some point system for skills). Apparently, this is not the case, but yes houserules can take care of it, the problem than becomes chosing an appropriate compensating benefit in a balanced fashion. I was thinking of allowing the character of chosing another skill as a class skill in return for having the imperfection (as this would not provide an immediate benefit without investment of further resources for training in the skill), but the question is whether that would be balanced.
The same wall does not get more difficult. Just as you don't typically throw standard goblins at 10th level characters, you choose skill challenges for appropriate levels. At 1st level, scaling a 20 ft loose stone wall is a challenge. At 10th level, you should be considering a smooth, overhanging 60 ft tower. The "level scaling" is advice for the DM in selecting DCs.
Ok, so it is like giving different types of walls different CR-equivalents after all.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the average character who is good at acrobatics in general, will have good balance. Vertigo is a very specific phobia, and phobias, flaws and other pathological conditions have never been well developed in D&D.
Vertigo was just an example for a character not good at balancing. Perhaps he does not have vertigo, but is from a plains-based country - it doesn't really matter - it is just an illustration.
Now I am very good at character creation, but still, it takes me quite some time to create, say, a 10th level multi-classed skill monkey, specifically navigating the rules and the math for allocating skill points. it is actually harder to develop a character organically, and qualify for some target prestige class while still making optimum skill allocation choices with each level.
You have to look well ahead and consider which classes will give how many skill points, that can be legally allocated to which skills i order to assign the points optimally. Frankly, I actually enjoyed this aspect of the game - for my characters. However, helping 1 or 2 other people round my table attempt the same thing was just a chore. I always ended up making mistakes with my own stuff while being interrupted to help others.
Ok, I actually agree with you on this one. The cross-class and class skill combinations depending on how many levels of each class the character has can hamper character creation. But removing skill points is not necessary to address this problem. The Pathfinder RPG derivative of 3.5E that I have mentioned already, for example, has basically eliminated this problem, while retaining skill points.
It is unfortunate that you did not give it a shot. At the very least, its rules for NPC casters are perfect for other, non 'steam punky' settings. Its organized "houses" and Rune magic are good. In terms of usable crunch, it is head and shoulders above most of the complete books and I see it as good bargain even if you never use the setting.
Fair enough, rune magic does sound interesting, but the steam-punk flavor did turn me off. I suppose it might have good stealable material usable in other settings.
The real world superpowers had MAD to restrain them. In D&D terms, many of the protagonists had no "constituencies" that they cared to bring through alive, and in any case, unlike today's countries, they have powers that allowed for very selective pin-point nuking of their adversaries.
Real world superpowers had MAD to restrain them during the Cold War, but lesser powers didn't and nor did any powers before the development of nuclear weapons. Balance was instead kept by shifting alliances, fear of the consequences of being the first to begin and so on and so on. Of course, sometimes this did not prove enough of a deterrent and there was open conflict. In terms of NPCs, if you 'nuke' your rival, your other rivals might take advantage of your depleted spells to 'nuke' you, the fear of which might prevent you from 'nuking' the first rival openly... and so on - similar balance mechanics work here.
I doubt you will see instantaneous, save or die powers for monsters in WotC published 4e.
That's what I mean - some of these (polymorphing somebody into a frog, turning somebody into stone, etcetera) are fantasy tropes that I would hate to see disappear.
Check out the (amusing) beholder interview WotC. I don't think it makes the ability "unrecognizeable", in fact it perhaps increases the dramatic tension. The affect encroaches gradually, but the victim can attempt to save each round... until it is too late.
He he, that is pretty funny. This can work for some of the former save or die effects. On the other hand, I don't know, but somebody gradually and very slowly being polymorphed into a mouse just doesn't feel right. I mean, sure, it is an interesting ability, but as to its correspondence to those fantasy iconic abilities...
I don't see it as trust in the sense of intentional cheating. I see it as too complex for the benefit it delivers.
OK, that is a bit different.
The margin of benefit is perceived "realism". For the benefit of saying that for a Wizard of level X, will cast a spell who's duration is X rounds (which is usually slightly more than the duration of the fight anyway - 9 times out of 10, at mid levels and beyond, a "rounds per level" spell lasts for the duration of the encounter, and not enough beyond to be significant. Given that at mid levels, players may have anywhere between 1 and 6 different spell effects with various durations effective on them, including "conditions" (such as fatigued, nauseated, frightened), is it worth the cost in bookkeeping to track each and every effect during combat, for the sake of the improved margin of realism?
For me it is worth the extra tracking - it is not really difficult to track to be honest. On a piece of square paper, the players can simply tick of durations in terms of rounds. It is pretty easy actually and takes a minimal amount of time.
I am saying that 4e went the way many people have been playing it for years, which is to say, beyond 3rd level, it is not worth tracking rounds/level spells.
Ok, but it leaves those who want durations in the cold - previously, those who wanted per-encounter effects ignored durations, but it is much more difficult for those who want durations to ignore the 'per-encounter' stuff in favor of durations, as there are none.
And therefore you are not playing the default 3e game - you have become frustrated with some of its design parameters yourself. I take it that you don't like that it centres too much on full casters, and too much on an arsenal of equipment.
Well, I am playing a 3.5E game, though it may not be considered default. I have a host of house rules and ignore the guidelines for wealth and magical equipment. But yes, your assumption is essentially correct in that I don't want to center the game on full casters or an arsenal of equipment, especially not the latter.
I am not sure I follow what you are saying here.
I am saying that PCs don't often have wands to do this. They usually, but definitely not always do have a cleric or a druid.
For a default game in 3e, the cleric (or a wand) would heal everybody up every night. In 4e, everyone would be healed up through natural abilities. For the default game of each, there would be little change in results - however, the flavour would be less about the dominance of casters and items in 4e.
Perhaps, but at the expense of sacrificing simulationism. It is just unreasonable even in an abstract system for any and all injuries to heal overnight.
If you want a tougher, more realistic game, 4e is actually easier to houserule than 3e - as you agreed. Just cut down the number of overnight healing surges that can be used. One change, vs. the several changes you would need to make in 3e.
Well, 4E is certainly houserulable in this regard, but so is 3E. We don't know about the number of houseruling changes in 4E, since we don't know about the number of other ways to be healed. For natural healing healing alone, 3E is already fine and needs no houseruling from me.
What I am talking about is the effective tactical identity between a square, a circle and a square made of circles. The circle looks better, but in terms of the game effects, no tactical options or abilities are taken off the table by using the square. The only difference is the visual. Therefore, one could use hexes, 3e style shapes, or 4e squares and the game would play out the same. As long as everyone plays using the same understanding, it works. That being said, it would be another easy thing to houserule, since its only effect is cosmetic.
This time I see what you are saying, but I disagree. Taking away the 1-2-1 diagonal movement does change tactical issues in the game. I am not sure how to add pictures to the boards, so I cannot draw you a proof of principle, but the point is that going around obstacles is much easier with 1-1-1 movement.
Hypothetical example: A wizard is standing behind a fighter, who defends him. An enemy ranger standing opposite the friendly fighter wants to reach the wizard in order to kill him, but straight path ahead is blocked by the fighter. That means that he has to go around the fighter. With 1-2-1 movement going diagonally around the fighter is going to cost more movement points than going straight through where the fighter is would, but with 1-1-1 movement, going around the fighter would cost the same amount of movement as going straight through as if the fighter weren't there at all.
Try to draw the situation or simulating it on a board if you want to see it visually. The diagonal movement rules do make a mechanical difference - it's not just a visual effect.
I don't mind a lot of ad-hoc adjudication, but I would rather develop a sound system for dealing with these things. I think the way the given system works, adding on to it in the same style is going to be easier because the system is more consistent to start with. I would suspect that subsequent products as well as 3rd party products will fit together better than 3e expansions.
I also prefer a sound system for dealing with these issues, but in this case what is being done is that it's being left to the DM to deal with on an ad-hoc basis.
Perhaps some examples would help me understand the issue better.Craft was just one example. Perhaps the PCs want to have a curse removed, so they come to some lesser angel and ask him to do so. If I want to help them remove their curse and think it is reasonable that the angel could do it, I will let the angel have the ability. If I think it's unreasonable or bad for the story, I won't let the angel do it. What if, however, I don't really care either way and am unsure about whether it's reasonable or not, yet want to simulate it (and in my case this is a common occurence - I have no preference either way)? Then I check whether the angel has that ability or not. If non-combat abilities are included in the monster descriptions, that is not a problem. If they are not included there, I do have a problem.
These kinds of situations occur all the time in my games and run gamut from crafting to the PCs seeking information...Pity.
Well, she is pretty heavily invested in the Forgotten Realms and owns many sourcebooks and novels. She especially dislikes the fact that her favorite characters and gods are being killed off / removed from the game to the point that she is upset about it - I don't really know her opinion on the mechanical changes.Cool. It really proves the point about the existing rules, though. Mike Mearls put it best when he said that Fighters would rather be knocked unconscious in one shot than left at 5 HP in a mid or high level encounter.
True, hehe, but I do think that my houserule provides a satisfactory answer for my game. The aim of it was to:
1) Increase the disabled range and the negative hit point buffer
2) Provide uncertainty in terms of the precise timing of death and thus increase the urgency of healing interventionAbsolutely, and things like weapon choice will have neat mechanical abilities added on.
You mean mechanical abilities beyond merely different damage die sizes? If so, that is indeed pretty interesting.
Hey, Dimonic and Roman --
Could you guys take your discussion to PM? Or perhaps agree to debate one point at a time in the interest of terseness?
It's an interesting discussion, but it's getting a little long-winded.
Thanks!
My apologies - I was already typing my post when you posted this, so I did not see this until thereafter.
I suppose the 'general answer' in 4e is "It is if you want it to be", which is how I've always handled stuff in D&D anyway. In a way, its bad for 'Ruleslawyers' and 'Canonophiles" (Grognards?), because you've pretty much disarmed them in 4e. Thats a good thing, because its "getting back to basics", where the DM makes the rules, and the books are only a set of suggestions.
There's no school like the old school. ;)
All I need is rules for magic, combat, and character creation - everything else should fall under the DMs domain (and the setting-books, if he is not using homebrew).
Hey, Dimonic and Roman --
Could you guys take your discussion to PM? Or perhaps agree to debate one point at a time in the interest of terseness?
It's an interesting discussion, but it's getting a little long-winded.
Thanks!
Wow... almost word-for-word what I was about to post, until I got up to yours.
It was all very interesting, but I think everything that needed to be said was said in the very first exchange.
And Dimonic... thanks for all the info.
The way I see it, if a player from an seaborne civilization suddenly encountered a tribe of Horse Nomads, NO, the player would not be better then them at riding, despite his level. As I mentioned above, this edition puts the controls back into the DMs hands, not the rulesbook, and ANYTHINg that has to do with fluff falls under our (DM's) sway.
On the average, a normal adventurer will have gotten damn good at riding by the time he hits level twenty, or climbing, or swimming, etc... but common sense ALWAYS overules the rulebooks. If he's never seen a horse, then he's going to have problems, no matter what the skills rules say. Thats the kind of thing that is handled in-settting, and I would hope some of the setting books that will be coming out will list such exceptions. If a person has a homebrew world, then it would be up to him to figure out which cultures would have no experience with certain things.
For instance, if Halruaa was still around, I WOULD allow them to gain automatic levels in Knowledge: Arcane (Is that the same as what you called Arcana?), making your example incorrect (in one of my games).
Otherwise, I like what I'm hearing about 4e, although I'm still having trepeditions about being an 'early adopter'. I still resent having to buy the 3e books twice.
I suppose the 'general answer' in 4e is "It is if you want it to be", which is how I've always handled stuff in D&D anyway. In a way, its bad for 'Ruleslawyers' and 'Canonophiles" (Grognards?), because you've pretty much disarmed them in 4e. Thats a good thing, because its "getting back to basics", where the DM makes the rules, and the books are only a set of suggestions.
This is true for most cspaigns, but has to be modified for extended campaigns like LFR. The administrators, and, too a lesser extent, the writers, have freedom to deviate from the books, but the GM at the table doesn't make the rules; he just interprets and administrates the rules determined by the administrators (which are supposed to be close to the books for LFR). There will still be rules lawyering when the GM deviates from the official sources for such a campaign. Simplified rules will be good for such rules lawyers, as it should be clearer what the rules for the campaign actually are.
Campaign administrators should make it clear where they deviate from the books, so that GMs and players know what rules are being used and what leeway exists at the table.
From my limited contacts with rules lawyers, I'd say it didn't really matter what rules were used. Some will always find a way to interpret them in such a way as to utterly undermine the spirit of them, particularly if they're supposed to be straightforward. I suspect you'd need a multiple volume set of books in the hundreds of pounds (weight) range to handle every possible contingency they could come up with and counteract it. And even then, they'd probably sniff out the errors you made pretty quickly... so, save yourself the trouble and just hit them over the head with the DMG when they start to raise their ugly heads... kinda like a whack-a-mole of the D&D set.
Those aren't what I concider rules lawyers. To me, a rules lawyer is a stickler for the letter of the rules, who objects to the breaking of them. What you refer to is more of a rules shyster, trying to misrepresent the rules for personal gain.
*I'm going to duck the questions on spellscars and dragonborn for now, because I don't want to scoop too much too soon.*
, shame. After reading the Swordmage, I want to ask so many questions about Spellscared, Sorcerers, Tieflings, Dragonborn, etc.. Few Questions
1. How did the Spellplague affect the Empire of Shade and Shadow Weave users?
Im sure there is a answer somewhere in previews or its been asked before (I just havent found it yet), so if someone knows, let me know..
2. Are there gonna be lot of Racial Powers/Racial Feats unique to FR 4th Ed, for example Elf feats unique to Star Elves or Avariel.
3. This is more of a question for Regular rules than FR but Are there Paragon Paths that all classes can take, like "Prerequisite: Fighter class or Warlord class". Or is there always only 1 class that can take it without the use of multiclassing.
4. Again more of a Regular rules question, Are there still Half-Dragons or Dragon Disciple paragon/epic path in the game?
5. Now back to FR, What happened to Church of Mystra after the spellplague, and do people know that it was Mystra's death that caused it?
6. Also what can you tell about the new basic class Swordmage that wasnt in your the Swordmage novel? (What Im guessing based on the novel is that they have, spells to increase their saves and armor, they have short range teleport spell (like Dimension Door 3rd Ed), short range teleport person switch spell, self stat increase spells (STR, DEX,), spells to make their weapons do certain type of damage (Holy, Lightning, Fire)).
Those aren't what I concider rules lawyers. To me, a rules lawyer is a stickler for the letter of the rules, who objects to the breaking of them. What you refer to is more of a rules shyster, trying to misrepresent the rules for personal gain.
Given that my best friend is a DA, I tend to have a rather negative view of most lawyers who are in private practice, so... I see little difference between a lawyer and a shyster. Particularly when they twist the letter of the rules as much as possible away from the spirit of them... guess a lot of it depends on ones attitudes towards lawyers in general.
On to other stuff...
Rich,
Forgive me if this has been asked, but its early and I'm not quite awake enough to remember, but are there going to be paragon or epic paths presented in the FR for clerics of specific faiths, or is the move towards the 'useable in any setting' philosophy precluding that sort of thing from an official point of view? I suppose an addendum to that, is if there are going to be an official format DMs can draw upon to create their own paths for stuff like that if the official stuff isn't forthcoming?
Keith
18D:D
In this post, you said that "spellfire might make an appearance" in the 4E Realms. So how're things looking, now? Can we expect to see rules for Spellfire Wielders in the FRPG or FRCG? Thanks.
Easy question;
When does the next countdown to the Realms come out?
18D
If so what are the abilities that a Swordmage will need to be competent? I am looking to play a mercish, swashbuckling wizard and I think the Swormage stuff would fit well for my PC. I just want to know if I should balance out my dex and str or go right with the str.
1. By the Year of the Ageless One, the characters and creatures that would have been using the Shadow Weave in 3e are most likely using the Shadow power source in 4e. For my own part, I'm inclined to view that as an "improvement in our understanding," as opposed to a specific event that transpires. In other words, I think it's easiest to assume Shadow Weave = Shadow power source, and play it as it lies. If that's the case, then their supernatural powers would not have been specifically affected by Mystra's demise (although there certainly would have been plenty of chaos and dangerous wild magic bouncing around to keep them busy).
2. A lot? I wouldn't say a lot. But there will be a small number of feats keyed to specific subraces.
3. Paragon path requirements will vary a bit. The PH paths are tied to specific classes (although you can get around that with multiclassing), but other paths aren't tied so tightly.
4. I haven't seen any yet, but that doesn't mean there won't be.
Thanks Rich, and it would be nice for you to have your own website, but I think Candlekeep will do for now.. :D
*I'm going to duck the questions on spellscars and dragonborn for now, because I don't want to scoop too much too soon.*
Few Questions
1. How did the Spellplague affect the Empire of Shade and Shadow Weave users?
Im sure there is a answer somewhere in previews or its been asked before (I just havent found it yet), so if someone knows, let me know..
2. Are there gonna be lot of Racial Powers/Racial Feats unique to FR 4th Ed, for example Elf feats unique to Star Elves or Avariel.
3. This is more of a question for Regular rules than FR but Are there Paragon Paths that all classes can take, like "Prerequisite: Fighter class or Warlord class". Or is there always only 1 class that can take it without the use of multiclassing.
4. Again more of a Regular rules question, Are there still Half-Dragons or Dragon Disciple paragon/epic path in the game?
5. Now back to FR, What happened to Church of Mystra after the spellplague, and do people know that it was Mystra's death that caused it?
6. Also what can you tell about the new basic class Swordmage that wasnt in your the Swordmage novel? (What Im guessing based on the novel is that they have, spells to increase their saves and armor, they have short range teleport spell (like Dimension Door 3rd Ed), short range teleport person switch spell, self stat increase spells (STR, DEX,), spells to make their weapons do certain type of damage (Holy, Lightning, Fire)).
Rich, I am playing a wizard (dwarf) in my 1st 4e game and will their be a multiclass feat to allow me to dip into Swordmage?
If so what are the abilities that a Swordmage will need to be competent? I am looking to play a mercish, swashbuckling wizard and I think the Swormage stuff would fit well for my PC. I just want to know if I should balance out my dex and str or go right with the str.
There are a couple of the FR specialty priests available as paragon paths (catching Stigger's question now), and those naturally have deity-specific powers. We don't have one for each of the deities in the pantheon, just a few of the more active and popular ones.
Rich, in 4E FR will clerics/paladins of specific deities have powers (prayers) and/or feats uniquely available to that faith?
Keith
Yes, I believe so. Swordmages like Int and Str just fine, so you should be ok.
Cool. Thanks for the info. What are the skills that a swordmage gets?
18D:whatsthis
Hey, Rich. I got a followup question for you.
In this post, you said that "spellfire might make an appearance" in the 4E Realms. So how're things looking, now? Can we expect to see rules for Spellfire Wielders in the FRPG or FRCG? Thanks.
Personally, if I were to do Spellfire in 4e, I would give it to Warlocks and make it an an 'Arcane Pact'. ;)
Just a suggestion, in case the designers haven't thought about it yet - it makes sense when you interpret what Spellfire was (a gift from Mystra) into 4e rules, and the Eldritch blast works well as a Spellfire one.
Not a 100% perfect fit, I'll admit, but a bit more balanced then how it is presented in-story.
So, a Spellfire recipient could be granted it at birth, thus establishing the pact (with the child's yet-unborn spirit?), or could even get it later (the powers manifest themselves at puberty, I think, or some such).
I'm not entirely familiar with Spellfire (I never read any of those novels), but I've read a lot on these boards, and also in sourcebooks, and it does seem a natural fit. In 3e, Mystra would have granted the Boon; in 4e, it could just be a natural extension of the Spellplague (the collapsing Weave), granting powers akin to the Spellscars. Like the Mafia - it's a 'pact' you can't refuse.
-Rich does the novel Swordmage get released today?
18D:whatsthis
Yes indeedy. I stopped by Barnes & Noble over my lunch break and checked, and Swordmage is there!
I picked it up.
I'll read it when I finish the other book I'm working on.But you're probably better off to go to Sigil and find a door leading to the world you want.
So Sigil will be a part of 4E? Any major changes to it? How does it work in the new cosmology? Is it the main way of getting between worlds (if you want to do that sort of thing) or would you use other means?
Yes indeedy. I stopped by Barnes & Noble over my lunch break and checked, and Swordmage is there!
-I looked in the Barnes & Noble by my place, and I couldn't find it, yet. So...I shall keep on looking! I had an Ephipany(sp) a couple of days ago. In Ed Greenwood I TRUST, and in Brian R. James I TRUST. So what that means is I will give the 4E Realms a good HONEST LOOKOVER. If I like it I will buy it. I figure I can play 3.5E and 4E. Its the best of both worlds. So Rich dont let me down with the 4E Realms.;)
18D
So Sigil will be a part of 4E? Any major changes to it? How does it work in the new cosmology? Is it the main way of getting between worlds (if you want to do that sort of thing) or would you use other means?
Im not Mr. Baker, but go to the 4e forum, and look for the gold thread, well to make a long story short, Sigil was listed in it and so was the City of Brass.
so they both still exist, well okay you only asked for one of them, and it was stating what currency was used there
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1000023
can you tell us anymore on the dragonborn Mr. baker ? core or FR wise? anything???
Show
Other projects include editing and writing adaptations of Keep on the Shadowfell and Thunderspire Labyrinth for the Forgotten Realms setting and Eberron setting. Keep on the Shadowfell has extensive support for both settings, and the articles should be released shortly after the adventure hits the stores. Stephen Radley-McFarland wrote the Eberron adaptation and I wrote the Forgotten Realms adaptation. Each of these has the tools for setting Keep on the Shadowfell within the setting and adding the nuanced details that can help bring the adventure to life. For FR, this means getting additional encounters and a vivid backdrop for the story. For Eberron, there are a few Eberron-specific creatures, an intrigue-laden plot, and two additional pre-gen characters. Regardless of whether a DM intends to run an FR or Eberron campaign, I think both adaptations have material to offer. Thunderspire Labyrinth should have similar support.
-I looked in the Barnes & Noble by my place, and I couldn't find it, yet. So...I shall keep on looking! I had an Ephipany(sp) a couple of days ago. In Ed Greenwood I TRUST, and in Brian R. James I TRUST. So what that means is I will give the 4E Realms a good HONEST LOOKOVER. If I like it I will buy it. I figure I can play 3.5E and 4E. Its the best of both worlds. So Rich dont let me down with the 4E Realms.;)
18D
So Sigil will be a part of 4E? Any major changes to it? How does it work in the new cosmology? Is it the main way of getting between worlds (if you want to do that sort of thing) or would you use other means?
I picked it up.
-I just got it too. I think I may start reading it tonight after I finish Realms of War. I got 2 stories left in it.!
I love my job. :D -Well Rich, I got to chapter 15 in Swordmage. WOW!!!
Show
I really like The Warlock Knights The Realms have some mystery again to me. I guess its going to get even better the further I read. Its truly a Brave New World. Instead of its just Thar, now its Thar with some Abeir thrown in it. Lathander is now Aumator(sp). Spellscars scare people. That Tiefling Sorceror is intriguing.
Damn it Rich, I like the New Realms!!!! What you guys did took some brass balls, but I think it was worth it. I think I am going to pre-order the Realms books from Paizo later to day.
18D
Damn it Delta, wait until it comes out and check it out at Borders before buying it. Make sure it is something you will like first! Any preordering online is a blind vote, you cannot judge that you will like the whole on one novel. I have no doubt that it is an excellent novel, but that does not mean that you will like everything else that has been done to the Realms. I am not asking for a boycott, just informed buying.
Damn it Delta, wait until it comes out and check it out at Borders before buying it. Make sure it is something you will like first! Any preordering online is a blind vote, you cannot judge that you will like the whole on one novel. I have no doubt that it is an excellent novel, but that does not mean that you will like everything else that has been done to the Realms. I am not asking for a boycott, just informed buying.
You make a good point about informed buying and I think it applies to all new products not just Forgotten Realms. I never pre-order online (or offline for that matter) - no matter how much I am looking forward to a product, be it a computer game or a book or whatever else.
Well, I for one don't believe there is a real barrier. However, there is a *perception* out there in the core D&D audience that FR is too burdened by uber-NPCs and requires too much world expertise. I think that perception is largely mistaken, but what I think of that perception doesn't really matter -- if some core D&D players aren't buying into Realms because they believe bad things about the setting, then it's a real barrier. It's important to our business strategy to keep that barrier, real or imagined, as low as possible, because the Realms flourish when more people set their D&D games there.
Now, as for your question: It's a good one. Glaciers accumulate at X inches per year, and just because we scrape it down to bare rock this year doesn't mean it won't be 10x inches deep again in 10 years. So, here are a couple of things that I think will help this time around:
- I believe we're slowing down the "RSEs" in novels for a while. We've had a lot of worldshaking events in a short time over the last couple of years, it's time to tell some stories with smaller scope.
- We have new online tools on the way that might help to keep the setting more updated and accessible.
- Speaking very generally, we've been avoiding game source material that focuses on advancing world storyline or NPC stories for a while now. (Big adventures are an exception, of course.) That wasn't always true; much of the late 2e product really was oriented toward telling ongoing stories in the game sourcebooks, for example.
I don't doubt that new RSE's will eventually appear in novels again, but I'm hopeful that a more sedate pace will help to keep those barriers as low as possible as long as possible.
I definitely share this hope, Mr. Baker. Personally, I don't think novels are the best place for RSEs. The novels are a great opportunity to create a window into the lives of normal, everyday Realms inhabitants. The daily struggles of your average adventurer or innkeeper or aristocrat can provide some very compelling and interesting stories. Too many Realms characters have been way at the high end of the power curve, and it really gets old. The most interesting characters are those that are forced to deal with problems and issues that mirror our own. While it might be a thrill to read about the Seven Sisters unleashing their uber power on well-deserving villians, I find it hard to relate to someone that constantly wanders around naked and whose power strikes fear into the hearts of dragons and demons. And even if these "uber" characters only represent a miniscule percentage of Realms inhabitants, their proliferation in novels gives the impression that every other NPC is knocking on the door of epic levels. Maybe it's about time for Realms novels to start wowing us with engrossing character development and immersive storytelling rather than the latest in a long and stale series of epic godswars and worldshaking battles between good and evil with the fate of the Realms hanging in the balance. I think a lot of the reason Drizzt is so popular among readers is because in between spectacular swordfights and amazing feats of dexterity, Drizzt deals with personal issues and problems that resonate with the audience. I'll bet that is a big part of why the Dark Elf Trilogy is widly considered the best of the series. More than any of the other storylines, it focuses on Drizzt's inner struggles and coming to grips with his place in the world. That's something that most of the audience, especially the teen demographic, can really relate to.
Wow that turned into a longer post than I anticipated. I hope somewhere in all that rambling I mage my point.
Are fey'ri 1/4 fiends, created with either a coupling of Half fiend and Elf, or Two Fey'ri. Or, are they in fact Half fiends that for some reason decided to not take the Half fiend template.
To all members of the site, I know you probably know the answer, but this question is meant to solve a debate that a friend won't drop. It has gone on for months now, and I am tired of it. So, since he'll only accept an official ruling, our "Speculation" becomes sadly irrelevant.
Everything points to them being roughly 1/4 fiend, but maybe somehow I'm wrong.
-RW
-I just got it too. I think I may start reading it tonight after I finish Realms of War. I got 2 stories left in it.!
-Well Rich, I got to chapter 15 in Swordmage. WOW!!!ShowI really like The Warlock Knights The Realms have some mystery again to me. I guess its going to get even better the further I read. Its truly a Brave New World. Instead of its just Thar, now its Thar with some Abeir thrown in it. Lathander is now Aumator(sp). Spellscars scare people. That Tiefling Sorceror is intriguing.
To all members of the site, I know you probably know the answer, but this question is meant to solve a debate that a friend won't drop. It has gone on for months now, and I am tired of it. So, since he'll only accept an official ruling, our "Speculation" becomes sadly irrelevant.
Everything points to them being roughly 1/4 fiend, but maybe somehow I'm wrong.
-RW
:: Bites tongue in restraint...Multiple times ::
!!
:P
-RW
I'll listen to your opinion Karsus, it's just he won't. :P
-RW
-You let him know who I am, and give him a mouthful for me.
That's not THE Forgotten Realms. WotC destroyed that. It's now the Spellplague Realms or the Sundered Realms.
Sorry, Rich, but I am still appalled at what you guys did and the fact that there's only going to be 3 books for a setting and its done until 5th Edition. It sure would be nice if you guys licenses it back to Ed or Paizo so they can deal with the Realms the way it should be handled, and under Pathfinder RPG, too, which is superior to 4E in many ways.
It's not Forgotten Realms, people, it's just plain Forgotten.
It still is the Forgotten Realms. Everything that happened before the Spellplague is still part of its history. There have been changes, but they have been explained within the setting. Some don't like the changes within the setting, but it is still the same setting, a hundred years and world-changing events later.
I look forward to the changes, and how the old lore will mesh with the new magic and altered geography and society.
-I just got it too. I think I may start reading it tonight after I finish Realms of War. I got 2 stories left in it.!
-Well Rich, I got to chapter 15 in Swordmage. WOW!!!ShowI really like The Warlock Knights The Realms have some mystery again to me. I guess its going to get even better the further I read. Its truly a Brave New World. Instead of its just Thar, now its Thar with some Abeir thrown in it. Lathander is now Aumator(sp). Spellscars scare people. That Tiefling Sorceror is intriguing.
-Then treat yourself early then.:D Go on its your birthday.(Well next week that is)
18D;)
-Then treat yourself early then.:D Go on its your birthday.(Well next week that is)
18D;)
I would, but moneys tight at the moment... That's why I hinted/told me Mother, Father, and Sister I wanted Swordmage for my birthday. I figure between the three of 'em, I should get what I want. Already got NwN2:MotB outta my girlfriend... Now to get my computer up in running, 'cause there's no way in seven Hells this Laptop will be able to handle it. :P
It still is the Forgotten Realms.
I look forward to the changes, and how the old lore will mesh with the new magic and altered geography and society.
The old lore will be practically worthless; virtually all characters will be dead, all current plot-lines and ongoing Realms events are severed without resolution (and made pointless by an imminent Realms apocalypse-way to severely damage any enjoyment I might still have received from my $1500 worth of realmslore, guys!), and most nations/cultures/cities are either destroyed or made unrecognizable by accumulated effects of the spellplague and the time-jump.
Fourth Edition is to twenty-five years of previously relevant and entertaining realmslore as Alien III was to Alien II or Highlander II was to Highlander; it actually lessons the entertainment value of its predecessors.
The old lore will be practically worthless; virtually all characters will be dead, all current plot-lines and ongoing Realms events are severed without resolution (and made pointless by an imminent Realms apocalypse-way to severely damage any enjoyment I might still have received from my $1500 worth of realmslore, guys!), and most nations/cultures/cities are either destroyed or made unrecognizable by accumulated effects of the spellplague and the time-jump.
Fourth Edition is to twenty-five years of previously relevant and entertaining realmslore as Alien III was to Alien II or Highlander II was to Highlander; it actually lessons the entertainment value of its predecessors.
As long as Hoar is still around, and isn't evil (What? :P), I don't really care. I'm the Player, not the DM. Sure, it sucks, but it could always suck more.
The old lore will be practically worthless; virtually all characters will be dead, all current plot-lines and ongoing Realms events are severed without resolution (and made pointless by an imminent Realms apocalypse-way to severely damage any enjoyment I might still have received from my $1500 worth of realmslore, guys!), and most nations/cultures/cities are either destroyed or made unrecognizable by accumulated effects of the spellplague and the time-jump.
Lore is history, not curent events. Yes, most characters and plotlines from before the spellplague will be over a hundred years later, which would be true in any setting with the passage of a hundred years. But the Forgotten Realms is gaining lore, not losing it. The setting has evolved, with added added lore from Abier and from the passage of a century, during which the world addapted to the changes broight on by the spellplague.
In a home campaign, you don't need to adopt the changes and can continue in the old version of FR, with 3.5 rules, 2e, or whatever you wish, or do your own adaptation to 4e rules. But, if you want to stick with canon, you will follow the new books.
There are members of longlived races who will still be arround if you want them, and there are time portals that can allow you to bring others forward. There need be no clean break between the old FR and the new.
Fourth Edition is to twenty-five years of previously relevant and entertaining realmslore as Alien III was to Alien II or Highlander II was to Highlander; it actually lessons the entertainment value of its predecessors.
The predicessors' entertainment value was relevant when they were curent. You view them later with nostalgia. It is hard to maintain any setting unchanged with the passage of time - the DC and Marval Comics superhero universes have undergone changes over the decades, and still seem contrived when changes haven't kept up with the times (Peter Parker was a teen 50 years ago, Robin was Batman's sidekick over 60 years ago, Clark Kent became a reporter for the Daily Planet over 70 years ago. DC has switched universes and timelines to keep characters curent).
I've played D&D in versions of the World of Greyhawk for over 25 years, and that setting had to change - the characters and politics of a quarter century ago grow stale, no matter how enjoyable they were in the day. It can still be fun to play an old adventure with the old rules, but campaigns have to evolve or be replaced. I've played in the Forgotten Realms for nearly 20 years, and am glad they haven't remained static, with the same characters and story arcs as then. I look forward to a large jump in time and significant changes, with ties to the past, most old conflicts relegated to history.
Rich,
How entrenched are the Far Realms, Cthulu-like, Lovecraftianesque garbage that I despise so seethingly much going to be in the 4e Realms? I ask this because, in case it wasn't apparent, I can't abide that sort of stuff and want to know how easily its going to be ignored or reworked by those of us at home. I suppose for a good guage, I found the stuff that showed up in Eberron to be far too much for my liking, which is why I never really got into the setting. Sure its easy to ignore, but its domination of great swaths (slight exhaggeration, but the large presence of it in Magic of Eberron just turned my stomach with those symbiont thingies, or whatever they were called) of land irked me so much I could never get into it... so, yeah. How screwed am I, and others who hate that stuff, going to be is what I'm essentially getting at...
But If I could ignore it and it just bugged you then I am not sure what to say.
I will mention that I had no taste for the EB setting for at first until I had to play in it or not roleplay at all. Now it is equal in FR to me in regards of settings I wish to run games in.
Oi. I figure if you couldn't ignore the Chuthulu aspects in EB then it might be tough in FR as well.
If I wanted to play something like that I would play Call of Chtulhu.
Anyway my point was I can run an EB game and use the Chuthulu elements or I can ignore them and it all seems pretty seamless to me. That is how the world is made. I think/hope that the new FR is made like that. We shall see.
With Dweomerheart and Mystra destroyed in 4E, what happened to all the human/other souls of the dead (petitioners of Mystra, Azuth, Savras, etc) that made their way there? Were they also destroyed along with the plane, or scattered into the Astral with Azuth and crew? I'm curious, just in case one of my PC players tries a "contact the dead" kind of ritual or would maybe even try to raise someone who died and went to Dwoemerheart prior to the Spellplague.
Apologies if this has been asked before, but 129 pages is a lot to go through.
I think, ideally, that everything we might want to include is stuck in there on some level, just not too deeply so that its easily removed should it not appeal. 4e Realms seems to be sorta moving in that direction for all the settings, hopefully with a guide that gives us some hints on how to work it all in how we want it, but I'll admit that Mr. Cordell's involvement with the new Realms is making me very nervous, considering his seeming love of most of the stuff I hate.
Q: Why introduce such a massive change that was done with the Maztica are for example if this is not going to be covered in further RPG products. It won't be getting very much coverage in the campaign setting from the sounds of things. So, just wondering why massive change is put in and not followed up on in an area that won't really be covered. Why not just leave it as is and not really talk about it like you did in 3E?
Also, thanks for everything.
The old lore will be practically worthless; virtually all characters will be dead, all current plot-lines and ongoing Realms events are severed without resolution (and made pointless by an imminent Realms apocalypse-way to severely damage any enjoyment I might still have received from my $1500 worth of realmslore, guys!)...
You can choose to just continue using the original Realms, without introducing the Spellplague and other elements you dislike.
The setting has evolved, with added added lore from Abier and from the passage of a century, during which the world addapted to the changes broight on by the spellplague.
I disagree with your use of the word "evolve". Evolution implies gradual change. No matter how you slice it, the Spellplague was the catalyst for sudden, drastic change, not gradual change.
I disagree with your use of the word "evolve". Evolution implies gradual change. No matter how you slice it, the Spellplague was the catalyst for sudden, drastic change, not gradual change.
Oddly enough, the term "Evolve or Die" springs to mind...
Oddly enough, the term "Evolve or Die" springs to mind...
-That also comes with connotation of the passage of quite some time.
I disagree with your use of the word "evolve". Evolution implies gradual change. No matter how you slice it, the Spellplague was the catalyst for sudden, drastic change, not gradual change.
Evolution is any growth of one thing out of another, even if sudden and drastic. Conception and birth are sudden and drastic. The spellplague was an aspect of the changes brought about by the death of the godess of magic, but the death of anything significant introduces a sudden source for change leading to gradual adaptation. FR has gradually changed over a hundred years to adapt to the change to arcane magic and the swapping of the parts of two worlds. There has been evolution and growing lore.
Wars, natural disasters, new diseases, new ideas, etc, are sudden, but part of evolution. Sudden changes occur repeatedly in natural evolution. And, although the changes have been significant, many more of the aspects of the FR setting remain the same than have changed. Most species have changed little, most geography is as it was, history remains, curent societies grew out of old ones, family lines remain, etc.
In LFR, I intend to have at least one PC with strong ties to one of my LC PCs, linking the campaigns for me, even with the changes to the rules and the setting. To my characters, the setting will merely have evolved, though I may also have one or more PCs evolved from Abier roots.
It is my conviction the more has been added to the setting than has been lost. And I, for one, like constructive change, even if it requires some destruction of old staples.
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
-Not that it matters much...
-I actually have my dictionary (American Heritage) in front of me, as I was writing a term paper, so...
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
-Not that it matters much...
As you say. it doesn't matter much. My Webster's lists 7 meanings, and "gradual" doesn't appear in any of them. The first is "the act of unfolding or unrolling; a process of development, formation, or growth." Number 6. (not too relevant here) is "a setting free; giving off; emission or discharging", which doesn't seem vert gradual to me.
In any case, a precise definition of the word doesn't matter. The new FR has most of its roots in the old FR, some in Abier, some in the spellplague itself. Some things have ended, but that is a normal aspect of the passage of time.
I'm more interested in what has been added to FR than what hs gone, but don't expect answers before they are officially released. I would like to hear about Abier, mainly the parts swapped to Toril, but also the rest of that world and whether in active links remain.
Wars, natural disasters, new diseases, new ideas, etc, are sudden, but part of evolution. Sudden changes occur repeatedly in natural evolution.
A quibble, a non-FR quibble, but hopefully a somewhat useful one. The concept of "sudden changes" in what you're referring to as "natural evolution" are by no means sudden on a human scale.
The theory, called punctuated equilibrium, first popularized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, does propose that evolutionary changes occurred relatively suddenly within species during geologic time. However, when they say "sudden" they don't mean 100 years. They're taking thousands upon tens of thousands of years.
To quote from the Wikipedia article: "Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next."
The point being that sudden changes do not take place in natural evolution, at least according to the best that science has been able to determine so far.
Evolution is any growth of one thing out of another, even if sudden and drastic. Conception and birth are sudden and drastic.
Conception and birth are not evolution.
And the dictionary I looked at disagrees with you.
It is my conviction the more has been added to the setting than has been lost. And I, for one, like constructive change, even if it requires some destruction of old staples.
That's fine, but it doesn't mean "evolve" is an apt word to use in this case. I'm tired of people using the words "evolve" and "evolution" in this context.
Mutate would be the right word.
Correct.
Of course, if you don't believe in evolution (which I don't), then the point is moot anyways, because you would find the change to the Realms unnatural in every way. Anyways, this is off topic, so if tombollis and SmartPaladin would stop trying to use the "Ask" thread to preach their mistaken love of the change wreaked upon the Realms, there are plenty other threads for that.Short answer: There are a few spots on the map where Horrible Things From Beyond are central plot elements. There are many other places where they aren't. You can avoid the areas you wouldn't like pretty easily, IMO.
That said, there are some game elements present throughout the world (mind flayers, grells, aboleths, beholders, the Far Realms, etc.) that are pretty Cthulhu-esque any way you slice it. They're not any *more* prevalent than before, other than a few of the "trouble spots" I hinted at in the preceding paragraph. But if you go poking around in the deep Northdark, you shouldn't be surprised to run into an aboleth city or a mind flayer city. Those have been around in the deep Underdark for a couple of editions now.
Don't recall anyone asking this one so far...
Rich,
How entrenched are the Far Realms, Cthulu-like, Lovecraftianesque garbage that I despise so seethingly much going to be in the 4e Realms? I ask this because, in case it wasn't apparent, I can't abide that sort of stuff and want to know how easily its going to be ignored or reworked by those of us at home.
Question for 4/E designer (Rich, Brian, anyone):
With Dweomerheart and Mystra destroyed in 4E, what happened to all the human/other souls of the dead (petitioners of Mystra, Azuth, Savras, etc) that made their way there? Were they also destroyed along with the plane, or scattered into the Astral with Azuth and crew? I'm curious, just in case one of my PC players tries a "contact the dead" kind of ritual or would maybe even try to raise someone who died and went to Dwoemerheart prior to the Spellplague.
Apologies if this has been asked before, but 129 pages is a lot to go through.
First time on this thread, so I hope this hasn't been asked before. If it has, then feel free to ignore it or point out the answer.
Q: Why introduce such a massive change that was done with the Maztica are for example if this is not going to be covered in further RPG products. It won't be getting very much coverage in the campaign setting from the sounds of things. So, just wondering why massive change is put in and not followed up on in an area that won't really be covered. Why not just leave it as is and not really talk about it like you did in 3E?
Also, thanks for everything.
A quibble, a non-FR quibble, but hopefully a somewhat useful one. The concept of "sudden changes" in what you're referring to as "natural evolution" are by no means sudden on a human scale.
The theory, called punctuated equilibrium, first popularized by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, does propose that evolutionary changes occurred relatively suddenly within species during geologic time. However, when they say "sudden" they don't mean 100 years. They're taking thousands upon tens of thousands of years.
To quote from the Wikipedia article: "Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next."
The point being that sudden changes do not take place in natural evolution, at least according to the best that science has been able to determine so far.
Some changes do have sudden instigation, in human terms, such as the meteor impact the lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs and dominance of mammals. Single events can have far reaching impact. Some of the effects resolve in a few years, some take millennia. The results of the spellplague aren't finished resolving a century later, and may not be as drastic to life on Toril as that meteor impact was to life on Earth.
Biological evolution is the result of ongoing minor mutations, each of which is sudden, which may, over generations, spread through an ecosystem. Catastrophic events are also a part of the evolutionary process, changing aspects of the environment so that different characteristics are optimal for survival, characteristics that may already have been present but not dominant in the exosystem - small burrowing mammals already existed before the meteor impact, but were given the chance to fill more niches afterwards.
The end of the Weave uncovered other arcane magic principles, to which magic using creatures have begun to adapt.. Some wild areas are still in physical and magical turmoil, with life trying to adapt, with no sign that they will stablize in the foreseeable future. Existing societies are adapting to changes in terrain (fallen water levels, large tracts of swapped land), creatures transported from Abier, etc., but most species are pretty much as they were, the biggest changes with those strongly linked to magic.
Worlds react quickly to catastrophes. Life on the island was wiped out when Kracatoa errupted, but new plants, insects, birds, mammals, etc. came in on the winds and waves within a human generation to revitalize it. LIfe in the modified lands of Faerun has moved about to fill niches and begin recovery from the spellplague, adapting to the new conditions. Societies adapt quickly to new conditions, with changes to the status quo, but rooted in the past.
Conception and birth are not evolution.
They are part of the evolutionary processes.
And the dictionary I looked at disagrees with you.
That's fine, but it doesn't mean "evolve" is an apt word to use in this case. I'm tired of people using the words "evolve" and "evolution" in this context.
I use the word as defined in my dictionary. It doesn't matter how you feel about the use of the word, or what your dictionary says - it isn't the final arbiter of what is correct.
That said, there are some game elements present throughout the world (mind flayers, grells, aboleths, beholders, the Far Realms, etc.) that are pretty Cthulhu-esque any way you slice it. They're not any *more* prevalent than before, other than a few of the "trouble spots" I hinted at in the preceding paragraph. But if you go poking around in the deep Northdark, you shouldn't be surprised to run into an aboleth city or a mind flayer city. Those have been around in the deep Underdark for a couple of editions now.
Not much that wasn't there before then... I can live that if its pretty much at the same levels as before then. Presumably I can modify old lore on the surface places (I don't run much in the Underdark for some odd reason) they are showing up and easily delete them then should I choose to invest in 4e Realms. Though really, with only two books coming out (don't buy adventure modules full stop), I don't really see a reason not to, as the investment is fairly small compared to what I invested in previous editions, unless its really crap. Which I'm hoping is not the case... not the same Realms, but I'm willing to give it an honest try to see if it appeals anyway. Thanks for the answer.
Going to Gencon this year?
As specifically regards Maztica, I think that it was a sub-setting that seriously tied the hands of most DMs. The vast majority of FR DMs looked at that continent on the map and said, "But I don't WANT to run a Mesoamerican-themed game," so that piece of landscape was simply unusable. What's there now is much closer to the high fantasy tone and content of the rest of the Realms. It's a little darker and wilder than Faerun, but I think it's still part of the same genre.
There were plenty of other land masses usable for those people though. Theres many unnamed and unused land masses all over the world map. Why not use one of those? Why the blatant 'screw you' to the people who DID like Maztica? What about the people who dont like the new stuff in its place? Its 'simply unusable' to them now too. This is an answer that makes no sense at all to me.
I use the word as defined in my dictionary. It doesn't matter how you feel about the use of the word, or what your dictionary says - it isn't the final arbiter of what is correct.
I guess you're trying to imply that yours is? Whatever.
And this is a public forum--I will express my opinion, whether you like it or not, whether you think it matters or not.
I guess you're trying to imply that yours is? Whatever.
And this is a public forum--I will express my opinion, whether you like it or not, whether you think it matters or not.
No. I was implying that people have the right to use the words they feel apply, regardless of others' opinions (including mine). I didn't say you had no right to express your opinion; I objected to objection to how I expressed mine.
And I only expressed my opinions here that I support what I know of the changes to FR because I thought they were relevant to what others have posted here against the changes. If people weren't posting that LR has been ruined by the changes, I wouldn't have posted anything on the subject.
No. I was implying that people have the right to use the words they feel apply, regardless of others' opinions (including mine). I didn't say you had no right to express your opinion; I objected to objection to how I expressed mine.
Fair enough. I still disagree, but I'm sorry I made a big deal about it.
And I only expressed my opinions here that I support what I know of the changes to FR because I thought they were relevant to what others have posted here against the changes. If people weren't posting that LR has been ruined by the changes, I wouldn't have posted anything on the subject.
Understood, but just so you know I've never posted anything about the Living Realms (I assume that's what you mean by "LR"), a subject I know almost nothing about.
Why not use one of those? Why the blatant 'screw you' to the people who DID like Maztica? What about the people who dont like the new stuff in its place? Its 'simply unusable' to them now too. This is an answer that makes no sense at all to me.
Welcome to 4E Realms
Thanks for the answers Rich, although I still think Maztica was fixable - you guys just didn't want to put the effort in.
That said, there is another motive at work: One of the things people tell us is "wrong" with the Realms is the intrusion of too-close historical analogues. As far as we can tell, next to no one is actually playing in or using Maztica as is. Deliberately removing something like Maztica is a way to show that we've registered those complaints and are acting on them--especially if we have a mechanism that could manage it, heavy-handed as it might be.
There were plenty of other land masses usable for those people though. Theres many unnamed and unused land masses all over the world map. Why not use one of those? Why the blatant 'screw you' to the people who DID like Maztica? What about the people who dont like the new stuff in its place? Its 'simply unusable' to them now too. This is an answer that makes no sense at all to me.
Rich, Is Ed the one who is detailing the area where Maztica used to be?
Is he or anyone else developing those other unused areas?
Deliberately removing something like Maztica is a way to show that we've registered those complaints and are acting on them--especially if we have a mechanism that could manage it, heavy-handed as it might be.
Fair enough - I see a lot of "Damned if we do, damned if we don't" hanging over you guys heads here. I would have preferred keeping Maztica, by having something change it to become far less derivitive - you had a whole century, and the century after Cortes changed Meso-America forever. It still could have been Maztica - it was practically a blank slate for the designers to fill in. Oh well... opportunities lost, as they say.
QUESTION:
Non-Realmsian, and pretty much non-4e, so I don't know if you will even know the answer Rich, so maybe someone else can jump in here for a change and answer some stuff.
Will the DDi have a place where we can have our own site/web pages? I remember something being said to that effect after last year's Gencon, and it was the thing I have looked forward to the most. I've been wanting to have my own D&D site for awhile, but there are so many currently out there, I think it would just get lost in the shuffle. I think if you guys gave free web-hosting with DDi members, it would go a long way in consolidating a lot of the fan-based material being developed for D20 right here at WotC/Hasbro. What better way for you guys to retain some control of things, then to have it under your own roof?
Anyhow, if you guys did do the web-hosting thing, then I woul definately be onboard for the DDi - otherwise, I'm going to wait and see if it has anything to offer that I would want (I don't plan on using the game table, and the 4e FR material is irrelevant to me).
True, although the area occupied by Maztica is the most accessible of the non-Faerunian landmasses, and occupies a spot that most Americans would naturally suspect must hold something relevant to Faerun.
That said, there is another motive at work: One of the things people tell us is "wrong" with the Realms is the intrusion of too-close historical analogues. As far as we can tell, next to no one is actually playing in or using Maztica as is. Deliberately removing something like Maztica is a way to show that we've registered those complaints and are acting on them--especially if we have a mechanism that could manage it, heavy-handed as it might be.
Well, I can understand that. My group has always enjoyed the continent, but then again were all anthro students with an emphasis on Mesoamerica. I guess I can accept that were probably in the minority.
Of all the things I havent been a fan of in the new Realms this one I took kind of personally. Probably because all of us in my group have put so much effort into making it less real world while retaining the flavor. I wish the designers would have tried that or maybe with all the physical changes going on in the world just pushed it further away so a new landmass with what you wanted could be closer to the Realms proper without losing it.
And as you pointed out, with your group, and a short-lived Maztcan Re-dux thread we had, it was easily fixable, because so much was left empty... and quite a few 'plot hooks' were sprinkled into the lore to build upon (the ancients, the Maztican Drow, the 'evil' Elves from the north, etc, etc...)
Lots of perfectly good lore 'flushed out' with the bad, unfortunatley.
As much as I would have preferred for them to CHANGE Maztica, rather then replace it, I understood Rich's point.
Can we PLEASE keep all the back-and-forth chit-chat elsewhere? Its sets my blood a' boilin'... by both sides.
Plenty of other places for us to complain here, and I don't want Rich to miss any questions.
Rich, Is Ed the one who is detailing the area where Maztica used to be?
Is he or anyone else developing those other unused areas?
will Dragonmere now be a lake? Saerloon?
also with the 50 ft. drop, top of the Sharksbane Wall would be on the surface level, right?
personally I'm glad they've removed Maztica, done that with Zakhara (kept parts like the philosophy), parts of Kara-Tur, Calimshan, Unther, Mulhorand ...
QUESTION:
Non-Realmsian, and pretty much non-4e, so I don't know if you will even know the answer Rich, so maybe someone else can jump in here for a change and answer some stuff.
Will the DDi have a place where we can hvae our own site/web pages? I remember something being said to that effect after last year's Gencon, and it was the thing I have looked forward to the most. I've been wanting to have my own D&D site for awhile, but there are so many currently out there, I think it would just get lost in the shuffle. I think if you guys gave free web-hosting with DDi members, it would go a long way in consolidating a lot of the fan-based material being developed for D20 right here at WotC/Hasbro. What better way for you guys to retain some control of things, then to have it under your own roof?
Anyhow, if you guys did do the web-hosting thing, then I woul definately be onboard for the DDi - otherwise, I'm going to wait and see if it has anything to offer that I would want (I don't plan on using the game table, and the 4e FR material is irrelevant to me).
Although I'm sorry to hear that Anchorome got scrapped, I'm glad there is still some talk floating around about DM homepages. I've decided to go homebrew with the 4e rules, and I think that sites like that can really help the DMs out there and the community as a whole.
That said, there is another motive at work: One of the things people tell us is "wrong" with the Realms is the intrusion of too-close historical analogues. As far as we can tell, next to no one is actually playing in or using Maztica as is. Deliberately removing something like Maztica is a way to show that we've registered those complaints and are acting on them--especially if we have a mechanism that could manage it, heavy-handed as it might be.
I have to admit that although I wasn't to keen on the method used to axe Maztica, after a little digesting I personally think it was the right thing to do.
Even with 100 years of development, Maztica will always seem to be that boring looking Mesopotamian continent to me. I doubt I’d find any “natural” development of the continent enough to snag my interest purely because of that bias. On the other hand, a truly blank slate for the designers and DM’s to work with seems much more intriguing. I’m aware that we had a virtually blank slate with Maztica, but it came with an underlying flavor that just didn’t appeal to me.
In other news:
Rich, how much treatment of the Unapproachable East are we likely to see given the limited amount of support the setting will have compared to previous editions? Rashamen is a favorite nation of mine, and with all the significant changes in Thay I’m left wondering what has been going on just a little further north. Plus, Boo is cool.
Even with 100 years of development, Maztica will always seem to be that boring looking Mesopotamian continent to me.
-Maztica was Mesoamerican in culture/flavor, not Mesopotamian.
I enjoyed reading Swordmage. I like your sense of intrigue. I am curious to see which unresolved bad guys are developed in the next book.
I do have a 4E Realms question. I noticed the Swordmage learned from a bladesinger. Was the bladesinger inclusion an artifact of just an old NPC bladesinger, or something gamers might look forward to? If you can say.
Keith
-Maztica was Mesoamerican in culture/flavor, not Mesopotamian.
Which is what happens when I don't check my spellchecker suggestions.... :embarrass
Which is what happens when I don't check my spellchecker suggestions.... :embarrass
-Half of the time, I tell Spellcheck (especially Grammarcheck!) to shut up, as it has no clue. MS Word, anyway. ;)
Understood, but just so you know I've never posted anything about the Living Realms (I assume that's what you mean by "LR"), a subject I know almost nothing about.
Typo - I meant to type FR.
You can choose to just continue using the original Realms, without introducing the Spellplague and other elements you dislike.
1.) It might not be rational, but knowing that the "official" future (and soon to be present) Realms have been FUBAR simply takes away a significant portion of my personal enjoyment of the present setting, much like I no longer enjoy Aliens as much as I did before watching Alien III-it becomes less exciting/interesting and more depressing. Simply trying to ignore information that I already know introduces cognitive dissonance, which takes me out of the story. The more information I have to ignore, the higher the level of cognitive dissonance I have to deal with, and the less enjoyment I can derive from the experience. The end result is that the utility of my previous investments in Realms products has been cut roughly in half.
2.) More importantly, even if I eventually get over this disconnect, I'm left with only the "creation" aspect of a "living world" because no new information will be relevant to me. "Creation" is fun, but "exploration" (through novels and source-books) actually has a higher utility ratio because of its low costs in terms of effort. "Exploring" the Realms is no longer as much of an option, severely limiting the amount of entertainment available to me.
1.) It might not be rational, but knowing that the "official" future (and soon to be present) Realms have been FUBAR simply takes away a significant portion of my personal enjoyment of the present setting, much like I no longer enjoy Aliens as much as I did before watching Alien III-it becomes less exciting/interesting and more depressing.
Understood. To each, their own.
True, although the area occupied by Maztica is the most accessible of the non-Faerunian landmasses, and occupies a spot that most Americans would naturally suspect must hold something relevant to Faerun.
That said, there is another motive at work: One of the things people tell us is "wrong" with the Realms is the intrusion of too-close historical analogues. As far as we can tell, next to no one is actually playing in or using Maztica as is. Deliberately removing something like Maztica is a way to show that we've registered those complaints and are acting on them--especially if we have a mechanism that could manage it, heavy-handed as it might be.
The problems that people have, Rich, ALL, without exception, have to do with the cosmic level heavy handedness.
Doing things with a scalpel instead of a bludgeon is the way of the Forgotten Realms. Cosmic events (Return of Shade, Time of Troubles, Spellplague), it's these things that make longtime fans angry, and refuse to try the new Realms.
It's not the means by which you get there. It's the journey. And in this case, the journey sucks so badly that it really doesn't matter.
They've changed the core history so much that even basic creatures like Galeb Duhr don't function anymore. Once elemental earth creatures, they're now transformed dwarves.
Overall, it's the forced flavor changes and the heavy handedness that bother us, and make us unwilling to do this.
The thing about the Forgotten Realms brand was that it was like Coca Cola. It tasted the same to everyone, but what people thought about that taste was different.
If you change the taste, you lose your customers. And that's what's happening here.
A hundred year advance kills my carefully crafted game with thirteen different adventuring groups in it. All the elves will still be alive, and the few humans who've acquired Tasmia's Heart, but my players don't intend to let the Shades make it to 1385, so I can't very well spend the money for your new FR sourcebooks.
Although it seems cruel to rephrase George W. Bush Sr:
Read My Lips! No New Cosmic Stuff!
Finish that campaign in 3.5 then. No worries there, Then start a new one in 4E. Not really a big deal there. Or use the 4E mechanics, convert characters over, but don't use the new fluff yet.
The 4E rules don't have to be used at all.
On the other hand, if you really like the new rules (and I do like what I've heard so far), then you might as well use a new world as well. If you like the New Realms, then use it, if not, use some other 4e world, or make your own.
As much as I love the Forgotten Realms, they are pretty much dead to me now, so there really is no reason to go through all that effort converting it when I can just make up my own world with almost the same amount of work.
Of course, my new world will be VERY similar to the old Realms, but now I get to do all those major changes that I thought woud 'improve' the setting. Mind you, what I think needed changing isn't the same as what others think, and thats why I don't think ANY change to the old Realms would have been welcomed, no matter how good.
No two people will ever agree on anything, so sometimes its better to just 'let go' and move on. With a new rules set, we have a golden opportuity to 'get creative' - being a D&Der from way back, I can tell you that creating your own material is where the DM gets HIS fun. He doesn't get to play in the game (usually), so he has to to be satisfied with coming up with amazing things for his group to encounter. As much as I loved the Realms, it was a wee bit hand-tieing at times, and I don't really think this re-make will remove that.
These forums will be gone soon as well, and replaced with a universal FR forum (filled with 4e fans), so now is the time to start thinking about what YOU would really like to see in YOUR games... not rely on some unsatisfying sourcebooks to supplement your own awesome imagination.
So, bid fairwell to "an old friend", and let your muse run wild... I know I will.
Sorry, no question this time, just some 'Sage Advice' from someone who's been through this before. I'll always have fond memories of my Greyhawk games, and now I have my FR ones as well.
Personally, while I know it was said that the mechanics won't be easy (if possible, don't recall the exact quote) to translate, I suspect they will be fairly easy to translate, and that the problem was more with wanting all of the settings mechanics to be translatable and interchangeable with one another.
As far as explaining the other differences, you really needn't. The 'martial source' was always there - it was just called other things (Chi, Ki, testicular fortitude, physical training, etc...). I was going to set the world a mere ten years ahead, which keeps most of the NPCs and storylines intact, and give us a VERY fun period to play in - like the new Azoun coming of age, or a three-way war for the throne in Tethyr when those triplets get old enough. I see 1386 DR as pretty interesting time to play in, with mages having learn the 'new magic'. I think they really dropped the ball not using that, but oh well, it certainly wasn't my call.
However, I no longer have the will to move forward with that plan, because it seems rather fruitless. Sure, a lot of people will stick with the Old Realms... but the fact is we now know they are doomed. It seems pointless to me to still think that my PCs will be making a difference, when I know outside of my little private cosmos that they are dead... along with everyone else. WE can ignore that, like so many people say, but it's like an ebil, dark cloud hanging over our heads now.
So, move forward I say. The Realms were great, and I'll always remember them with a certain fondness, but they are gone now. Show me a 4th edition logo for them and I might think there is still hope, but two sourcebooks and an adventure are NOT the Realms... sorry.
Besides, I met a lot of creative people here at this site, and I think all of you can come up with your own great worlds to play in. In fact, you don't even need to start out with an entire planet - just a few 'points of light', and you can fill in the rest as you go.
Thats what Ed did.
However, I no longer have the will to move forward with that plan, because it seems rather fruitless. Sure, a lot of people will stick with the Old Realms... but the fact is we now know they are doomed. It seems pointless to me to still think that my PCs will be making a difference, when I know outside of my little private cosmos that they are dead... along with everyone else. WE can ignore that, like so many people say, but it's like an ebil, dark cloud hanging over our heads now.
Your campaign is only doomed because you "no longer have the will to move forward". The PCs never had any likelyhood of affecting the setting outside of your campaign; they can be just as alive and significant once 4e FR is out as ever. Nothing is hanging over their heads that you don't put there.
Bring them into 4e and the new FR ot not. They will be just as alive as they ever were.
What do I mean by this?
Well, a long time ago, there was a comic book story called "Crisis on Infinite Earths."
Apparently, everyone thought this was a great story, and a great idea.
Unfortunately, what no one understood about Crisis on Infinite Earths was that it was only meant to happen ONCE.
So every time the D+D edition changes, I just sigh and watch another cosmic crisis that doesn't really fix anything roll through. It's bad marketing, and I don't like the idea of "Well, the rules are changing, so we need a cosmic level crisis to fix everything."
Try this the next time the edition changes.
Don't do a thing. That's right. Not a blessed thing. Just say "These are the new rules, eat it and weep."
We'll be mad, but not nearly as mad as when inexplicable cosmic events that player characters can't affect shatter everything in every D+D campaign out there for those of us who are lorecentric.
By itself, 100 year time jump, not necessarily bad.
With "Yet another cosmic crisis," you might as well have proved to those of us who love the Forgotten Realms that you don't understand that the power of the realms is not in it's power players. The power of the realms is in it's farmers, it's sheepherders, it's shipwrights, and it's LOCALITY. Changing the nature of the locality makes people mad, especially when you make colossal land swapouts like some sort of cosmic real estate agent.
I feel like I'm standing on a soapbox, and all the soap is gone, because the truth is that when Wizards does things like this, I feel like they dumped me and my players in the dirt. And there's not enough soap for everyone.
By itself, 100 year time jump, not necessarily bad.
-Personally, I think that's the worst part. That's factoring in what is being done to Elves, Spellplague, 'Abeir', and the "Divine Shake-Up".
Your campaign is only doomed because you "no longer have the will to move forward". The PCs never had any likelyhood of affecting the setting outside of your campaign; they can be just as alive and significant once 4e FR is out as ever. Nothing is hanging over their heads that you don't put there.
Bring them into 4e and the new FR ot not. They will be just as alive as they ever were.
I request the you please stop insisting that the 4e Realms are the same thing, basically unchanged from the previous editions of the setting. It is quite different, and the designers have been pretty open about setting out to make it quite different. Also, I would appreciate it if you stopped looking down on us who do not have any intention of playing in the 4e Realms (with statements like "Your campaign is only doomed because you 'no longer have the will to move forward'.[sic]") because we do not like the changes that make it quite different from the previous editions of the setting. And finally, I wish that you would stop preaching the "good news" of the 4e Realms every time someone mentions that they do not like the 4e Realms, and allow this thread to be used for its purpose: the asking and answering of questions about the Realms.
Thank you kindly,
Hawkins
I request the you please stop insisting that the 4e Realms are the same thing, basically unchanged from the previous editions of the setting. It is quite different, and the designers have been pretty open about setting out to make it quite different. Also, I would appreciate it if you stopped looking down on us who do not have any intention of playing in the 4e Realms (with statements like "Your campaign is only doomed because you 'no longer have the will to move forward'.[sic]") because we do not like the changes that make it quite different from the previous editions of the setting. And finally, I wish that you would stop preaching the "good news" of the 4e Realms every time someone mentions that they do not like the 4e Realms, and allow this thread to be used for its purpose: the asking and answering of questions about the Realms.
Thank you kindly,
Hawkins
And I request that people quit posting to this forum that the Realms are doomed. The 4e rules changes are major, but the changes to the Realms, while significant, aren't as extreme as deriders say. And, even if they were, that shouldn't stop anyone who prefered the old Realms from continuing to use that version of the setting. If someone doesn't have any interest in playing in the new version, then they don't have to, but they don't need to keep posting about it.
My posts are in response to those who are already sidetracking the thread from 4e Forgotten Realms. Stop preaching doom and I will stop pointing out that the doom is a rooted in the doomsayers, not what I have heard about the 4e Realms. Stop provoking me and my responses will quit. Move the anti 4e Realms soapbox elsewhere if reaction here to what is posted is not expected.
This post is in defense of a personal attack on my posts. The posts Hawkins refers to have addressed specific things in anti Realms posts. In the case quoted, I was reacting to placing full blame for the ending of Markus's 3e Realms campaign on the publishing of 4e Realms; as I said, it is his loss of will to continue under the rules of his choice in the version of the setting of his choice that dooms it, not the new version of the setting that has been previewed. What happens in other people's campaigns should not have a negative impact on his campaign now any more than it has in the past.
Rich, You mentioned the bard class being in DDI I think. When would this happen? Plus would we see the druid there also or will we just have to wait for PHII?
18D
Ive been trying to finish out the remaining 3.5 novels before jumping off but I am really struggling to even do that. I read two or three pages and I cant even concentrate on the book because all Im thinking is 'Whats the point? What does it matter if they save the day or not?'
No one in my group wants to start a FR game because, 'Whats the point? The Spellplague is coming, and if we keep that atrocity out of our game we wont have any official support for our campaign setting at all. May as well make our own world because thats what well be doing if we ignore it.'
So yes, the new Realms is hurting my experiences with the setting. I cant even reflect on wonderful gaming experiences without cringing. One of my groups members owned every thing ever published for the Forgotten Realms. She couldnt even look at them anymore without becoming disgusted with how casually the designers have discarded her and people like her, how easy it is for them to **** all over the work of the ones who made the setting great before them. She sold every FR thing she had. I feel that way too.
I hope the people who buy the new setting enjoy it. I hope they get as much out of it as I did the old one. I also hope that if they do love it they never have to see it ripped apart and reassembled as something new because someone else didnt like it and couldnt be bothered to go to a setting that did have what they wanted.
The slumbering psionic god, Auppenser... Did he died finaly due to the death of Mystra (his 'nurse') and the Spellplague? Is he somehow alive?
Go figure.
Your campaign is only doomed because you "no longer have the will to move forward". The PCs never had any likelyhood of affecting the setting outside of your campaign; they can be just as alive and significant once 4e FR is out as ever. Nothing is hanging over their heads that you don't put there.
Bring them into 4e and the new FR ot not. They will be just as alive as they ever were.
Correct.
But I'm the DM, and if I'm no longer "into it", then how crappy will the games I run there be? I can only run a great game if I really enjoy what I'm doing, and now FR has lost it's luster for me. I wish that were not true, but it has, now that I know the future.
-Personally, I think that's the worst part. That's factoring in what is being done to Elves, Spellplague, 'Abeir', and the "Divine Shake-Up".
Ditto.
I think that everything they changed aside, we could have eventually swallowed THAT bitter pill, but the century timejump invalidates 90% of what is written in our old sourcebooks... and there's the rub.
And before anyone starts telling me how its NOT invalidated, then I want them to explain to me how all those little towns willl be the same - the ones the last podcast mentioned were now gone. And all our favorite characters are gone as well, and the map has been changed (Seas drained and floating land!). That would be like you telling me a 1000 year old treatise on the Roman Political scene was still pertinent in modern-day Rome. Sure... it's HISTORY, and otherwise useless in doing anything current.
Not so much a question, but an affirmation:
Rich, it sounds to me like you were letting on in your novel that the Swordmage class was drawn from the Elven traditions of the Bladesinger, and that will be the in-game explanation for it's evolution. Is that assumption correct?
what is that on the 4e frcs cover, a black dragon, shadow dragon or wyvern Mr. Baker??
I would assume that given it is a Shadovar riding it, it is most likely a veserab.
-RW
At the end, what? For all the anger... We are ALL FR fans here, not just one side of the debate or the other.
Even the people you used to condemn as "grognards?"
You knew that was coming.
Even the people you used to condemn as "grognards?"
You knew that was coming.
'They' call themselves fans (even 'true' fans on times); 'we' are also. 'We' disagree (heavily in times) on (small or big) details, strategies, creative vision, etc... Does the Realms belong just to 'they' or 'we'? Obviously not, even if we may wish it.
There. It goes both ways.
Ive been trying to finish out the remaining 3.5 novels before jumping off but I am really struggling to even do that. I read two or three pages and I cant even concentrate on the book because all Im thinking is 'Whats the point? What does it matter if they save the day or not?'(...)
I feel very much the same way. It's a struggle for me getting through Undead by Byers, and I haven't felt any urge to buy Swordmage. The old setting that I liked, it just seems dead now and replaced by some kind of changeling that doesn't have any pull for me.
It's a shame, because I -really- liked Rich Baker's writing. But I just don't have that same urge to go out and buy new FR books, so I probably never will (sorry, Rich). I've also had the same feeling about wanting to pack up my old FR materials and sell them at a used book store.
Would you really have liked a new edition of the setting who would have done the radical oposite - ie, basicaly much a reprint of what there is, with few changes? Would you have shelled out money for that?
If there is a new edition, is it better that there is at least *some* changes to justify it? Does customers want reprints that much, especially in cases like FR?
A question to guys like Dav and Therise;
Would you really have liked a new edition of the setting who would have done the radical oposite - ie, basicaly much a reprint of what there is, with few changes? Would you have shelled out money for that?
If there is a new edition, is it better that there is at least *some* changes to justify it? Does customers want reprints that much, especially in cases like FR?
Why would it have to have been just a reprint? It could have been something with more in-depth information on areas we've come to know and love. Even around Waterdeep, they could've fleshed that out a -lot- more and people would've been thrilled with the additional fluff and crunch. There are supposed to be ancient ruins all over that region from the fallen elvish kingdom and old Netheril (but we've seen very little of that, so far), so why not fill up a new book with things that have yet to be discovered? It would've needed some actual creativity, but Greenwood and others I'm -sure- could have provided such. Saying that "everything has been explored" in the old FR is a really weak argument, considering the sheer size and scope of the setting.
A question to guys like Dav and Therise;
Would you really have liked a new edition of the setting who would have done the radical oposite - ie, basicaly much a reprint of what there is, with few changes? Would you have shelled out money for that?
If there is a new edition, is it better that there is at least *some* changes to justify it? Does customers want reprints that much, especially in cases like FR?
I would have preffered that a lot more that what WotC did. But I would have loved if they, as Therise mentioned, focused on other regions of FR that had a LOT of potential to creating new things without axing 3/4 of the setting. A well made update of everything that was changed by FR products from 1372 DR to the current year was also very necesary, since it's a good way of knowing the details most players loose when not having access to a novel or sourcebook.
Would you really have liked a new edition of the setting who would have done the radical oposite - ie, basicaly much a reprint of what there is, with few changes? Would you have shelled out money for that?
If there is a new edition, is it better that there is at least *some* changes to justify it? Does customers want reprints that much, especially in cases like FR?
-You have absolutely no precidence or evidence to back those claims, like so many other claims you've made over the months on this matter. The Forgotten Realms are, and have always been, a living setting, meaning that the worls and metaplot slowly evolves over time. The transition from 1e to 2e brought with it changes to the setting, with the Time of Troubles. The much more somber transition from 2e to 3e brought with it changes to the setting. In a world where the Spellplague and the 100+/- Year Jump, and the Divine Shake-Up did not happen, the transition from 3e to 4e would bring with it changes to the setting.
A question to guys like Dav and Therise;
Would you really have liked a new edition of the setting who would have done the radical oposite - ie, basicaly much a reprint of what there is, with few changes? Would you have shelled out money for that?
If there is a new edition, is it better that there is at least *some* changes to justify it? Does customers want reprints that much, especially in cases like FR?
The changes are just so radical and heavy handed. Ive gone through edition changes before, and yes, there were some things I didnt like. But this one is just too much. I never said anything about a reprint, and I never said anything about the setting staying static. It always has changed. Its easy to see changes not just between editions but during an editions run as well. But before the change was gradual and made sense in world (usually).
There is still a ton of stuff unexplored in the 2e and 3.xe material. There is no need for reprints. But yes, I would have. I own the 2e Waterdeep as well as the 3e one. I would have bought a 4e one also
Would you really have liked a new edition of the setting who would have done the radical oposite - ie, basicaly much a reprint of what there is, with few changes? Would you have shelled out money for that?
You really got me thinking with this, and the answer would have to be NO.
Now, more the point - WHY does it have to be reprints of things covered? WHY another book on Waterdeep, the Shining South, or Thay? Why NOT a new one on the Vilhon Reach (lord knows we needed one), or Impiltur, or the Island Kingdoms, or the Utter East? How about City books covering something OTHER then Waterdeep, like Baldur's gate, Westgate, or Neverwinter? Why was it a choice of obliterating everything with a hundred year jump, or reprinting material thats 10-20 years old?
Are you really trying to say that NOTHING new could have been done with, say, a ten-year time jump (as was done before), and new information on areas never before deailed?
Because if that is true, then that means you have no faith in the current design team to impress us with their own FR contributions.
-You have absolutely no precidence or evidence to back those claims, like so many other claims you've made over the months on the matter. The transition from 1e to 2e brought with it changes to the setting, with the Time of Troubles. The more somber transition from 2e to 3e brought with it changes to the setting. In a world where the Spellplague and the 100+/- Year Jump, and the Divine Shake-Up did not happen, the transition from 3e to 4e would bring with it changes to the setting.
It's simple logic for most of it - if you have all the old books, or the key things, and that the new stuff come... and lo, it's not much changed, more of the same repacked. Would you pay for that? or just keep using the old books, adapting what need to be?
Also, was some of those ast changes so huge? I think the time of trouble changed key points, but left most of the rest (specially less... metaphysical bits) barely changed.
(My opinions as yours are also not necessarly facts, as you pointed to me so frequently.)
Also, I remember ArcTan arguing on that in the past, and presenting those points much mor detailed. I think, that as he said, there was much of the important and less important parts covered, and that we was headed for a rerun/reprint scenario, all editions added. I do not agree with every changes nor how they are planed, but it was inevitable... the question was just when.
I say, at best, the next edition after.
It's simple logic for most of it - if you have all the old books, or the key things, and that the new stuff come... and lo, it's not much changed, more of the same repacked. Would you pay for that? or just keep using the old books, adapting what need to be?
-Yes, because things change. Waterdeep is still a metropolis in the north. Oh, but what's that? Khelben is no longer the Blackstaff? Why, that means the the upper eschalons of Waterdeep's society has been shaken up. I wonder what happened. Let me pick up this new Waterdeep book and check things out. Myth Drannor is still a ruin. Oh, but what's that? The Elven Crusade, led by Ilsevel Miritar, reclaimed the ruins, and are cleaning them out? Let me pick up this new Myth Drannor book and check things out. The Ten-Towns and Icewind Dale still exist. Oh, but what's that? They have some new Orcish neighbors, and they are none too happy about that. Let me pick up this new Icewind Dale book, and check things out. Continue ad nauseum...
Also, was some of those ast changes so huge? I think the time of trouble changed key points, but left most of the rest (specially less... metaphysical bits) barely changed.
-Why do changes need to be big? The maxim that "Big is Better" is only applicable in Texas. We're not in Texas, nor is their advice particularly educated.
Also, I remember ArcTan arguing on that in the past, and presenting those points much mor detailed. I think, that as he said, there was much of the important and less important parts covered, and that we was headed for a rerun/reprint scenario, all editions added. I do not agree with every changes nor how they are planed, but it was inevitable... the question was just when.
-And, as was mentioned, his opinion isn't factually grounded, either.
-Yes, because things change. Waterdeep is still a metropolis in the north. Oh, but what's that? Khelben is no longer the Blackstaff? Why, that means the the upper eschalons of Waterdeep's society has been shaken up. I wonder what happened. Let me pick up this new Waterdeep book and check things out. Myth Drannor is still a ruin. Oh, but what's that? The Elven Crusade, led by Ilsevel Miritar, reclaimed the ruins, and are cleaning them out? Let me pick up this new Myth Drannor book and check things out. The Ten-Towns and Icewind Dale still exist. Oh, but what's that? They have some new Orcish neighbors, and they are none too happy about that. Let me pick up this new Icewind Dale book, and check things out. Continue ad nauseum...
As the French say, "Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose." ;) Or in English, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
From what's been described so far, I worry that 4E Realms will seem more like a re-pack plus a new RSE layer rather than a book with purely new, creative material. I miss the old days of modules and sourcebooks, when reading a new guide was like being introduced to a new world (or at least, a fresh new area of the world). So much in 3E was reprinted, rehashed, and mildly tweaked that it felt like I was buying the same exact thing, just maybe with a glossier map and a newly ascended god or two.
There's -so- much in the old Realms that could be -created- and not just things in remote regional areas. Much of the North could be expanded upon, rather than reprinted with a new layer.
A question to guys like Dav and Therise;
Would you really have liked a new edition of the setting who would have done the radical oposite - ie, basicaly much a reprint of what there is, with few changes? Would you have shelled out money for that?
If there is a new edition, is it better that there is at least *some* changes to justify it? Does customers want reprints that much, especially in cases like FR?
This has been addressed by others, but I'll just state the truth in blunt terms:
The argument you've presented here is a false dilemma.
Now, more the point - WHY does it have to be reprints of things covered? ... How about City books covering something OTHER then Waterdeep, like Baldur's gate, Westgate, or Neverwinter?
I agree with you, but the funny thing here is that Neverwinter has scarcely been covered. Neither has Baldur's Gate, really, even though it (and Neverwinter) was featured in a popular video game.
Which goes to show that even places in the popular North (and apparently, WotC considers that area popular) have never been given that much detail!
-Why do changes need to be big? The maxim that "Big is Better" is only applicable in Texas. We're not in Texas, nor is their advice particularly educated.
-Hold'em up there partner.;) :P :D We be really Educated, down here in these here parts!
Yes sir we are! Keep it up I may just get a rope.:D -Git'er Done!!!:P
18D:heehee
I agree with you, but the funny thing here is that Neverwinter has scarcely been covered. Neither has Baldur's Gate, really, even though it (and Neverwinter) was featured in a popular video game.
Which goes to show that even places in the popular North (and apparently, WotC considers that area popular) have never been given that much detail!
So true. I would've paid big bucks for a detailed sourcebook on either Neverwinter or Baldur's Gate. It would've even been fun to see a book detailing a trade route from Silverymoon to Icewind Dale, with a few adventures, mix-ups, barbarians, giants, and forgotten dwarvish / elvish ruins along the way.
These days when I get requests from new players to DM an FR campaign, it's almost always a group that's been in love with Salvatore's work and they want to "see" what Drizzt and company see, have a few adventures in the same areas, fight some of the same monsters. Fleshing out those regions in more detail than "The North" (2E) and "Silver Marches" (3E) would have been very welcome, and I think big sellers.
Either that, or it's requests for the moonsea or the north underdark. There's just -so- much that they could've still done in 3E, it makes me a little sad.
I think you'd find Swordmage a lot more "classic Realmish" than "unrecognizably 4eish." If you see it in the bookstore, take it off the shelf, thumb through it, see if it catches your interest. If it doesn't, it doesn't. That's as much as I can ask any potential reader for.
I feel very much the same way. It's a struggle for me getting through Undead by Byers, and I haven't felt any urge to buy Swordmage. The old setting that I liked, it just seems dead now and replaced by some kind of changeling that doesn't have any pull for me.
It's a shame, because I -really- liked Rich Baker's writing. But I just don't have that same urge to go out and buy new FR books, so I probably never will (sorry, Rich). I've also had the same feeling about wanting to pack up my old FR materials and sell them at a used book store.
Rich, You mentioned the bard class being in DDI I think. When would this happen? Plus would we see the druid there also or will we just have to wait for PHII?
what is that on the 4e frcs cover, a black dragon, shadow dragon or wyvern Mr. Baker??
In any event, the chief reason I mentioned the bladesinger in Swordmage is because I wanted a "bridge" character back to the Last Mythal, even if it was just a minor character. Daried Selsherryn is the protagonist of my short story "The Bladesinger's Lesson," and gets a passing mention or two in "Final Gate." It just seemed right to have a familiar face in Myth Drannor to serve as Geran's mentor in magic and swordplay.
Not so much a question, but an affirmation:
Rich, it sounds to me like you were letting on in your novel that the Swordmage class was drawn from the Elven traditions of the Bladesinger, and that will be the in-game explanation for it's evolution. Is that assumption correct?
I'm checking to see what I can say on this one. ...working...
Question for 4/E designer (Rich, Brian, anyone):
With Dweomerheart and Mystra destroyed in 4E, what happened to all the human/other souls of the dead (petitioners of Mystra, Azuth, Savras, etc) that made their way there? Were they also destroyed along with the plane, or scattered into the Astral with Azuth and crew? I'm curious, just in case one of my PC players tries a "contact the dead" kind of ritual or would maybe even try to raise someone who died and went to Dwoemerheart prior to the Spellplague.
Apologies if this has been asked before, but 129 pages is a lot to go through.
I really loved the Last Mythal series, and several of your earlier FR books. In part, I think that I was really hoping that Araevin could've done another trilogy (or even a prequel, with his former adventuring party), and then poor, innocent Mystra got shivved by stupid Cyric and everything had to change... -sigh-
Oh well, I'll take a peek you arm-twister you. ;)
No worries; I'm glad that you've liked some of the other stuff I've done.
I think you'd find Swordmage a lot more "classic Realmish" than "unrecognizably 4eish." If you see it in the bookstore, take it off the shelf, thumb through it, see if it catches your interest. If it doesn't, it doesn't. That's as much as I can ask any potential reader for.
The answer's a little hazy. I think that there's a lot of overlap between the two concepts, and that maybe some characters we called "bladesingers" before might really have been swordmages. We've debated around the office whether the bladesinger is a paragon path for the swordmage, or whether something like Coronal Guard Bladesinger of Myth Drannor is a paragon path for swordmage but there are plenty of other types of bladesingers around.
In any event, the chief reason I mentioned the bladesinger in Swordmage is because I wanted a "bridge" character back to the Last Mythal, even if it was just a minor character. Daried Selsherryn is the protagonist of my short story "The Bladesinger's Lesson," and gets a passing mention or two in "Final Gate." It just seemed right to have a familiar face in Myth Drannor to serve as Geran's mentor in magic and swordplay.
-All that said, Bladesinger is still a "profession", to to speak, limited to Elves and Half-Elves, correct? Yes?
This has been addressed by others, but I'll just state the truth in blunt terms:
The argument you've presented here is a false dilemma.
Not so much as two poles - much changes vs not much. Maybe I have pushed it around, still it remained.
And it does seems to me, that the less 'heavy' changes it have, the best a certain % of the base would prefer it.
Also please, I am not Elvis Gratton - 'think big' is not my motto.
The facts, we will see later as the product will be out. Maybe me and others will be right. Or not.
How well is Rashemen standing after Mystra's death/the Spellplague?
That would be the way I'd call it - their magic seemed more Druidic in nature then Arcane (pun intended).
However, I am not an official source by any stretch of the imagination, and also eagerly await Rich's response.
Any hints on this one <>, or have they sworn you to secrecy? :D
-All that said, Bladesinger is still a "profession", to to speak, limited to Elves and Half-Elves, correct? Yes?
Well, I'd say eladrins, elves, and half-elves. But yes, it's OK for a paragon path to have a racial requirement when justified, and I think it is in this case.
-I meant Elves, as in everything that was an Elf in 3e, but close enough. That said, I am relieved.
Interestingly enough, we've got some new spellcaster classes in 4e that might better model the hathrans than anything we had in 3e. Specifically, the warlock with the fey pact is a pretty good fit. Or the shaman class (we're working on one for a future product, and it includes some neat mechanisms for dealing with nature spirits). So I'd be inclined to say that a lot of the witches are warlocks (heh, that's kind of funny, English is a silly language) or shamans. But others could still be clerics or wizards. I wouldn't blink if a player who wanted to run a hathran picked any of those classes, really.
Real question time.
How well is Rashemen standing after Mystra's death/the Spellplague?
Basically, I was working on a cross between the Witch in the DMG and the Spirit Shaman - A single class with several possible paths, which could also give you a Witch Doctor, Kio Ton Mu, or even a type of primitive Druid.
It seems funny now, in retrospect, considering that paths weren't even a 3e concept when I came up with that. It definately would work better under 4e rules, IMHO.
Another thing - the traditional Shaman got a lot of his power from 'place magic' (just like the Hathrans), so this would diminish the further from his 'source' he got (hence the need for for Fetishes, Totems, and Talismans, to augment his abilities when adventuring away from home).
Just trying to help out here - it seems a waste if none of the stuff we were working on for Maztica never got used anywhere. Also, I don't know if you'll be working on the class personally, but the Australian Aboriginies have some pretty cool concepts surrounding place magic, and it is worth looking into when developing the official Shaman class (and you can even 'borrow' some of their temrinolgy - I doubt anyone but me and perhaps a couple of others here would even recognize it).
'Fey' Pact is probably what I was thinking in my previous post as well - if Hathrans are going to be a group name rather then a class unto itself, then I like the idea that various ones would have followed different paths post-Spellplague.
Fairly well. As Richard Byers' series illustrates, Thay is very self-absorbed in the years following the Spellplague.
Interestingly enough, we've got some new spellcaster classes in 4e that might better model the hathrans than anything we had in 3e. Specifically, the warlock with the fey pact is a pretty good fit. Or the shaman class (we're working on one for a future product, and it includes some neat mechanisms for dealing with nature spirits). So I'd be inclined to say that a lot of the witches are warlocks (heh, that's kind of funny, English is a silly language) or shamans. But others could still be clerics or wizards. I wouldn't blink if a player who wanted to run a hathran picked any of those classes, really.
So... Rashemen is still standing eh? Sweet. It has to be, with out a doubt, one of, if not my most favorite place in the Realms. Heh, funny enough, I had a Warlock from Rashemen back in 3.5. :P
I've checked out manuscript so far, and we didn't explicitly say one way or the other. Since we haven't said it in print yet, I get to express my own opinion: Those souls would have returned to the Fugue plane, where Kelemvor re-assigned them as appropriate. I imagine that a fair number wound up in the domains of Selune or Shar. And some might have remained in the Fugue plane under Kelemvor's protection. Kelemvor's city is not a bad afterlife.
Ah, excellent, thanks!
Who's the cover artist for the FRCG?
(I like the pic, BTW)
I'm about halfway through Swordmage and I love it. I think it's easily the best Realms fiction I've read in years. I love how the book really draws you in from the first chapter yet still retains the feel of classic and top-notch fantasy writing. You've done a great job in developing all the characters (as complex but compelling) and I love the feel you've given Hulburg. You clearly have a strong affection for the Realms and it shows in the writing. Rich Baker must NOT be stopped!
Questions for you:
When you're doing such strong work with the fiction side of things in the Realms doesn't it make you wish that WotC was going to support the setting more strongly for the RPG side? I'm excited about all the FR products later this year but a disappointed that the timeline was advanced only to have the line stopped in print.
What (if anything) will you guys have to talk about in the Gen Con Forgotten Realms Seminar?
Thank you and keep up the good work you're doing.
Will Maranto
Now, Rich & Co. gets to produce sourcebooks as part of their job, that they ALREADY get paid for. Weather they produce one sourcebook or thirty, they get paid the same - it simply means more work for them.
They receive EXTRA MONEY for writing novels, so it makes sense that they would want to work on these as much, if not more, then source material.
So ask yourself, what do YOU think they'd rather be working on?
Also, it is pretty obvious that they think the three books being offered this year are adequate for running an enjoyable game, so I doubt they want to have any more print sources made available.
Once again, not being negative, just practical, and I'd do the same in their shoes.
The Realms development will continue through the novels, after the initial sources are released.
Now, Rich & Co. gets to produce sourcebooks as part of their job, that they ALREADY get paid for. Weather they produce one sourcebook or thirtyseven, they get paid the same - it simply means more work for them.
They receive EXTRA MONEY for writing novels.
So ask yourself, what do YOU think they'd rather be working on? ;)
Once again, not being negative, just practical, and I'd do the same in their shoes.
I completely agree that Rich and Co. probably prefer writing novels. So would I if I had worked my way up through the company/industry to that point (and if the money is better then good for them!). But that doesn't mean that they don't want other folks to get a chance to write the RPG supplements. Who would be the loser if George Krashos was given the task of writing a regional source book? No one by my judgement!
Will
I don't want to mention any names, but I'm under the distinct impression that many of them are 'disgruntled', to say the least.
I could be way off base, but I think that the only people interested in producing FR lore at this point is the 'in crowd' over at WotC.
Oh... and all those poor saps they conned into producing material for free for them, by being 'regional managers' for the LFR. Amazing piece of business chicanery, that. :D
First, fewer FR sourcebooks does not mean less work in my day job. It means that I'm assigned to work on other projects.
Second, that extra money for writing novels comes in the form of royalties I earn for writing on MY time--nights and weekends. I'm not assigned to write novels as part of my day job. As it turns out, I *like* the Realms, and I'm a lot more knowledgeable about the setting than the average author, so the Book team is happy to line up my "home" writing time for FR fiction, and I'm happy to oblige. When I write FR fiction, I'm treated just like I was an out-of-house author.
Finally, the FR business plan--both game side and book side--isn't up to me. You're suggesting that I wield sinister powers that I don't actually possess.
The Realms development will continue through the novels, after the initial sources are released.
Now, Rich & Co. gets to produce sourcebooks as part of their job, that they ALREADY get paid for. Weather they produce one sourcebook or thirtyseven, they get paid the same - it simply means more work for them.
They receive EXTRA MONEY for writing novels.
So ask yourself, what do YOU think they'd rather be working on? ;)
Once again, not being negative, just practical, and I'd do the same in their shoes.
OK, Markus, you don't really have any idea what you're talking about. (...)
LOL, par for the course. ;) Ask him about his personal reality, where he's right about everything.
Part of this was a deliberate effort on my part to get some new voices invested in the Realms. I wanted to keep a light hand in things this time around because, frankly, I've been the main FR guy in-house since 2000 or so. It's good for the company, it's good for me, and it's good for the line to seek out some fresh perspectives. If nothing else, if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, we'd want someone around who would know what was up with the line.
Trust me, I get a nice mention in the interior credits!
I've got a rather silly question: Mr Baker, why isn't Your name feautured on the cover of FRCG? It seems You know more about FR than any other designer here... and at least share it with us. (not to say I do like the changes made to 4th edition and their justification)
My disappointment, such as it is, depends on how much setting exploration we get to do on DDi. For example, Brian James just knocked out a truly outstanding article on Cormyr that I hope will set the gold standard for the sort of setting development/exploration we can do in this format. So I'd say make your voices heard to the editors of Dragon and Dungeon, and let 'em know if you like Brian's article and want to see more like it. For myself, I'd like to see dozens of articles like that created over the next couple of years. But ultimately it's the fan response that will determine how many of those we actually do.
And I wouldn't be surprised to see some Realms sneak back into the D&D print schedule sooner or later.
Oh, and as far as GenCon--we'll certainly be able to talk about our upcoming novel plans, answer questions about where the setting is and where we see it going, and maybe let you know what's in the hopper for FR on DDi.
Rich,
I'm about halfway through Swordmage and I love it. I think it's easily the best Realms fiction I've read in years. I love how the book really draws you in from the first chapter yet still retains the feel of classic and top-notch fantasy writing. You've done a great job in developing all the characters (as complex but compelling) and I love the feel you've given Hulburg. You clearly have a strong affection for the Realms and it shows in the writing. Rich Baker must NOT be stopped!
Questions for you:
When you're doing such strong work with the fiction side of things in the Realms doesn't it make you wish that WotC was going to support the setting more strongly for the RPG side? I'm excited about all the FR products later this year but a disappointed that the timeline was advanced only to have the line stopped in print.
What (if anything) will you guys have to talk about in the Gen Con Forgotten Realms Seminar?
Thank you and keep up the good work you're doing.
Will Maranto
Besides, I haven't blamed you for anything in a while. We all know that it's Chris Perkins who must be stopped now. :D
You have nothing to defend here, so please don't be defensive. Wanting to work on your own projects is human nature; so what?
The question asked of you was "Do you wish you were producing more source products for the RPG", and I assumed that you were fine with the books that are coming out (given your praise of the product), and the fact that any future lore would come through novels - I never meant that you or anyone else had an agenda in that regard.
Seriously, in all honesty, I wasn't implying what you think I was, and I'm sorry if you thought that.
LOL, par for the course. ;) Ask him about his personal reality, where he's right about everything.
I'd be more then happy to extrapolate.
No one thinks they're wrong - you don't know much about psychology, do you? Even guys like Adolf Hitler think they're right.
What kind of person walks around all day thinking they are wrong about everything? I've never met such a person.
Now, when you try to insist that YOUR own version of reality is the right one, thats just egotistical. I don't force my opinions on people, but I do speak my mind. I would hope people have enough common sense to make up their own minds about things.
No one thinks they're wrong - you don't know much about physchology, do you?
LOL... nothing about "physchology", no.
Even guys like Adolf Hitler think they're right.
Drifting into Godwin's Law already? How disappointing. Just stop.
You're suggesting that I wield sinister powers that I don't actually possess.
-Being as that you work for WotC, you'd be a Warlock, would you not? A pact with a great evil, and all that good stuff...
Yes, I want to know what he, as a fan, found to be "Wait, what?" worthy. :P
So I'd say make your voices heard to the editors of Dragon and Dungeon, and let 'em know if you like Brian's article and want to see more like it.
So, if we would have Realms-specific articles, we need to submit them to Dragon? Or should we check with some sinister powers first?
Btw, I guess Living Forgotten Realms doesn't 'live' much on these boards, but my hope is that the scenarios of that campaign will be allowed to introduce facts and background as well.
I usually do pack my posts with innuendo, but I swear that one didn't have any. The post after it contained a 'cheap shot', but that had nothing to do with Rich.
To give another, simpler example of how I meant that - I took the question to be along the lines of "Do you wish you were doing more at your job", and of course almost anybody is going to say "no", because they are already doing enough as far as they are concerned.
That was like asking ME if I'd like to hammer more nails in a day, or go home and play WoW (or do anything else I enjoy).
Seriously, I re-iterate - although I do tend to 'push buttons', I was NOT doing that there in that post. I don't mind people hating me for things I say, but I don't want anyone hating me for something I didn't.
Btw, I guess Living Forgotten Realms doesn't 'live' much on these boards, but my hope is that the scenarios of that campaign will be allowed to introduce facts and background as well.
Hence my rather deregotory statement above (concerning the LFR).
The Living Forgotten Realms WILL get quite a bit of development by the individual 'regional managers' (not sure if that is the correct title). A lot of them participate over at EnWorld - they are a great bunch of guys and you should check it out if that interests you.
LOL... nothing about "psychology", no.
Thank goodness you freely admit it... I was getting worried there.
And falling back on pointing out typos is weak... it is to laugh. :D
I'm not sure what I said that got you so flustered, but this constant attack on multiple threads is a breach of the rules. I make general, sweeping statements - you make personal attacks.
Please Stop.
Hence my rather deregotory statement above (concerning the LFR).
Ah. Missed that one. Well, I don't think we consider ourselves conned (though that could of course just mean we aren't particularly clever ;) ).
The actual title is 'regional administrator', which I admit doesn't sound much better.
For what it's worth, I had a bad experience with Ubisoft concerning game development - they held a contest, and got hundreds of us to design our own Campaigns for HoMM. Submitted Maps became the property of the company, and were NOT allowed to be publish in any form once submitted.
The 20 winners of the contest would receive a FREE copy of the expansion when it came out.
I worked on mine for 3 months, and finished it, which is a miracle for me. Unfortunately, the file size was FOUR times larger then what they were accepting for the contest (did I mention it was a masterpiece? :D ), so they didn't even look at it.
So, 3 months worth of dedicated work trying to achieve perfection... and now no one will ever see it, because I don't even own the rights to it anymore.
That, however, was my own stupidity. The real kicker here was that when the 'expansion' was released later that year, it contained the twenty winning scenarions... and nothing else.
So they charged everyone $29.99 for a product they spent $0 to produce.
So you can see how I have an aversion for producing free content for game companies. ;)
Gee... I spend more time explaining myself then contributing anything worth while... I guess I really am a jerk. :P
Gee... I spend more time explaining myself then contributing anything worth while... I guess I really am a jerk. :P
I am quite willing to forgive the slight... just sign up as an author for the campaign and all will be well ;)
There are a large number of things I would love to work on, even in the new Realms, but I'm afraid I've burned one too many bridges.
I'll content myself with finishing up whatever maps I'm already working on. Geography is my passion.
As the Archmage, you lay claim to being the world’s preeminent wizard.
There’s no telling what choices the preeminent wizard of the age will make when he has completed his destiny.
One's first thought is that the ED can be used by more than one person at the same time, and that makes sense, but that's not what the text says. What if a group has two epic-level wizards in it, and they both want the Archmage ED? If they both can take it, than what is the point of using text that makes it seem like such an ED is exclusive to one person?
I think this might apply to the other EDs as well, although to be fair I haven't seen them. Any thoughts?
Rich, I have a question about the recently featured Archmage Epic Destiny. I was a bit puzzled at the text, which more or less states that there can only be one preeminent wizard in the world at a time
I don't know what the rules will be, but I assume that a character with the Archmage Epic Destiny is not yet the preeminent wizard, but that is what he is destined to eventually be, if he continues to advance. The preeminence is his goal rather than his current status, thus more than one PC in a group could be on the path toward that destiny.
Am I on the rught track, Rick?
I have a question thats been bugging me for a long time, ever since I started hearing about the 4.0 Realms. I got into the realms after I got turned off of Dragonlance. As I am sure you are aware, the Dragonlance setting went through some sweeping changes. Many readers/players were turned off by this, as the setting we had grown to love was now alien to us. Many people left the setting for good because of it, myself included. Since then, the setting seems no where near as healthy and vibrant as it once was.
So my question to you, was in all your planning for 4th edition Realms, was there any concern that these sweeping changes would turn off readers/players, like they did in Dragonlance? If not, then what differences do you see that would keep that from happening? Because I can't help but draw parallels between the two.
I don't know what the rules will be, but I assume that a character with the Archmage Epic Destiny is not yet the preeminent wizard, but that is what he is destined to eventually be, if he continues to advance.
-The text is rather clear. What I d
As the Archmage, you lay claim to being the world’s preeminent wizard.
(with my bolding for emphasis)
My take on it is that the Archmage is only claiming to be, or striving to be, the preeminent Wizard. "Lay claim" could be construed differently I suppose, but those words fall short of saying that the character actually is the world's preeminent wizard in my opinion.
I wouldn't let that little snippet restrict two players from selecting the same epic destiny in any case.
Rich, I have a question about the recently featured Archmage Epic Destiny. I was a bit puzzled at the text, which more or less states that there can only be one preeminent wizard in the world at a time:
I think the idea behind the ED is that your character becomes the Mordenkainen of the world. Or Raistlin. Or Elminster/Larloch/Blackstaff/Iolaum/Szass Tam/etc.
I think the idea behind the ED is that your character becomes the Mordenkainen of the world. Or Raistlin. Or Elminster/Larloch/Blackstaff/Iolaum/Szass Tam/etc.
Uh, yeah. But note how you mentioned more than one FR wizard. There is no single "greatest wizard in the world" of the FR setting, as far as I see it--every now and then someone will start a thread about that subject, and opinions are always pretty varied.
Much like LK, I thought the text was pretty clear. Also, even you are merely trying to become the world's preeminent wizard, that still doesn't solve the dilemma I mentioned before, with two wizards in the same party taking the ED--eventually, they'd both get the prize...right?
I'll admit that this question might be a bit silly, but I'd still like to hear Rich's thoughts on it. That being said, I agree that there might be other ways of interpreting the text.
I doubt they would accept me at this point.
Why not?
If you are a talented writer, who can stick to deadlines and the writer's guidelines, I would contemplate you as an author.
Why not?
If you are a talented writer, who can stick to deadlines and the writer's guidelines, I would contemplate you as an author.
Accent Mine.
You lost me right there.
LK has been waiting over a year for me to finish my Elven Netbook contributions, and I'm five months behind with a CK article.
Anyhow, I'm only posting here to say Goodbye - its been a hell of a ride, but its over. I wish you all the best of luck with 4e (and I mean that).
--- Mark T.
In terms of "who's the best?" I like to imagine that it's sort of like asking "Who's the best hitter in baseball?" Instantly you have to start trying to define exactly what you mean by the statement. Are you talking about the highest batting average? The best power? The guy you want at the plate when the game's on the line? The hitter who's hot right now, or the one who's got a sustained level of excellence over a few seasons? Likewise, I could imagine different wizards being the best, depending on how you measure it. Character level? Number of spells known? Highest intelligence? Record of accomplishments?
Uh, yeah. But note how you mentioned more than one FR wizard. There is no single "greatest wizard in the world" of the FR setting, as far as I see it--every now and then someone will start a thread about that subject, and opinions are always pretty varied.
Much like LK, I thought the text was pretty clear. Also, even you are merely trying to become the world's preeminent wizard, that still doesn't solve the dilemma I mentioned before, with two wizards in the same party taking the ED--eventually, they'd both get the prize...right?
I'll admit that this question might be a bit silly, but I'd still like to hear Rich's thoughts on it. That being said, I agree that there might be other ways of interpreting the text.
First, I think Dragonlance really was hurt when the decision was made to decouple the setting from the D&D game. The notion that D&D was somehow holding Dragonlance back was just silly. I didn't like it at the time, but it wasn't my decision to make. With our bold (perhaps rash) leap forward in 4e Realms, we're moving the Realms slightly *closer* to the core D&D game and experience, rather than farther apart. (I think it was pretty close already in 3e, so there wasn't all that far to go, really.) In other words, we're saying that you don't have to choose between playing FR and playing D&D. That's a very important difference from the Dragonlance course, where you had to choose one or the other.
Second, and this is a little more subtle: Dragonlance has always been the world of the One Big Story, and FR has been the world of Many Stories. When the Dragonlance story took a big turn, the whole world had to go with it all at once. In the Realms, there's a lot more conceptual room for playing (and reading) storylines that are more or less involved with the big events going on in any given year. To put it another way: If the Realms was set up like Dragonlance, the Spellplague would be *THE* story of 4e. It would be the world of adventuring in the Spellplague. But Realms has much less focus than that. You can tell that story in your game if you want to, but you can also choose to play a story that has nothing to do with the Spellplague.
Those are the big two reasons I see right off. I can probably come up with a few more if I really think about it.
Hello Mr. Baker,
I have a question thats been bugging me for a long time, ever since I started hearing about the 4.0 Realms. I got into the realms after I got turned off of Dragonlance. As I am sure you are aware, the Dragonlance setting went through some sweeping changes. Many readers/players were turned off by this, as the setting we had grown to love was now alien to us. Many people left the setting for good because of it, myself included. Since then, the setting seems no where near as healthy and vibrant as it once was.
So my question to you, was in all your planning for 4th edition Realms, was there any concern that these sweeping changes would turn off readers/players, like they did in Dragonlance? If not, then what differences do you see that would keep that from happening? Because I can't help but draw parallels between the two.
Sorry, I'll have to pass.
As a fan of the Forgotten Realms, Rich, what released tidbit of the "New" Forgotten Realms, left you with the most "WTF?" feeling?
Yes, I want to know what he, as a fan, found to be "Wait, what?" worthy. :P
Likewise, I could imagine different wizards being the best, depending on how you measure it. Character level? Number of spells known? Highest intelligence? Record of accomplishments?
The one who wins the mageduel. Duh!
Anyhow, I had a question of my own too:
How much will the FRCG incorporate the vague "... or is it?" mentality that's present in Eberron? This is the one thing I've especially enjoyed when playing or DMing an Eberron game and I was hoping FR could learn a thing or two about intentionally leaving certain things up in the air. Can we expect more ambiguity?
Second, and this is a little more subtle: Dragonlance has always been the world of the One Big Story, and FR has been the world of Many Stories. When the Dragonlance story took a big turn, the whole world had to go with it all at once. In the Realms, there's a lot more conceptual room for playing (and reading) storylines that are more or less involved with the big events going on in any given year. To put it another way: If the Realms was set up like Dragonlance, the Spellplague would be *THE* story of 4e. It would be the world of adventuring in the Spellplague. But Realms has much less focus than that. You can tell that story in your game if you want to, but you can also choose to play a story that has nothing to do with the Spellplague.
I used to agree with this. That was when I could buy a sourcebook, ignore parts I didnt want in my game, and still have a useful sourcebook. But now I cant do that. If I ignore the Spellplague theres nothing that makes that book a worthwhile buy. Theres nothing that I can use in it without the Spellplague. It is definitive of the new setting. It IS the FR story now.
Things like the Weave had to be removed because they ostensibly interfered with peoples games (I still have to stop typing to laugh at the inanity of that). The Weave was fluff that was built into the settings flavor and history, yes. but at the same time its easy enough to ignore if one wanted to. The setting didnt need massive retooling to play in without it. The setting wasnt built around it as its central theme. Not so the Spellplague. If I want to play in the new setting without that I have to homebrew an entire world. I think it IS very similar to the reworking of Dragonlance that way.
Had it been an actual new setting built that way it probably wouldnt have been such a big deal. But as a fan of the Realms for many many years I feel like thats just WotCs way of asking me not to throw money at them anymore. *Shrug* Ill move on and find something else, but it does make me sad.
I think I would've said "one of the greatest" instead of "the greatest," but really, the "lay claim to" bit covers it IMO. People can claim anything they like, after all. Two archmages in the same party isn't a dealbreaker, not the same way that two Magisters would be in earlier editions.
In terms of "who's the best?" I like to imagine that it's sort of like asking "Who's the best hitter in baseball?" Instantly you have to start trying to define exactly what you mean by the statement. Are you talking about the highest batting average? The best power? The guy you want at the plate when the game's on the line? The hitter who's hot right now, or the one who's got a sustained level of excellence over a few seasons? Likewise, I could imagine different wizards being the best, depending on how you measure it. Character level? Number of spells known? Highest intelligence? Record of accomplishments?
That's how I would think of it as well, but like I said, the text says the preeminent wizard, without defining what constitutes "preeminent".
Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
That's a fair question, Bonzai, and one that has certainly occurred to me more than once. Here's why I think it might be different this time around:
First, I think Dragonlance really was hurt when the decision was made to decouple the setting from the D&D game. The notion that D&D was somehow holding Dragonlance back was just silly. I didn't like it at the time, but it wasn't my decision to make. With our bold (perhaps rash) leap forward in 4e Realms, we're moving the Realms slightly *closer* to the core D&D game and experience, rather than farther apart. (I think it was pretty close already in 3e, so there wasn't all that far to go, really.) In other words, we're saying that you don't have to choose between playing FR and playing D&D. That's a very important difference from the Dragonlance course, where you had to choose one or the other.
Second, and this is a little more subtle: Dragonlance has always been the world of the One Big Story, and FR has been the world of Many Stories. When the Dragonlance story took a big turn, the whole world had to go with it all at once. In the Realms, there's a lot more conceptual room for playing (and reading) storylines that are more or less involved with the big events going on in any given year. To put it another way: If the Realms was set up like Dragonlance, the Spellplague would be *THE* story of 4e. It would be the world of adventuring in the Spellplague. But Realms has much less focus than that. You can tell that story in your game if you want to, but you can also choose to play a story that has nothing to do with the Spellplague.
Those are the big two reasons I see right off. I can probably come up with a few more if I really think about it.
I appreciate the response, and hope your gamble pays off. It's a bigger risk than I would have taken with the product.
What kind of person walks around all day thinking they are wrong about everything?
Heh. Married ones. Or is that just me?
But anyhow, bad jokes aside, the point to this post:
Firstly, I am coming to the Realms with 4e. I've played RPGs (including D&D) for the last almost twenty years (not quite 20 for a few months - then I will have to admit I am getting old), but the FR never grabbed me for reasons I can't even decide now I look back.
When the 3e FRCS came out I picked it up out of interest in seeing a 3e setting book done by the core designers and to steal ideas from. I really quite liked it, and decided to learn a bit more about the Realms... Only to discover that there was soooo much back-story and so much going on that I felt, honestly, intimidated by the idea of getting involved. I know I could have just run games with the 3e FRCS and made stuff up for the rest (and I did some), but a fair few of the D&D players in my town at the time were big into FR and we had so many "but, that's wrong" conversations when we talked ideas and played games that I decided to hell with it and walked away, even selling the 3e FRCS book. And I'm not even going to touch on the FR campaign I was a player in except to say that as a FR novice being constantly penalised for not having in-character knowledge from books I have never even heard of is never a good thing (though, of course, that is the fault of the GM and not the setting).
So as well as being mostly clueless about the Realms, I also have pretty much zero emotional investment in them.
That said, since my first dip into them with 3e, the Realms have sat at the back of my mind tweaking my game-brain every now and again but I was unwilling to invest so much time and money into learning just one setting. So when I saw that FR would be the first core setting for 4e I initially waved it off... Until I started to read a bit more about it and the changes (hey, not much else to do on deployment, so I have haunted RPG boards far too much in the last few months). Now, most of the changes didn't mean much to me due to my lack of knowledge, but the idea of a 100-year jump forward means that I can get into a setting with rich history, but less dependence upon knowing that history backwards.
I see it as potentially being able to get the best of both worlds, really. The opportunity to tap the iconic nature of some of the FR nations, characters, etc whilst not needing to spend the GDP of a small nation on back-product and quitting my job to read it all to do it justice, seems like I can finally scratch the FR itch in the back of my head on my terms *and* be compatible with all the other FR players out there to a degree. This has got to be good for newer players and new-to-FR-old-players. That said, that history is still there to drive the setting (and players) and my prior bad experiences with venturing into the Realms are giving me pause enough to hold off from spending my tight gaming budget on the books without being more sure.
So the question I have for Rich Baker, or indeed any of the authors, after that rambling (and likely disjointed) post is this - as a veteran RPer tempted to visit the Realms with almost no pre-knowledge what one thing is really going to blow me away about the 4e Realms enough to tip me over the edge from tempted to pre-order?
Thanks in advance for any answer.
Regards,
Shane
Only to discover that there was soooo much back-story and so much going on that I felt, honestly, intimidated by the idea of getting involved.
-All of which is still in effect, plus the additional 100 years of information from the 4e transition.
Now, most of the changes didn't mean much to me due to my lack of knowledge, but the idea of a 100-year jump forward means that I can get into a setting with rich history, but less dependence upon knowing that history backwards.
-The same can be said of the 3e Forgotten Realms as well. Do you think when I first got into the setting, circa 2002 or so, that I knew any of what I know?
Anyhow, I'm only posting here to say Goodbye - its been a hell of a ride, but its over. I wish you all the best of luck with 4e (and I mean that).
--- Mark T.
-
:raincloud 18D
That said, since my first dip into them with 3e, the Realms have sat at the back of my mind tweaking my game-brain every now and again but I was unwilling to invest so much time and money into learning just one setting. So when I saw that FR would be the first core setting for 4e I initially waved it off... Until I started to read a bit more about it and the changes (hey, not much else to do on deployment, so I have haunted RPG boards far too much in the last few months). Now, most of the changes didn't mean much to me due to my lack of knowledge, but the idea of a 100-year jump forward means that I can get into a setting with rich history, but less dependence upon knowing that history backwards.
I never can understand the "I want to play in the setting but cant be bothered to know anything about it. So everyone else should just not know about it" mentality. You didnt have to read anything other than the FRCS to play in the setting. But other things exist so everyone who enjoys them has to be punished because you dont want to deal with them and cant be satisfied with the bits you can be bothered to look into.
I see it as potentially being able to get the best of both worlds, really. The opportunity to tap the iconic nature of some of the FR nations, characters, etc whilst not needing to spend the GDP of a small nation on back-product and quitting my job to read it all to do it justice, seems like I can finally scratch the FR itch in the back of my head on my terms *and* be compatible with all the other FR players out there to a degree. This has got to be good for newer players and new-to-FR-old-players. That said, that history is still there to drive the setting (and players) and my prior bad experiences with venturing into the Realms are giving me pause enough to hold off from spending my tight gaming budget on the books without being more sure.
Maybe. But theres also FR fans like me, who will just walk away from any table where a 4e game will be played. Ive never once in my entire life corrected a DM or player on any FR related thing. Until now I had never attacked anyones knowledge or lack of for the setting. I enjoyed the world. I read the materials. If they didnt on either account that was up to them and I wasnt going to force it on them either way. But as of now I am actively refusing to sit at a table with the "You cant enjoy things I dont" crowd anymore.
So the backstory is still there LK? Why are some people complaining then?
Because the whole point of the new setting is to placate the 'You cant know more than me' crowd. The whole point was to make the story and lore easier to ignore. The devs have said as much in this very thread. Its a blatant '**** you' to the people who have loved the setting enough to research it, and spend their time learning more about it. Never mind that the ones who didnt want to do those things didnt have to, just screw you who did.
I heard several people say they are not realms fans but are buying it because of the Swordmage class. That is what it is all about, selling books, making profit and maybe "hooking" some people into the setting that might normally just steer away from the setting.
So the backstory is still there LK?
-Yes, yes it is. You've been following things. You should know.
Why are some people complaining then?
-Numerous reasons. The one relevant to this discussion is the advancement of the metaplot by 100 years or so, and everything that comes with that.
So the backstory is still there LK? Why are some people complaining then?
Thats easy. By jumping 100 years they are forcing you to abandon your campaign or abandon the product line, at least in terms of its usefulness.
Plus, the way they did it completely changes many things. If you continue in the real realms, as a PC, would you want to save Unther knowing its gone in a few years? Would you want to help Mystra knowing she's about to be destroyed?
Thats easy. By jumping 100 years they are forcing you to abandon your campaign or abandon the product line, at least in terms of its usefulness.
-Well, no one is being forced to do anything. That said, for someone who chooses to stay in the 'current' incarnation of the Forgotten Realms, future products lose more and more relevance the more your campaign diverges from canon.
Plus, the way they did it completely changes many things. If you continue in the real realms, as a PC, would you want to save Unther knowing its gone in a few years? Would you want to help Mystra knowing she's about to be destroyed?
-People should always seperate their metagame knowledge from their character knowledge. Of course, they don't always do that, so...
So the backstory is still there LK? Why are some people complaining then?
As LK said, so I won't repeat his reply. However, it just irks me to no end that there are so many lazy people that can't be bothered to do a little research into a setting they supposedly like or want to play in. There is a reason I call this newer generation the ADD generation.
Can you imagine the quality of acting in movies if writers/actors/directors just went with assumptions, rampant with incorrect history, culture, or behavior and just winged it? Some people who wouldn't know one way or another would be unaffected, however, those with any knowledge of the subject would be offended/insulted that the writer/actor/director didn't take the project seriously enough thereby diminishing the impact the story has on the viewer. A couple examples of this are Apocolypto, The Patriot, Braveheart, First Blood II: Rambo, Jaws and so on. While these movies were entertaining and the actors themselves were fairly good if not exceptional, each was rife with blatant falsehoods and other inconsistencies.
FR has been to this point, an ongoing movie that has had a well written story with a good script, strong acting, and great effects. Continuity remained intact from edition to edition. It was good. Now with 4e FR, you have a new crew writing the story only they broke continuity, improvised the script, made it difficult for the actors to adapt to the changes (in the sense that the new lore is difficult the swallow), and the effects are shoddy (effects in this context is = to flavor/feeling).
Take The Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games (for this series they should have had Harrison Ford from the beginning), Jaws III and Jaws IV, the various Batman movies (excepting the new ones with Christian Bale), and though I like the series alot, the James Bond series; these are prime examples of what I'm talking about.
This is also an examination of the targeted customer as well. Most people will watch any movie with flashy effects no matter how crappy the story or acting is; the deficiencies are lost on the general public, who largely think its a great movie. It's those who take the time to examine in detail, research what is necessary to make a great story (not just a passable one), and ensure the actors perform in a manner consistent with the history and culture that really make the master piece. The general public does not care enough to dig this deep.
To me 4e FR just feels like a contrived B movie that the masses think is really super great A movie.
Thats easy. By jumping 100 years they are forcing you to abandon your campaign or abandon the product line, at least in terms of its usefulness.
Plus, the way they did it completely changes many things. If you continue in the real realms, as a PC, would you want to save Unther knowing its gone in a few years? Would you want to help Mystra knowing she's about to be destroyed?
You have the old setting already. The new setting is being released. I have the impression that suggestions for transition period adventuring will be available.
Most PCs have no knowledge of the future. Players can have fun even if they know that there is a future world where they ultimately fail. Consider players of historical adventures set on Earth. They know what things are like in the present day, but can still enjoy adventures in the past, even when the outcomes of those adventures don't match actual history. The new FR has grown from the old, but does not invalidate the old.
Thanks for your reply to my post - it made me question some of what I said, which is only a good thing as I was ramblign and likely unsure of what i was saying at the time.
-Do you think when I first got into the setting, circa 2002 or so, that I knew any of what I know?
No, because to think you knew somehting about something you knew nothing about when you first got into it would be just plain silly.
Anyhow...
I'm really happy for you that you grabbed FR in 3e by the horns, so to speak, and immered yourself into it. It just didn't appeal to me to do so at the time. I guess intimidated was the wrong choice of word, perhaps I should have said that there was so much backstory that I found it innaccessible to someone new - especially when the only play oportunity I had at the time was a local game club full of FR gurus who opposed any deviation from the sacred canon with only the kind of vitriol that over-involved fanboys can. So at the time it wasn't worth the effort and cash to be able to play in the setting.
Which nicely leads on to:
-All of which is still in effect, plus the additional 100 years of information from the 4e transition.
Yep, but the beauty of the 100 years is that it is a great psychological 'clean start-ish' for the setting - especially with Living Greyhawk ending and Living FR being my only real choice for rejoining RPGA play - its a mostly clean slate for everyone now.
I hope that mad emore sense than my last post.
Regards,
Shane
I agree with LK on that. I started reading about FR in 2002 and I never felt intimidated by it. I don't know even 1/4 of all the setting (at least that's what I think, maybe I know less or more) but that doesn't stops me from learning more every day.
Thats great to hear! Its always good when someone finds a new (to them) setting they enjoy and begins to learn about it. If my situation (meaning my availible players att eh time) was different, my story could be similar to yours.
Here's hoping it works this time round!
Regards,
Shane
I never can understand the "I want to play in the setting but can’t be bothered to know anything about it. So everyone else should just not know about it" mentality. You didn’t have to read anything other than the FRCS to play in the setting. But other things exist so everyone who enjoys them has to be punished because you don’t want to deal with them and can’t be satisfied with the bits you can be bothered to look into.
I have to say this come across as a little bit derisory, but I think that just might be the way I am reading it, and I think I know what you are saying.
You are correct that I did only read the 3e FRCS, and that was all I needed to play in the setting. And if I was a player then I could have learned on the job, as it were. The trouble was that I was one of the very few GMs willing to convert to 3e at the time, and the majority of the players who wanted to play 3e FR wanted me to know as much as them about the setting to GM for them.
To construe unwillingness to do so as punishing 'everyone else' is, I think, a little unreasonable. After all, the golden rule of GMing is "make things your own". It could be said that in being unwilling to accept my version of the campaign setting (and once I paid the money for the book it stopped being the Fr and became Shane's FR) they were punishing me for wanting to tell my story of the FR 3e world.
So, was I really punishing three players by not spending hundreds of pounds and hours learning the nuances of a setting when I was quite willing to make up what I didn't know tailored specifically for the story? I have to say that I don't think that’s the case. If I said to you I would like you to GM Shadowrun 3rd Edition (for the purposes of this example the assumptions made are that you posses only the core book and have read it once or twice) for me but first you need to buy all of the supplements and study them, what would your response be?
Maybe. But there’s also FR fans like me, who will just walk away from any table where a 4e game will be played. I’ve never once in my entire life corrected a DM or player on any FR related thing. Until now I had never attacked anyone’s knowledge or lack of for the setting. I enjoyed the world. I read the materials. If they didn’t on either account that was up to them and I wasn’t going to force it on them either way. But as of now I am actively refusing to sit at a table with the "You can’t enjoy things I don’t" crowd anymore.[?QUOTE]
It sounds to me that if I'd have had three players like you then things would have been very different for me. My players spent most of the first session correcting all my political and plot stuff ("that wouldn't work because such and such are at war", etc - the specifics escape me). If someone as reasonable as you had been there to calm them down then I am confident it could have been a great campaign.
I wholeheartedly support you for not wanting to play with the "You can’t enjoy things I don’t" crowd - that’s exactly why I walked away from the Realms at the time. It wasn't a problem for me that they knew more than me, and it could have been a great resource if it wasn't a problem for them that I didn't know as much as them.Because the whole point of the new setting is to placate the 'You can’t know more than me' crowd. The whole point was to make the story and lore easier to ignore. The devs have said as much in this very thread. It’s a blatant '**** you' to the people who have loved the setting enough to research it, and spend their time learning more about it. Never mind that the ones who didn’t want to do those things didn’t have to, just screw you who did.
I'm not sure I can respond to this bit. Perhaps you'd be better directing feedback and concerns like that to the developers.
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
Regards,
Shane
As LK said, so I won't repeat his reply. However, it just irks me to no end that there are so many lazy people that can't be bothered to do a little research into a setting they supposedly like or want to play in.
To throw in an opposing point of view to this statement in order to provoke a relevant debate, why can't people be allowed to just buy one book and build their version of the own game world around it? Surely the effort involved in that setting construction precludes the application of the description 'lazy'?
Take you and I, for example, we obviously have different views on what it takes to properly (if such a word has any meaning in a subjective thing like gaming) play in a setting. If it, by your own words, 'irks' you that people aren't willing to do a little research into a setting they supposedly want to play in, then a previous plan I had for a campaign in the FR based off of a the 3e FRCS and my own work could be included in the lazy category. Conversely, I possess every SR book form 1st to 3rd edition and have a very good knowledge of SR canon, so the campaign I developed for my similarly-interested group based around some very esoteric references in the Aztlan book would fall into the not-lazy category due to my prior time investment in learnign the setting.
The fact of the matter is that the SR campaign took much less time and effort to write because of my knowledge than the FR campaign was doing as I had to make more new stuff for the FR game. So in reality I would class my SR campaigns as my lazy choices as they required less effort.
I'm interested to see what folks think about this discussion point.
Regards,
Shane
What it comes down to, for me anyway, is why should I have to suffer the virtual destruction of a setting just because a bunch of folks can't be bothered to actually learn about it? Is the "reset" really going to encourage them to come in and get into the setting, when its likely the 'brand name' of the setting that's putting them off in the first place? Hells, it may not even be the sourcebooks that are putting people off, it could very well be the novels that some may feel have to be kept up with in order to play in the Realms, which don't seem scheduled to stop anytime soon. ;)
Maybe I'm weird, but if I read a book, or see a movie, or whatever, that I really enjoy, I look for as much information as possible about it. I don't however hope that there's only a little bit of information available so I don't have to hurt my brain reading too much about it... if you get my point there.
Yep. If my players hate the new stuff I can just come up with some ideas on how to explain some of the new 4E stuff and just go on from there. If I say "That 4E FR is not the future" then they will be fine with that.
-It is also important to note that many "negative sentiments" towards the 4e Forgotten Realms stem not from a 'D&D viewpoint', but from a 'novels viewpoint', a 'metagame viewpoint', and so on.
No, because to think you knew somehting about something you knew nothing about when you first got into it would be just plain silly.
Anyhow...
I'm really happy for you that you grabbed FR in 3e by the horns, so to speak, and immered yourself into it. It just didn't appeal to me to do so at the time. I guess intimidated was the wrong choice of word, perhaps I should have said that there was so much backstory that I found it innaccessible to someone new - especially when the only play oportunity I had at the time was a local game club full of FR gurus who opposed any deviation from the sacred canon with only the kind of vitriol that over-involved fanboys can. So at the time it wasn't worth the effort and cash to be able to play in the setting.
-Noted.
-I have never played in a Forgotten Realms campaign until about a month ago. That said, I have never had any experiences with "bad" players/DMs. What most fail to take into account, as I said earlier, is that as soon as someone starts up their own campaign set in the Forgotten Realms, a new world is "born"- Forgotten Realms 222, Forgotten Realms 47,827, Forgotten Realms 84,367, whatever. They all differ- subtly or greatly- from Realms 616, the official Forgotten Realms.
Yep, but the beauty of the 100 years is that it is a great psychological 'clean start-ish' for the setting - especially with Living Greyhawk ending and Living FR being my only real choice for rejoining RPGA play - its a mostly clean slate for everyone now.
-Yes, it is a psychological "clean slate", but it isn't an actual clean slate. For example, a particular individual has said that everyone- especially DMs- should be especially happy that the 4e Realms are doing what they are doing, because they put all DMs and players on equal footing, concerning new materials. Entirely untrue. The players/DMs who have always "argued" semantics are still going to be arguing semantics. They miss a sentence, or misinterpret a sentence, or whathaveyou, and boom. Someone has an "upperhand", so to speak.
-All that said, though, if it brings you back into the Realms, more power to you, I guess. I just hope that, in doing so, you do your "research", and learn about the "Realms that were". ;)
I don't think anyone's saying that one can't or shouldn't be allowed to buy one book to build their campaign. What I think they are saying is that if you're going to play in a setting and complain about the plethora of lore stopping your enjoyment, then you're either being lazy, or just looking for an excuse not to play in the setting, or possibly just sniping for the sheer joy of sniping.
It’s a fair point, for sure. I can certainly relate some of it to my situation, though it’s was not the plethora of lore (I like that expression, by the way) that was the enjoyment-stopping problem, but the particular players who refused to allow deviation from it when they were playing. With other players who were willing to accept that someone can enjoy the setting without the lore it would have been different.
But yes, someone who says "too much lore stops me from enjoying it" is being unreasonable - it’s better to say "I respect the need for others to embrace the lore, but I don't need it in my game and I wish that opinion to be respected too". For what its worth, that group and I went on to have an awesome Savage Worlds campaign - we just knew which games we couldn't play together owing to incompatible opinions.
What it comes down to, for me anyway, is why should I have to suffer the virtual destruction of a setting just because a bunch of folks can't be bothered to actually learn about it?
I guess this is just one of those situations where the business decision has been made.
Is the "reset" really going to encourage them to come in and get into the setting, when its likely the 'brand name' of the setting that's putting them off in the first place?
All opinions on the internet aside, I guess only time and sales will tell for sure. I'd be willing to bet that most people who play in the Realms, just like any game world, don't spend time on forums. We (as in forum posters) are the vocal minority.
Hells, it may not even be the sourcebooks that are putting people off, it could very well be the novels that some may feel have to be kept up with in order to play in the Realms, which don't seem scheduled to stop anytime soon. ;)
It could be, I don't really know anything about the novel line.
Maybe I'm weird, but if I read a book, or see a movie, or whatever, that I really enjoy, I look for as much information as possible about it. I don't however hope that there's only a little bit of information available so I don't have to hurt my brain reading too much about it... if you get my point there.
I do see your point, though I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that some people just want to skim the surface and they are just as valid as the others. And as an aside, I doubt you are any weirder or les weird than I, we will just be differently weird. *grin*
Thanks for a very thought-provoking post, Stigger.
Regards,
Shane
It is also important to note that many "negative sentiments" towards the 4e Forgotten Realms stem not from a 'D&D viewpoint', but from a 'novels viewpoint', a 'metagame viewpoint', and so on.
I'm not really familiar enough with the novels or the FR gamer community, so I shall bow to your knowledge on this.
-I have never played in a Forgotten Realms campaign until about a month ago. That said, I have never had any experiences with "bad" players/DMs.
To be fair to the players I mentioned in all other regards they were fine players and good friends, we just had incompatible ideas on where to go with the Realms. And I am thankful that this kind of bad experience is rare!
-What most fail to take into account, as I said earlier, is that as soon as someone starts up their own campaign set in the Forgotten Realms, a new world is "born"- Forgotten Realms 222, Forgotten Realms 47,827, Forgotten Realms 84,367, whatever. They all differ- subtly or greatly- from Realms 616, the official Forgotten Realms.
Absolutely! Once I pay for the book it’s my setting!
-The players/DMs who have always "argued" semantics are still going to be arguing semantics.
Well, people will always be people. I guess the one sure-fire thing the 100 year gap does is make everything in the new FR books the new base line for everyone to speak from.
-All that said, though, if it brings you back into the Realms, more power to you, I guess. I just hope that, in doing so, you do your "research", and learn about the "Realms that were". ;)
I wouldn't say back, as I have never really been there, to be honest. But if the new Realms incarnation is as fun as I hope it can be then I'm sure I shall absorb lore by osmosis over time (unless I can find a vaccine... ;) ). But I really intent to build my own version now I have a group of players more suited to that style of play.
Thanks for your reply,
Shane
I guess intimidated was the wrong choice of word, perhaps I should have said that there was so much backstory that I found it innaccessible to someone new - especially when the only play oportunity I had at the time was a local game club full of FR gurus who opposed any deviation from the sacred canon with only the kind of vitriol that over-involved fanboys can. So at the time it wasn't worth the effort and cash to be able to play in the setting.
I'm sorry to hear you had such a bad experience.
In any case, I didn't want to get too deeply involved in this discussion, as I've explained more than once why I don't like the Spellplague or the time jump, and also because your own experiences are just as valid as anyone else's and if you like the new setting that's your prerogative.
Much like LK (and I think every other FR fan), there was once a time when I knew nothing about the setting. Once I got into it, I just learned it at my own pace, bit by bit, and that worked out fine.
I don't think a good DM should need his/her players to know the finer details about what setting they are going to use, anyway. A quick data sheet with information relative to the game would be useful; an assignment to read, say 100 of the setting's novels before even touching the setting in a DMed game would be excessive, to say the least.Yep, but the beauty of the 100 years is that it is a great psychological 'clean start-ish' for the setting - especially with Living Greyhawk ending and Living FR being my only real choice for rejoining RPGA play - its a mostly clean slate for everyone now.
Please understand, though, that while a "cleansing" might make things enjoyable for you and others, it's removing a lot of what other people liked about the setting. I liked Mystra and the concept of her Chosen. Yes, they will still be there in the past, but WotC probably won't produce anymore stories or lore about them because they are going to be focusing on the new stuff. So for me, that is a loss, not a gain--and I certainly don't see much "beauty" in it. For me, the setting isn't just the map and the countries, or the name "Forgotten Realms", it's also the people and the events of the late 1300s DR.
I'm only mentioning this so you get an idea of why some people are saddened.
It could be, I don't really know anything about the novel line.
Many of the setting nuances that you speak of are introduced in the novels rather than the various sourcebooks. The Realms setting has tons of novel tie-ins (almost 200, I think), and they are canon. I think a lot of the obnoxious "lore-junkies" that people mention (although of course, anecdotes are as I've said unreliable to begin with) are most likely avid novel readers and are nitpickers based on the details they read in the novels.
Well, come 4E, the novels are still going to be produced, and they will still be canon. To be fair, though, we've been told that WotC is finally going to focus more on smaller, personal stories rather than "Realms Shaking Events" (RSEs).
I don't think anyone's saying that one can't or shouldn't be allowed to buy one book to build their campaign. What I think they are saying is that if you're going to play in a setting and complain about the plethora of lore stopping your enjoyment, then you're either being lazy, or just looking for an excuse not to play in the setting, or possibly just sniping for the sheer joy of sniping. If you're willing to buy one book and build up from there without other supporting books, then you're absolutely free to do so, hells, probably even encouraged to do so, but if you feel you must have every book ever published to 'enjoy' the setting, then its a problem with you, and not the setting. Obviously that 'you' should be taken rhetorically...
What it comes down to, for me anyway, is why should I have to suffer the virtual destruction of a setting just because a bunch of folks can't be bothered to actually learn about it? Is the "reset" really going to encourage them to come in and get into the setting, when its likely the 'brand name' of the setting that's putting them off in the first place? Hells, it may not even be the sourcebooks that are putting people off, it could very well be the novels that some may feel have to be kept up with in order to play in the Realms, which don't seem scheduled to stop anytime soon. ;)
Maybe I'm weird, but if I read a book, or see a movie, or whatever, that I really enjoy, I look for as much information as possible about it. I don't however hope that there's only a little bit of information available so I don't have to hurt my brain reading too much about it... if you get my point there.
Thank you Stigger, you hit the nail on the head here
I have to say this come across as a little bit derisory, but I think that just might be the way I am reading it, and I think I know what you are saying.
Youre right. Im sorry. Ive heard things like "Now I can play with you guys" and "Now were on even footing" a lot lately and it gets me really frustrated. Stigger said it a lot more eloquently and a lot less aggressively. People manage to play in homebrews all the time. Those are settings they likely know even less about. Why isnt lack of knowledge a problem in those games? Ive played in games like Ravenloft, Deadlands, and Shadowrun where all I know is whats in the core book, but others at the table are big fans and very knowledgable of the entire setting. This sort of thing was never a problem there. I wonder if I went to boards discussing those settings if I would find complaints about their pile o lore.
I see it kind of like if I turned on the TV and saw an episode of Star Trek. I decide I like it but not enough to go rent (or whatever) all the seasons of all the shows and the movies. That in and of itself would be fine. But then a new movie or series comes out and the people writing it blatantly ignore the history and flavor of the franchise. I go out and start telling people who were big fans of the franchise, had watched all the series and movies, read the novel line, etc. that its good that everything before, everything they liked, is being disregarded because now I can enjoy it with them. I would expect them to be frustrated and angry. If I wanted different sci-fi I could have gone to any of the many many others that better fit my tastes. The one they enjoyed didnt have to be taken away.
If I said to you I would like you to GM Shadowrun 3rd Edition (for the purposes of this example the assumptions made are that you posses only the core book and have read it once or twice) for me but first you need to buy all of the supplements and study them, what would your response be?
Typically if Im going to be in a game in a setting Im not familiar with I will either buy or borrow the core book. If I enjoy the setting I will probably buy other products for it, but for me. Not to argue with anyone about the nuances of the setting, not to tell anyone that their character backround doesnt work or to tell the GM his or her game is wrong. but just so I can enjoy it.
If I go sit down at your table and you say were going to play in the Forgotten Realms in the giant swamp ruled by lizard people, called Cormyr, thats fine. If you come to me and say "Diego, you know a lot about the Realms, give me some advice." I may suggest locales where the game you want to play may work better, or talk about how better to work the story you want into Cormyr. But in the end if you want to play a game about lizard folk in a giant swamp and want it to be Cormyr, thats fine. It may not be that way in the books but it IS in that game.
My frustration comes in it not going the other way. I read comments like "now were on equal footing" as an attack on my hobby. I enjoyed the setting. I spend a lot of time and money researching it. If you (general you) dont want to thats fine, but I do take offense to the mentality that it has to be taken away BECAUSE you dont want to. And yes, I DO feel like Im being punished for having enjoyed it before. That comment makes it seem like knowing the settings lore is a bad thing.
The last part you quoted wasnt directed at you. I accidentally put your name in the quote brackets instead of Raurics. Its fixed now. But youre right, it was a nasty shot and its something I should have taken up with the designers. I really dont think they care what my opinion is though lol. So... *shrug*
Again, Im sorry for being so aggressive.
When I started replying, you hadn't posted yet, so no hard feelings. Your Star Trek example is very apt, by the way
None at all. Im may come off as very aggressive and combative but I wouldnt say things if I didnt expect the same right back. And thank you, I hope it made sense, the things Im thinking dont always come out making as much sense on paper as they did in my brain...
As far as Realms customization is concerned: I strongly dislike very much of the official lore, so I can't be exactly considered a canon slave. (Although I must say that WotC managed to think up new lore I even dislike much, much more than the worst parts of 1e-3e lore - which is a feat in itself, so let's give credit where credit is due.) Yet I made the Realms my own since 1989 or 1990. The difference is: I'm blessed with players I'm on the same page with. If only lore lawyers had been available for me, I'd never have touched the setting with a 10-foot pole. So although I find very, very, very little appeal in what's been revealed about the 4e Realms as yet, I sympathize with you, and if what's been revealed so far appeals to you, good for you. WotC's gamble will pay off either way: They won't continue the line anyway, so why wouldn't they give the Realms a massive facelift in order to attract casual gamers? It makes perfect sense, business-wise - most of the old fans will buy anything with an FR logo on it anyway, no matter how much fire and brimstone they're breathing right now, if only to find out how horribly mutated their setting has become; and non-fans get baited by the "Look, it's a completely new setting, everything you may have disliked in the past is gone - it's new, it's shiny, it's easy to use!" hints WotC's dropping left and right. If they continued the line, the old fans would back out sooner or later. This way they're taking all the money they'd been willing to invest anyway and that of the previous non-fans. Maybe the New Realms is the best thing since sliced bread - and if it isn't, once the customers find out, the line's dead anyway. It's quite clever, actually.
Oh, by the way, dav: You're barking up the wrong tree. BNG isn't responsible for 4e. WotC is.
DB
Several Q's today.
In 4E, will we find out (generally) any more details on Araevin, either in the new FRCS book, or other upcoming sources like DDI? Could he potentially be an instructor at Evermeet or in the revitalized Myth Drannor? He has a really interesting backstory, perhaps even moreso if he lives through the Spellplague, and I was thinking he might make for an interesting master for an aspiring Elvish PC wizard. Just curious about the possibility here.
related question:
Any chance we might see Araevin and his special high loregem given stats in 4E, or potentially how one might make an elven high loregem under the new 4E rules? If I make an elvish wizard for play in 4E, I might eventually want one, or something similar, heh!
lastly:
I can't recall exactly what happened to Methrammar Aerasumé, Lady Alustriel's son. Any chance he might still be alive in 4E FR time? If so, would he still be in the Silver Marches?
Again, Im sorry for being so aggressive.
When I started replying, you hadn't posted yet, so no hard feelings. Your Star Trek example is very apt, by the way
DB
Yep. If my players hate the new stuff I can just come up with some ideas on how to explain some of the new 4E stuff and just go on from there. If I say "That 4E FR is not the future" then they will be fine with that.
But they are still forcing you to either abandon the product line (in its usefulness)or your current campaign. Although, it appears that they are abandoning the product line as well
My frustration comes in it not going the other way. I read comments like "now were on equal footing" as an attack on my hobby.
I agree, comments like that often come off as aggressive--a jab--even if they aren't actually intended that way.
Take for example the campaign my friends and I run/play in:
The campaign started in Ched Nasad, a drow city between the High Forest and Anaurach Desert. We started as members of House Auvryndar, from some unnamed nobles. The city was built using a blurb in a book, I forget which one, before anything was officially written about it. The name Auvryndar was chosen from the original Drow of the Underdark supplement. We played in that city for well over 5 years before the next supplement we found related to our campaign was released, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark.
Now this book was great for us, it contained a fairly detailed section on Ched Nasad. We really liked the direction it took the city in, and we adapted the city to fit with the published material. Where in the previous campaign, House Auvryndar was the 13th in the city, the supplement said House Auvryndar was 3rd AND had a Vampire for its Matron Mother!! Instead of retconning the campaign we just created scenarios that more or less made the information in the supplement accurate for our campaign. The great thing was, we advanced the campaign as information was released, but the great thing about playing in the Underdark is there really wasn't much info to go off of in the first place so we were able to create our own history and political interactions between races/cities. All of it in a manner consistent with the history provided for us.
Fast forward to 3.x, the same campaign progression criteria was applied and the game continued to be great. When the 3.5 supplement "Underdark" was released, we were ecstatic. We finally had an update to the information from DDGtoU. By this time the main characters of the campaign were well into epic levels and were in semi-retirement. Amazingly, our campaign progressed almost identically to the changes presented right up to the War of the Spider Queen era. The campaign had shifted from a focus on Ched Nasad to a community started and maintained on the surface in the Orsraun Mountains, directly south of Starmantle. The characters ran a covert style merchant company specializing in the sale of minor magic items, the very quick transportation of cargo (using a portal network), and a thriving jewelcrafting guild with clients in every major community from Silverymoon in the North, to Starmantle and Westgate along the Dragon Coast, and every major surface and underdark community in between. To make a long story short, strife in Ched Nasad forced the characters to move out of the city or be exposed as heretics and consequently, killed or worse. The course of the campaign spanned a time period from 1070 DR to the start of the 3e FR, 1376 DR, where the second generation of characters played in City of the Spider Queen. During the course of the Campaign, we got the Lost Empires of Faerun supplement and found material regarding the Dark Disaster and the destruction of Miyeritar (present day High Moor). I found this interesting because the main characters had started exploring and researching epic spells to restore Miyeritar to its former glory well before it was mentioned in a supplement (other than as a blurb). Now A Grand History of the Realms, speaks of a new elven city being raised in the middle of the High Moor to reclaim and rebuild the long lost kingdom. This development actually worked out to our advantage. The characters get to help rebuild a bit of elven history and maintain the integrity of the campaign at the same time!
The point is, the lore is a backdrop, something you use to spice up your game, not dictate its course. Sure we made some adjustments for the betterment of the game and it benefited us greatly. Instead of diving into a part of the Realms that had lots of NPC's and complex history, we chose a fairly unknown area and made it our own, still managing to keep it up to date with the latest information not really needing to make massive changes due to changing information.
Now, with 4e Realms, we will have to nearly completely retool the campaign to fit with the aftermath of the nuclear event that takes place if we want to continue with a campaign that follows the Canon. There are just so many changes, there is no easy way to do this and maintain consistency. Spellcasters throughout the Realms died en masse during this time. Most of the characters were dependent on Mystra and Eilistraee for clerical magic, now they are gone or changed in such a way to make them as good as gone, and no one yet knows what happens to the followers.
Whereas before the changes were incremental and easily adapted to, now with this 4e stuff, I have to go to alot of work just to make the transition. All because a bunch of whiners complained that it was "too hard". There are some who will say, why not just adapt the new info to your campaign? We likely will. The issue we have is not that we have to change so much, but the degree of the change, and the quality of the new lore presented. It just feels like our campaign will get watered down by sticking with the canon now...
Anyway, I've gone on long enough and feel like I'm just ranting now :angelhide
Their excuse is beyond lame.
It's ok to play characters that make pacts with beings of great evil such as demons and devils (hence, the tiefling race being core and more demonic and the warlock class being core) yet the possible concept that some (not all) half-orcs are spawned by **** isn't ok? So it's ok to sell your soul to the devil but not have a character possible conceived through ****?
Their logic is more chaotic than Limbo (oh, wait, there is no Limbo...it magically vanished!)
WotC, let the darn players of the game figure out how their half-orc came to be. Just cause the only thing you can think of is **** doesn't mean we lack the creative sense to come up with something else.
HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD!!
I actually agree with Razz about something! I really could care less about half-orcs. I've never played one, and probably never will. However, based on the new flavor of warlocks and tieflings, the reasoning for their absence rings a little hollow.
HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD!!
I actually agree with Razz about something! I really could care less about half-orcs. I've never played one, and probably never will. However, based on the new flavor of warlocks and tieflings, the reasoning for their absence rings a little hollow.
Best half-orc origin ever (last few panels):
Order of the Stick #555
Please understand, though, that while a "cleansing" might make things enjoyable for you and others, it's removing a lot of what other people liked about the setting.
Oh goodness, I hope you didn't think I was deriding or disregarding the emtional investment many FR fans have - that was not my intention in any way! I guess its just that I'm not so emotionally invested in FR, so the re-imaging doesn't upset me - but I really do understand how it can upset others, and I do believe that your (in the sense of FR fans everywhere) view of the FR is just as valid as the official one (and much more so round your gaming tables).
Again, I hope I didn't come across as deriding older-edition FR fans for liking the long history - it just doesn't grab me. Hence why I am so interested in the new one.
Regards,
Shane
Again, I hope I didn't come across as deriding older-edition FR fans for liking the long history...
I don't think you are.
Again, I’m sorry for being so aggressive.
No need to apologise, I figured you were just speaking your mind frankly with no insult intended.
You do make a lot of good points. I'm realising now exactly how upsetting the re-imaging of the Realms is for a lot of fans who have invested heavily, both money and imagination, in it. Although I am personally enthusiastic bout the fact it is now open to me more, I can see how you would feel it is being closed to you. I just hope that you can keep hold of the good times you have had and keep playing the Realms you want to play, even if there is no new product for it.
I'm going to make sure to try and be more mindful of the upset the new edition brings in my posts from here on. I guess too much 'yay new edition' enthusiasm can seem like rubbing folks' noses in it - which is really not my intent.
Regards,
Shane
I don't think you are.
Oh, good! That sets me at ease. I hate upsetting people.
Shane
Other people would probably pick different selling points--the cast of characters, the complexities and depth of the various cultures, or the iconic villains (this is the setting of the Red Wizards, the drow city of Menzoberranzan, the Cult of the Dragon, and many other great bad guys).
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and stirring up the discussion here!
So the question I have for Rich Baker, or indeed any of the authors, after that rambling (and likely disjointed) post is this - as a veteran RPer tempted to visit the Realms with almost no pre-knowledge what one thing is really going to blow me away about the 4e Realms enough to tip me over the edge from tempted to pre-order?
Thanks in advance for any answer.
Regards,
Shane
My only answer to that would be, "I hope that someday we succeed in making Dragon compelling enough for you to change your mind." Other than that, what could we do?
DDi is where the Realms game support is going to live for now. I'd point out that many core D&D products are still being printed the old-fashioned way, and that these will add potential content to your FR game too -- for example, the next monster manual will be chock full of critters you could add to an FR game.
-Rich- and mind you, I am hardly 100% in the know- from what I have heard, there will be those three books all released in the next couple of months, and then that's it. The rest of the new information that is released will be via DDI, or via novels. Am I correct, so far? Now, presuming someone doesn't suscribe to DDI, how are new information releases going to be "handled". Those people are, basically, "out of luck", so to say? Not trying to lead you on, or anything, just wondering.
This is not a straight comparison, but I'll try it anyway: Say we were publishing Dragon in the paper format we all know from way back when. And say that you asked me, "I want Dragon content, but I don't want to subscribe and I'm not going to pick it up at my FLGS."
My only answer to that would be, "I hope that someday we succeed in making Dragon compelling enough for you to change your mind." Other than that, what could we do?
-That's not exactly a straight comparison, either, but...
DDi is where the Realms game support is going to live for now. I'd point out that many core D&D products are still being printed the old-fashioned way, and that these will add potential content to your FR game too -- for example, the next monster manual will be chock full of critters you could add to an FR game.
-Good enough. Thank you.
This is not a straight comparison, but I'll try it anyway: Say we were publishing Dragon in the paper format we all know from way back when. And say that you asked me, "I want Dragon content, but I don't want to subscribe and I'm not going to pick it up at my FLGS."
My only answer to that would be, "I hope that someday we succeed in making Dragon compelling enough for you to change your mind." Other than that, what could we do?
DDi is where the Realms game support is going to live for now. I'd point out that many core D&D products are still being printed the old-fashioned way, and that these will add potential content to your FR game too -- for example, the next monster manual will be chock full of critters you could add to an FR game.
If I cancel my subscription will I still have access to all the articles I did when it was active? That was the case with Dragon in print, from what I understand it is not with the DDI.
Also will the FR stuff printed in the DDI ever be compiled into a physical product? The insistance that D&D will remain a primarily tabletop and not online game suggested this would be the case, but your post makes me think otherwise.
Also will the FR stuff printed in the DDI ever be compiled into a physical product?
-Yeah, that's more or less where I was headed with that. There will be no more (at least based on from this point on, anyway, not taking into account possible future actions) physical Forgotten Realms products, asides for the 3 in July-September?
This is not a straight comparison, but I'll try it anyway: Say we were publishing Dragon in the paper format we all know from way back when. And say that you asked me, "I want Dragon content, but I don't want to subscribe and I'm not going to pick it up at my FLGS."
My only answer to that would be, "I hope that someday we succeed in making Dragon compelling enough for you to change your mind." Other than that, what could we do?
DDi is where the Realms game support is going to live for now. I'd point out that many core D&D products are still being printed the old-fashioned way, and that these will add potential content to your FR game too -- for example, the next monster manual will be chock full of critters you could add to an FR game.
Thanks Rich, we already know that we might be able to buy Dragon and Dungeon issues outside of the subscription - so does that mean that alle the DI articles will eventuall be compiled into the monthly mazines?
And another question: If people respond positively to the FR articles in Dungeon and especially Dragon and demand more - does that mean that DI actually plans to cater to our deisre? Is it possible that we may get a way (maybe via a poll or something) to tell the Dragon producers what topics we would like to see covered? (like please give us something more detailed about the warlock knights or please stop giving us stuf about drow
) ?On a sidenote, I recently got Swordmage and read it on a single day and I must say I am not dissapointed. As a great fan of your Last Mythal triology my expectations were set very high but I honestly can´t say if it´s better or worse than your last triology. I really liked how you showcased the Realms ( I kinda liked the long pink wall
) and at the same time showed us that not everything has changed. Well now I have to suffer waiting for the next book and the new FR books, so this is somehow your fault . While I am at it could you maybe explain to us how it happened that the Swordmage became the class showcased in the new FR guides - or in other words why was the Swordmage chosen to represent the realms?(not that it´s a bad choice mind you I really liked the change from war wizards to swordmages).
And what class (maybe with multiclassing and/or paragon path option) would you give the halfling if you were to stat him?
Will the FRCS feature the moonsea region before Swordmage starts or after the events? Will we get more info about the King?
Rich already raised the possibility of more books in the future if they felt it was warranted, didn't he? I could've sworn he said something to that effect a few pages ago.
-I don't know. But, I am meaning that more as in a DRAGON Magazine compilation (oriented towards the Forgotten Realms, of course).
QUESTION: Will we see any write up for Kara-Tur and Zakhara in the new FRCS? Also, will we get to see more of the world mapped out a bit like the world map in the 3rd edition Campaign Setting mini-map?
So the backstory is still there LK? Why are some people complaining then?
As LK said, so I won't repeat his reply. However, it just irks me to no end that there are so many lazy people that can't be bothered to do a little research into a setting they supposedly like or want to play in. There is a reason I call this newer generation the ADD generation.
Can you imagine the quality of acting in movies if writers/actors/directors just went with assumptions, rampant with incorrect history, culture, or behavior and just winged it? Some people who wouldn't know one way or another would be unaffected, however, those with any knowledge of the subject would be offended/insulted that the writer/actor/director didn't take the project seriously enough thereby diminishing the impact the story has on the viewer. A couple examples of this are Apocolypto, The Patriot, Braveheart, First Blood II: Rambo, Jaws and so on. While these movies were entertaining and the actors themselves were fairly good if not exceptional, each was rife with blatant falsehoods and other inconsistencies.
FR has been to this point, an ongoing movie that has had a well written story with a good script, strong acting, and great effects. Continuity remained intact from edition to edition. It was good. Now with 4e FR, you have a new crew writing the story only they broke continuity, improvised the script, made it difficult for the actors to adapt to the changes (in the sense that the new lore is difficult the swallow), and the effects are shoddy (effects in this context is = to flavor/feeling).
Take The Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games (for this series they should have had Harrison Ford from the beginning), Jaws III and Jaws IV, the various Batman movies (excepting the new ones with Christian Bale), and though I like the series alot, the James Bond series; these are prime examples of what I'm talking about.
This is also an examination of the targeted customer as well. Most people will watch any movie with flashy effects no matter how crappy the story or acting is; the deficiencies are lost on the general public, who largely think its a great movie. It's those who take the time to examine in detail, research what is necessary to make a great story (not just a passable one), and ensure the actors perform in a manner consistent with the history and culture that really make the master piece. The general public does not care enough to dig this deep.
To me 4e FR just feels like a contrived B movie that the masses think is really super great A movie.
Thats easy. By jumping 100 years they are forcing you to abandon your campaign or abandon the product line, at least in terms of its usefulness.
Plus, the way they did it completely changes many things. If you continue in the real realms, as a PC, would you want to save Unther knowing its gone in a few years? Would you want to help Mystra knowing she's about to be destroyed?
You have the old setting already. The new setting is being released. I have the impression that suggestions for transition period adventuring will be available.
Most PCs have no knowledge of the future. Players can have fun even if they know that there is a future world where they ultimately fail. Consider players of historical adventures set on Earth. They know what things are like in the present day, but can still enjoy adventures in the past, even when the outcomes of those adventures don't match actual history. The new FR has grown from the old, but does not invalidate the old.
Thanks for your reply to my post - it made me question some of what I said, which is only a good thing as I was ramblign and likely unsure of what i was saying at the time.
-Do you think when I first got into the setting, circa 2002 or so, that I knew any of what I know?
No, because to think you knew somehting about something you knew nothing about when you first got into it would be just plain silly.
Anyhow...
I'm really happy for you that you grabbed FR in 3e by the horns, so to speak, and immered yourself into it. It just didn't appeal to me to do so at the time. I guess intimidated was the wrong choice of word, perhaps I should have said that there was so much backstory that I found it innaccessible to someone new - especially when the only play oportunity I had at the time was a local game club full of FR gurus who opposed any deviation from the sacred canon with only the kind of vitriol that over-involved fanboys can. So at the time it wasn't worth the effort and cash to be able to play in the setting.
Which nicely leads on to:
-All of which is still in effect, plus the additional 100 years of information from the 4e transition.
Yep, but the beauty of the 100 years is that it is a great psychological 'clean start-ish' for the setting - especially with Living Greyhawk ending and Living FR being my only real choice for rejoining RPGA play - its a mostly clean slate for everyone now.
I hope that mad emore sense than my last post.
Regards,
Shane
I agree with LK on that. I started reading about FR in 2002 and I never felt intimidated by it. I don't know even 1/4 of all the setting (at least that's what I think, maybe I know less or more) but that doesn't stops me from learning more every day.
Thats great to hear! Its always good when someone finds a new (to them) setting they enjoy and begins to learn about it. If my situation (meaning my availible players att eh time) was different, my story could be similar to yours.
Here's hoping it works this time round!
Regards,
Shane
I never can understand the "I want to play in the setting but can’t be bothered to know anything about it. So everyone else should just not know about it" mentality. You didn’t have to read anything other than the FRCS to play in the setting. But other things exist so everyone who enjoys them has to be punished because you don’t want to deal with them and can’t be satisfied with the bits you can be bothered to look into.
I have to say this come across as a little bit derisory, but I think that just might be the way I am reading it, and I think I know what you are saying.
You are correct that I did only read the 3e FRCS, and that was all I needed to play in the setting. And if I was a player then I could have learned on the job, as it were. The trouble was that I was one of the very few GMs willing to convert to 3e at the time, and the majority of the players who wanted to play 3e FR wanted me to know as much as them about the setting to GM for them.
To construe unwillingness to do so as punishing 'everyone else' is, I think, a little unreasonable. After all, the golden rule of GMing is "make things your own". It could be said that in being unwilling to accept my version of the campaign setting (and once I paid the money for the book it stopped being the Fr and became Shane's FR) they were punishing me for wanting to tell my story of the FR 3e world.
So, was I really punishing three players by not spending hundreds of pounds and hours learning the nuances of a setting when I was quite willing to make up what I didn't know tailored specifically for the story? I have to say that I don't think that’s the case. If I said to you I would like you to GM Shadowrun 3rd Edition (for the purposes of this example the assumptions made are that you posses only the core book and have read it once or twice) for me but first you need to buy all of the supplements and study them, what would your response be?
Maybe. But there’s also FR fans like me, who will just walk away from any table where a 4e game will be played. I’ve never once in my entire life corrected a DM or player on any FR related thing. Until now I had never attacked anyone’s knowledge or lack of for the setting. I enjoyed the world. I read the materials. If they didn’t on either account that was up to them and I wasn’t going to force it on them either way. But as of now I am actively refusing to sit at a table with the "You can’t enjoy things I don’t" crowd anymore.[?QUOTE]
It sounds to me that if I'd have had three players like you then things would have been very different for me. My players spent most of the first session correcting all my political and plot stuff ("that wouldn't work because such and such are at war", etc - the specifics escape me). If someone as reasonable as you had been there to calm them down then I am confident it could have been a great campaign.
I wholeheartedly support you for not wanting to play with the "You can’t enjoy things I don’t" crowd - that’s exactly why I walked away from the Realms at the time. It wasn't a problem for me that they knew more than me, and it could have been a great resource if it wasn't a problem for them that I didn't know as much as them.Because the whole point of the new setting is to placate the 'You can’t know more than me' crowd. The whole point was to make the story and lore easier to ignore. The devs have said as much in this very thread. It’s a blatant '**** you' to the people who have loved the setting enough to research it, and spend their time learning more about it. Never mind that the ones who didn’t want to do those things didn’t have to, just screw you who did.
I'm not sure I can respond to this bit. Perhaps you'd be better directing feedback and concerns like that to the developers.
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
Regards,
Shane
As LK said, so I won't repeat his reply. However, it just irks me to no end that there are so many lazy people that can't be bothered to do a little research into a setting they supposedly like or want to play in.
To throw in an opposing point of view to this statement in order to provoke a relevant debate, why can't people be allowed to just buy one book and build their version of the own game world around it? Surely the effort involved in that setting construction precludes the application of the description 'lazy'?
Take you and I, for example, we obviously have different views on what it takes to properly (if such a word has any meaning in a subjective thing like gaming) play in a setting. If it, by your own words, 'irks' you that people aren't willing to do a little research into a setting they supposedly want to play in, then a previous plan I had for a campaign in the FR based off of a the 3e FRCS and my own work could be included in the lazy category. Conversely, I possess every SR book form 1st to 3rd edition and have a very good knowledge of SR canon, so the campaign I developed for my similarly-interested group based around some very esoteric references in the Aztlan book would fall into the not-lazy category due to my prior time investment in learnign the setting.
The fact of the matter is that the SR campaign took much less time and effort to write because of my knowledge than the FR campaign was doing as I had to make more new stuff for the FR game. So in reality I would class my SR campaigns as my lazy choices as they required less effort.
I'm interested to see what folks think about this discussion point.
Regards,
Shane
What it comes down to, for me anyway, is why should I have to suffer the virtual destruction of a setting just because a bunch of folks can't be bothered to actually learn about it? Is the "reset" really going to encourage them to come in and get into the setting, when its likely the 'brand name' of the setting that's putting them off in the first place? Hells, it may not even be the sourcebooks that are putting people off, it could very well be the novels that some may feel have to be kept up with in order to play in the Realms, which don't seem scheduled to stop anytime soon. ;)
Maybe I'm weird, but if I read a book, or see a movie, or whatever, that I really enjoy, I look for as much information as possible about it. I don't however hope that there's only a little bit of information available so I don't have to hurt my brain reading too much about it... if you get my point there.
Yep. If my players hate the new stuff I can just come up with some ideas on how to explain some of the new 4E stuff and just go on from there. If I say "That 4E FR is not the future" then they will be fine with that.
-It is also important to note that many "negative sentiments" towards the 4e Forgotten Realms stem not from a 'D&D viewpoint', but from a 'novels viewpoint', a 'metagame viewpoint', and so on.
No, because to think you knew somehting about something you knew nothing about when you first got into it would be just plain silly.
Anyhow...
I'm really happy for you that you grabbed FR in 3e by the horns, so to speak, and immered yourself into it. It just didn't appeal to me to do so at the time. I guess intimidated was the wrong choice of word, perhaps I should have said that there was so much backstory that I found it innaccessible to someone new - especially when the only play oportunity I had at the time was a local game club full of FR gurus who opposed any deviation from the sacred canon with only the kind of vitriol that over-involved fanboys can. So at the time it wasn't worth the effort and cash to be able to play in the setting.
-Noted.
-I have never played in a Forgotten Realms campaign until about a month ago. That said, I have never had any experiences with "bad" players/DMs. What most fail to take into account, as I said earlier, is that as soon as someone starts up their own campaign set in the Forgotten Realms, a new world is "born"- Forgotten Realms 222, Forgotten Realms 47,827, Forgotten Realms 84,367, whatever. They all differ- subtly or greatly- from Realms 616, the official Forgotten Realms.
Yep, but the beauty of the 100 years is that it is a great psychological 'clean start-ish' for the setting - especially with Living Greyhawk ending and Living FR being my only real choice for rejoining RPGA play - its a mostly clean slate for everyone now.
-Yes, it is a psychological "clean slate", but it isn't an actual clean slate. For example, a particular individual has said that everyone- especially DMs- should be especially happy that the 4e Realms are doing what they are doing, because they put all DMs and players on equal footing, concerning new materials. Entirely untrue. The players/DMs who have always "argued" semantics are still going to be arguing semantics. They miss a sentence, or misinterpret a sentence, or whathaveyou, and boom. Someone has an "upperhand", so to speak.
-All that said, though, if it brings you back into the Realms, more power to you, I guess. I just hope that, in doing so, you do your "research", and learn about the "Realms that were". ;)
I don't think anyone's saying that one can't or shouldn't be allowed to buy one book to build their campaign. What I think they are saying is that if you're going to play in a setting and complain about the plethora of lore stopping your enjoyment, then you're either being lazy, or just looking for an excuse not to play in the setting, or possibly just sniping for the sheer joy of sniping.
It’s a fair point, for sure. I can certainly relate some of it to my situation, though it’s was not the plethora of lore (I like that expression, by the way) that was the enjoyment-stopping problem, but the particular players who refused to allow deviation from it when they were playing. With other players who were willing to accept that someone can enjoy the setting without the lore it would have been different.
But yes, someone who says "too much lore stops me from enjoying it" is being unreasonable - it’s better to say "I respect the need for others to embrace the lore, but I don't need it in my game and I wish that opinion to be respected too". For what its worth, that group and I went on to have an awesome Savage Worlds campaign - we just knew which games we couldn't play together owing to incompatible opinions.
What it comes down to, for me anyway, is why should I have to suffer the virtual destruction of a setting just because a bunch of folks can't be bothered to actually learn about it?
I guess this is just one of those situations where the business decision has been made.
Is the "reset" really going to encourage them to come in and get into the setting, when its likely the 'brand name' of the setting that's putting them off in the first place?
All opinions on the internet aside, I guess only time and sales will tell for sure. I'd be willing to bet that most people who play in the Realms, just like any game world, don't spend time on forums. We (as in forum posters) are the vocal minority.
Hells, it may not even be the sourcebooks that are putting people off, it could very well be the novels that some may feel have to be kept up with in order to play in the Realms, which don't seem scheduled to stop anytime soon. ;)
It could be, I don't really know anything about the novel line.
Maybe I'm weird, but if I read a book, or see a movie, or whatever, that I really enjoy, I look for as much information as possible about it. I don't however hope that there's only a little bit of information available so I don't have to hurt my brain reading too much about it... if you get my point there.
I do see your point, though I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that some people just want to skim the surface and they are just as valid as the others. And as an aside, I doubt you are any weirder or les weird than I, we will just be differently weird. *grin*
Thanks for a very thought-provoking post, Stigger.
Regards,
Shane
It is also important to note that many "negative sentiments" towards the 4e Forgotten Realms stem not from a 'D&D viewpoint', but from a 'novels viewpoint', a 'metagame viewpoint', and so on.
I'm not really familiar enough with the novels or the FR gamer community, so I shall bow to your knowledge on this.
-I have never played in a Forgotten Realms campaign until about a month ago. That said, I have never had any experiences with "bad" players/DMs.
To be fair to the players I mentioned in all other regards they were fine players and good friends, we just had incompatible ideas on where to go with the Realms. And I am thankful that this kind of bad experience is rare!
-What most fail to take into account, as I said earlier, is that as soon as someone starts up their own campaign set in the Forgotten Realms, a new world is "born"- Forgotten Realms 222, Forgotten Realms 47,827, Forgotten Realms 84,367, whatever. They all differ- subtly or greatly- from Realms 616, the official Forgotten Realms.
Absolutely! Once I pay for the book it’s my setting!
-The players/DMs who have always "argued" semantics are still going to be arguing semantics.
Well, people will always be people. I guess the one sure-fire thing the 100 year gap does is make everything in the new FR books the new base line for everyone to speak from.
-All that said, though, if it brings you back into the Realms, more power to you, I guess. I just hope that, in doing so, you do your "research", and learn about the "Realms that were". ;)
I wouldn't say back, as I have never really been there, to be honest. But if the new Realms incarnation is as fun as I hope it can be then I'm sure I shall absorb lore by osmosis over time (unless I can find a vaccine... ;) ). But I really intent to build my own version now I have a group of players more suited to that style of play.
Thanks for your reply,
Shane
I guess intimidated was the wrong choice of word, perhaps I should have said that there was so much backstory that I found it innaccessible to someone new - especially when the only play oportunity I had at the time was a local game club full of FR gurus who opposed any deviation from the sacred canon with only the kind of vitriol that over-involved fanboys can. So at the time it wasn't worth the effort and cash to be able to play in the setting.
I'm sorry to hear you had such a bad experience.
In any case, I didn't want to get too deeply involved in this discussion, as I've explained more than once why I don't like the Spellplague or the time jump, and also because your own experiences are just as valid as anyone else's and if you like the new setting that's your prerogative.
Much like LK (and I think every other FR fan), there was once a time when I knew nothing about the setting. Once I got into it, I just learned it at my own pace, bit by bit, and that worked out fine.
I don't think a good DM should need his/her players to know the finer details about what setting they are going to use, anyway. A quick data sheet with information relative to the game would be useful; an assignment to read, say 100 of the setting's novels before even touching the setting in a DMed game would be excessive, to say the least.Yep, but the beauty of the 100 years is that it is a great psychological 'clean start-ish' for the setting - especially with Living Greyhawk ending and Living FR being my only real choice for rejoining RPGA play - its a mostly clean slate for everyone now.
Please understand, though, that while a "cleansing" might make things enjoyable for you and others, it's removing a lot of what other people liked about the setting. I liked Mystra and the concept of her Chosen. Yes, they will still be there in the past, but WotC probably won't produce anymore stories or lore about them because they are going to be focusing on the new stuff. So for me, that is a loss, not a gain--and I certainly don't see much "beauty" in it. For me, the setting isn't just the map and the countries, or the name "Forgotten Realms", it's also the people and the events of the late 1300s DR.
I'm only mentioning this so you get an idea of why some people are saddened.
It could be, I don't really know anything about the novel line.
Many of the setting nuances that you speak of are introduced in the novels rather than the various sourcebooks. The Realms setting has tons of novel tie-ins (almost 200, I think), and they are canon. I think a lot of the obnoxious "lore-junkies" that people mention (although of course, anecdotes are as I've said unreliable to begin with) are most likely avid novel readers and are nitpickers based on the details they read in the novels.
Well, come 4E, the novels are still going to be produced, and they will still be canon. To be fair, though, we've been told that WotC is finally going to focus more on smaller, personal stories rather than "Realms Shaking Events" (RSEs).
I don't think anyone's saying that one can't or shouldn't be allowed to buy one book to build their campaign. What I think they are saying is that if you're going to play in a setting and complain about the plethora of lore stopping your enjoyment, then you're either being lazy, or just looking for an excuse not to play in the setting, or possibly just sniping for the sheer joy of sniping. If you're willing to buy one book and build up from there without other supporting books, then you're absolutely free to do so, hells, probably even encouraged to do so, but if you feel you must have every book ever published to 'enjoy' the setting, then its a problem with you, and not the setting. Obviously that 'you' should be taken rhetorically...
What it comes down to, for me anyway, is why should I have to suffer the virtual destruction of a setting just because a bunch of folks can't be bothered to actually learn about it? Is the "reset" really going to encourage them to come in and get into the setting, when its likely the 'brand name' of the setting that's putting them off in the first place? Hells, it may not even be the sourcebooks that are putting people off, it could very well be the novels that some may feel have to be kept up with in order to play in the Realms, which don't seem scheduled to stop anytime soon. ;)
Maybe I'm weird, but if I read a book, or see a movie, or whatever, that I really enjoy, I look for as much information as possible about it. I don't however hope that there's only a little bit of information available so I don't have to hurt my brain reading too much about it... if you get my point there.
Thank you Stigger, you hit the nail on the head here
I have to say this come across as a little bit derisory, but I think that just might be the way I am reading it, and I think I know what you are saying.
Youre right. Im sorry. Ive heard things like "Now I can play with you guys" and "Now were on even footing" a lot lately and it gets me really frustrated. Stigger said it a lot more eloquently and a lot less aggressively. People manage to play in homebrews all the time. Those are settings they likely know even less about. Why isnt lack of knowledge a problem in those games? Ive played in games like Ravenloft, Deadlands, and Shadowrun where all I know is whats in the core book, but others at the table are big fans and very knowledgable of the entire setting. This sort of thing was never a problem there. I wonder if I went to boards discussing those settings if I would find complaints about their pile o lore.
I see it kind of like if I turned on the TV and saw an episode of Star Trek. I decide I like it but not enough to go rent (or whatever) all the seasons of all the shows and the movies. That in and of itself would be fine. But then a new movie or series comes out and the people writing it blatantly ignore the history and flavor of the franchise. I go out and start telling people who were big fans of the franchise, had watched all the series and movies, read the novel line, etc. that its good that everything before, everything they liked, is being disregarded because now I can enjoy it with them. I would expect them to be frustrated and angry. If I wanted different sci-fi I could have gone to any of the many many others that better fit my tastes. The one they enjoyed didnt have to be taken away.
If I said to you I would like you to GM Shadowrun 3rd Edition (for the purposes of this example the assumptions made are that you posses only the core book and have read it once or twice) for me but first you need to buy all of the supplements and study them, what would your response be?
Typically if Im going to be in a game in a setting Im not familiar with I will either buy or borrow the core book. If I enjoy the setting I will probably buy other products for it, but for me. Not to argue with anyone about the nuances of the setting, not to tell anyone that their character backround doesnt work or to tell the GM his or her game is wrong. but just so I can enjoy it.
If I go sit down at your table and you say were going to play in the Forgotten Realms in the giant swamp ruled by lizard people, called Cormyr, thats fine. If you come to me and say "Diego, you know a lot about the Realms, give me some advice." I may suggest locales where the game you want to play may work better, or talk about how better to work the story you want into Cormyr. But in the end if you want to play a game about lizard folk in a giant swamp and want it to be Cormyr, thats fine. It may not be that way in the books but it IS in that game.
My frustration comes in it not going the other way. I read comments like "now were on equal footing" as an attack on my hobby. I enjoyed the setting. I spend a lot of time and money researching it. If you (general you) dont want to thats fine, but I do take offense to the mentality that it has to be taken away BECAUSE you dont want to. And yes, I DO feel like Im being punished for having enjoyed it before. That comment makes it seem like knowing the settings lore is a bad thing.
The last part you quoted wasnt directed at you. I accidentally put your name in the quote brackets instead of Raurics. Its fixed now. But youre right, it was a nasty shot and its something I should have taken up with the designers. I really dont think they care what my opinion is though lol. So... *shrug*
Again, Im sorry for being so aggressive.
When I started replying, you hadn't posted yet, so no hard feelings. Your Star Trek example is very apt, by the way
None at all. Im may come off as very aggressive and combative but I wouldnt say things if I didnt expect the same right back. And thank you, I hope it made sense, the things Im thinking dont always come out making as much sense on paper as they did in my brain...
As far as Realms customization is concerned: I strongly dislike very much of the official lore, so I can't be exactly considered a canon slave. (Although I must say that WotC managed to think up new lore I even dislike much, much more than the worst parts of 1e-3e lore - which is a feat in itself, so let's give credit where credit is due.) Yet I made the Realms my own since 1989 or 1990. The difference is: I'm blessed with players I'm on the same page with. If only lore lawyers had been available for me, I'd never have touched the setting with a 10-foot pole. So although I find very, very, very little appeal in what's been revealed about the 4e Realms as yet, I sympathize with you, and if what's been revealed so far appeals to you, good for you. WotC's gamble will pay off either way: They won't continue the line anyway, so why wouldn't they give the Realms a massive facelift in order to attract casual gamers? It makes perfect sense, business-wise - most of the old fans will buy anything with an FR logo on it anyway, no matter how much fire and brimstone they're breathing right now, if only to find out how horribly mutated their setting has become; and non-fans get baited by the "Look, it's a completely new setting, everything you may have disliked in the past is gone - it's new, it's shiny, it's easy to use!" hints WotC's dropping left and right. If they continued the line, the old fans would back out sooner or later. This way they're taking all the money they'd been willing to invest anyway and that of the previous non-fans. Maybe the New Realms is the best thing since sliced bread - and if it isn't, once the customers find out, the line's dead anyway. It's quite clever, actually.
Oh, by the way, dav: You're barking up the wrong tree. BNG isn't responsible for 4e. WotC is.
DB
Several Q's today.
In 4E, will we find out (generally) any more details on Araevin, either in the new FRCS book, or other upcoming sources like DDI? Could he potentially be an instructor at Evermeet or in the revitalized Myth Drannor? He has a really interesting backstory, perhaps even moreso if he lives through the Spellplague, and I was thinking he might make for an interesting master for an aspiring Elvish PC wizard. Just curious about the possibility here.
related question:
Any chance we might see Araevin and his special high loregem given stats in 4E, or potentially how one might make an elven high loregem under the new 4E rules? If I make an elvish wizard for play in 4E, I might eventually want one, or something similar, heh!
lastly:
I can't recall exactly what happened to Methrammar Aerasumé, Lady Alustriel's son. Any chance he might still be alive in 4E FR time? If so, would he still be in the Silver Marches?
Again, Im sorry for being so aggressive.
When I started replying, you hadn't posted yet, so no hard feelings. Your Star Trek example is very apt, by the way
DB
Yep. If my players hate the new stuff I can just come up with some ideas on how to explain some of the new 4E stuff and just go on from there. If I say "That 4E FR is not the future" then they will be fine with that.
But they are still forcing you to either abandon the product line (in its usefulness)or your current campaign. Although, it appears that they are abandoning the product line as well
My frustration comes in it not going the other way. I read comments like "now were on equal footing" as an attack on my hobby.
I agree, comments like that often come off as aggressive--a jab--even if they aren't actually intended that way.
Take for example the campaign my friends and I run/play in:
The campaign started in Ched Nasad, a drow city between the High Forest and Anaurach Desert. We started as members of House Auvryndar, from some unnamed nobles. The city was built using a blurb in a book, I forget which one, before anything was officially written about it. The name Auvryndar was chosen from the original Drow of the Underdark supplement. We played in that city for well over 5 years before the next supplement we found related to our campaign was released, Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark.
Now this book was great for us, it contained a fairly detailed section on Ched Nasad. We really liked the direction it took the city in, and we adapted the city to fit with the published material. Where in the previous campaign, House Auvryndar was the 13th in the city, the supplement said House Auvryndar was 3rd AND had a Vampire for its Matron Mother!! Instead of retconning the campaign we just created scenarios that more or less made the information in the supplement accurate for our campaign. The great thing was, we advanced the campaign as information was released, but the great thing about playing in the Underdark is there really wasn't much info to go off of in the first place so we were able to create our own history and political interactions between races/cities. All of it in a manner consistent with the history provided for us.
Fast forward to 3.x, the same campaign progression criteria was applied and the game continued to be great. When the 3.5 supplement "Underdark" was released, we were ecstatic. We finally had an update to the information from DDGtoU. By this time the main characters of the campaign were well into epic levels and were in semi-retirement. Amazingly, our campaign progressed almost identically to the changes presented right up to the War of the Spider Queen era. The campaign had shifted from a focus on Ched Nasad to a community started and maintained on the surface in the Orsraun Mountains, directly south of Starmantle. The characters ran a covert style merchant company specializing in the sale of minor magic items, the very quick transportation of cargo (using a portal network), and a thriving jewelcrafting guild with clients in every major community from Silverymoon in the North, to Starmantle and Westgate along the Dragon Coast, and every major surface and underdark community in between. To make a long story short, strife in Ched Nasad forced the characters to move out of the city or be exposed as heretics and consequently, killed or worse. The course of the campaign spanned a time period from 1070 DR to the start of the 3e FR, 1376 DR, where the second generation of characters played in City of the Spider Queen. During the course of the Campaign, we got the Lost Empires of Faerun supplement and found material regarding the Dark Disaster and the destruction of Miyeritar (present day High Moor). I found this interesting because the main characters had started exploring and researching epic spells to restore Miyeritar to its former glory well before it was mentioned in a supplement (other than as a blurb). Now A Grand History of the Realms, speaks of a new elven city being raised in the middle of the High Moor to reclaim and rebuild the long lost kingdom. This development actually worked out to our advantage. The characters get to help rebuild a bit of elven history and maintain the integrity of the campaign at the same time!
The point is, the lore is a backdrop, something you use to spice up your game, not dictate its course. Sure we made some adjustments for the betterment of the game and it benefited us greatly. Instead of diving into a part of the Realms that had lots of NPC's and complex history, we chose a fairly unknown area and made it our own, still managing to keep it up to date with the latest information not really needing to make massive changes due to changing information.
Now, with 4e Realms, we will have to nearly completely retool the campaign to fit with the aftermath of the nuclear event that takes place if we want to continue with a campaign that follows the Canon. There are just so many changes, there is no easy way to do this and maintain consistency. Spellcasters throughout the Realms died en masse during this time. Most of the characters were dependent on Mystra and Eilistraee for clerical magic, now they are gone or changed in such a way to make them as good as gone, and no one yet knows what happens to the followers.
Whereas before the changes were incremental and easily adapted to, now with this 4e stuff, I have to go to alot of work just to make the transition. All because a bunch of whiners complained that it was "too hard". There are some who will say, why not just adapt the new info to your campaign? We likely will. The issue we have is not that we have to change so much, but the degree of the change, and the quality of the new lore presented. It just feels like our campaign will get watered down by sticking with the canon now...
Anyway, I've gone on long enough and feel like I'm just ranting now :angelhide
Their excuse is beyond lame.
It's ok to play characters that make pacts with beings of great evil such as demons and devils (hence, the tiefling race being core and more demonic and the warlock class being core) yet the possible concept that some (not all) half-orcs are spawned by **** isn't ok? So it's ok to sell your soul to the devil but not have a character possible conceived through ****?
Their logic is more chaotic than Limbo (oh, wait, there is no Limbo...it magically vanished!)
WotC, let the darn players of the game figure out how their half-orc came to be. Just cause the only thing you can think of is **** doesn't mean we lack the creative sense to come up with something else.
HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD!!
I actually agree with Razz about something! I really could care less about half-orcs. I've never played one, and probably never will. However, based on the new flavor of warlocks and tieflings, the reasoning for their absence rings a little hollow.
HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD!!
I actually agree with Razz about something! I really could care less about half-orcs. I've never played one, and probably never will. However, based on the new flavor of warlocks and tieflings, the reasoning for their absence rings a little hollow.
Best half-orc origin ever (last few panels):
Order of the Stick #555
Please understand, though, that while a "cleansing" might make things enjoyable for you and others, it's removing a lot of what other people liked about the setting.
Oh goodness, I hope you didn't think I was deriding or disregarding the emtional investment many FR fans have - that was not my intention in any way! I guess its just that I'm not so emotionally invested in FR, so the re-imaging doesn't upset me - but I really do understand how it can upset others, and I do believe that your (in the sense of FR fans everywhere) view of the FR is just as valid as the official one (and much more so round your gaming tables).
Again, I hope I didn't come across as deriding older-edition FR fans for liking the long history - it just doesn't grab me. Hence why I am so interested in the new one.
Regards,
Shane
Again, I hope I didn't come across as deriding older-edition FR fans for liking the long history...
I don't think you are.
Again, I’m sorry for being so aggressive.
No need to apologise, I figured you were just speaking your mind frankly with no insult intended.
You do make a lot of good points. I'm realising now exactly how upsetting the re-imaging of the Realms is for a lot of fans who have invested heavily, both money and imagination, in it. Although I am personally enthusiastic bout the fact it is now open to me more, I can see how you would feel it is being closed to you. I just hope that you can keep hold of the good times you have had and keep playing the Realms you want to play, even if there is no new product for it.
I'm going to make sure to try and be more mindful of the upset the new edition brings in my posts from here on. I guess too much 'yay new edition' enthusiasm can seem like rubbing folks' noses in it - which is really not my intent.
Regards,
Shane
I don't think you are.
Oh, good! That sets me at ease. I hate upsetting people.
Shane
Other people would probably pick different selling points--the cast of characters, the complexities and depth of the various cultures, or the iconic villains (this is the setting of the Red Wizards, the drow city of Menzoberranzan, the Cult of the Dragon, and many other great bad guys).
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and stirring up the discussion here!
So the question I have for Rich Baker, or indeed any of the authors, after that rambling (and likely disjointed) post is this - as a veteran RPer tempted to visit the Realms with almost no pre-knowledge what one thing is really going to blow me away about the 4e Realms enough to tip me over the edge from tempted to pre-order?
Thanks in advance for any answer.
Regards,
Shane
My only answer to that would be, "I hope that someday we succeed in making Dragon compelling enough for you to change your mind." Other than that, what could we do?
DDi is where the Realms game support is going to live for now. I'd point out that many core D&D products are still being printed the old-fashioned way, and that these will add potential content to your FR game too -- for example, the next monster manual will be chock full of critters you could add to an FR game.
-Rich- and mind you, I am hardly 100% in the know- from what I have heard, there will be those three books all released in the next couple of months, and then that's it. The rest of the new information that is released will be via DDI, or via novels. Am I correct, so far? Now, presuming someone doesn't suscribe to DDI, how are new information releases going to be "handled". Those people are, basically, "out of luck", so to say? Not trying to lead you on, or anything, just wondering.
This is not a straight comparison, but I'll try it anyway: Say we were publishing Dragon in the paper format we all know from way back when. And say that you asked me, "I want Dragon content, but I don't want to subscribe and I'm not going to pick it up at my FLGS."
My only answer to that would be, "I hope that someday we succeed in making Dragon compelling enough for you to change your mind." Other than that, what could we do?
-That's not exactly a straight comparison, either, but...
DDi is where the Realms game support is going to live for now. I'd point out that many core D&D products are still being printed the old-fashioned way, and that these will add potential content to your FR game too -- for example, the next monster manual will be chock full of critters you could add to an FR game.
-Good enough. Thank you.
This is not a straight comparison, but I'll try it anyway: Say we were publishing Dragon in the paper format we all know from way back when. And say that you asked me, "I want Dragon content, but I don't want to subscribe and I'm not going to pick it up at my FLGS."
My only answer to that would be, "I hope that someday we succeed in making Dragon compelling enough for you to change your mind." Other than that, what could we do?
DDi is where the Realms game support is going to live for now. I'd point out that many core D&D products are still being printed the old-fashioned way, and that these will add potential content to your FR game too -- for example, the next monster manual will be chock full of critters you could add to an FR game.
If I cancel my subscription will I still have access to all the articles I did when it was active? That was the case with Dragon in print, from what I understand it is not with the DDI.
Also will the FR stuff printed in the DDI ever be compiled into a physical product? The insistance that D&D will remain a primarily tabletop and not online game suggested this would be the case, but your post makes me think otherwise.
Also will the FR stuff printed in the DDI ever be compiled into a physical product?
-Yeah, that's more or less where I was headed with that. There will be no more (at least based on from this point on, anyway, not taking into account possible future actions) physical Forgotten Realms products, asides for the 3 in July-September?
This is not a straight comparison, but I'll try it anyway: Say we were publishing Dragon in the paper format we all know from way back when. And say that you asked me, "I want Dragon content, but I don't want to subscribe and I'm not going to pick it up at my FLGS."
My only answer to that would be, "I hope that someday we succeed in making Dragon compelling enough for you to change your mind." Other than that, what could we do?
DDi is where the Realms game support is going to live for now. I'd point out that many core D&D products are still being printed the old-fashioned way, and that these will add potential content to your FR game too -- for example, the next monster manual will be chock full of critters you could add to an FR game.
Thanks Rich, we already know that we might be able to buy Dragon and Dungeon issues outside of the subscription - so does that mean that alle the DI articles will eventuall be compiled into the monthly mazines?
And another question: If people respond positively to the FR articles in Dungeon and especially Dragon and demand more - does that mean that DI actually plans to cater to our deisre? Is it possible that we may get a way (maybe via a poll or something) to tell the Dragon producers what topics we would like to see covered? (like please give us something more detailed about the warlock knights or please stop giving us stuf about drow
) ?On a sidenote, I recently got Swordmage and read it on a single day and I must say I am not dissapointed. As a great fan of your Last Mythal triology my expectations were set very high but I honestly can´t say if it´s better or worse than your last triology. I really liked how you showcased the Realms ( I kinda liked the long pink wall
) and at the same time showed us that not everything has changed. Well now I have to suffer waiting for the next book and the new FR books, so this is somehow your fault . While I am at it could you maybe explain to us how it happened that the Swordmage became the class showcased in the new FR guides - or in other words why was the Swordmage chosen to represent the realms?(not that it´s a bad choice mind you I really liked the change from war wizards to swordmages).
And what class (maybe with multiclassing and/or paragon path option) would you give the halfling if you were to stat him?
Will the FRCS feature the moonsea region before Swordmage starts or after the events? Will we get more info about the King?
Rich already raised the possibility of more books in the future if they felt it was warranted, didn't he? I could've sworn he said something to that effect a few pages ago.
-I don't know. But, I am meaning that more as in a DRAGON Magazine compilation (oriented towards the Forgotten Realms, of course).
QUESTION: Will we see any write up for Kara-Tur and Zakhara in the new FRCS? Also, will we get to see more of the world mapped out a bit like the world map in the 3rd edition Campaign Setting mini-map?
But they are still forcing you to either abandon the product line (in its usefulness)or your current campaign. Although, it appears that they are abandoning the product line as well
It's okay then. I am an adult that doesn't get bothered by much except things that might hurt my kids or my wife. My one campaign ended in such a way that we could walk away from it and feel satisfied. I need them and they need me. If they did not want to continue then that is okay.
I will still use the older content for many story ideas. The new stuff does not invalidate much of it that I have noticed. Sure some places are changed or gone but the Realms are huge! There is plenty of ideas I am getting from old books.
It's okay then. I am an adult that doesn't get bothered by much except things that might hurt my kids or my wife. My one campaign ended in such a way that we could walk away from it and feel satisfied. I need them and they need me. If they did not want to continue then that is okay.
I will still use the older content for many story ideas. The new stuff does not invalidate much of it that I have noticed. Sure some places are changed or gone but the Realms are huge! There is plenty of ideas I am getting from old books.
And thats fine, of course. But I just don't like it. I want to be able to buy products from WoTC that would be relevant to my campaign. But they have taken that from me
Other people would probably pick different selling points--the cast of characters, the complexities and depth of the various cultures, or the iconic villains (this is the setting of the Red Wizards, the drow city of Menzoberranzan, the Cult of the Dragon, and many other great bad guys).
..........all of these things have effectively been destroyed.
..........all of these things have effectively been destroyed.
-Untrue. The Red Wizards of Thay still exist, Drow still exist, and presumably, Menzoberranzan still exists, and while the Cult of the Dragon was last seen leaderless, that isn't going to stop some enterprising individual from siezing the reigns of control.
-Untrue. The Red Wizards of Thay still exist, Drow still exist, and presumably, Menzoberranzan still exists, and while the Cult of the Dragon was last seen leaderless, that isn't going to stop some enterprising individual from siezing the reigns of control.
Fair enough (though I seem to remember the 4e Red Wizards becoming pitiful remnants of their former dark glory), but the actual characters and circumstances that gave these things their "iconic" flavor are gone. The same applies to the other things Baker mentioned.
...but the actual characters and circumstances that gave these things their "iconic" flavor are gone.
The same applies to the other things Baker mentioned.
-That much is true, in such that the setting has "moved on", so to speak. Things that are 'Iconic' can and, in many cases, will continue to enjoy the 'iconic' monkier. Red Wizards of Thay will be just as feared, the Drow of Menzoberranzan will be just as ruthless, Drizzt will be just as...Drizzty, and so on.
But if you change an icon beyond all recognition, is it still actually an icon, or something masquerading as one?
If you want nothing significant to change, then you don't need to buy new product - you can stay in the static setting described in the old product and continue to base your adventures on what you already have.
Or, you can move on in the general direction that WotC has and incorporate some of the changes to fit the new material so that you can use it in your campaign. FR has not died, it has changed with the passage of time and significant events.
I'm well aware of that. It was, however, more of a rhetorical question than anything else, as it applies to far more situations than just the Realms and their 4e incarnation.
Why ask rhetorical questions? What do labels like "icon" matter? Things are what they are. and they change with time. Yesterday's icons still exist in their time frame, but change and replacement should be expected. I, for one, don't want the setting to remain static.
Why ask rhetorical questions? What do labels like "icon" matter? Things are what they are. and they change with time. Yesterday's icons still exist in their time frame, but change and replacement should be expected. I, for one, don't want the setting to remain static.
Whaaa...?! Didn't you know that some people want to buy the same text packaged in a new layout with new art and a couple of new plothooks here and there? That's what Eberron seems to be getting...
My question earlier might have gotten lost in the big discussion so here it is again:
How much will the FRCG incorporate the vague "... or is it?" mentality that's present in Eberron? This is the one thing I've especially enjoyed when playing or DMing an Eberron game and I was hoping FR could learn a thing or two about intentionally leaving certain things up in the air. Can we expect more ambiguity?
If you want nothing significant to change, then you don't need to buy new product - you can stay in the static setting described in the old product and continue to base your adventures on what you already have.
That's just the point; The FR were not a static setting, they were a "living world" with constant changes of an "organic" nature. Now, we have the choice between a static Realms or a new Realms that does not even much resemble its predecessor.
How much will the FRCG incorporate the vague "... or is it?" mentality that's present in Eberron? This is the one thing I've especially enjoyed when playing or DMing an Eberron game and I was hoping FR could learn a thing or two about intentionally leaving certain things up in the air. Can we expect more ambiguity?
Seconded. In the old days we had EL as an unreliable narrator, giving us half truths, and sometimes plain lies so DMs could ignore certan parts things or change them without beeing contradicted by something like facts :D . But with the new 3 books aproach I doubt that we are going to see much of it (and most certanly no "what chaused the Spellplague/Changelands/Spellscars like Eberrons Mournand) but if we ask really nice we might get something like that via DI
.And here´s another question for our beloved Rich (or anyone who knows the anser):
From the recent exepts we have seen that the new core books have a much lighter design (no backround like in the old books) and while this makes them far easier to read in poor light (big plus) I really liked how the FRCS was styled more like an old tome - so will the new FRCS get some unique page design?
Why ask rhetorical questions? What do labels like "icon" matter? Things are what they are. and they change with time. Yesterday's icons still exist in their time frame, but change and replacement should be expected. I, for one, don't want the setting to remain static.
Why not ask them? And why don't labels like 'icon' matter? Just because you don't see a reason for it doesn't mean others don't as well... YMMV and all that. And of course change and replacement should be expected, that's kinda what life does, but we're talking about something that's ultimately somewhat controllable, and that could have been accomplished in a much less drastic manner.
To borrow a good analogy, for the sake of example, think of it like Star Trek TOS ending with the Enterprise being blown up, the whole crew getting wasted, and the whole Federation being brought to the brink of destruction, only to have TNG air a week later and saying that stuff happened, Spock was a Romulan spy the whole time, and that instead of the Enterprise, and that we're going to be following the exploits of the San Francisco instead, because the Enterprise was crap and sucked the whole time. Regardless of personal opinion, I'm sure you can imagine the outrage that would have followed such a hypothetical situation. Now apply that to the Realms and perhaps you can gain a bit more insight into the point of view many of us seem to be coming from.
Although I don't think I ever thought of the setting as static with the heap of novels, anthologies, and sourcebooks that regularly came out for it over the course of 3e. Anything but static really.
Why not ask them? And why don't labels like 'icon' matter? Just because you don't see a reason for it doesn't mean others don't as well... YMMV and all that. And of course change and replacement should be expected, that's kinda what life does, but we're talking about something that's ultimately somewhat controllable, and that could have been accomplished in a much less drastic manner.
I doubt that it could.
To borrow a good analogy, for the sake of example, think of it like Star Trek TOS ending with the Enterprise being blown up, the whole crew getting wasted, and the whole Federation being brought to the brink of destruction, only to have TNG air a week later and saying that stuff happened, Spock was a Romulan spy the whole time, and that instead of the Enterprise, and that we're going to be following the exploits of the San Francisco instead, because the Enterprise was crap and sucked the whole time. Regardless of personal opinion, I'm sure you can imagine the outrage that would have followed such a hypothetical situation. Now apply that to the Realms and perhaps you can gain a bit more insight into the point of view many of us seem to be coming from.
Although I don't think I ever thought of the setting as static with the heap of novels, anthologies, and sourcebooks that regularly came out for it over the course of 3e. Anything but static really.
I think that is a bad analogy. I don't see much sililarity between what the 4e conversion has done to FR and your Star Trek example. And, in the actual Star Trek universe, we had a decades long gap before ST:tNG, a change of characters (with breaf appearances by Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty, due to long life, suspended animation, and time travel), changed Klingons, etc. ST:DSN and ST
did not feature the Enterprise, and had significant changes to the lore. Yet, they were still versions of the Star Trek setting, and many fans liked the new as well as the old.Whaaa...?! Didn't you know that some people want to buy the same text packaged in a new layout with new art and a couple of new plothooks here and there? That's what Eberron seems to be getting...
-The Eberron people were "flipping mad" when they were originally told that the setting was going to be moving up three years, or something to that effect, months back. I, personally, don't think this was ever actually in the works, as something to do, but...regardless, they were mad.
Whaaa...?! Didn't you know that some people want to buy the same text packaged in a new layout with new art and a couple of new plothooks here and there? That's what Eberron seems to be getting...
Once again, I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but I want to nip something in the bud here:
Just because someone doesn't like the changes introduced to create the 4E version of the Realms does not mean they wanted the setting to remain static. Sorry, but that does not follow, and I'm not going to let a statement like that go unchallenged.
The case you are presuming, Mula, is what's called a False Dilemma.
-The Eberron people were "flipping mad" when they were originally told that the setting was going to be moving up three years, or something to that effect, months back. I, personally, don't think this was ever actually in the works, as something to do, but...regardless, they were mad.
Right. That was pretty bad example of people who accept change, considering that the fans in question were angry that changes were announced for their setting, and because those changes have since been cancelled (James Wyatt even said, "Folks, we hear you: you didn't want changes, so you won't be getting them").
That's just the point; The FR were not a static setting, they were a "living world" with constant changes of an "organic" nature.
Heck, I'd say the changes occuring the Realms were already beyond "organic", considering all the RSEs that kept coming down the pipe.
I think the idea that the FR setting was "static" before now is false, and you'll (using a general "you" here) see that if you look at the actual material that was put out for it over the past several years.
I doubt that it could.
And I disagree... some thoughts from another thread with just a few minutes of thought put to it:
Could have accomplished all that without the pantheon nuking and only 10 years...
Martial Stuff... have Tempus go into semi-retirement and let Red Knight step up to take over the family business as it were, taking things in a bold new direction.
Magic Stuff... Mystra decides that in an effort to weaken Shar and the Shadow Weave, she's going to alter the way magic works to dangle a few carrots in front of casters to bring them over to her side of the fence to create the whole Arcane power source thing, and finally reveals the universal spell component alluded to in VGtaTM.
Shadow Stuff... Shar does likewise and we get the whole Shadow power source thingy updated.
Rogue Stuff... Mask gets in on the act to keep Shar from getting into too dominant a position on him, maybe ganks Cyric and brings back Leira as an ally in his camp.
Cleric Stuff... by-product of the new Weave v4.0
Easy, brave new world, no need for non-sensical retcons, and we can even tone down the NPC's as they get used to the way things work now, levelling the playing field a wee bit. And that just took a few minutes of off-the-cuff thought... which I hope doesn't show too much.
I think that is a bad analogy. I don't see much sililarity between what the 4e conversion has done to FR and your Star Trek example. And, in the actual Star Trek universe, we had a decades long gap before ST:tNG, a change of characters (with breaf appearances by Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty, due to long life, suspended animation, and time travel), changed Klingons, etc. ST:DSN and ST
Pity. Either you're missing the point, or don't care to see it, either way, I'm not in much mood at the moment to elaborate on it. I'm not in enough of an argumentative mood to get into this at length. Maybe after a cigarette. ;)
Just because someone doesn't like the changes introduced to create the 4E version of the Realms does not mean they wanted the setting to remain static. Sorry, but that does not follow, and I'm not going to let a statement like that go unchallenged.
But I want that. I want to buy the same old text with new art.
That being said, with the changes to the core system, how would one best describe how magic works now in Faerun?
From what I can glean about magic now (force-like power with no guardian? Is that a fair description?) it seems like the fundamental differences between a wizard, sorceror, warlock, swordmage, etc. should be individual differences only. That is, they would boil down to differences in how each character envisions and utilizes magic and not dependent on a class at all. They would be best left as roleplay preferences and the classes could all be bundled into the old 'magic-user' class, with INT or CHA as a chosen primary attribute. Heck, even spells could vary widely in appearance and power when cast from different individuals.
I wonder, after magic stopped working entirely for a time, how were magic-users able to use their spells again? Did they wake up one morning with the insight that their powers had returned? Would that not cause them to wonder whether or not Mystra had been reincarnated again? And if so, since it was known widely that she tended the weave and granted access to it, wouldn't she *be* reincarnated (eventually) through the faith of her followers since it is the collective faith of a people that causes a deity to persist? I thought it was, anyway. I could be wrong. I don't mean that sarcastically. It depends on the dynamics of the world. I meant to say that I thought this was the case in FR. Although magic-users have never been considered clerics, I would guess they all, to one degree or another, accepted and therefore had some measure of faith in Mystra prior to her demise. Sort of like believing in God without being an avid church-goer. I would have to say that the events surrounding the spellplague would be very much like an apocalypse to a magic-user and would give even the most intelligent mage pause to rethink his/her beliefs. Gods have been reincarnated before. What would happen if Mystra were?
Or could it be that magic-users around the planet frantically tried to reinvent their understanding of magic after Mystra's fall? If this is the case, I can see some of the same old spells being reinvented (sort of a 'Lord of the Flies' parallel in that magic-users would do again what they did before - they couldn't imagine spells other than the ones they previously used), but there should (as I see it) also be a plethora of new spells, as well as a large number of self-trained, rogue magic-users (people who suddenly realize they can feel and work the power of magic) and NO magic prior to the spellplague would work unless it was reinvented. Old Elven magic wouldn't really be old as much as it would be relearned according to the new magical laws, whatever they may be, and not simply a matter of rememorizing spells. Again, this may largely be a roleplay thing, but I'm concerned that the story of FR remains intact - that the 4E system supports it - and not vice versa. I would love to read a series that begins just prior to Mystra's murder and ends sometime after the spellplague has diminished.
I was always under the impression that if Mystra were killed, if there were no being to attend the weave, that all magic would unravel and go out of the world as it did for a short time when Karsus failed to supplant her. Why did magic continue to exist, then, even after she was destroyed? I mean, I think the spellplague and all the resulting upheaval is logical, but wouldn't magic eventually just fade away? Is there some other being attending the weave, assuring it's existence? Or maybe the weave did unravel and if so, how does magic continue to exist? Was it saved somehow by the merging of Abeir with Toril? Did the merging bring with it a new source? In any case, the fundamentals of how a magic-user accesses the magic force, whatever it's now called, will have changed, no? There is no longer a being granting access and any magic-user has the ability to tap the magic force unchecked? I can see many overzealous mage heads popping.
Anyway, I'm mostly interested in the effect all of these changes have had on magic, both according to the system and according to the setting. I don't think it has been explained adequately at this point and these are just a few questions out of the basket. I may be a bit premature. The first FR supplement doesn't come out until when? August?
As it stands, I don't know that I'll be able to continue with the game anyway. I'm hearing about fees to access new materiel online? And fees to play online? Not sure what's rumor and what's not there.
This is a bit of a ramble, I know. It's late here. But whatever the case, I hope you can answer a bit of some of these questions and good gaming all. And it's been a pleasure all the way, Rich. I was a fan of Birthright for years as well and ran a long (4 years, on and off), successful campaign there. Swordmage was excellent and I look forward to the sequels. I'm sure I'll follow the novels even if I decide not to follow the game.
Sean
I wonder, after magic stopped working entirely for a time, how were magic-users able to use their spells again?
It is my impression that the Weave was never actually fundamental to arcane magic, but that Mystra filtered the power through the Weave. With the death of Mystra, the Weave was lost and arcane magic was no longer accessable in the ways most understood. It didn't so much stop working, so much as the old rules no longer applied.
To me, regaining the ability to use arcane magic was similar to learning to use arcane magic in the first place - the character had to experiment and learn to tap the available source for the power, and had to develop new spells and rituals to achieve desired results. As some found success at achieving magical results, they instructed others, sharing working spells, untill a hundred years later they had developped a new large repatory of spells to achhieve many of the results formerly possible through the Weave, but with differences, as per the new spell lists.
Not a case of magic stopping, then coming back, but a system of magic ending and a new one developped that would have been useable before if not prevented by Mystra and the Weave.
That might not conform to the official reasoning (we will have to wait and see), but it seems to fit the available facts to me.
That was the one adventure I liked in 3E and pilfered many ideas from it for my EB Cult of Tiamat. If most 4E books and adventures are designed this way than I should be very pleased. I do not like running adventures out of the can because I like to mold the story and let the pcs mold it and hate trying to keep the game on the "rails".
Rich, Can Cormyr be given a little more detail in DDI?
I would just love some info on some major noble houses and other tidbits. The whole Semiba/Cormyr/Nehtril Empire conflict sounds interesting but I never felt like the nobles of Cormyr were given enough detail for me. I always felt they were a main part of the nation and it would be helpful to get some idea on the top 5 Houses in that region.
P.S. I am a big Giogi Wyvernspur fan.
It is my impression that the Weave was never actually fundamental to arcane magic, but that Mystra filtered the power through the Weave. With the death of Mystra, the Weave was lost and arcane magic was no longer accessable in the ways most understood. It didn't so much stop working, so much as the old rules no longer applied.
To me, regaining the ability to use arcane magic was similar to learning to use arcane magic in the first place - the character had to experiment and learn to tap the available source for the power, and had to develop new spells and rituals to achieve desired results. As some found success at achieving magical results, they instructed others, sharing working spells, untill a hundred years later they had developped a new large repatory of spells to achhieve many of the results formerly possible through the Weave, but with differences, as per the new spell lists.
Not a case of magic stopping, then coming back, but a system of magic ending and a new one developped that would have been useable before if not prevented by Mystra and the Weave.
That might not conform to the official reasoning (we will have to wait and see), but it seems to fit the available facts to me.
That was a retcon made by WotC to justify this travesty. The original idea was that if Mystra was killed and no one could replace her then Abeir-Toril would cease to exist.
The original idea was that if Mystra was killed and no one could replace her then Abeir-Toril would cease to exist.
-Untrue. As KtM stated many times, using Ed Greenwood's quotes, "Dead Mystra =/= Abeir-Toril going Boom".
-Untrue. As KtM stated many times, using Ed Greenwood's quotes, "Dead Mystra =/= Abeir-Toril going Boom".
Not completely boom, but massive destruction and the end of magic in Toril (which has been conveniently retconed with the introduction of the SW).
Is there going to be a story why Sun Elves and Moon Elves are no Eladrin, and can do Eladrin things? An explanation, I mean. Like, why they used to not be able to "Fey Walk", but suddenly can now?
Thank you, sir. :D
In the discussion over whether a changing theme is a good or bad thing there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in why the concerns exist in the first place.
Speaking only for myself, though I imagine I am not alone, when I approach a setting I look at not only the surface elements but the underlying themes and story opportunities as well. Sure, the Red Wizards are bad guys with shaved heads who want to take over the world, and that's great. Banites like being cruel. Cyric hates Bane and everyone else. Elminster and the Simbul fight the good fight with Magic. Harpers. Drow. Purple Dragon Knights. These are fine elements, but what they weave together is greater than the sum of their parts. They create a tapestry that explains interactions of parties, and provide a backdrop to place stories within.
The types, tones, and tropes of those stories is a product of that tapestry. When there are great and powerful entities battling on a cosmic, even divine scale, the stories become about patronage and heroism against seemingly insurmountable odds at low levels. The nature of telling a story in a world with 35th level spellcasters is fundamentally different than living in a world where the highest level magic any adventurer might see is a 5th level spell, partially because the elements available to the DM are different, but also because the players will approach the setting with a different mindset.
That said, Forgotten Realms can change in a lot of ways that wouldn't upset the underlying tapestry that has been crafted over the years. Great events can still occur without denying the players an opportunity to match wits with beings who make even the Gods worry. Nations can rise and fall, so long as there are groups like the Harpers for PCs to find patronage among.
However, when the setting changes such that the great forces of good, individuals and organizations which at one point created a community for good heroic PCs to join and work among, are removed, then many stories that could be (and are being) told in 3.5 Forgotten Realms will be unrecognizable in 4.0.
To carry the Star Trek Analogy from above- If ST:TNG was billed as "Everything you liked about the Original Series- except that the Klingons are gone now, and there's a new threat called the Bentuuzi, who are like giant insects. And the Enterprise is a warship that travels through space using a wormhole generator, and it's filled with space marines. And the show will be about how the Marines fight the war with the Bentuuzi!" I feel like a lot of fans would (rightly) point out that the new show looks and feels nothing like the original series. Sure, there are bad guys, and the 'Enterprise' fights them, but the original series wasn't about soldiers or war. It was about exploration and snogging green skinned women. It was a western in space- not a war story in space.
By the same token, the concern that seems to be aired here is that FR4e won't resemble FR3x in tone and structure. From what I have heard and read, I agree with them- business decisions and not narrative choices seem to be driving the release of 4.0 and as a consequence I suspect the narrative modifications to FR will feel more like justifications after the fact than a flowing story of the realms.
But of course that's just a feeling. In the end my perception could be way off. That said, the fact that there is (to my mind) a legitimate justification for that perception is unfortunate.
That was a retcon made by WotC to justify this travesty. The original idea was that if Mystra was killed and no one could replace her then Abeir-Toril would cease to exist.
I don't concider it a travesty. There is no need for WotC to stick to the original idea if they come up with one that explains why the old one was thought to be true, but allowing the world to continue without Mystra or a replacement. The old system of magic failed, the relationship between Abier and Toril shifyed, with some exchange of territory, some localized breakdown of natural laws occured, arcane magic required the learning of new means to control it, and some wild effects are ongoing, but the feared total destruction has not occured. To me, it's a reasonable transition to go with (hopefully improved) new core rules.
I don't concider it a travesty. There is no need for WotC to stick to the original idea if they come up with one that explains why the old one was thought to be true, but allowing the world to continue without Mystra or a replacement.
That would be possible if we lived on Toril, but since we know as a fact that the original idea could never be reconciled with all this massive retconing of the setting's lore then they must stick to it.
The old system of magic failed
It never failed.
the relationship between Abier and Toril shifyed, with some exchange of territory,
Unecessary retcon. Abeir and Toril were never separate world. We only called it Toril because we were lazy, had I know this would happen because of that I would've always written the full name of the planet.
some localized breakdown of natural laws occured, arcane magic required the learning of new means to control it,
Which could've been explained by other methods. For example one that would've ended one of the biggest travesties to the setting: the Shadow Weave. Mystra absorbed the Shadow Weave, becoming TN (to satisfy those no-good whiniers who complained that Mystra was good-aligned) and changing the rules of magic.
but the feared total destruction has not occured. To me, it's a reasonable transition to go with (hopefully improved) new core rules.
It never happened, WotC dismissed the original ideas about it because they blocked any possibility of killing mystra to appease the haters. What WotC did was forcing their views into something that should've never been changed. As Ed stated it, the Weave is what binds life together and maintains the balance of Realmspace, take it out and Realmspace looses it's balance. And no ammount of heavy-handed WotC retconing can erase that from my memory.
As Ed stated it, the Weave is what binds life together and maintains the balance of Realmspace, take it out and Realmspace looses it's balance. And no ammount of heavy-handed WotC retconing can erase that from my memory.
And isn't that what happened? Mystra died. The Weave went away. Realmspace lost its balance. Then, a new balance was found, and Realmspace continued on, with scars of the event. The old world wasn't erased, but was changed into the new world, retaining its old history.
"Retcon" does not seem an applicable term to me, as old events aren't being replaced or altered, though our understanding of the underlying principles have been changed - the nature of the Weave was not as you thought, though it did respond to attempts to use magic as was previously described. We never had an extended period without the Weave before to know how that would actually affect the world; now that the Weave is gone, we see that assumptions were inacurate.
And isn't that what happened? Mystra died. The WEave went away. Realmspace lost its balance. Then, a new balance was found, and Realmspace continued on, with scars of the event. The old world wasn't erased, but was changed into the new world, retaining its old history.
But it was WITHOUT Mystra, which CAN'T happen. The Weave, and Mystra, is absolutely necessary for that balance.
"Retcon" does not seem an applicable term to me, as old events aren't being replaced or altered, though our understanding of the underlying priciples have been changed - the nature of the Weave was not as you thought, though it did rewspond to attempts to use magic as was previously described.
That would be applicable to the world we live in. Not to an imaginary world where it's creator can DEFINE anything he wants and it becomes the absolute truth about that aspect. Ed's FR (thus the original and what everything else that came after must accept and use without any changes to it) stated that Mystra and the Weave are what keeps everything working fine and that her permanent death would spell doom for Realmspace.
We never had an extended period without the Weave before to know how that would actually affect the world; now that the Weave is gobe, we see that assumptions were inacurate.
They aren't assumptions but absolute, cannonical facts. What you say would apply to the real world where our knowledge of it's workings is incomplete. The metaphysics of a game setting are completely known and absolute, which is why this development of WotC is a RETCON, not the discovery of wrong assumptions.
No such thing as an absolute, even in game worlds. ;)
No such thing as an absolute, even in game worlds. ;)
Some things must be absolute to keep coherence. Without it a game world becomes just a mish-mash of ideas with no focus. Mystra's importance is one of them.
As Rauric pointed out so timely just now...
I've never belived (well, until we knew that Mystra was going to be killed and not resurrected) that FR was a mish-mash of ideas without focus (there is one, but it's very subtle and WotC developers have missed most of it by a long shot). Now I belive it is thanks to those massive retcons.
That's my feeling, anyway. When I oversaw the FR line in 3e, that's generally the direction I pushed for.
My question earlier might have gotten lost in the big discussion so here it is again:
How much will the FRCG incorporate the vague "... or is it?" mentality that's present in Eberron? This is the one thing I've especially enjoyed when playing or DMing an Eberron game and I was hoping FR could learn a thing or two about intentionally leaving certain things up in the air. Can we expect more ambiguity?
Realistically, though, this is a retcon. Same as halfling height, or dwarves going to low-light vision instead of darkvision. We have to follow the lead of the core game. Sometimes we can offer a story explanation for why something like that changes. Other times--for example, the height of halflings-- we're just going to lump it and say "it's been that way all along."
(In relation to a discussion going on between a couple of other posters, that's what I consider a retcon -- when you say "it was that way all along." If you just take what's in place and change it with the advance of time and cosmic events, it's not strictly speaking a retcon. Marvel's Ultimate comics are retcons. Star Trek: Next Generation isn't. It's a new era. Like it or hate it, it's not saying that TOS never happened. FR 4e is a new era. We're not saying that things in 1e, 2e, or 3e didn't happen--well, maybe with a couple of small exceptions. I am, for example, inclined to retcon CHEEZE! on general principles.)
This is my first question to you, Mr. Baker, so I hope I am doing this properly. ;)
Is there going to be a story why Sun Elves and Moon Elves are no Eladrin, and can do Eladrin things? An explanation, I mean. Like, why they used to not be able to "Fey Walk", but suddenly can now?
Thank you, sir. :D
I agree with you to a point. I think the weave and Mystra herself were unnecessary to the manipulation of magic. She was a middle goddess, if you will. She never should have been there. With that in mind, I viewed the stuff of magic as I viewed 'the force'. It was the stuff of creation. It predated everything (it is in everything) and unchanging (because it was already in everything) and eternal. Before the events of the spellplague Realms magic-users just had to go through Mystra to get at it use it.
There's a bit of Realms literature out there, though, that seems to say otherwise. The implication as I understood it was that Mystra, being born along with magic at the dawn of time as one of the first deities, was essential to the existence of the magical laws of the universe. Without Mystra there would be no possibility or concept of magic and if it existed at all without her, no being would have access to it.
I've always had a difficult time grasping the idea of Mystra anyway, but that's never hindered me until now, after her destruction. Now I question not only the necessity of her previous existence, but also the basic fundamentals of magic itself as they pertain(ed) to the new and old worlds now that she's gone.
For your reference, in his article here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080227a , in which he briefly outlines the events of the spellplague, Brian James states:
"As the Weave unravels throughout the month of Nightal in the Year of Blue Fire, these wild magic zones are quickly replaced with dead magic zones until one day arcane magic ceases to function altogether."
This doesn't necessarily mean that the stuff of magic was gone from the world, but I question that idea. The implication in what Brian says is that arcane magic-users throughout Toril collectively realized at the same time that the energy of magic that they previously knew was now no longer accessible to them, which in turn implies that magic, or the force, or the stuff of creation, was indeed gone from the world for a time. Either that or it changed into something else, which means the same thing - that there was at least the briefest of moments in which it was neither one, nor the other, which is why I ask,
How would one explain the fundamentals of magic as they exist in the new incarnation of the world?
I would also add the question,
And how did they exist previously?
Because my concept of it all is failry askew. I'm not asking for system rules here, but story. What is magic if it isn't what it was before?
If the stuff of creation has changed fundamentally (a concept I have difficulty with), the rules for magic and how it works in the new world should also see fundamental changes. Maybe they have. I'm anxious to read more about it all.
It is my impression that the Weave was never actually fundamental to arcane magic, but that Mystra filtered the power through the Weave. With the death of Mystra, the Weave was lost and arcane magic was no longer accessable in the ways most understood. It didn't so much stop working, so much as the old rules no longer applied.
To me, regaining the ability to use arcane magic was similar to learning to use arcane magic in the first place - the character had to experiment and learn to tap the available source for the power, and had to develop new spells and rituals to achieve desired results. As some found success at achieving magical results, they instructed others, sharing working spells, untill a hundred years later they had developped a new large repatory of spells to achhieve many of the results formerly possible through the Weave, but with differences, as per the new spell lists.
Not a case of magic stopping, then coming back, but a system of magic ending and a new one developped that would have been useable before if not prevented by Mystra and the Weave.
That might not conform to the official reasoning (we will have to wait and see), but it seems to fit the available facts to me.
Sean
My feeling is that "...or is it?" is implicit in the fact that every DM runs his or her own FR game that is unique and different from everyone else's. I've felt for many years that it's our job to be the "straight man" in the act -- the guy who feeds the DM the great punchlines and makes the DM the headliner in the act. Similarly, I also think that it's not a good idea to try to "DM the DMs" by playing coy with the storylines or possibilities of the setting. I think we're better off to spell things out, and if DMs choose to vary from the baselines we establish, well, that's great -- good for them.
That's my feeling, anyway. When I oversaw the FR line in 3e, that's generally the direction I pushed for.
-This, I applaud.
-The First-Person Point of View might have been good for DMs (in so much as they are beaten with the words "DO WHATEVER YOU WANT"), but it makes debating a hell of a lot harder when, no matter what is said, someone pulls out the ol' "Well, because XYZ was stated in a sourcebook with an unreliable narrator, we don't know for certain. Thus, XYZ...". Sourcebooks that are omniscient and told in the Third-Person Point of View (ie, 3e era sourcebooks) are much more in line with this. As it was stated, that's how it is. Period. And, of course, one possesses the ability to alter whatever they want in their own campaign, regardless.
But it was WITHOUT Mystra, which CAN'T happen. The Weave, and Mystra, is absolutely necessary for that balance.
They were necessary to the old balance, but not to a new balance.
That would be applicable to the world we live in. Not to an imaginary world where it's creator can DEFINE anything he wants and it becomes the absolute truth about that aspect. Ed's FR (thus the original and what everything else that came after must accept and use without any changes to it) stated that Mystra and the Weave are what keeps everything working fine and that her permanent death would spell doom for Realmspace.
Your interpretation. Ed has gone along with the current interpretation that she was necessary for the balance that existed, but not for the the maintained existence after her death. The world, as it was, was doomed to change, which it has.
It could be argued that the Weave was necessary for magic to develop and exist as it was, but the death of Mystra and unraveling of the Weave may have permiated Realmspace with a residue of her essence and of the Weave, leaving an altered link between creatures and the basic magic force. It may have been necessary that she had existed, but she may have left a legacy that lasted beyonf her death.
They aren't assumptions but absolute, cannonical facts.
Obviously, WotC disagrees.
The metaphysics of a game setting are completely known and absolute.
I completely disagree. They are never completely known in any setting, and the whole concept of deities implies they are changeable by the actions of the deities.
Although if Rich was referring the Luiren Spring Cheese with that CHEEZE! comment, then I've lost all respect for him as a designer and must burn all my books that have his name anywhere on them.
I liked the uncertain narration of 2e myself... purely from a DM perspective. Honestly, I think the omniscient 3rd person approach might have contributed to the perception that DMs and players felt constricted by the lore, (...)
I completely agree. I'm not fond of the change to omniscient 3rd person myself. It only reinforces the tendency of some players and DMs to fight over "correct" lore.
(...) but that's simply an opinion on my part, and thus not really the basis for much of a discussion. Having said that however, I'd firmly agree with LK that the omniscient 3rd person approach does make debate and discussion a much easier process.
Yes, debate and discussion instantly becomes black and white for the canon world when you have an omniscient 3rd person "narrator". But the trickle-down effect of this is that people with weird axes to grind (or those who have a strong need to be "experts") will find ways to crank about differences from canon that might exist in someone's personal FR game. It's an unfortunate reality of playing FR.
Although if Rich was referring the Luiren Spring Cheese with that CHEEZE! comment, then I've lost all respect for him as a designer and must burn all my books that have his name anywhere on them.
Haha! :D
But the trickle-down effect of this is that people with weird axes to grind (or those who have a strong need to be "experts") will find ways to crank about differences from canon that might exist in someone's personal FR game. It's an unfortunate reality of playing FR.
-A DM then develops the...'gall' to deal with that, and that's that.
-A DM then develops the...'gall' to deal with that, and that's that.
Of course, and I have done so many times. But that doesn't change the fact that people -continue- to be annoying in this regard (which in many ways is unique to the Realms).
Of course, and I have done so many times. But that doesn't change the fact that people -continue- to be annoying in this regard (which in many ways is unique to the Realms).
-Not to get any more tangental than things already are, but this is hardly unique to the Forgotten Realms. It happens in any setting in which players have access to the 'overview' of the world. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings...
-Hell, I do that to myself when DMing my own campaign, a homebrew!! :D
-Not to get any more tangental than things already are, but this is hardly unique to the Forgotten Realms. It happens in any setting in which players have access to the 'overview' of the world. Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings...
Believe me, it's nowhere near as bad as it is with the Realms, though, and I have been a DM for over 15 years - in all the game worlds you've mentioned above except Dark Sun and Star Wars. Even longtime Greyhawk experts aren't as bad.
-Hell, I do that to myself when DMing my own campaign, a homebrew!! :D
Believe me, it's nowhere near as bad as it is with the Realms, though, and I have been a DM for over 15 years - in all the game worlds you've mentioned above except Dark Sun and Star Wars. Even longtime Greyhawk experts aren't as bad.
-I don't agree, but we've all had different experiences, so...
-I don't agree, but we've all had different experiences, so...
You might not agree, but it's been my experience across the spectrum. I've DMed for gaming clubs, RPGA events, and home campaigns with friends. The Realms -always- gives people a sense of entitlement, that they somehow know better about the campaign than the DM. And often, those who have that sense of entitlement are not only wrong about key lore in canon but also wrong to question DMs about games based on canon. And it's not because I'm a female gamer, either, as I see people do it to male DMs all the time.
My feeling is that "...or is it?" is implicit in the fact that every DM runs his or her own FR game that is unique and different from everyone else's. I've felt for many years that it's our job to be the "straight man" in the act -- the guy who feeds the DM the great punchlines and makes the DM the headliner in the act. Similarly, I also think that it's not a good idea to try to "DM the DMs" by playing coy with the storylines or possibilities of the setting. I think we're better off to spell things out, and if DMs choose to vary from the baselines we establish, well, that's great -- good for them.
That's my feeling, anyway. When I oversaw the FR line in 3e, that's generally the direction I pushed for.
Aww...
Not what I wanted to hear, but I was sort of expecting it.-The First-Person Point of View might have been good for DMs (in so much as they are beaten with the words "DO WHATEVER YOU WANT"), but it makes debating a hell of a lot harder when, no matter what is said, someone pulls out the ol' "Well, because XYZ was stated in a sourcebook with an unreliable narrator, we don't know for certain.
The thing is, FR RPG books are meant for gaming first, debating distant... third. The "... or is it?" mentality has been more inspiring for me as a DM and a player.
Aww...
The thing is, FR RPG books are meant for gaming first, debating distant... third. The "... or is it?" mentality has been more inspiring for me as a DM and a player.
Completely agree here. Gaming isn't about debate, and becomes less fun when people grumpily break out rule books for some minor point. It's even more annoying when someone wants to crank about lore, especially because a local game rarely matches with canon perfectly (if ever).
The thing is, FR RPG books are meant for gaming first, debating distant... third. The "... or is it?" mentality has been more inspiring for me as a DM and a player.
-They're meant to illuminate Faerûn. What one wants to do with that information is up to them.
-They're meant to illuminate Faerûn. What one wants to do with that information is up to them.
But see, a 1st person perspective would achieve exactly the same result for the game. The only thing a 3rd person perspective does is to encourage the development of "truth experts" (which is -great- if you're curious about exact details in a novel). The difference in narrative perspective doesn't add -anything- to the game, though, as it's exactly the same information. In fact, 1st person narrative reinforces a player's tendency to say "I wonder if this is actually true in my game, let's find out!" rather than "But the book said...".
The "... or is it?" mentality has been more inspiring for me as a DM and a player.
But it must be kind of annoying to type.
"... or is it?"
"... or is it?"
"... or is it?"
-They're meant to illuminate Faerûn. What one wants to do with that information is up to them.
Not really. Particularly in 3E.
Yes, FR RPG books talk about Faerûn, but they talk to Dungeon Masters and players.
That’s because they are written for DMs and players.
They aren’t meant for that small slice of the pie that reads FR gaming books just to learn about The Realms for the sake of learning about The Realms.
2E books went to a greater depth of detail (sometimes suffocatingly so) and better matched what you (Karsus) are talking about.
But even then 2E FR books could be chock full o' rules.
Not really. Particularly in 3E.
Yes, FR RPG books talk about Faerûn, but they talk to Dungeon Masters and players.
That’s because they are written for DMs and players.
They aren’t meant for that small slice of the pie that reads FR gaming books just to learn about The Realms for the sake of learning about The Realms.
2E books went to a greater depth of detail (sometimes suffocatingly so) and better matched what you (Karsus) are talking about.
But even then 2E FR books could be chock full o' rules.
-None of which changes anything I just said.
Other than pointing out that your statement was incorrect as written, of course.
-Please, illustrate to me how "They're meant to illuminate Faerûn. What one wants to do with that information is up to them." is incorrect. I'd like to see that. If one wants to take that information, and use it to light a bonfire, that's up to them. If one wants to take that information, and use it to augment their D&D campaign, that's up to them. If one wants to take that information, and use it to augment their knowledge of Realmslore, that's up to them. If one wants to take that information, and use it as a doorstop, that's up to them. If one wants to take that information, and use said sourcebook as a blunt weapon to hurt someone, that's up to them. If one wants to take that information, and...
Believe me, it's nowhere near as bad as it is with the Realms (...)
Believe me, it's nowhere near as bad as it is with DSA - although only the German speaking audience can tell you a thing or two about it ;)
DB
Believe me, it's nowhere near as bad as it is with DSA - although only the German speaking audience can tell you a thing or two about it ;) DB
I've heard about Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye); I vaguely remember it being translated into French, which is how I probably came across it. It's one of those gameworlds that's been around a long time (late 80s, right?), and a lot of people really delve deeply into it. There's a real sense of ownership and entitlement just like the Realms (which is both good and bad). I can't remember if I've played it or not. If so, it would've been ages ago, heh!
You might not agree, but it's been my experience across the spectrum. I've DMed for gaming clubs, RPGA events, and home campaigns with friends. The Realms -always- gives people a sense of entitlement, that they somehow know better about the campaign than the DM. And often, those who have that sense of entitlement are not only wrong about key lore in canon but also wrong to question DMs about games based on canon. And it's not because I'm a female gamer, either, as I see people do it to male DMs all the time.
This is the biggest problem I've encountered, players arguing with the dm, it takes away the enjoyment for everyone and doesn't really accomplish anything.
It's happened enough to me that I was glad when I heard about the reset.
As always my experiences and opinion prolly won't matter much to anyone else.
This is the biggest problem I've encountered, players arguing with the dm, it takes away the enjoyment for everyone and doesn't really accomplish anything.
It's happened enough to me that I was glad when I heard about the reset.
As always my experiences and opinion prolly won't matter much to anyone else.
They do matter. They're real, not just speculation.
They do matter. They're real, not just speculation.
Thank you for respecting my opinion, I'm sure I'm about to get flamed in the other thread though.
I've heard about Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye); I vaguely remember it being translated into French, which is how I probably came across it. It's one of those gameworlds that's been around a long time (late 80s, right?)
It came out in 1984, and it's even more detailed than the Realms (although much, much more down to Earth, more akin to Kalamar than to FR). I understand the criticisms ("You can do almost nothing without contradicting some snippet in sourcebook C23 from 1989, page 21, second paragraph!"), but at least settings as detailed as this one are extremely rare, and those who don't want that level of detail have a thousand alternatives. That's why I oppose the dumbing down of the Realms just because many gamers don't want that level of detail. They have alternatives - FR oldtimers don't.
Oh, and by the way, they translated it into English. It was a marketing desaster. The DSA crew are idealists, but they sure aren't businessmen *g*
DB
It came out in 1984, and it's even more detailed than the Realms (although much, much more down to Earth, more akin to Kalamar than to FR). I understand the criticisms ("You can do almost nothing without contradicting some snippet in sourcebook C23 from 1989, page 21, second paragraph!"), but at least settings as detailed as this one are extremely rare, and those who don't want that level of detail have a thousand alternatives. That's why I oppose the dumbing down of the Realms just because many gamers don't want that level of detail. They have alternatives - FR oldtimers don't.
Oh, and by the way, they translated it into English. It was a marketing desaster. The DSA crew are idealists, but they sure aren't businessmen *g*
DB
You don't really know if the Realms have been dumbed down.......nor has anything in the history of Realms been deleted. Please don't believe that, the setting has always been and will always be as deep and complex as you want it.
It came out in 1984, and it's even more detailed than the Realms (although much, much more down to Earth, more akin to Kalamar than to FR). I understand the criticisms ("You can do almost nothing without contradicting some snippet in sourcebook C23 from 1989, page 21, second paragraph!"), but at least settings as detailed as this one are extremely rare, and those who don't want that level of detail have a thousand alternatives. That's why I oppose the dumbing down of the Realms just because many gamers don't want that level of detail. They have alternatives - FR oldtimers don't.
Oh, and by the way, they translated it into English. It was a marketing desaster. The DSA crew are idealists, but they sure aren't businessmen *g*
DB
I understand this but you do have many books at your disposal to run a game you wish. You mention the oldtimers that feel the same way you do. Perhaps there are not as many of them as new players or oldtimers that are going to buy the new stuff. I am a fan since 1987 and will pick up the new books. If I like it I will run it.
If there are less of one group (oldtimers who will not switch) and more of another (newplayers and oldtimers who will switch or come back since leaving long ago) then WOTC will cater to the majority.
Apparently they do not believe they have to worry about the old fans leaving.
If they were worried they would adapt the game to the old fans needs.
I completely agree. I'm not fond of the change to omniscient 3rd person myself. It only reinforces the tendency of some players and DMs to fight over "correct" lore.
I agree with you and Stigger 100%. The main reason they put forth for the reset is the 'plethora of lore' that intimidates newcomers. This is especially true of new DMs, but quite a bit of it affects the authors and designers as well.
I would have to respectfully disagree with Rich on this one - If "setting everything in stone" was your premise in 3e, then that very premise is what tied everyone's hands. 1e and 2e's habit of presenting lore as "one of several possibiltes" made retconning MUCH easier, and also gave DMs and designers much more leeway while creating.
The "Storyteller Reporting" is one of the things that made FR great, and by taking that away, it forced everyone to "dance to the same drummer", which lead to the feeling of entitlement that people "in the know" developed for the setting.
You might not agree, but it's been my experience across the spectrum. I've DMed for gaming clubs, RPGA events, and home campaigns with friends. The Realms -always- gives people a sense of entitlement, that they somehow know better about the campaign than the DM. And often, those who have that sense of entitlement are not only wrong about key lore in canon but also wrong to question DMs about games based on canon. And it's not because I'm a female gamer, either, as I see people do it to male DMs all the time.
Once again, believe it or not, I agree with you 100%.
LK (and you know I love you man) is a perfect example of this - he likes his lore to be 100% accurate, so he can demonstrate his "FR know-how" - most of us are guilty of this on some level (myself VERY much included).
The older method of presentation allowed those who weren't as familiar with the setting to say "maybe it wasn't that way". In a sense, 3e ceated the very feeling of entitlement that 4e is trying to get rid of. Add in the fact that all the 'empty areas' were removed with 3e, and we can see a clear case of 'back peddling' now, at the fan's expense.
And if they continue to present the "100% accurate" facts in 4e, then once again, they will eventually create a new feeling of entitlement. Their answer to that, of course, is to simply publish two sources and an adventure - less lore, less entitlement. Unfortunetly, the novels do just as much to create that feeling, so either way, I think it's here to stay (unless novels became non-canon).
Just making observations here, NO attacks. I still plan to give 4e FR a chance - I've lost any sense of 'connecttion' I used to have with the setting, so now I'm pretty 'neutral' in my views.
It came out in 1984, and it's even more detailed than the Realms (although much, much more down to Earth, more akin to Kalamar than to FR). I understand the criticisms ("You can do almost nothing without contradicting some snippet in sourcebook C23 from 1989, page 21, second paragraph!"), but at least settings as detailed as this one are extremely rare, and those who don't want that level of detail have a thousand alternatives. That's why I oppose the dumbing down of the Realms just because many gamers don't want that level of detail. They have alternatives - FR oldtimers don't.
Oh, and by the way, they translated it into English. It was a marketing desaster. The DSA crew are idealists, but they sure aren't businessmen *g*
DB
To be fair DSA is a completey pen and paper rpg of its own and it´s world really isn´t D&D compatible - rules and backround story are simply to strongly entwined to change to D&D without having to make many fundamental changes.
After playing it now for a bit more than 10 years (usually 1 day a week about 8-14 hours) and having played pretty much every published adventure there is I can say that DSA is indeed very similar to FR (in the good and the bad ways). There is published backround for pretty much everything so it can be extremly hard for new DMs if they have a group of experienced players unless they reduce it to hack and slay. Even after 10 years playing all the realms shaking campaigns (Borbarad, Filison, Simiala...) I wouldn´t consider me much of an expert.
Of course there is always the other side, if you invest your time to read the books and learn about a campaign world it can be extremly rewarding - it`s not unusual that my groups thals for ours about whats happening in the world , motivations of NPCs, politics (fillling that harem för their mages
) and so on. The fun has nothing to with how many orcs they have slain today, how much treasure they have ammassed of how powerfull their character is - in other words they can enjoy the setting without actually playing and thats quite something. Personally I kinda enjoy reading stuff about my beloved FR either by ready novels(currently reading through the Elminster books) or by reading dusty old 2nd Edition sourcebooks - after reading the FRCS (you really should have read it if you want to play a campaign in the realms ;) ) everything else is a bonus , mainly for me but also for my players, but it´s not necessary to enjoy playing in Faerun.
And usually its a very good thing to be able to get a more detailed source of a certan area of topic if you want to use it in your campain or are just plan curious: as example take Waterdeep - the description in the FRCS is pretty much all you need tu run it, it doesn´t say where you can find a baker in sea ward but you can easily make up somethink like that. Now maybe you decide to read a novel about the City of Spendors - by readingthe novel you can get a feel for the city, how it works, what it means to be a noble in the city and which area to avoid after dark. If you still hunger for more there is stil the City of Splendors sourcebook to consult. To be complete you could pick up other novels like Blackstaff or go to the FR area of this website and read waterdeep news: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/wdn/20050824a
What I am trying to show here is that you don´t need to read all the sources to DM (or pla) a "proper" FR game - just read the basics and jump right into it if you and your player want to and enjoy to read up on more lore that may be even better for everyone.
It´s certanly not always easy to track down the sources and I would love to see some kind of Forgotten Realms wikipedia (I kinda reacall they are already working on it IIRC) where the info is just one click away (I really would love to see what Ed can acomplish if he can completely ignore page count
)Now if you want to DM for a group where many or all of the players are regular "background monsters" in the best case the DM can take advantage of that and ask his players to support him with details - but if they have to argue with the DM about what is "true" (I have to add my players are good in their 20s so this is a nonissue for us) then maybe the problem lies with the players and not so much with the setting. And maybe in such a case it´s best not to DM, let them DM while you absorb more about the setting (and/or do some reading and search for a corner of the world thats no sooo detailed and set your adventure there) and DM again once you can "compete" or the others are sick of DMing and become willing to accept that the DM does not always follow the old lore.
To ease the problem with the FR, wizards have decided they had to make some changes to make FR easier to acces for new players - since apparently enough stayed clear of the setting, intimidated by the challenge to run a game in the realms.
You can argue if it was necessary to kill gods, to change countries and to add the changelands, some or all of these could have been handeled better or much worse (after reading Swordmage and Undead I am convinced that these are still the realms for me - even if I may have downplay some things and highlight others for my players) but the biggest thing they did was the 100 years timejump.
If I understand this corrently it was needed to allow a the Spellplague to run its course and afterward allow the wielders of magic to rediscover it or to give empires time to change but what these hundred years to very well is drawing a line between now and way back.
A new player just has to read the FRCS and the players guide and he is ready to go. His party might be passing the ruined towers of an old keep and see it as another old dungeons build a long time ago and now inhabited by monsters and all that stands between the next village and them are the PCs.....while another group of player sees not just an old nondescript ruin but all that remains of one of the enclaves of old netheril that fell down when Karsus cast his spell, they might know who or what lived after in the ruined enclave after its fall who might have survived the crash as lich and hs imprisoned himself in this tomb waiting for the second comming, what valiant heroes and the occasional red robes wizard have sneaked or sometimes charged into these walls and met their doom. And while their characters most likely don´t know who once went inside and returned with "a magic char and fancy orb" they players might, and in my oppinion something like that can greatly enhance the gaming experience and while a group of more experienced players might view the very same adventure (in the terms of what happened and which monsters will appear, what treasure might they find and what will kill them horribly) can get a lot more out of it, it does not change the fact that both groups are playing in the Forgotten Realms and are hopefully having a great time doing so, be it by beating the BBEG by using great tactic, ingenius creativity or just dumb luck or relentless (and sometimes fatal) roleplaying.
Many people on these boards especially those who certanly have atained the black ribbon of FR knowlege are upset that the changes and the timejump seem to invalidate they knowledge and in a way it they are correct.
At the start FR will be less detailed, and many thing the know aobut the world will no longer be true, in a way the will have to rediscover the realms anew and while many might no longr recognize it as "their FR" and decide to ignore the changes keep playing in the old days, others are concerned that the new incarnation will be shallow compaired to its rich past - and in a way they are correct, for quite some time they would have to play in areas that are less detailed that they are used too (at least until the DI provides us with fresh material). What I will do , and might just as well suggest, is to keep the root alive some things have completely changed and others were created pretty much from scratch, but if the player come to fair Cormyr it will be the land where Azoun rode to slay the dragon for his country, where Purple Dragons defend the land and it´s people and where many bands of adventurers made a name for themselves and now live forever in the stories told by bards everywhere in Faerun.
I admid this isn´t a solution for everybone and everything I personaly am very happy to see that Myth Dranor gets a chance to bloom one again under its new Coronal, it saddens me to see many human protagonists I came to know through countless stories (Mirt we will miss you so get of your ass quaff some protions of age reversal jumt trhough an time gate and let someone put you in stasis !
), the fact that at least one Manshoon will survive these times gives me hope for the future. In the end everyone has to decide if they are willing let this new incarnation into their heart and give it a chance of hold on to their own familiar immage of the Forgotten Realms.
Sorry Dexter_Blacktyde it´s rather long and not really all meant to hit you
Now to add a few quick questions: Hey Rich, is there any particular character you really want to play in your nex FR game ?
And how would you describe to someone with no experice with the Realms but much expericene with D&D and other FRPGS the new realms in a few sentences?
It came out in 1984, and it's even more detailed than the Realms (although much, much more down to Earth, more akin to Kalamar than to FR). (...)
Interesting, sounds like fun! I'll try to look up the english version, maybe on ebay.
To be fair DSA is a completey pen and paper rpg of its own (...)
After playing it now for a bit more than 10 years (...) I can say that DSA is indeed very similar to FR (...)
/criticalhit from walloftext
Heh, just kidding. Sounds like DSA would be immensely fun, though. It's too bad it didn't do well in its English printing. Still, I'm curious to try it. I'll try to check it out at ebay or a reseller or something. How may supplements are there, roughly?
To me, that just seems "realistic" in a sense that time does move forward and things do change. The world of Alexander the Great was not the world of Julius Caesar, nor that of Charlemagne. Yet each of those empire builders knew about the one came before him and, to some extent, tried to copy what had come before. Caesar went forth and conquered, and became entangled with Cleopatra, the very last of the Ptolemys (the descendant of the general left in charge of Egypt following Alexander's invasion). Charlemagne tried to rebuild the Pax Romana, although what he created wasn't the old Roman Empire.
I think 4E will allow people to play with the past and the future of the Realms in the same sort of way that humans have always operated. You could run into descendants of past heroes, find people trying to rebuild an "old way" of life, or discover something totally new and different made possible by the sweeping changes of the past 100 years.
Regards,
Rosemary
author: Crypt of the Moaning Diamond -- a now historical novel of the old Realms, really old, like 1246 ;)
http://www.rosemaryjones.com
Interesting, sounds like fun! I'll try to look up the english version, maybe on ebay.
/criticalhit from walloftext
Heh, just kidding. Sounds like DSA would be immensely fun, though. It's too bad it didn't do well in its English printing. Still, I'm curious to try it. I'll try to check it out at ebay or a reseller or something. How may supplements are there, roughly?
Current Edition not shure state of translation, 4 core rulebooks:1 book has all the professions and material needed to create characters, 1 book covers combat weapons and the skill system, 1 book about magic(spell descriptions not included)1 book about the Gods and Demons but mostly covers Gods and their churces and the wonders given to their priets (as well as the servants of other gods and pacts with demons)+1 book spells. But actually none of thes books have much about the land itself. 1 book covers plants, animals and monsters (demons stats are in the book about gods, elementals in the one about magic) 1 book covers the world itself thats pretty much the closest to a campiagn setting I guess. 1 book weapons and armor, 1 book magic items and details about alchemy and other areas of magic, 1 atlas - a map collection, regional sourcebooks about 10 in this edition so far, about 15-25 sofcover adventures 5-9 hardcover adventure collections tematicly grouped, on advenuture patch ported from last edition took about 1and 1/2 years to play last time playing every week about 10 hours each time. several other hardcover adventures....+ montly newsletter about 20 pages written in the style of an ingame newspaper.
Now some things you should know, it´s low magic adventurers usually do not own magic items excluding a potion of 2 unless a mage is in the group, about 80 % of all fights are against humanoids mostly humans, system is classless you buy skills, stat increases, feats, improve fighting skill/magic with XP, character creation can take several hours... Mages are extremly powerfull while they have limited resources for example it can take a about a week without casting of a mage uses up all with magical stamina, something powerfull like a fireball costs enough that only the very best mages can cast it more than 2 times until their ressources are depleteted, but a clever mage can still pretty much deal with a fighter without trouble and non wizards have hardly any resistance against it so magic is more powerfull but can´t be used that often - on the other hand summoning an elemental or demon can damage an adventure rather quick since most Adventures assume that PCs have no or very limited acces to magic (there are exeptions of course), so it can´t be used as a d20 campaign setting without big changes - but if I come to compaire it to FR or in other words what you might like:
-source books are crunch light, you will be hard pressed to find about 2 full pages of crunch in a regional sourcebooks
-extensive material about churces and gods church structures are rather extensively detailed )
-you get (especially with adventures= city magps comparable to the Waterdeep map, though most cities are smaler
-elves are more frey than in faerun und are certanly no usual sight in most areas, several sorts of dwarf more common in human lands but not compairable to D&D, no gnomes, no halflings about 90% of PCs are human, orcs have own kingdom/lands, big cultures/countires:1 kinda like spain/france, 1 germany, 1 east european flavour, 1 norther europe, 1 desert country 1001 nights like but well not quite and one soutern country mix between a dirty rome/rio/pirat city and 1 japan flavoured island, and something like chult ....I simplifiy but essentially what you might like is that you get much fluf but I don´t honestly think that it´s really an alternativ to a FR fan it´s more down to earth but also was less heroc one good archer can kill even a high level PC with one shot in the eye (called shots aren´t a good idea in D&D too imo) a fighter is screwed if fights against more than one enemy at a time .... but i have written enough already. and btw there will be an computer game about set in the world in the next few months
I understand this but you do have many books at your disposal to run a game you wish. You mention the oldtimers that feel the same way you do. Perhaps there are not as many of them as new players or oldtimers that are going to buy the new stuff. I am a fan since 1987 and will pick up the new books. If I like it I will run it.
If there are less of one group (oldtimers who will not switch) and more of another (newplayers and oldtimers who will switch or come back since leaving long ago) then WOTC will cater to the majority.
Apparently they do not believe they have to worry about the old fans leaving.
If they were worried they would adapt the game to the old fans needs.
If I understand their current plan for FR correctly the new setting books are targeted at people already going 4th Edition, this is new insofar that you could have stayed with 2nd ed and use the 3rd Edition books for your game, now the changes are rather more severe.
I really don´t think that people will buy the new books without changing to 4th Ed. will be worth Wotcs serious consideration - some might buy them to complete their collection of just out of interrest but will never use them.
And to be honest with that in mind I really don´t see all that many old fans willing to adopt to 4th. For example Wizards are about equal in power ind 2nd and 3rd now they have to compete with the fighter, the latter most likely dealing more damage to single targets if they decide to.
Maybe in time some might decide that 4th is not all that different from Eds original version of the realms maybe working even better to represent what happens in novels. I recently found this video, and after watching it I was on board for the new FR, Ed likes it :D http://youtube.com/watch?v=yXvq4-GbuNI
All in all if they already knew that the changes they really had to take to adopt to the new Ed would alienate a lot of old fans so they decided in a rather smart business move (after all D&D competes in house with Mtg and I have spend thousands for that).to go out and make the new FR as good as they could, while trying to cater to everyone, I honestly don´t think that they would willingly try to cheapen, to destroy the FR experience we cherish - I beleive that the FR team consists of fellow gamers doing their best to compete with other great pieces of fantasy like (yes I say it World of Warcraft).
I would have to respectfully disagree with Rich on this one - If "setting everything in stone" was your premise in 3e, then that very premise is what tied everyone's hands. 1e and 2e's habit of presenting lore as "one of several possibiltes" made retconning MUCH easier, and also gave DMs and designers much more leeway while creating.
The "Storyteller Reporting" is one of the things that made FR great, and by taking that away, it forced everyone to "dance to the same drummer", which lead to the feeling of entitlement that people "in the know" developed for the setting.
MarkusTay I am going to have to disagree with you. I began playing Forgotten Realms towards the end of 2e, and I think I had a bad experience with te players and DMs I was with. I stayed with that group for about six months, and I eventually stopped playing with them when I was told I couldn't try DMing (for the first time) because I didnt know enough about the setting to do that. These were 2e people, so I dont think edition or "presentation" has anything to do with that.
You don't really know if the Realms have been dumbed down.......nor has anything in the history of Realms been deleted. Please don't believe that, the setting has always been and will always be as deep and complex as you want it.
If you take a very detailed setting, change things around in a very drastic way - in short, "reinvent it", to use a corpspeak term -, publish two books that are supposed to cover the whole setting and be done with it... yes, then you've dumbed the setting down. It may be a caricature of its former self, it may be an intriguing and exciting new setting, but whatever it is, it's a dumbed down version. If you ask Scorsese, De Niro, Liotta and Pesci to do a short film that crams the plot of GoodFellas into five minutes, the result may be artistically worthwhile, but it's still a dumbed down version of GoodFellas.
I understand this but you do have many books at your disposal to run a game you wish.
I know. I don't even need them because I've changed so much that my Realms differ considerably from canon. But that has nothing to do with the topic.
You mention the oldtimers that feel the same way you do. Perhaps there are not as many of them as new players or oldtimers that are going to buy the new stuff.
Perhaps. Nevertheless, my point still stands: Newcomers have a plethora of settings which are more to their liking to choose from. Those who want a setting like the Old Realms have nowhere to turn to.
Apparently they do not believe they have to worry about the old fans leaving. If they were worried they would adapt the game to the old fans needs.
As I said, with only two books they have nothing to lose if the old fans leave. Both camps will buy the two books - obviously for different reasons. So WotC might have taken the "Après moi, le deluge" stance.
Sorry Dexter_Blacktyde it´s rather long and not really all meant to hit you
Until reading this remark I didn't even feel your post was supposed to be directed at me ;)
I'll try to check it out at ebay or a reseller or something. How may supplements are there, roughly?
That's the point - those geniuses chose to not use the strengths of the setting. They published the core rules, and then it took them over a year (!) to publish the world guide. So for more than a year, the core rules was all there was. Of course, when they finally released the world guide, everybody had lost interest in this obviously unsupported system, so the line had to be discontinued. Maybe there was a way to handle the translation into English even worse - I just can't think of one ;) Which is a shame, because it's truly unique in its scope, elaboration, sophistication and - dare I say it? - maturity.
DB
MarkusTay I am going to have to disagree with you. I began playing Forgotten Realms towards the end of 2e, and I think I had a bad experience with te players and DMs I was with. I stayed with that group for about six months, and I eventually stopped playing with them when I was told I couldn't try DMing (for the first time) because I didnt know enough about the setting to do that. These were 2e people, so I dont think edition or "presentation" has anything to do with that.
I would agree - since 1e, 'knowledgable' persons have indeed been ruining the game for others. The sheer volume of lore present in the Realms lends itself to this sort of horrid 'Elitism'.
My point, however, was that the ONLY argument less knowledgable people had to fall back on was "not neccessarily", which was true with the "inaccurate reporting" method of lore presentation. Once everything was 'black & white', it gave the 'Lore-masters' a more solid footing to stand on... and a higher pedestal to look down from.
The original method also allowed the designers to change lore without too many problems, which is the reason I wonder why they would want to do away with that? At one time, they could have easily explained away discrepencies by saying "that partricular Sage was mistaken" (as was the case with the High Moor Elminster's Ecology booklet) - now, they have to admit they made a mistake. Of course, we are all intelligent people here, so we knew they had made a mistake all along, but by setting the excuse in the RW, it breaks the immersion factor everyone has with the setting. Its pretty much the same problem people have with the "it was always that way" explanation - you've just taken down the fourth wall and exposed FR for the inconsistent piece of fiction it really is.
Plus, "Story-teller" mode was what made the 1e/2e books so interesting. Once they switched from that, the setting became a set of references for the novels, nothing more; the flavor has been sucked right out of them.
It certainly didn't create the feeling of entitlement, but it did exaccerbate it.
I own every FR sourcebook, but I've only read about 1/3 of the novels, and I can't help but feel "inadequate" when people discuss lore related to them (and I know a hell of a lot, so you can imagine how a 'newb' must feel).
I would have to say that something needed to be done about this, and the 4e FR team was absolutely correect on this point, but I'm not so sure the path they took was the right one. The funny thing is, I've changed my tune recently because I don't know what else could have been done. If I can't come up with a better solution to the problem, then I feel I don't have the right to complain about it. How do you change the way people think en masse? As long as the huge list of novels still exist, I don't see this problem going away, no matter what they do.
Hopefully, I am wrong.
If you take a very detailed setting, change things around in a very drastic way - in short, "reinvent it", to use a corpspeak term -, publish two books that are supposed to cover the whole setting and be done with it... yes, then you've dumbed the setting down. It may be a caricature of its former self, it may be an intriguing and exciting new setting, but whatever it is, it's a dumbed down version. If you ask Scorsese, De Niro, Liotta and Pesci to do a short film that crams the plot of GoodFellas into five minutes, the result may be artistically worthwhile, but it's still a dumbed down version of GoodFellas.
Straw horse. I don't see the changes to FR being what you claim. All the old history is still there. More than two new books are promised, plus additional on-line material, plus new novels, plus 15+ modules per quarter, avaraging 4 major encounters for 4+ hours of play. The individual adventures will last as long as the old ones did, with a similar level of detail - no condensing of a few hours down to a few minutes, no dumbing down of the experience, but also not just a sequal to old adventures, nor a retelling of the old stories, but an advance to a new era, where some old conflicts have been settled, new ones have developed, and the focus has partly shifted to other areas (some new to the setting). The legacies of the old personalities and organizations remain, along with fresh background.
The core rules have changed, with combat, magic, skill use, advancement, etc. handled differently, hopefully in a more selfconsistent way, open to more individual choice, allowing PCs to contribute more to the setting (at least through LFR play), with more consistency between published adventures and published novels. We will have to see whether there is any "dumbing down", but it isn't obvious to me that there will be.
Newcomers have a plethora of settings which are more to their liking to choose from. Those who want a setting like the Old Realms have nowhere to turn to.
For those who don't want to change to 4e rules, the old FR setting is still there as it was for you to continue using. For those who want to stick with the legacy of the old FR, but use 4e rules and new official material, the new material includes the death of Mystra, the Spellplague, the changes to arcane magic, the swapping of parts of Abier and Toril, the passage of a hundred years, etc.
The current politics and racial relationships have changed, and most prominent personalities are now relegated to history. You could still conduct a "historic" campaign, before the changes, if you liked, but the official lore has grown to include the changes to the new "modern" FR.
The setting has been refreshed, with no need to know all of the old "current" lore in order to DM or understand the setting, with new lore for the old players to learn as well as for the new players, putting them on a more equal footing. But, those familiar with the old lore still have more understanding of the history behind current events, and of much of the geography. There are now some new surprises to enliven their gaming experience, with some adventures being in unfamiliar territory, but some adventures will be strongly rooted in the old lore, in familiar locations, with familiar institutions.
I look forward to the varied mixes of the old with the new, and expect more gain than loss from the changes.
IMO WOTC does not care. They want to hook as many people as possible, new and old fans and this is their gamble. Plus I think they have seen (like I have) that many FR fans jumped to EB for a while due to "Realmsburn" as I call it. They expect many of them to at least try out the New Realms books.
If your a fan of the 1,2 and 3E Realms there are many places to turn to though. There will not be any new books set in those eras though but there always a place to turn to so let us not be so dramatic.;)
Straw horse. I don't see the changes to FR being what you claim. All the old history is still there.
You keep bringing up this point. For example, having extensive knowledge about Russia in 1908 is pretty much irrelevant for you when you have to deal with Russia in 2008, isn't it? Nice to know, but has absolutely nothing to do with much of the present.
What's more, this "history" - i. e. gaming supplements - can't be applied to the New Realms because said supplements will be obsolete, won't they?
More than two new books are promised
No, they're not. Mr. Baker just said that he won't rule out the possibility that WotC might publish another FR book if they come up with a really compelling reason to do so. That's not exactly the same.
plus additional on-line material
I don't know how much NR material they're planning to publish online, how frequently, and how detailed it will be. Since they stated explicitly that they consider lore ballast, I doubt the online customer will get more sophisticated fare than the Headless Zhent Horseman.
plus new novels
What do the novels have to do with the game?
plus 15+ modules per quarter
Dungeon crawls with some Realms locales and names thrown in. IMHO WotC has yet to publish a module that does not concentrate on hack'n'slay. Anyway, even if their modules had ever been any good (in the sense of actual roleplaying adventure modules - as modules for a combat game I guess they're all right), they're the wrong medium anyway if you're looking for a way to try to immerse yourself in the New Realms and learn more about the setting.
avaraging 4 major encounters for 4+ hours of play
See? You're talking about encounters, about killing things and taking their stuff. I'm talking about an extensively detailed setting - and it doesn't look like we'll be getting one.
The core rules have changed, with combat, magic, skill use, advancement, etc. handled differently, hopefully in a more selfconsistent way, open to more individual choice, allowing PCs to contribute more to the setting (at least through LFR play), with more consistency between published adventures and published novels. We will have to see whether there is any "dumbing down", but it isn't obvious to me that there will be.
Again, you're talking about mechanics. I couldn't care less about mechanics, I'm talking about the setting.
For those who don't want to change to 4e rules, the old FR setting is still there as it was for you to continue using.
Another point you keep bringing up. Yes, it's all still there. But the line we knew gets discontinued with the publication of the New Realms. No new material in line with the old will be released. Newcomers get referred to a dead and thus unsupported OOP product. Either they're Americans and can purchase the old stuff via DriveThru RPG - and they have to go back two editions, not just one, because in this regard WotC's 3e output wasn't exactly remarkable -, or they have to visit eBay to collect the old stuff. If they even know about the richness of the old setting, and if they know where and for what to look, that is.
The setting has been refreshed, with no need to know all of the old "current" lore in order to DM or understand the setting
There was no need to know all the lore in order to enjoy the Realms before *shrug*
IMO WOTC does not care. They want to hook as many people as possible, new and old fans and this is their gamble. (...) They expect many of them to at least try out the New Realms books.
I completely agree. The thing is, in this case trying out the New Realms books means buying the whole material that will be released for the setting, so I expect their gamble to pay off.
If your a fan of the 1,2 and 3E Realms there are many places to turn to though. There will not be any new books set in those eras though but there always a place to turn to so let us not be so dramatic.;)
I'm not arguing for myself. I don't even like the official canon Realms (which is why I've left almost nothing unchanged), and the last time I bought a regional supplement on the first market, TSR was still alive and well. So as far as I'm concerned, them changing whatever they like doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean that I can't sympathize with longtime fans, though - or with possible future fans of which the setting will have fewer and fewer until the Classic Realms truly are forgotten. Now, that was dramatic ;)
DB
You keep bringing up this point. For example, having extensive knowledge about Russia in 1908 is pretty much irrelevant for you when you have to deal with Russia in 2008, isn't it? Nice to know, but has absolutely nothing to do with much of the present.
History = lore. It is the basis in the past for what is current. It is the source of artifacts, ruins, old dungeons, national rivalries, family lines, etc. It is still relevant, but more resent events are also significant. The old lore has lost its immediacy, but it still has meaning.
What's more, this "history" - i. e. gaming supplements - can't be applied to the New Realms because said supplements will be obsolete, won't they?
That depends on the DM. They don't say how things are now, but do say how things were, which shapes how they are now. Places like Waterdeep and Balder's gate have matured a hundred years, but should not have changed much. City maps will have changed a little, mony properties will still be owned by the same families, though few individuals are still alive. Many trade routes are the same. The racial blends is most areas will be similar.
Though the See of Shining Stars has shrunk, the surrounding lands are mostly derived from the old, with cities and ruins rooted in the old setting.
The old books don't apply, as is, but they do contribute to the new setting, giving rise to adventure opportunities in the new setting, partly explaining why things are the way they now are.
Knowledge of how Russia was in 1908 and earlier tells you alot about how it is now - where the rivers, mountains, farmlands, and cities are, the origins of the peoples, etc. You need an updaqte on what has happened in the last hundred years, but the old history isn't obsolete.
No, they're not. Mr. Baker just said that he won't rule out the possibility that WotC might publish another FR book if they come up with a really compelling reason to do so. That's not exactly the same.
3 books are promised, more than 2. Additional information is promised for FR. LFR is going to be an ongoing source of FR lore. New novels are coming. Relevant FR information is not being reduced to 2 books.
What do the novels have to do with the game?
Ask the oldtimers who consider them part of the lore of the setting. If your campaign takes what they say as canon, then it affects the game. As the authors will apparently be coordinating with WotC R&D, as with the LFR campaign administrators, they should be more relevant in 4e than they were in the past, with fewer contradictions.
Dungeon crawls with some Realms locales and names thrown in. IMHO WotC has yet to publish a module that does not concentrate on hack'n'slay. Anyway, even if their modules had ever been any good (in the sense of actual roleplaying adventure modules - as modules for a combat game I guess they're all right), they're the wrong medium anyway if you're looking for a way to try to immerse yourself in the New Realms and learn more about the setting.
You are entitled to your opiunion, but I don't agree. If youy are interested in the setting, separate from published adventures, and separate from all the novels, then the rules edition is also irrelevant and the existing setting books need never be obsolete for you.
You're talking about encounters, about killing things and taking their stuff. I'm talking about an extensively detailed setting - and it doesn't look like we'll be getting one.
No. Encounters include anything that grants xp, whether or not anything is killed or any stuff is taken. The details that appear in novels and modules add to the new source books and the old to describe the setting. A little imagination ties them together, showing how to deduce current details from the old. The setting will be more detailed than it ever was, as long as you don't write off the old sources as obsolete.
The who's who of Cormyr nobility does not make the setting. How the new Cormyr has derived from the old will come out in articles, novels, and adventures. The old history still exists. The changes to the setting will be described.
Again, you're talking about mechanics. I couldn't care less about mechanics, I'm talking about the setting.
You keep using the word "setting", but don't give your definition. I have little idea what you are complaining about. To me, the setting has grown in detail. The setting isn't the individual characters, but is the entire background of the adventures, particularly the geography and the history. It's whatever the characters could determine via Knowledge checks or exploration.
Yes, it's all still there. But the line we knew gets discontinued with the publication of the New Realms. No new material in line with the old will be released. Newcomers get referred to a dead and thus unsupported OOP product. Either they're Americans and can purchase the old stuff via DriveThru RPG - and they have to go back two editions, not just one, because in this regard WotC's 3e output wasn't exactly remarkable -, or they have to visit eBay to collect the old stuff. If they even know about the richness of the old setting, and if they know where and for what to look, that is.
Not being an American (I'm Canadian), I have a different perspectrive. I believe the out of print material is more available worldwide (in English) than you seem to think.
You seem to be indicating that WotC material released for 3e FR did not ad much to the setting - the setting apparently died with the end of 2e in terms of new content. Thus, even continuing with 3e, without new setting books, would have meant a dead setting from the point of view you present.
There was no need to know all the lore in order to enjoy the Realms before *shrug*
I completely agree. The thing is, in this case trying out the New Realms books means buying the whole material that will be released for the setting, so I expect their gamble to pay off.
Publishing new books doesn't end all old lines. Adopting the new information into your campaign entails changes top some lines and the eventual end of some others, along with an eventual 100 year advancement to others. Any major changes to how D&D is played would have significant impact on many lines. Any passage of time will entail the end or change of many lines. I consider that a plus.
I'm not arguing for myself. I don't even like the official canon Realms (which is why I've left almost nothing unchanged), and the last time I bought a regional supplement on the first market, TSR was still alive and well. So as far as I'm concerned, them changing whatever they like doesn't affect me. That doesn't mean that I can't sympathize with longtime fans, though - or with possible future fans of which the setting will have fewer and fewer until the Classic Realms truly are forgotten. Now, that was dramatic ;)
The classic Realms will die when no one plays it anymore, just as 1e, 2e, 3e, etc. will die when no one uses those rule sets any more. Sofar, they aren't dead, even though the old ones aren't officially supported (I know people who still play 1e). It doesn't matter. The newer editions continue to live, gaining many of the supporters of older editions. In general, the newer editions have made for better gaming experiences. FR lore increases with the new version; their will be more depth to the environment, with richer roleplaying opportunities, from what I can see. I may be proved wrong, but I don't see a basis fore the doom saying.
History = lore. It is the basis in the past for what is current. It is the source of artifacts, ruins, old dungeons, national rivalries, family lines, etc. It is still relevant, but more resent events are also significant. The old lore has lost its immediacy, but it still has meaning. (...)
If you wanted to play Star Wars at the time of Luke, Han & co, you wouldn't be content with buying Old Republic sourcebooks, would you? I mean, the solar systems are still all there, and most of them have the same names, but... well, suffice it to say, everything else is different enough to invalidate 90% of your OR supplements. Now, if you don't want to do all the work yourself, but would love to work with the imagination of authors who make a living coming up with stuff for your setting, and enjoy knowing that although your campaign is different from everybody else's, you share the same world with countless other gamers, well... you're pretty much out of luck.
Knowledge of how Russia was in 1908 and earlier tells you alot about how it is now - where the rivers, mountains, farmlands, and cities are, the origins of the peoples, etc. You need an updaqte on what has happened in the last hundred years, but the old history isn't obsolete.
Well, just imagine you knew absolutely nothing about Russia but wanted to play a RW campaign in contemporary Russia. You buy a "Russia in 1908" book and wonder why the names of rivers and mountains aren't quite enough to give you a picture of Russia in 2008...
3 books are promised, more than 2.
I refuse to consider a dungeon crawl module a sourcebook.
You are entitled to your opiunion, but I don't agree. If youy are interested in the setting, separate from published adventures, and separate from all the novels, then the rules edition is also irrelevant and the existing setting books need never be obsolete for you.
As I said, I'm not talking about myself *shrug*
No. Encounters include anything that grants xp, whether or not anything is killed or any stuff is taken. The details that appear in novels and modules add to the new source books and the old to describe the setting. A little imagination ties them together, showing how to deduce current details from the old. The setting will be more detailed than it ever was, as long as you don't write off the old sources as obsolete.
All right, since general comparisons don't seem to get us anywhere, let's get further into detail. A book that tells me who was who in my hometown a hundred years ago, that tells me about its society and said society's dynamics, rivalries, alliances, intrigues, who vied with whom over which economic sector, who harbored a grudge against whom because of what, doesn't tell me a thing about my hometown today, no matter how often you say "Don't write off the old sources as obsolete." For all intents and purposes, they are. Now, if you insert "regional sourcebook" instead of "book about my hometown", you see that you have to start from scratch, that you have to make up everything beyond the basic information by yourself. Some people love to do that, myself included. Others don't because they don't have the time or the inspiration, others again just love to read about a place instead of having to come up with the details themselves, and talk with like-minded people about their shared knowledge.
You're not seriously claiming there's no difference?
The who's who of Cormyr nobility does not make the setting.
That alone doesn't. But what exactly are you saying here? That not having this information is better than having it?
You keep using the word "setting", but don't give your definition.
In this context I know only one: the world in which the game takes place.
I have little idea what you are complaining about. To me, the setting has grown in detail.
Wait a minute. The 4e FRCS isn't even out yet, and we know that only two books with general information will see print, but after twenty years of publications, you think now the setting is more detailed than ever? Please elaborate, because now you lost me completely.
The setting isn't the individual characters, but is the entire background of the adventures, particularly the geography and the history. It's whatever the characters could determine via Knowledge checks or exploration.
At which point would you say there's too little information? Regardless, I'm not saying the New Realms won't be a setting. Why would I? I'm just pointing out the obvious: that it will be far less detailed than before, exactly how WotC wants it - although there are countless settings out there which are not very detailed, and almost none with as much published information than the Classic Realms.
To me, this is like having a conversation about a car company that stops producing cars and concentrates on producing motorbikes. I'm just saying that a motorbike is not a car - the ride isn't as comfortable, there's only room for two, you can't transport your groceries with it. You point out that the bike's more flexible, that it's faster, and the parking's easier. Up to this point we're just talking about personal preferences. But you keep calling the bike a car - "after all, it gets you from A to B, doesn't it?"
You seem to be indicating that WotC material released for 3e FR did not ad much to the setting - the setting apparently died with the end of 2e in terms of new content. Thus, even continuing with 3e, without new setting books, would have meant a dead setting from the point of view you present.
Uh... come again?
FR lore increases with the new version; their will be more depth to the environment, with richer roleplaying opportunities, from what I can see. I may be proved wrong, but I don't see a basis fore the doom saying.
Richer roleplaying opportunities? Do you have some examples?
DB
And of course you're right, LK. I'll shut up now.
DB
The setting has been refreshed, with no need to know all of the old "current" lore in order to DM or understand the setting...
As was pointed out, there was never a need to know "all of the current lore" in order to use the Realms setting. In fact, I think most knowledgable Realms fans will be the first to admit that there is still plenty of detail about the setting that they don't know (that is, virtually no one knows "all the current information").
I have to admit that as of now, I haven't obtained much information as to why the new alignment system has retained the terms Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, but has ditched the terms Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil. As you may already know, there's been plenty of bickering on the 4E forums about this topic (much of which breaks down into standard debates on what each of the alignments mean), but I'd like to hear some thoughts on the topic from an actual designer, not just (speculating) forum posters. When I read the preview materials, I was under the impression that the alignments could consist of Good, Unaligned, and Evil. Honestly, I would have prefered that system--it's much more simple, and I think half-heartedly throwing Law and Chaos back into it just makes the system more confusing than it needs to be. People can generally agree on what constitutes good or evil--in my experience no one can ever agree on what the heck law or chaos actually means for the purposes of the game.
Any thoughts on why the Law/Chaos axis is being slightly retained?
Wait a minute. The 4e FRCS isn't even out yet, and we know that only two books with general information will see print, but after twenty years of publications, you think now the setting is more detailed than ever? Please elaborate, because now you lost me completely.
Everything ever written about FR is part of the lore. Every new thing written is additional lore. The addition of even 2 new books is an increase in lore. The old FR is not ceasing to exist; a hundred years of new history are being added.
Richer roleplaying opportunities? Do you have some examples
It has been indicated that rules for gaining xp from noncombat will be included. You aren't interested in published adventures, lumping them as "dungeon crawls", so consider what is available for a home DM and his own campaign. He can draw on all the old history, plus the Spellplague and later. He can look at descendants of old characters, new political structures, the transposed lands, the partial draining of the Sea of Fallen Stars, etc. If you know a lot about the old Balder's Gate, you can project a hundred years ahead, take into account changed magic, etc. and creat an adventure with at least as much depth as before. If the new rules, as promised, make out of combat activities easier to judge, there will be moree room for such in-game. Supposedly, old magic items (trhat don't duplicate spell effects) should still work much as they did, and still exist from the old setting. Most of the deities still exist, with specified changes to their interaction with the characters. Most of the physical world is the same, or with explained differences.
Approach the new releases with an open mind and I don't see how you can find if more limited, or lacking former detail..
Though the See of Shining Stars has shrunk, the surrounding lands are mostly derived from the old, with cities and ruins rooted in the old setting.
The old books don't apply, as is, but they do contribute to the new setting, giving rise to adventure opportunities in the new setting, partly explaining why things are the way they now are.
Knowledge of how Russia was in 1908 and earlier tells you alot about how it is now - where the rivers, mountains, farmlands, and cities are, the origins of the peoples, etc. You need an updaqte on what has happened in the last hundred years, but the old history isn't obsolete.
Has it escaped your notice that virtually the entire southern half of lands surrounding the Sea of Fallen Stars have either been destroyed or replaced with transplants from the moon?
As for the Russian history versus contemporary Russia as a metaphor for pre 4e lore and post 4e lore; if some diplomat or investor had enough knowledge concerning pre-1908 Russian history to fill the entire Library of Congress, they would still be grossly unprepared to deal with modern Russia if all they knew after that was "the past 100 years have been utter hell on earth for the Russian people. International borders have drastically changed, mass human migration has occurred, social structures have been turned upside down, and they somehow managed to make the world's fourth largest lake disappear. Good luck, and try not to **** off someone named Putin."
Has it escaped your notice that virtually the entire southern half of lands surrounding the Sea of Fallen Stars have either been destroyed or replaced with transplants from the moon?
Greatly exagerated. Only a relatively small part of that area was swapped with parts of Abier (a couple of old nations), one nation in the area destroyed, sections of the Underworld colapsed. Only a small percentage of Toril's surface was directly affected. Most is physically unchanged.
This exageration seems typical of the doom saying.
-Again, please take this discussion to PM, or make a thread about it specifically (I encourage the seond option), and leave this for asking questions. Last time I ask everyone, okay?
Tombollis, Dexter Blacktyde, Lowtech, you don't even have to make a thread for this discussion, I made one for you. Now please, allow for this thread to be used for it's original purpose.
In 3.0 characters had to chose a patron deity or face dire consequences in the afterlife, in addition rangers, druids, paladins and clerics were powerless without a deity. One my favourite books Lost empires of Faerun gave us the feat Servant of the Fallen, thus allowing the worship of dead deities like Bhaal and Amaunator (guess all that praying worked :D ) for clerics, but after dead the wall still waited for you despite not beeing faithless nor false (but noone would claim your soul IIRC).
Will it be possible to play a worshipper of a dead deity like Mystra or Helm without suffering the consequences?
What happens to the peditioners and the personal realm of a god when his he is killed? For example did Kelemvor take over Myrkuls realm and all the souls in it ?
Ok you already answered the second one:
Quote:
I've checked out manuscript so far, and we didn't explicitly say one way or the other. Since we haven't said it in print yet, I get to express my own opinion: Those souls would have returned to the Fugue plane, where Kelemvor re-assigned them as appropriate. I imagine that a fair number wound up in the domains of Selune or Shar. And some might have remained in the Fugue plane under Kelemvor's protection. Kelemvor's city is not a bad afterlife.
Ok I have no idea if you can answer that already since its very specific:
Does Larloch get a writeup in the FRCS? I ask cause he is one of the few beeings who could have actually kicked Thelamont Thantul backside long ago, and he really deserves a it badly nowadays :D
Short question:
Will it be possible to play a worshipper of a dead deity like Mystra or Helm without suffering the consequences?
What happens to the peditioners and the personal realm of a god when his he is killed? For example did Kelemvor take over Myrkuls realm and all the souls in it ?
Yes, I have largely the same question? THANKS!!
--Bruin
Since we can now play as core characters, races like Tieflings and Dragonborn, are the Realms mostly free of predjudice now, or will it be much harder for certain races travelling from town to town?
I've become interested in the new Pathfinder setting (the world of Golarion), and it has come to my attention that some people think it would be great if you'd write lore/fiction for that setting. Do you have any interest in such a thing?
Some of the people you might think of as WotC names who are involved with Pathfinder are actually out-of-house freelancers, so they're not bound by our non-compete.
Hey Rich, I have another question--or more specifically, it's a question a bunch of other people have for you.
I've become interested in the new Pathfinder setting (the world of Golarion), and it has come to my attention that some people think it would be great if you'd write lore/fiction for that setting. Do you have any interest in such a thing?
That said, I think a little of this can go a long way when you actually see it at the game table. How much the DM lays on the players really is a judgment call. It might be "realistic" when the DM says, "Well, Narsk, it turns out that the people in Swordvale haven't seen a dragonborn before, and they're not so sure they like the looks of you. They seem to be watching you wherever you go, and you hear plenty of whispering behind your back." But is it fun? It depends entirely on the player.
Some players might enjoy the sense of accomplishment that comes with proving the local rubes wrong in their assumptions, and showing them how silly their prejudices were. Some players who choose to play a dragonborn character know they're making a character with a fairly monstrous appearance and exotic origin, and may like it when the DM reminds them that their characters don't reassure the average commoner. Other players may not like this sort of thing at all. It's for the table to decide.
QUESTION:
Since we can now play as core characters, races like Tieflings and Dragonborn, are the Realms mostly free of predjudice now, or will it be much harder for certain races travelling from town to town?
Some of the people you might think of as WotC names who are involved with Pathfinder are actually out-of-house freelancers, so they're not bound by our non-compete.
I'm aware of those who are freelancers, I just didn't know if you could work for a different company (after all, I don't know what your contract says). Thanks for answering my question.
I did have another one though, about alignments. I'll repost it in case you missed it.
Rich, it so happens I have another question for you.
I have to admit that as of now, I haven't obtained much information as to why the new alignment system has retained the terms Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, but has ditched the terms Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil. As you may already know, there's been plenty of bickering on the 4E forums about this topic (much of which breaks down into standard debates on what each of the alignments mean), but I'd like to hear some thoughts on the topic from an actual designer, not just (speculating) forum posters. When I read the preview materials, I was under the impression that the alignments could consist of Good, Unaligned, and Evil. Honestly, I would have prefered that system--it's much more simple, and I think half-heartedly throwing Law and Chaos back into it just makes the system more confusing than it needs to be. People can generally agree on what constitutes good or evil--in my experience no one can ever agree on what the heck law or chaos actually means for the purposes of the game.
Any thoughts on why the Law/Chaos axis is being slightly retained?
- There are different types of good, and different types of evil.
- No matter how much the LG and G characters might debate methods, they're still unified against evil.
IMO, that could have been done by keeping CG and LE, and explaining them well when it came time to discuss alignment. But the folks working on that section chose to go in a different direction.
My favorite draft of the system was when we had Good, Evil, Lawful, and Chaotic. But these definitions were "spun" a bit 20 degrees counter-clockwise, so that Lawful was really LG in definition, and Good was really CG, and Chaotic was really CE. The text behind each of these made it very clear that Good and Lawful creatures worked together quite well and generally got along, but that the other potential pairings were pretty incompatible. I thought it was pretty elegant, and I sort of wish we'd gone that way.
One thing I have noticed: Less people care about alignment than I would have thought. Who knew?
Rich, it so happens I have another question for you.
I have to admit that as of now, I haven't obtained much information as to why the new alignment system has retained the terms Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil, but has ditched the terms Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil. As you may already know, there's been plenty of bickering on the 4E forums about this topic (much of which breaks down into standard debates on what each of the alignments mean), but I'd like to hear some thoughts on the topic from an actual designer, not just (speculating) forum posters. When I read the preview materials, I was under the impression that the alignments could consist of Good, Unaligned, and Evil. Honestly, I would have prefered that system--it's much more simple, and I think half-heartedly throwing Law and Chaos back into it just makes the system more confusing than it needs to be. People can generally agree on what constitutes good or evil--in my experience no one can ever agree on what the heck law or chaos actually means for the purposes of the game.
Any thoughts on why the Law/Chaos axis is being slightly retained?
Could you play a cleric or paladin? That's a little bit tougher. We are shifting the assumptions about how clerics receive their spell power in the game. Basically, once the cleric is invested as a 1st-level acolyte, the power's his to use for good or ill for the rest of his career. We don't want the deities looking over clerics' shoulders making case-by-case calls on whether to deliver the flame strike that's been requested. Nor do we want deities to have some sort of omniscience about how clerics are employing their powers, because we want to keep open the possibility of evil/misbehaving clerics ensconced in the faiths of good deities. Deities have to judge their clerics' actions by deliberately paying attention to them and observing, just like anyone else.
So what all boils down to is this: Do those ceremonies of investiture still work when a dead deity is involved? I think the answer is no.
Short question:
In 3.0 characters had to chose a patron deity or face dire consequences in the afterlife, in addition rangers, druids, paladins and clerics were powerless without a deity. One my favourite books Lost empires of Faerun gave us the feat Servant of the Fallen, thus allowing the worship of dead deities like Bhaal and Amaunator (guess all that praying worked :D ) for clerics, but after dead the wall still waited for you despite not beeing faithless nor false (but noone would claim your soul IIRC).
Will it be possible to play a worshipper of a dead deity like Mystra or Helm without suffering the consequences?
Ok I have no idea if you can answer that already since its very specific:
Does Larloch get a writeup in the FRCS? I ask cause he is one of the few beeings who could have actually kicked Thelamont Thantul backside long ago, and he really deserves a it badly nowadays :D
One thing I have noticed: Less people care about alignment than I would have thought. Who knew?
I might not have been heartbroken if alignment had been ditched altogether (I would still have considered most of my characters "good", anyway). Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Divine casters in my games will continue to be watched by their gods. It's part of what makes FR gods the way they are. That alternative smells of Eberron and I don't like it's approach to gods. FR's is closer to WoD's and I like it that way. There are even gods for the smallest pebble in the road.
Perhaps there's a litle known god of worshippers of dead gods or nongods? ;) The clerics get basic powers but nothing deity-specific. The actual deity is a bit of a joker, and thinks the other deities take themselves too seriously.
Could you play a cleric or paladin? That's a little bit tougher. We are shifting the assumptions about how clerics receive their spell power in the game. Basically, once the cleric is invested as a 1st-level acolyte, the power's his to use for good or ill for the rest of his career. We don't want the deities looking over clerics' shoulders making case-by-case calls on whether to deliver the flame strike that's been requested. Nor do we want deities to have some sort of omniscience about how clerics are employing their powers, because we want to keep open the possibility of evil/misbehaving clerics ensconced in the faiths of good deities. Deities have to judge their clerics' actions by deliberately paying attention to them and observing, just like anyone else.
Just to voice an opinion, I absolutely detest this approach to divinity... I can understand why it's being changed to this, given the possibilities it opens up for the game, but I still don't like the approach, and something I think best accomplished through laity and perhaps infiltrating clerics, or even fallen clerics who've gone over to someone else very quietly... sort of like Cormaeril in Waterdeep. Totally a personal opinion thing though, I'll happily grant that one.
Could you play a worshipper? Sure. You can say your character worships a potted plant, if you like.
Could you play a cleric or paladin? That's a little bit tougher. We are shifting the assumptions about how clerics receive their spell power in the game. Basically, once the cleric is invested as a 1st-level acolyte, the power's his to use for good or ill for the rest of his career. We don't want the deities looking over clerics' shoulders making case-by-case calls on whether to deliver the flame strike that's been requested. Nor do we want deities to have some sort of omniscience about how clerics are employing their powers, because we want to keep open the possibility of evil/misbehaving clerics ensconced in the faiths of good deities. Deities have to judge their clerics' actions by deliberately paying attention to them and observing, just like anyone else.
So what all boils down to is this: Do those ceremonies of investiture still work when a dead deity is involved? I think the answer is no.
I like the new take on the gods, per the old rules they where simply all knowing and it can be pretty tough when a player asks why his god didn´t tell him.
The fact that that clerics can no longer have their powers taken away is a very good thing, since neither wizards nor clerics are now more powerfull than the other classes there are no more reasons to castracize them with antimagic fields and similar things .
If I understand this correctly what it means is that the mumy cleric of a now dead god keeps its powers and that the servants of fallen gods will keep them too.
Will the Arm of Valor from the Ruins of Myth Drannor boxed set make an appearance in the 4E Realms?
I like the new take on the gods, per the old rules they where simply all knowing and it can be pretty tough when a player asks why his god didn´t tell him.
Actually, it was never the case (even as per the rules) that the deities of the Realms were "all-knowing". Even the greater deities didn't know everything.
Hello Sir!
Several questions follow. Please don’t feel obligated to answer them all.
I have to say I’m stoked about 4E FR and wanted to ask you to reflect for a moment on the work you and your teammates have done at WotC so far.
When you consider the work you’ve completed as well as what’s coming down the pipe to D&D Fans (and FR Fans in particular) in the next couple of months, what are the thoughts that come to mind with regard to your hopes or ambitions for the FR products you’ve contributed to?
Also, though it’s probably hard to judge, do you think the 4E FRCG and Player’s Guide reflect or capture any of the qualities of the original Gray Boxed Set?
Lastly, in what ways will the 4E D&D rules set contribute to a fun and memorable Forgotten Realms play experience? Are there any rules or aspects of 4E (that you’re free to talk about) that you feel best bring out qualities of the 4E Realms?
Thanks as always for taking the time to answer our many questions!
If you know or can say anything about it, how will the upcoming primal magic work in regard to the Realms? FR Druids in 2e and 3e got their power from nature deities, so I'm curious to see if primal magic in 4e FR will be nature deity-bound or not.
Actually, it was never the case (even as per the rules) that the deities of the Realms were "all-knowing". Even the greater deities didn't know everything.
Yes I did generalize taht a bit, what I meant was Shar knowing about secrets and things done in the dark, Kelemvor knowing moths ahead of time when someone dies, same with Mystra and spells, Ogma knowing pretty much everthing not knows in the world jet (gunpowder, steampower, Battlestar Galactica DVDs and well he´s read the new rulebooks too).
All that plus the ability to sense everything miles arround their faithfull, allows for a pretty heftig input if information. I guess it goes with the job to hear the prayers of hundreds of people at a time and I have no idea how the chosen with name atunement can stay same.
So I revoke and change to "pretty damn well informed gods" :D
I know, not technically a FR question, but....
My question: Could you please give us any info on Cult of the Dragon in the New Forgotten Realms?
Thanks in advance,
Teo
My question is this: What should I do to run an FR campaign this Summer before the Campaign guide is released? Will we be seeing any FR related articles released on June 6th?
Also, we haven't seen any Countdown articles in some time - will that change with the release of 4e?
Well, the biggest hope or ambition I have is that we actually achieve what we set out to achieve: To make the setting more accessible for new players, to give old players a brand-new feeling of wonder as they discover interesting and evocative new material in the setting, and to provide a fresh new take on many iconic elements of the setting. In other words, to show you a world with Red Wizards, Zhentarim, the Cult of the Dragon, Cormyr, the Dales, Waterdeep, etc., etc., in a fresh new mix that attracts new players and reinvigorates old players.
Obviously, there's a lot of debate over the exact steps we took; we'll see how well we did soon enough!
@Rich
Hello Sir!
Several questions follow. Please don’t feel obligated to answer them all.
I have to say I’m stoked about 4E FR and wanted to ask you to reflect for a moment on the work you and your teammates have done at WotC so far.
When you consider the work you’ve completed as well as what’s coming down the pipe to D&D Fans (and FR Fans in particular) in the next couple of months, what are the thoughts that come to mind with regard to your hopes or ambitions for the FR products you’ve contributed to?
Also, though it’s probably hard to judge, do you think the 4E FRCG and Player’s Guide reflect or capture any of the qualities of the original Gray Boxed Set?
Lastly, in what ways will the 4E D&D rules set contribute to a fun and memorable Forgotten Realms play experience? Are there any rules or aspects of 4E (that you’re free to talk about) that you feel best bring out qualities of the 4E Realms?
Thanks as always for taking the time to answer our many questions!
The Cult of the Dragon is still around, but that's about all I can say at the moment. I don't have the materials here in front of me (I'm posting from home), and I'd have to refresh my memory on it to give you a better answer. Dracoliches are in the Monster Manual, though!
First time poster, long time lurker. Richard Baker, I just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work and dedication to us Forgotten Realms Fans and for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer our questions.
My question: Could you please give us any info on Cult of the Dragon in the New Forgotten Realms?
Thanks in advance,
Teo
Well, 4e is released in only a week, and I plan on running Keep on the Shadowfell (modified for Forgotten Realms) the Saturday after the Corebooks are released.
My question is this: What should I do to run an FR campaign this Summer before the Campaign guide is released? Will we be seeing any FR related articles released on June 6th?
Also, we haven't seen any Countdown articles in some time - will that change with the release of 4e?
Thanks for the quick response!! Dracoliche(s) in the monster manual?! Plural. Sweet! That's promising!
Another question Mr. Baker if you will: Will Tiamat's Dragonspawn feature prominantly in the FR Sourcebooks?
Thanks again :D
Another question Mr. Baker if you will: Will Tiamat's Dragonspawn feature prominantly in the FR Sourcebooks?
Yes, they are called Dragonborn, you can find them in the PHB :D
Show
I've just heard what happens in Ascendacy of the last and I can say only one thig: You couldn't JUST kill Eilistraee, you had to kill her in a way where she can't return at all and also mock her death like she was just a piece of dead wood?
What little respect I had left for FR developers was destroyed by that. You should all quit before damaging the realms again. You don't deserve the realms.
What little respect I had left for FR developers was destroyed by that. You should all quit before damaging the realms again. You don't deserve the realms.
Show
Yes, they are called Dragonborn, you can find them in the PHB :D
I've just heard what happens in Ascendacy of the last and I can say only one thig: You couldn't JUST kill Eilistraee, you had to kill her in a way where she can't return at all and also mock her death like she was just a piece of dead wood?
What little respect I had left for FR developers was destroyed by that. You should all quit before damaging the realms again. You don't deserve the realms.
Yes, they are called Dragonborn, you can find them in the PHB :D
I've just heard what happens in Ascendacy of the last and I can say only one thig: You couldn't JUST kill xxxxx, you had to kill xxxx in a way where she can't return at all and also mock her death like she was just a piece of dead wood?
What little respect I had left for FR developers was destroyed by that. You should all quit before damaging the realms again. You don't deserve the realms.
The book hits the shelves in June, so what is your source of information? And if your source is correct than thanks in advance for ruining the final book in the trilogy for me. Thank you for being discourteous to me, the other players, and other readers of the novels. Also Alediran, if you were a faithful reader of Lisa’s series then you would have known about the rules the two goddesses set up in their divine chess game. Honestly between you, me, and everyone who reads this thread, I never had met a cleric of Eilistraee in my games or met another player/DM who has used a cleric of Eilistraee. I have been playing the Realms since the very beginning and gone to numerous conventions in other states, universities, other peoples homes. So what does this tell you? It tells me, if what you are saying is true, is that WoTC did their research correctly and got this goddesses death right. I will buy her book anyway, read it, and ignore what you tried to ruin for me.P.S. I no longer respect you.
I have met and I have played Clerics of Eilistraee.
And so you can get it, the lady penitent trilogy was already set to destroy the drow pantheon because WotC wanted to do it, period. And I didn't posted those spoilers, there are ready to read in a thread made by another member. And when you see the way she died you are going to get as angry as me about what WotC did to her.
P.D.: And my info is always good.
Question:
Is the Ethereal Plane still around?
(If someone else knows the definitive answer - no guesses! - then feel free to answer this - I care not from which source my knowledge stems.)
Thank you for being discourteous to me, the other players, and other readers of the novel.
So why did you recopy the spoiler? Please put it in an [sblock] if you must quote it.
woobyluv, you should probably do the same. Let's not spoil people by accident.
PS: I have a cleric of Eilistraee. Just because this goddess was not commonly encountered in your personal experience, Lord Toast, does not mean she was therefore an unpopular goddess. Anecdotal evidence is, to quote our own Stigger, the worst kind of evidence.
It was lowest form of evidence, but close enough... ;) :D
:D
Hey Rich, I have yet another question. I don't have the 4E books yet, but I've heard that there were only 4 Epic Destinies published so far, and the Eternal Hero (which was mentioned in the preview material and in a 3.5E article) wasn't even one of them. Truth be told, I was sad about that, because that was an aspect of the new game that I was really interested in. I know there are probably going to be more EDs down the line, but hey, I like instant gratification.
My question is, why only four? Was it due to lack of space? Was it assumed that EDs wouldn't be needed right away? Were they just not all completed yet?
So why did you recopy the spoiler? Please put it in an [sblock] if you must quote it.
woobyluv, you should probably do the same. Let's not spoil people by accident.
PS: I have a cleric of Eilistraee. Just because this goddess was not commonly encountered in your personal experience, Lord Toast, does not mean she was therefore an unpopular goddess. Anecdotal evidence is, to quote our own Stigger, the worst kind of evidence.
This may sound silly, but hehe, how do you do the sblocks?
Edit: nm...
:D
Hey Rich, I have yet another question. I don't have the 4E books yet, but I've heard that there were only 4 Epic Destinies published so far, and the Eternal Hero (which was mentioned in the preview material and in a 3.5E article) wasn't even one of them. Truth be told, I was sad about that, because that was an aspect of the new game that I was really interested in. I know there are probably going to be more EDs down the line, but hey, I like instant gratification.
My question is, why only four? Was it due to lack of space? Was it assumed that EDs wouldn't be needed right away? Were they just not all completed yet?
This.
Bel
(And, for what it's worth, I've used Clerics of Eilistraee in my own games).
-That said...Hmm...Here's a tricky one...Ontinuecay with the relevant Q&A iscussionday.
What Epic Destinies can we expect in the FRPG?
I know only one that will be included. Pipesmoker. You sit, smoke a pipe and are worldwide famous.
I too would like to know if there will be an outsider wing feat in the realms for tiefling and whatever replaces the aasimar.
Id also like to know if the new dark elf is going to be in the players guide to the realms.
Id like to know if drizzt is still going to be a drow or is he going to be a dark elf in 4e.
and could you pass around the wotc offices the idea of selling ddi articles on cd, for all of us who want a copy of certain articles instead of paying a monthly fee or downloading it on our pcs?
thank you for your time and have a nice day.
To be honest, I find it a little inelegant too. However, I have to agree that it effectively conveys a couple of the key points about alignment:
Thx for being that honest. Personally I found the argument about not being capable of drawing a line between chaotic good and neutral good / lawful evil and neutral evil pretty convincing. However, Lawful evil is in my eyes much more descriptive than just "evil"
So for my part, I will stick with CG/LG/CE/LE, where CG is written as "good" in the books and LE as "evil".
I wasn't a big fan of that "neutral" thing anyways (IMHO there ain't such thing as neutral ;) ).
And unaligned for my part means just "not consistent or undecided"
Is 'Free-basing' a feat now, or an alchemical process? :P
So no one knows if the Ethereal still exists in some form? Isn't the Cosmology in one of the DMG or PHB?
I'm still VERY interested in the Cosmology - I may yet pick this up to mine it for ideas.
And while I am at it...
Rich,
Will the FR cosmology conform to the core one, pretty much?
Rich,
Will the FR cosmology confrom to the core one, pretty much?
I'm excited to hear about the upcoming Cormyr article you've done for DDi. I have 2 questions for you:
1) What will the format/presentation of this be like? Is this going to be a single page of text like the "Zhent Headless Horseman," or will it be something with lots of maps, diagrams, sidebars etc. I'm just trying to get my mind wrapped around what the DDi FR offerings are going to be like.
2) When is it going to be posted?
Thanks,
Will Maranto
I wasn't a big fan of that "neutral" thing anyways (IMHO there ain't such thing as neutral ;) )
what about rilmani, kamerel, druids, the Ciphers, Lady of Pain?
Brian,
I'm excited to hear about the upcoming Cormyr article you've done for DDi. I have 2 questions for you:
1) What will the format/presentation of this be like? Is this going to be a single page of text like the "Zhent Headless Horseman," or will it be something with lots of maps, diagrams, sidebars etc. I'm just trying to get my mind wrapped around what the DDi FR offerings are going to be like.
2) When is it going to be posted?
Thanks,
Will Maranto
You'll also see some mechanical 4E "crunch" for the first time in a Realms article, with the inclusion of a magical item, two paragon paths, and a divinity feat
Nice! Any chance you can tell us anything about those Paragon Paths and the Divinity Feat? Can you tell us the names at least (Although if it's in the Cormyr article, I'm guessing the Paragon Paths would be Purple Dragon Knight and War Wizard of Cormyr. Though a Divinity Feat? Any particular god associated in any way with Cormyr)?
Since the 'good stuff' was all saved until after the re-launch, there was never any time in which we were enjoying what the DDi was meant to be, correct?
Because, in all honesty, that 'free period' was pretty awful, and didn't give us any reason to want to pay for it. Was there any point in telling us that that was indeed the DDi, when it was not, and now we will have to pay for the real version without first having any fore-knowledge of what its like?
Or was this just more of that incredibly intuitive PR you guys are so good at?
If anything, that 'false DDi' convinced me NOT to pay for it, which I was planning on doing the moment I heard about it after Gencon.
Not Rich, but yes the 4E Realms will conform to the core D&D cosmology except for astral dominions—being the planar realms of the FR gods.
Thanks for the answer Brian.
So, just to make sure I'm not mistaken - FR (and perhaps the other settings as well) will all conform to the core Cosmology, but will also have setting-specfic locales as well (in the Astral, in FR's case)?
Still wondering if the Ethereal is still there.
Cormyr is a "Backdrop" article, meaning it's quite a bit larger than a standard "Realmslore" article. Cormyr ended up around 7,500 words...
That is AWESOME news. Looking forward to it!
So, that means that we never really got to enjoy the DDi for FREE as promised?
It is my understanding that DDi will be free after June 6th for a short period (actually, as far as I construed the statment, until they worked the bugs out of it - which IMHO will be a while).
Still wondering if the Etherreal is still there.
Good question.
It is my understanding that DDi will be free after June 6th for a short period (actually, as far as I construed the statment, until they worked the bugs out of it - which IMHO will be a while).
Ah, Okay...
That makes more sense. I had looked forward to both the rules and the DDi after Gencon's announcment, and it just seems that they have been going out of their way to convince me NOT to buy into either.
Most peculiar.
Anyhow, I think if anyone can write an article that would make me still pay for the DDi, it would be either Rich or Brian. Despite comments I have made in the past, I stll think Rich's Realmslore articles were among the best ever.
Looking forward to Cormyr, then.
Q: Any chance we'll see a 4E equivalent of the "Outsider Wings" Feat for Tieflings in the 4E Realms?
Anyhow, I think if anyone can write an article that would make me still pay for the DDi, it would be either Rich or Brian. Despite comments I have made in the past, I stll think Rich's Realmslore articles were among the best ever.
Looking forward to Cormyr, then.
Multiclassing into swordmage is pretty easy for a wizard (and vice versa), so I wouldn't be surprised to see some cross-training there.
Rich, the Swordmage has buff spells that work on just him correct? Will the Wizard have these spells or something similar or do I need to multiclass into SM to get those slefbuff spells?
As a transitive plane, the Ethereal served to connect the inner planes to the material plane. Our cosmology doesn't really *need* transitive planes. What we considered a transitive plane before, we now look at as an infinite medium--it's a level of existence in which other distinct locales can exist. So the Astral Sea is the infinite media in which the various godly domains exist, and the Elemental Chaos is the infinite media in which various locales like the City of Brass or the Abyss exist.
Demiplanes are still around as their own extradimensional locales, though.
I don't have the 4e rule books yet, but I understand that some people do.
Question:
Is the Ethereal Plane still around?
(If someone else knows the definitive answer - no guesses! - then feel free to answer this - I care not from which source my knowledge stems.)
Demiplanes are still around as their own extradimensional locales, though.
How very interesting...
The good news is that there are some FR epic destinies on the way in a future DDi article I wrote up a couple of weeks ago. I'm not at liberty to say what they are yet, sorry.
:D
Hey Rich, I have yet another question. I don't have the 4E books yet, but I've heard that there were only 4 Epic Destinies published so far, and the Eternal Hero (which was mentioned in the preview material and in a 3.5E article) wasn't even one of them. Truth be told, I was sad about that, because that was an aspect of the new game that I was really interested in. I know there are probably going to be more EDs down the line, but hey, I like instant gratification.
My question is, why only four? Was it due to lack of space? Was it assumed that EDs wouldn't be needed right away? Were they just not all completed yet?
The good news is that there are some FR epic destinies on the way in a future DDi article I wrote up a couple of weeks ago. I'm not at liberty to say what they are yet, sorry.
Are you at liberty to say when we can expect to see them, at least?
Are you at liberty to say when we can expect to see them, at least?
Ditto.
And Rich, thanks for answering my question.
anything would be helpful thanks.
akiir
So this may be a stupid question but im running a fr game based on the fact they have to recover 12 divine swords for the gods. In my game im going to be having the city of shade find a lost netherse scroll and bring back the empire of Nethril. Now just a quick question but what excatley is the netherse scroll? did it just let them do high magic? Did it let them make the citys float? im kinda lost on that part.
anything would be helpful thanks.
akiir
The Nether Scrolls were Artifacts of incredible power because they instructed the reader in the fundamentals of Magic. From casting mundane spells to crafting artifacts, to performing Realms Shaking Spells (turning mountain tops into levitating platforms for building the cities of Netheril).
They were as follows:
Arcanus Fundare - Basics of spellcasting
Magicus Creare - Creation of mundane magic items
Major Creare - Creation of magical constructs and living wards
Planus Mechanicus - Details planar mechanics including magic interactions on the planes and demi-planes
Ars Factum - Details creation of Artifacts
There were 2 full sets in existence at one point. One set stolen by the Elves and the other was destroyed IIRC or lost at the very least. In essence once the mages of Netheril studied and mastered most of the Scrolls, they didn't feel they needed instruction from the Elves who had originally instructed them in magic.
Hope that helps
I'm sort of ambivalent about this particular development - even though I feel the Ethereal has been a part of D&D for a long time, I'd have to agree with your assessment. I remember when I first looked at the Great Wheel (back when it was more of a 'Great Rectangle') and the D&D cosmology, I had a hard time reconcoling the existance of both as seperate entities. It's grown on me through the years, so it will take a little getting used to, but at least now I won't wonder why anyone bothers with the Astral (those silver cords were just plain weird - I hope they are gone as well).
I still like the concept of the 'border Ethereal', but in the new cosmology that could just be a condition that something enters before entering another plane, like the Feywild, Astral, or Shadowfell. Sort of like in Star Trek, when someone is in the process of 'beaming' between two points, and they are not quite in phase with either (at least thats how I will keep the concept alive, anyway). And, of course, that works perfectly with what you just said about ghosts and such (half in this world, half in the next).
I can definately live with that.
18D
The DMG gives us a premade town and from what I read KotS plays not all that far from there, I currently plan tp start my 4th Editon campaign on Saturday with KotS but I want to port it to FR. From what I have seen so far Cormyr seems a likely choice for the town, but I am really not shure.
So Rich can you suggest region for Fallcrest? Can you suggest FR Gods to replace the ones worshipped in Fallcrest?
Can you tell us when the article on how to play KotS can be ported to Faerun comes out?
Hi Rich,short question:
The DMG gives us a premade town and from what I read KotS plays not all that far from there, I currently plan tp start my 4th Editon campaign on Saturday with KotS but I want to port it to FR. From what I have seen so far Cormyr seems a likely choice for the town, but I am really not shure.
So Rich can you suggest region for Fallcrest? Can you suggest FR Gods to replace the ones worshipped in Fallcrest?
Can you tell us when the article on how to play KotS can be ported to Faerun comes out?
I may not be Rich, but I can suggest a place for Fallcrest if you like.
Taking a look at the current Faerun map, I see a couple possibilities based on the geography portrayed in the 4e DMG. From most likely to least:
1) The Shaar; south of the Shaarwood, along the River Shaar, intersecting the road that crosses the river. I actually like this possibility best, because all the terrain features on the Fallcrest area map are present, if not in the exact same location. A little map tweaking will make it fit just right. Also, it's kinda in the middle of nowhere, keeping with the theme of the new points of light stuff.
2) Sword Coast; Southeast of Neverwinter, east of Mere of Dead Men, north of the Sword Mountains. It will take more map modification but should suffice.
3) Tethyr; between the Forest of Mir, The Wealdath, Omlarandin Mountains, and Starspire Mountains. You can almost directly use the Fallcrest area map there with just a little tweaking.
Of course these are just suggestions. Hope it helps.
Rich: Assuming that the Bard as a class won't be presented right away, does the setting/player guide have any contextual nods to the class and the role they play in the setting? Will there be some DDI coverage of replugging the class into the game if you wish too?
Was this answered already?
Until then, there is a chance we may see some incarnation of the Bard in DDi before it appears in that Tome.
@Banpai - without seeing the 4e FR maps , its impossible for anyone but someone on the FR design team to suggest a locale. Conversely, since the Maps will be changing quite a bit, you can easily modify terrain on the 3e maps for your purposes, as woobyluv suggested (bearing in mind that most of the Shaar is a giant crater now).
Other companies may create their versions of the bard, barbarian and monk also before PH2. So there may be some other options. Of course you may want to convert them to WOTCs versions once the PH2 comes out.
I know for a fact that Necromancer Games intends to do just that. Release their own versions of the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, and Sorcerer. They've got a pretty good leg up on things, too, seeing as how the guy writing them up (Ari Marmell) has been playtesting 4E for a while, now. So he's long been familiar with the mechanics.
Other companies may create their versions of the bard, barbarian and monk also before PH2. So there may be some other options. Of course you may want to convert them to WOTCs versions once the PH2 comes out.
-That's ingenius!
-That's ingenius!
:P
Basically, the biggest challenge for Fallcrest is finding a river for it to sit on--preferably a big river that would host some traffic, and be worth building a portage route for. Other possibilities that occur to me include:
- Thesk (or maybe the river in northern Aglarond that goes up to Nethjet);
- Damara (Fallcrest could be a couple days' travel upriver from Heliogabalus along one of the tributaries);
- Teshwave;
- The River Surbrin in the North, maybe a little ways up from Yartar;
- The Delimbiyr Vale (put it a couple of days upriver from Loudwater).
That last one might be the best, since the "start area" covered in the FRCS is the Gray Vale (the Loudwater-Llorkh valley), fairly close by. And the Delimbiyr Vale is a vale already, so some of the Nentir Vale features described in the DMG could fit fairly easily.
I may not be Rich, but I can suggest a place for Fallcrest if you like.
Taking a look at the current Faerun map, I see a couple possibilities based on the geography portrayed in the 4e DMG. From most likely to least:
1) The Shaar; south of the Shaarwood, along the River Shaar, intersecting the road that crosses the river. I actually like this possibility best, because all the terrain features on the Fallcrest area map are present, if not in the exact same location. A little map tweaking will make it fit just right. Also, it's kinda in the middle of nowhere, keeping with the theme of the new points of light stuff.
2) Sword Coast; Southeast of Neverwinter, east of Mere of Dead Men, north of the Sword Mountains. It will take more map modification but should suffice.
3) Tethyr; between the Forest of Mir, The Wealdath, Omlarandin Mountains, and Starspire Mountains. You can almost directly use the Fallcrest area map there with just a little tweaking.
Of course these are just suggestions. Hope it helps.
I'd expect some DDI coverage on them, just not sure exactly when.
Ugh. This thread is too big....
Rich: Assuming that the Bard as a class won't be presented right away, does the setting/player guide have any contextual nods to the class and the role they play in the setting? Will there be some DDI coverage of replugging the class into the game if you wish too?
Was this answered already?
The Bard will be available in the PHB2 next year.
That seems likely, but has it been confirmed as a fact?
That seems likely, but has it been confirmed as a fact?
I'm about 95% sure that someone 'official' said "thats the plan".
It was somewhere - perhaps this thread - where future content was being discussed, and any of the '"sacred cow" classes that do not appear in the PHB were slated for PHB2.
However, even if I remember correctly, it was never a definate... merely their intent to do so. I also remember that it was said somewhere that the reason why certain classes did not make the cut this time out was because they were having trouble balancing them against the rest (they were ALL in the playtests).
So if they still haven't 'worked the bugs out' by next year, then we won't be seeing them then, either.
- The Delimbiyr Vale (put it a couple of days upriver from Loudwater).
That last one might be the best, since the "start area" covered in the FRCS is the Gray Vale (the Loudwater-Llorkh valley), fairly close by. And the Delimbiyr Vale is a vale already, so some of the Nentir Vale features described in the DMG could fit fairly easily.
I'll see what I can do.... ;)
not that i see her going anywhere since she is the goddess of forests, rangers, and dryads
[FONT="Arial"]not that i see her going anywhere since she is the goddess of forests, rangers, dryads, and DRIZZT!!![/FONT]
Might be just me, but I'm guessing Mielikki's still around. ;)
Why did Eilistraee have to die?
Those are pretty good suggestions. In the case of the first one, you'd want to go more toward the vicinity of the Misty Vale, or maybe in the northern borderlands of Dambrath.
Basically, the biggest challenge for Fallcrest is finding a river for it to sit on--preferably a big river that would host some traffic, and be worth building a portage route for. Other possibilities that occur to me include:
- Thesk (or maybe the river in northern Aglarond that goes up to Nethjet);
- Damara (Fallcrest could be a couple days' travel upriver from Heliogabalus along one of the tributaries);
- Teshwave;
- The River Surbrin in the North, maybe a little ways up from Yartar;
- The Delimbiyr Vale (put it a couple of days upriver from Loudwater).
That last one might be the best, since the "start area" covered in the FRCS is the Gray Vale (the Loudwater-Llorkh valley), fairly close by. And the Delimbiyr Vale is a vale already, so some of the Nentir Vale features described in the DMG could fit fairly easily.
Thx Rich, woobyluv and MarkusTay63 really first class help. Many great suggestions but I think I will take the Delimbiyr Vale since I know the area rather well and have to prepare Fallcrest, Winterhave, the Adventure, translating one players character and powers into German and research a strategy to get them invested into the adventure since they are not regular D&D players. In other words I am exited, overworked, thrilled and have a slight case of panic but thats pretty normal.
Thanks again everyone.
Rich.
Why did Eilistraee have to die?
To make life important.
Sorry, I stole that line from Six Feet Under. :D
She had to die because she 'complicated' the Drow Pantheon. The Drow needed to go back to their roots, and that meant Lolth and Lolth alone.
I don't like it, but I understand their reasoning.
Rich - Imperial Cormyr is an idea I can get behind. However, just how crucially does the SwordMage tie into the ideology of this nation. ie. Will we see Paragon Path tie-ins (say an analog to the Purple Dragon Knights)? Also, just how expansive is the new Cormyr? Do you see them moving further along the psudo-england route to more and more colonialism?
Are there current plans to bring in the genasi?
Are there current plans to bring in the genasi?
-Being as that one of the new introductions into the setting- Akanûl, or something to that effect- is a Genasi kingdom/state, I am going to have to say yeah, that's sort of a given.
-Being as that one of the new introductions into the setting- Akanûl, or something to that effect- is a Genasi kingdom/state, I am going to have to say yeah, that's sort of a given.
OK, but will they defined as a PC race in one of the 2 FR supplements?
OK, but will they defined as a PC race in one of the 2 FR supplements?
I'm going to go with a yes. I'm pretty sure that Genasi and Drow are going to be races in the FRPG. If it isn't in the FRPG, then it must be the race in the Manual of the Planes, because it's being played in games around the WotC office.
I'm going to go with a yes. I'm pretty sure that Genasi and Drow are going to be races in the FRPG. If it isn't in the FRPG, then it must be the race in the Manual of the Planes, because it's being played in games around the WotC office.
Though, since it's the Elemental Chaos now does that imply some demonic link to them now?
I'd still like to know if Mielikki will survive
Though, since it's the Elemental Chaos now does that imply some demonic link to them now?
Not all of the Elemental Chaos is demonic, only the Abyss is. Most of it is just, well, chaotic. :D
Rich, are there plans to release an actual Sava game, complete with all the wacky rules for hiding, adding, switching pieces similar to that portrayed in recent books? I realize it's like chess, but it's also clearly different. I think it will do really well at the FLGS.
OK, but will they defined as a PC race in one of the 2 FR supplements?
What little info we have on them in FR can be gleened in the FAQ here.
Look at the Akanûl and Chondath entries under 'Regions', and the Genasi entry under 'Races'.
Personally, I thought they should have appeared in Calimshan, but what do I know?
I'm just a fan.
So the question becomes, What would it take for Cormyr to flourish during a time when many other factors suggest it should fall into obscurity? The answer we came up with was pretty simple: It turns out that Azoun V was actually worth all the trouble and hope invested in him during the Death of the Dragon novels. He grew up to become a truly great king. Another factor: Cormyr's War Wizards proved to be just strong enough to keep Shade at arm's length. Cormyr establishes a warmage academy (in 3.5 terms) in the early years of Alusair's regency, and throughout the century that follows Cormyr's battle-magic checks Shade's expansion to the south.
I see Cormyr as a somewhat reluctant imperial power. I imagine much of their involvement in the cities of the Dragon Coast simply stemmed from the fact that they had to contest Shade/Sembian influence there in order to avoid encirclement. I don't see much more imperial expansion, unless it's a move toward the Western Heartlands (but Elturgard stands in their way now), or perhaps Westgate.
Okay. Now that I got the Bard issues out of the way.
Rich - Imperial Cormyr is an idea I can get behind. However, just how crucially does the SwordMage tie into the ideology of this nation. ie. Will we see Paragon Path tie-ins (say an analog to the Purple Dragon Knights)? Also, just how expansive is the new Cormyr? Do you see them moving further along the psudo-england route to more and more colonialism?
Myself, I might have gone a slightly different direction. I wanted Halisstra to be redeemed in the War of the Spider Queen, not damned. In fact, I wanted for Halisstra to utter the exact same last words to Danifae at the end of the story that the priestess of Eilistraee said to Halisstra when Halisstra killed her in book 3. I rather liked the idea of planting a little seed of doubt about betrayal and redemption at the end of the story, but as a team we wound up going a different direction. 4e gives us an opportunity to revisit and strengthen the drow foundations, and I can't disagree too much with the decision.
She had to die because she 'complicated' the Drow Pantheon. The Drow needed to go back to their roots, and that meant Lolth and Lolth alone.
I don't like it, but I understand their reasoning.
I hope Liriel survived, is now a Dark Elf, and leads the Hathran - it makes sense considering she could survive that long and would therefore be the most powerful member of that order. Also, one of the largest (10 cities!) Drow settlements is underneath the Thay region, and all those displaced Drow had to go somewhere when the plateau shot up into the sky.
I don't see much more imperial expansion, unless it's a move toward the Western Heartlands (but Elturgard stands in their way now), or perhaps Westgate.
Accent mine.
Intriguing... care to elaborate? :D
Would this be a nation to the west of Gulthandor? Is that what became of that fledgling Halfling Realm centered around Greenest? Throw us a bone here... inquiring minds want to know.
Regarding Eilistraee's death... Markus put his finger on one of the biggest reasons. Other factors include the fact that Eilistraee's existence diminishes the exceptional nature of those drow who do break free of Lolth's influence, and the culmination of a major storyline that's been five years in the making.
I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning bothers me.
Turning the Realms into a simplified, morally black-and-white setting, with flying mountains and spellscars, doesn't diminish the entire setting as a whole? Having goddess after goddess do really -stupid- things that result in their destruction doesn't diminish the entire core of the Realms?
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with your logic. IMO, nothing about Eilistraee's existence "diminished" anything about the drow who "crossed over", unless you're suggesting that her existence made Drizzt a little less "special" or unique. That was bound to happen, though, as people wanted to explore playing a good drow. Now, it's simply no longer an option in 4E, and I have zero interest in playing a brown elf. Zero. They're all "redeemed", so what's the point?
Frankly, I think the designers of 4E Realms have made a huge miscalculation by destroying most of the things that made the Realms what they were (complexity, gray areas) and changing them out for simplification and flashy geography.
Myself, I might have gone a slightly different direction. I wanted Halisstra to be redeemed in the War of the Spider Queen, not damned. In fact, I wanted for Halisstra to utter the exact same last words to Danifae at the end of the story that the priestess of Eilistraee said to Halisstra when Halisstra killed her in book 3.
Which would have ultimately been hollow and pointless. If Halistraa had been redeemed by Eilistraee in WotSQ, and the designers' plan was to have Eilistraee destroy herself -anyway- in the effort to redeem a -small- collection of people already worshipping her, do you not see how the ideas of personal redemption and redemption-via-deity are at odds? Furthermore, with her planned death, it makes the entire existence of Eilistraee and everything her people ever fought for - meaningless.
Drow aren't going to be what they where in earlier editions even with these changes, no matter how much effort you can put to it, and that's because Drizzt and Eilistraee. People no longer fear drow as those mysterious dark elves who could kill you with a thought and it was suicide to consider traveling to their cities. They've aquired a deepness that 4th edition bi-dimensionality will not be able to change.
Anything that brings the Drow back to their original forms, rather then the armies of Drizzt clones that walk Faerûn is a good thing in my book. Drizzt was an aberration, and should have remained thus. Even though I really like Eilistraee, I can get behind this decision if it improves the setting, overall.
I very seriously doubt that will be the effect. Arent we getting drow as PC stats in one of the books anyway? Or are 'brown elves' classified as drow in 4e and the stats will be for them? Drow will still be in an MM. I very seriously doubt this will impact the good drow thing at all.
I also think its hilarious the effort to make 'good' orcs and add shades of grey to a race that has always been always evil and at the same time the same effort to ensure another race (one that a chunk of the fanbase has embraced to a far greater degree) cannot have shades of grey and MUST be always evil. I wonder if the designers even talk to each other because they dont appear to be in any way consistent with one another.
I find the idea that more than one person in a group being redeemable diminishes that redemtion to be one of the stupidest things Ive ever heard.
I also think its hilarious the effort to make 'good' orcs and add shades of grey to a race that has always been always evil and at the same time the same effort to ensure another race (one that a chunk of the fanbase has embraced to a far greater degree) cannot have shades of grey and MUST be always evil. I wonder if the designers even talk to each other because they dont appear to be in any way consistent with one another.
No joke there. Obould's orcs come from Azeroth, so they're special and honorable. And the dwarves will now have tea and scones with them on weekends.
All of these "fixes" are worse than the original issues that could've been dealt with in a much less heavy-handed way.
I very seriously doubt that will be the effect. Arent we getting drow as PC stats in one of the books anyway? Or are 'brown elves' classified as drow in 4e and the stats will be for them? Drow will still be in an MM. I very seriously doubt this will impact the good drow thing at all.
I have not read the latest series of 'Drow' books, but from what I have gleened from this site, it appears the explanation for what we will be seeing is readily explained in the ending.
Two groups of 'Black Elves'...
Drow are the ebil bastiches that live underground, and Dark Elves are the ones that choose redemption and are now playable PCs.
I do not know any of that for sure, but I'd be willing to make a serious wager on that based on the novel series ending.
Seriously, whats the difference, except you can't call your 'Drizzt Clone' a Drow anymore? He looks and acts the same, he just can't call himself Drow unless he worships lolth and sucks on a Faerzress pipe (or whatever).
If you want to look like that, but live above ground and NOT be attacked on sight in every human settlement you visit, then you have to loose the 'Drow' monicker... its that simple. Drow are monsters, the way Gary Gygax intended them to be.
BTW, don't think I support the decision to kill Eilistraee - make no mistake - I HATE it as much as the rest of you. All I said is I understand what they based their decision on, and IF it improves the setting, THEN I can get behind it.
I hated Khelben's death, but I accepted it because it moved the FR story forward in a positive way - its much the same thing IF they can pull that off with Eilistraee. I have not seen the new setting books, so I have no clue weather this has 'worked' or not.
I have to disagree, personally, on all counts. I'm not going to burn thread space arguing though (each to his/her own and such). I was dissappointed with the ending of the WotSQ, and I was hoping for something along the lines of what Rich said.
I also think its hilarious the effort to make 'good' orcs and add shades of grey to a race that has always been always evil and at the same time the same effort to ensure another race (one that a chunk of the fanbase has embraced to a far greater degree) cannot have shades of grey and MUST be always evil. I wonder if the designers even talk to each other because they dont appear to be in any way consistent with one another.
Also disagree. Other than their deities, there was nothing compelling orcs to be evil. They're just stupid and violent. I would like to see more variation among them.
...Seriously, whats the difference, except you can't call your 'Drizzt Clone' a Drow anymore? He looks and acts the same, he just can't call himself Drow unless he worships lolth and sucks on a Faerzress pipe (or whatever).
You might think so, but... New canon: at the end of the book, the goodly drow under Eilistraee are (spoiler in white)all transformed into brown elves. That's right, they no longer look the same, their goddess is dead, and they are all fully redeemed forever as part of her sacrifice. They are no longer drow, and they also no longer look like drow.
I have to disagree, personally, on all counts. I'm not going to burn thread space arguing though (each to his/her own and such). I was dissappointed with the ending of the WotSQ, and I was hoping for something along the lines of what Rich said.
Halistraa's redemption in WotSQ would only have made sense -if- (spoiler in white) Eilistraee didn't sacrifice herself (supposedly as part of a long term plan) in order to "redeem" and physically transform a small group of Eilistraeens who were already worshipping her.
Also disagree. Other than their deities, there was nothing compelling orcs to be evil. They're just stupid and violent. I would like to see more variation among them.
Oh, just that they attacked all other sentient races on sight and often ate their remains, they worshipped the One-Eye who sought the complete destruction of elvenkind and other races, they pillage and **** communities ... yeah, nothing evil there, you're so right.
Seriously, whats the difference, except you can't call your 'Drizzt Clone' a Drow anymore? He looks and acts the same, he just can't call himself Drow unless he worships lolth and sucks on a Faerzress pipe (or whatever).
If you want to look like that, but live above ground and NOT be attacked on sight in every human settlement you visit, then you have to loose the 'Drow' monicker... its that simple. Drow are monsters, the way Gary Gygax intended them to be.
BTW, don't think I support the decision to kill Eilistraee - make no mistake - I HATE it as much as the rest of you. All I said is I understand what they based their decision on, and IF it improves the setting, THEN I can get behind it.
I cant speak for everyone but my interest in playing a person who comes from an evil backround (drow, tiefling, etc) is the opportunity for that character to overcome, to be better. I dont see that in the 'were all redeemed now!' brown elves. For others there seems to be a lot of interest in being the horrible evil guy. Those are the two themes I see being used in drow PCs over and over and over again. I just dont see anyone who was interested in those things saying 'Oh yay! I can be a brown drow now!'
Im pretty ambivalent to it myself, Ive never been a big drow fan. Not really my cup of tea. I just dont think killing Eilistraee is going to have any real impact on the stuff you mentioned. If it does it may not even be because the drow are being moved back to being scary monsters but because, like one group which has already removed all the links to WotC or WotC products from their website, fans of them and of Eilistraee are driven off. And I dont believe tossing aside fans is a good thing for the setting. Is 'drow are all evil now!' going to bring new fans to the setting? Doubtful. Is it going to drive off fans? It already has.
If Ive learned anything from the 4e Realms and 4e in general so far its that what a creator intended for anything doesnt matter much. What the current designers prefer does.
You might think so, but... New canon: at the end of the book, the goodly drow under Eilistraee are
As of this moment, I formally (and sincerely) apologize for anything I may have said that offended you in the past.
Thats intersting, becasue they started out a dark, chocolatey brown BEFORE the curse, so that makes sense. Also note that in many (incorrect) artistic renditions, the Drow were pictured just that way -
Along with many early pictures of Drizzt, I might add.
If you want a good Drow as an NPC in your game, as a DM you can do whatever you want, but players should be limited as to what they can play. I certainly wouldn't let a player run an Illithid or a Red Dragon, so why should I let them be a Drow just because there is one in a novel?
Once again, I'm not saying I support any of this, I'm just trying to break it down into bite-sized chunks before everyone jumps all over it. There is now a clear line of division between the good group and the bad, and neither one really needs to be 100% one or the other - there will always be anomalies.
And besides, the 1e Drow were WAY too powerful to be a PC race, and had to lose a lot of their 'coolness' to be balanced. Also, the term 'Grugach' really belonged in Greyhawk, not FR. This is a halfway decent fix for a couple of problems, and now FR has a group of very dark-skinned Wood Elves who would just as soon as put an arrow into your heart as speak with you... which it always had, but now we don't need two different groups of Wood Elves to explain it (and Grugach can stay in GH where they belong).
Halistraa's redemption in WotSQ would only have made sense -if-...
Meh. Her redemption would have made the WotSQ books better, as a story, regardless of what happened after them, IMHO.
Oh, just that they attacked all other sentient races on sight and often ate their remains, they worshipped the One-Eye who sought the complete destruction of elvenkind and other races, they pillage and **** communities ... yeah, nothing evil there, you're so right.
Note, I said compelling, not that they weren't evil. I catered for everything you just said here. Stupid (savage primitive) + violent (hateful and agressive) + evil deities (one-eye) = the above.
My point was that, other than gruumsh and co, there was no absolute force that made them all evil, just the status quo. They were a "often chaotic evil" race, not an "always evil" race, which implies at least the possibility of free will. I'm not keen on good orcs, but feel neutral ones shouldn't be out of the question.
I have that module
Fond memories.
As of this moment, I formally (and sincerely) apologize for anything I may have said that offended you in the past.
Accepted, thank you, and we need not mention it further.
Thats intersting, becasue they started out a dark, chocolatey brown BEFORE the curse, so that makes sense. Also note that in many (incorrect) artistic renditions, the Drow were pictured just that way -
Indeed, the drow have changed quite a lot from their first mention in the 1st edition Monster Manual, where they were "...only legend". Personally, I liked the first incarnation (seen in that module art), and I never much cared for the inky-black version. I prefer the more realistic artwork with real-life skin tones, though, and I think that things have become a little too cartoon-style recently for my preferences.
And yes I am one of those few who is genuinely exited to possibly get to play a "brown" elf.
Rich will the population of dark elves in 15th century FR be large enough to allow players stats for dark elves in the FRPG?
Also, the term 'Grugach' really belonged in Greyhawk, not FR. This is a halfway decent fix for a couple of problems, and now FR has a group of very dark-skinned Wood Elves who would just as soon as put an arrow into your heart as speak with you... which it always had, but now we don't need two different groups of Wood Elves to explain it (and Grugach can stay in GH where they belong).
-They are simply extremely savage, barbarianistic and feral Wood Elves.
-That said, with eveything concerning 'Dark Elves', Eilistraee and all: Wow...
I'm going to go with a yes. I'm pretty sure that Genasi and Drow are going to be races in the FRPG. If it isn't in the FRPG, then it must be the race in the Manual of the Planes, because it's being played in games around the WotC office.
I would that think that the "brown" elves would simply be standard elves and (contrary to Alediran's statement) be easily playable. Subraces are not mechanically differentiated from the base race anymore, but you still have Sun Elves and Moon Elves and they still look and act like they always did. If you take a look at Rodney Thompson's Blog, he is running a "New Realms" campaign. Mike Mearls is playing a Drow (not a "brown" elf) and he is not evil (so far as one can tell from the blog entries).
I think what Rich (and the other story/design guys) are saying with the Drow, is that having a goddess that exists to represent all good drow implies many redeemed drow (enough to fuel a religion). The idea, I imagine, was to make it so that Drow that do break away from that evil society and reject it are special individuals that have to fight for some kind of redemption. You could argue that it was already like that - but I think Eilistraee gave the impression that Drow routinely rejected their heritage. The decision was to move away from that
I would that think that the "brown" elves would simply be standard elves and (contrary to Alediran's statement) be easily playable. Subraces are not mechanically differentiated from the base race anymore, but you still have Sun Elves and Moon Elves and they still look and act like they always did. If you take a look at Rodney Thompson's Blog, he is running a "New Realms" campaign. Mike Mearls is playing a Drow (not a "brown" elf) and he is not evil (so far as one can tell from the blog entries).
Actually from some comments in previews of 4-FR, the eladrin and elven people are made up of different subraces with cosmetic difference. It is possible the new Dark Elves will be "Drow" with different cosmetic touches and rules. Like feats to reflect the difference of Moon Eladrin and Sun Ealdrin.
Thoughts?
Anything that brings the Drow back to their original forms, rather then the armies of Drizzt clones that walk Faerûn is a good thing in my book. Drizzt was an aberration, and should have remained thus.
See, I take the opposite view. Why should Drizzt be an aberration? If he can be good, I don't see why other drow couldn't also be good.
That said, I appreciate that Rich actually gave us an answer on the Eilistraee thing.
IMO, nothing about Eilistraee's existence "diminished" anything about the drow who "crossed over", unless you're suggesting that her existence made Drizzt a little less "special" or unique. That was bound to happen, though, as people wanted to explore playing a good drow.
I agree with this, too. Drizzt was super popular, so it makes sense that suddenly, many of his fans wanted to make goodly drow characters of their own. Nothing wrong with that.
With Eilistraee around, any Drow that rebelled against Lolth had an automatic "Plan B" set up for them. They didn't have to go against the parts of their culture that rejected all non-drow. They could just sort of slide from one category of drow into another category of drow...and as a plus that new category of drow had divine backing. A divine entity was there, willing to take care of them and hoping to redeem them...that was sort of the whole point with Eilistraee.
Now that she isn't around, any drow that considers rebelling against Lolth and becoming good has a much bigger leap to make, and that preserves them as exceptional characters on the whole.
I liked Eilistraee and I'm not saying that I think that taking her out of the picture was the right decision. I'll have to see more of the 4th edition Realms to settle my mind on that point. I can at least understand the reasoning behind what Rich said, though. It certainly isn't about making the Realms more black and white...moving this direction actually makes the conflicts and choices of non-evil drow more interesting.
So do I... I even ran it (and the other two) in FR years ago.
Fond memories.
I bought the old Vault of the Drow and the others way back when
-Ok, nerdgasm is over now.
-Nice books.
-Got a 20% discount on them $90.80 total price for me!:D
-So guys if you dont hear from me for a couple of days, well I shall return. ;)
-Gotz me some reading to do. :P
-Thanks Rich for putting up with us, but you still need to be stopped!:evillaugh
18D :bounce:
:bounce: Unfortunately, the sources don't all agree, and they certainly don't agree with the novel representation of the Drow.
The best and easiest way to rectify that is by using another excellent source - Underdark. Its not that 20% of all Drow are "non-hardcore evil", but rather 20% of all Drow worldwide are not neccessarily evil. A subtle difference.
So in Menzo, we have Drizzt who was good, Zaknafian who was neutral with good tendencies, Liriel who started out true neutral, and Jarlaxle who is chaotic neutral. There may have been a couple of others over the past millenia, but they certainly DON'T represent 20% of Menzo's population. The same is probably true of every Drow city in The North.
There are other cities - most notably Ultoksamrin - that not only get along with their neighbors (both Drow and otherwise), but also trade with the surface and have cordial relations with surface dwellers.
The Zakharan Drow of Akota also appear to 'behave themselves' (although far from good), as do the Drow of Sarenstar (Forest of Mir), and the Auzkvyn Clan of Cormanthor - all examples of Drow that are NOT 'wholely evil', and capable of amicable relations. Even the Dambrathan Drow have been behaving themselves for awhile now.
So, my point is that the Drow of Toril may be 20% non-evil, but its not on a city-by-city basis. More like 20% of Toril's Drow regions are not overtly hostile to outsiders, and that is were Ed's figures derive from.
Taking that into consideration, in The North, Drizzt is indeed an aberration. Sure, there can be others of his ilk here and there, but anyone raised in one of those Northern Drow cities that is NOT entirely evil will most likey have perished at an early age.
Gary Gygax meant for the Drow to be scarey monsters. RAS's novels did nothing to change that - even Drizzt hates his fellow Drow. Ed's Realms gave them a history, and now we see them as they once were - as a proud, barbaric people who got the short end of the deal. But we must remember that the Drow who continue to follow Lolth LIKE being evil, and can still be considered 'monsters'.
All this new lore did was see them come full circle - the ones that don't deserve the Descent Curse are no longer stuck with it, while the ones that embrace their dark heritage continue to be the 'Scarey Monsters' hiding in deep caverns.
About why I hate the way in which these changes came about...
I would have preferred Rich's ending to the WotSQ series (I would have REALLY preferred one author for the whole thing, but thats an entirely different set of problems). As far as Lady Penitent goes - I have always felt that Drow that don't want to be evil should have an 'out', so I am satisfied with this outcome.
Note - I said 'satisfied' - I think the 'Sacrifice' part of the second series could have been done with such elegance that we would have accepted Eilistraee's demise (like Khelben's). Both series left me with the sense of "what was the point?" (especially killing Phaerun for no reason - WTF?!)
Eilistraee purposely surrendering her divine power to lift the curse from Drow who choose redemption would have been a wonderful ending for her. Then her mother could swoop in and kill her now-mortal form, but it would be like when Vader killed Obi-Wan - it would have been an empty victory, and Eilistraee would have went out with a bang (and a smile).
Losing a game is just stupid... it was a very poor way to treat Eilistraee, and thats why all of her fans are so dissapointed in WotC and Smedman. Your going to kill a god, at least let them die with dignity.
The bottom line...
So I've come to the conclusion that it is not the 4e Realms I hate so much, but rather the way in which they got there. I think we could have all gotten behind the changes if a little more thought was given to how the changes occurred. When the FRCG comes out in August, I am going to buy it and treat it like its an entirely new setting I've never seen before. I think that if I mentally disconnect it from the old Realms I may like it, because in and of itself it doesn't sound all that terrible. So I loved "point A", and I may come to like "point B", but when going from point 'A' to point 'B', I think the designers made a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
For disconnecting both settings, at least for me it will be impossible and therefore I'm only going to check out once the 4th edition FRCG to see how much was destroyed and nothing more. I'm not even going to buy it either (as many friends who also play in FR aren't)
I just think they took way too many shortcuts to get there - they were in such a hurry to get to the 'coolness', that they put very little thought behind how it all happened. I picture something like this -
Show
"Okay, we know we need to kill Mystra to change Magic... any ideas?"
'Well... Cyric has always had it in for her.."
"Good! We'll say Cyric killed her! Whats next? Hmmm... making the Drow nasty again and at the same time trimming the FR pantheon down from its current unweildy roster."
Jokingly: "How about we say they all the Drow gods got into a poker game and Lolth won?"
"Hey! Thats not half bad, but we'll need to use something thats more Realmsian - whats that chess-like game called again?"
We'll need to do something about that gawd-awful Maztica... I wish we could just make it go away..."
"Great idea! Okay... whats up next? Halruaa doesn't really fit, its too much like Eberron, and we need to remove such a magically potent nation from the playing field"
"Can't we just say it 'blew up?"
"Why not?! We doing great here.... whats next.. Unther..."
'Well... Cyric has always had it in for her.."
"Good! We'll say Cyric killed her! Whats next? Hmmm... making the Drow nasty again and at the same time trimming the FR pantheon down from its current unweildy roster."
Jokingly: "How about we say they all the Drow gods got into a poker game and Lolth won?"
"Hey! Thats not half bad, but we'll need to use something thats more Realmsian - whats that chess-like game called again?"
We'll need to do something about that gawd-awful Maztica... I wish we could just make it go away..."
"Great idea! Okay... whats up next? Halruaa doesn't really fit, its too much like Eberron, and we need to remove such a magically potent nation from the playing field"
"Can't we just say it 'blew up?"
"Why not?! We doing great here.... whats next.. Unther..."
How the designers view the gods:
Mystra walks into her bedroom, sees a shiny wand on the floor, thinks "do dee doo... ooh, shiny!" and bends over to pick it up. Cyric jumps out from behind a curtain and ganks her. She thrashes about in a melodramatic scene, gasping and saying "I... never... expected... you... HERE!" Shar pops out, and gives an evil laugh. Mystra gasps out with her last breath, "Shar... of... course... I never... " *dies*
---
Tymora: "Which of you will be the -luckiest- boy in the heavens?" *giggle*
Tyr: "You know it's Me, baby. They -do- call me a -greater- God for a reason."
Tymora: *giggle* (she wanders off)
Helm: "Here guys, take my tickets to the concert."
Tyr: "Hey, step off! She's MY goddess!"
Helm: "But dude, I'm happy for you, I may have looked at her once or..."
Tyr: "STEP OFF, DUDE!"
**Beshaba walks by, pretending to be Tymora**
Beshaba: "Tyr, stop being such a tool. I date whomever I want. Count yourself lucky I give you a little sugar."
Helm: "What? But we nev-"
**Tyr guts Helm**
Beshaba: "Psych! That's gonna be some bad juju!"
---
Eilistraee rides her bike up to Lolth's trendy Vegas pad. She has decided to make HER STAND! "Mom, you *suck* and I'm moving out!"
Lolth leans back on her leather couch, "oh no you're not, you're going to college, missy!"
Eilistraee puts her hands on her hips and pouts, "I have my OWN friends now, I'm finally more popular than stupid Vhaeraun, and I can work in modeling!"
Lolth snorts as she pours a nice martini. "Your dad put you up to this, didn't he? Spineless coward. Fine, do what you want, but you're cut off. No more money from me, no more nice clothes, nothing."
Angrily, Eilistraee lunges at Lolth with a knife - but trips and falls, killing herself. Lolth sighs, "f*&k! I just had the carpets cleaned!"
Corellon finally shows up, looks down at Eilistraee's body then back up at Lolth. "I knew you'd end up killing our kids."
Lolth glares at him, "My prints aren't on the knife, and I have everything here under video monitoring anyway. Just try to pin anything on me and I'll send a team of lawyers after you. Lawyers that -you- pay for."
Corellon: "Typical *****."
Show
I don't know Markus, if anything the designers have convinced me that they'll still continue to treat the deities like Scooby Doo villains rather than entities with supposedly godlike intelligence and wisdom.
How the designers view the gods:
Mystra walks into her bedroom, sees a shiny wand on the floor, thinks "do dee doo... ooh, shiny!" and bends over to pick it up. Cyric jumps out from behind a curtain and ganks her. She thrashes about in a melodramatic scene, gasping and saying "I... never... expected... you... HERE!" Shar pops out, and gives an evil laugh. Mystra gasps out with her last breath, "Shar... of... course... I never... " *dies*
---
Tymora: "Which of you will be the -luckiest- boy in the heavens?" *giggle*
Tyr: "You know it's Me, baby. They -do- call me a -greater- God for a reason."
Tymora: *giggle* (she wanders off)
Helm: "Here guys, take my tickets to the concert."
Tyr: "Hey, step off! She's MY goddess!"
Helm: "But dude, I'm happy for you, I may have looked at her once or..."
Tyr: "STEP OFF, DUDE!"
**Beshaba walks by, pretending to be Tymora**
Beshaba: "Tyr, stop being such a tool. I date whomever I want. Count yourself lucky I give you a little sugar."
Helm: "What? But we nev-"
**Tyr guts Helm**
Beshaba: "Psych! That's gonna be some bad juju!"
---
Eilistraee rides her bike up to Lolth's trendy Vegas pad. She has decided to make HER STAND! "Mom, you *suck* and I'm moving out!"
Lolth leans back on her leather couch, "oh no you're not, you're going to college, missy!"
Eilistraee puts her hands on her hips and pouts, "I have my OWN friends now, I'm finally more popular than stupid Vhaeraun, and I can work in modeling!"
Lolth snorts as she pours a nice martini. "Your dad put you up to this, didn't he? Spineless coward. Fine, do what you want, but you're cut off. No more money from me, no more nice clothes, nothing."
Angrily, Eilistraee lunges at Lolth with a knife - but trips and falls, killing herself. Lolth sighs, "f*&k! I just had the carpets cleaned!"
Corellon finally shows up, looks down at Eilistraee's body then back up at Lolth. "I knew you'd end up killing our kids."
Lolth glares at him, "My prints aren't on the knife, and I have everything here under video monitoring anyway. Just try to pin anything on me and I'll send a team of lawyers after you. Lawyers that -you- pay for."
Corellon: "Typical *****."
When she sees the wand, she says "Jinkies! A clue!" :D
Then the evil-amusement-park-owner-in-a-cyric-mask jumps out and says "Booga Booga Booga!"
I really hope they treat the gods a little better in 4e - I don't want any more cartoon villains (or heroes).
Anyhow, I too have to connect everything Alediran, which is why I have had so much trouble identifing with the new setting - all the connections are broken.
I'm not saying I will be successful by 'detaching' myself, but I'm going to try. As I said in my earlier post, I have seen lots of good ideas about how a lot of the changes have come about, and I think if I just ignore all of the official takes on events I will feel a whole ot better about what FR has turned into.
For instance, the very first thing I thought of when I heard about the Dragonborn is just using the Khaasta for them. They already exist in FR, and it would be fairly simple to find an excuse for them to have built up in old Unther (A long-lost Sarrukh outpost discovered?). Figure a large group of them went there to find some Sarrukh and they ran into the invading Mulhorand armies, which attacked them (mistaking them for Tiamet's minions). The Mulhorandi make enemies of the Khaasta, who have become tired of hunting down the elusive Sarrukh, and more Khaasta are summoned. Eventually they beat back the Mulhorand armies from northern Unther... and are hailed as 'heroes' by the locale human population. The Khaastas take over running things, yadda yadda yadda, and a century later we have a Kingdom with dragonborn nobility and a human peasant class. That took me all of three minutes to come up with, and I didn't need any 'other world' weirdness to explain it.
If we ignore the back-stories given to us, it might not be so bad.
I'd say by the end of the first year, the mages will have all died (50%?), gone insane (30%?), retired (19%?) like Elminster, or "figured it out" (1%?). I'm just throwing numbers out there, but that seems to be about what the general plan was from everything I've heard.
BY the end of the first decade (1395 DR), I think things should have settled down and the world gone back to normal... or what passes for normal in 4e. The worst of it all happened that first year, I would imagine.
...and Jarlaxle who is chaotic neutral.
Actually, he is neutral evil as per the official sourcebooks.
Actually, he is neutral evil as per the official sourcebooks.
With a bit of a chaotic twist too, he really loves chaos. Although, I believe that can be covered by NE as well.
I don't know Markus, if anything the designers have convinced me that they'll still continue to treat the deities like Scooby Doo villains rather than entities with supposedly godlike intelligence and wisdom.
How the designers view the gods:
Mystra walks into her bedroom, sees a shiny wand on the floor, thinks "do dee doo... ooh, shiny!" and bends over to pick it up. Cyric jumps out from behind a curtain and ganks her. She thrashes about in a melodramatic scene, gasping and saying "I... never... expected... you... HERE!" Shar pops out, and gives an evil laugh. Mystra gasps out with her last breath, "Shar... of... course... I never... " *dies*
---
Tymora: "Which of you will be the -luckiest- boy in the heavens?" *giggle*
Tyr: "You know it's Me, baby. They -do- call me a -greater- God for a reason."
Tymora: *giggle* (she wanders off)
Helm: "Here guys, take my tickets to the concert."
Tyr: "Hey, step off! She's MY goddess!"
Helm: "But dude, I'm happy for you, I may have looked at her once or..."
Tyr: "STEP OFF, DUDE!"
**Beshaba walks by, pretending to be Tymora**
Beshaba: "Tyr, stop being such a tool. I date whomever I want. Count yourself lucky I give you a little sugar."
Helm: "What? But we nev-"
**Tyr guts Helm**
Beshaba: "Psych! That's gonna be some bad juju!"
---
Eilistraee rides her bike up to Lolth's trendy Vegas pad. She has decided to make HER STAND! "Mom, you *suck* and I'm moving out!"
Lolth leans back on her leather couch, "oh no you're not, you're going to college, missy!"
Eilistraee puts her hands on her hips and pouts, "I have my OWN friends now, I'm finally more popular than stupid Vhaeraun, and I can work in modeling!"
Lolth snorts as she pours a nice martini. "Your dad put you up to this, didn't he? Spineless coward. Fine, do what you want, but you're cut off. No more money from me, no more nice clothes, nothing."
Angrily, Eilistraee lunges at Lolth with a knife - but trips and falls, killing herself. Lolth sighs, "f*&k! I just had the carpets cleaned!"
Corellon finally shows up, looks down at Eilistraee's body then back up at Lolth. "I knew you'd end up killing our kids."
Lolth glares at him, "My prints aren't on the knife, and I have everything here under video monitoring anyway. Just try to pin anything on me and I'll send a team of lawyers after you. Lawyers that -you- pay for."
Corellon: "Typical *****."
I love it, something like your writing made me actually start reading the the Acendany books, really awesome writing.
Actually, he is neutral evil as per the official sourcebooks.
I don't look up stats for novel characters in the sourcebooks - they tend to be way off. I was referring to the way he acts (and he never does anything evil unless there is some gain to be made, and he is just as capable of doing 'good things', making that 'official' source innacurate... like usual), which to me is true neutral (self-serving) with chaotic tendencies.
Thanks for taking the time to look it up, though. ;)
If it's correct, it only further establishes the point I was making.
Is 'drow are all evil now!' going to bring new fans to the setting? Doubtful. Is it going to drive off fans? It already has.
To be honest, you heard as much as me that critic - 'FR made the drow 'pansies'' and the 'all CG ranger rebels' joke. So, in a way, it's something the base may have unconsciously called for...
... And I loved Eilistraee. Perhaps my freeform priestess will convert to Selune, though. Similar enough, and already an ally.
Its not that 20% of all Drow are "non-hardcore evil", but rather 20% of all Drow worldwide are not neccessarily evil. A subtle difference.
-There's no difference between that, and what I said. Twenty percent of all Drow means twenty percent of all Drow.
What shape is Hoar/Assuran in in FR 4.0?
That's if you can answer of course... Just wondering if I'll end up rolling a nutjob Good-aligned Paladin who follows the old teachings of Hoar/Assuran. I honestly have a real sinking feeling he's fallen under Shar's sway... Though I'd feel a bit better about it if he's more or less aware enough to take on a almost self-bitter/mocking "Look how far I've fallen" outlook to the whole mess.
-There's no difference between that, and what I said. Twenty percent of all Drow means twenty percent of all Drow.
The subtle difference is between "non-hardcore evil" and "not neccessarily evil".
The subtle difference is between "non-hardcore evil" and "not neccessarily evil".
In the past they left it purposely vague so that individual groups/campaigns could make the hard determinations themselves. There is no good reason why the percentages should be set in stone.
In the forest of Mir, that figure might be as high as 80%, while in Menzoberranzan it's probaly no more then 2%, if that.
The Drow of NW Faerûn are probably the closest to Greyhawk Drow (the originals) - they are almost wholly evil, and THAT is why Drizzt is such an aberration. Also, he's not only not-neccessarily-evil, as the Ultoksamrin or Akotan Drow could be describe, but he's downright 'good', which would make him an anomaly in even a neutral Drow community (such as the Promenade Drow of Undermountain).
Whats even weirder is that not only doesn't he follow Lolth and her kith, but he doesn't even follow Eilistraee or the Seldarine!
He's just a freak.
Strange, one of a kind character concepts should not have rules wrapped around them - it takes from their 'coolness', Drizzt was MUCH more cool when he was unique. Players should NOT be allowed to play whatever they read about in a novel; they should come up with their own unique ideas.
Thats why I can get behind the idea that Players get to be Dark Elves, and NPC monsters are Drow. Fanboys ruin the game, and I'm sick of Drizzt clones everytime I turn around.
I'm not against one-of-a-kind characters, BTW, I love when a player puts that much effort into his PC... I just want them to come up with their own ideas. That means no Dumbledores, Bilbos, Conans, or Lancelots either.
Players should NOT be allowed to play whatever they read about in a novel; they should come up with their own unique ideas.
Thats why I can get behind the idea that Players get to be Dark Elves, and NPC monsters are Drow. Fanboys ruin the game, and I'm sick of Drizzt clones everytime I turn around.
I consider that a ridiculous limitation on PC concepts. I prfer original characters, but the game will always be full of derivative concepts - the PHB even details a couple of suggestions for each character class. If a player likes a concept developed by someone else, even in a novel, he should be free to use it , even if some people think the concept is over-used.
Whether or not drow PCs are allowed in any given campaign doesn't matter to me, it won't affect whether or not I would participate, but I think it quite reasonable for the setting to support drow PCs of any alignment, not just characters or monsters that are chaotic evil like Lolth. The rules even support worshippers and clerics of Lolth who are unaligned (though none that are good, lawful good, or just evil), based on the 4e PHB.
I’d say a little more than 22% or so of all drow in Faerûn worship Eilistraee - - although I must again remind scribes to set aside any modern monotheistic thinking: in the Realms, the vast majority of intelligent beings worship many or at least several gods, NOT just one. It’s not easy to truly believe in and worship Lolth and any other drow deity, but a particular drow individual COULD venerate both Eilistraee and Vhaeraun (though they’d serve neither well, in trying to follow or honour both). Drow who ONLY worship Eilistraee are almost entirely her clergy, and are probably between 10 and 12 percent of all drow.
I consider that a ridiculous limitation on PC concepts.
Sure, but you want your players basing their characters off of those in novels - the ones that DON"T abide by the rules of the very game system they are part of?
Novel characters can do the stuff they do BECAUSE they are meant to be over-the-top. If everyone can be just like Drizzt, that destroys the concept of who he is.
In source, we have gotten more material on the Drow then Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, and Halflings put together. Thats a whole lot of material just to please those people who want to be a Drow - and those people only want to be a Drow because then they think they are somehow 'cooler' then everyone else.
BTW, I've never had a problem with someone running a Drow in one of my games, but I warn them that I am sticking to ALL the rules/lore surrounding them.
The one and only guy who ever rolled up a Drow in one of my games died two minutes in... when he tried to walk into a human town.
If you want to be Drizzt, then you got to take the good with the bad. The problem is that most DMs let Drow players walk all over them and the setting.
Novel characters can do the stuff they do BECAUSE they are meant to be over-the-top. If everyone can be just like Drizzt, that destroys the concept of who he is.
In practice I’d say that’s not the case.
If anything, players imitating their favorite drow are in effect venerating the concept.
Their living it by playing it. That’s the kind of connection a novel can’t give you.
In so doing, players grow the character they’re imitating beyond what it was. That can only serve to grow the character/concept and keep it alive.
Which keeps the Realms alive.
See? Big picture.
If you want to be Drizzt, then you got to take the good with the bad. The problem is that most DMs let Drow players walk all over them and the setting.
I can't speak for most other DMs in this regard. For my campaign and the very few games I've been a player in that contained a drow character, the DM always sticks to the standard concepts of how non-drow react to drow.
In my campaign it's been a very hard battle for the two Drow PCs to win enough fame and good will to be allowed to walk (mostly) freely in Waterdeep and Suzail.
To the Designers three questions (that include many smaller questions):
Magic needed to change for 4ed? Ok… But did one have to kill Mystra, AGAIN? She herself could have seen why she was in the way of true magic neutrality for once and could've altered the rules how magic works.
Additionely did it have to be Cyric who killed her and AGAIN did get away with it? Come on a 1000 Years of imprisonment? Why not go for Eternal?
Why not have Mystra tricking Cyric into 'murdering' her, making him the scapegoat for the Spellplague and Mystra might survive as a vestige called Midnight, some sort of Persephone to Kelemvor/Hades? Something nice instead of designers favorites Shar and Cyric win? Did our PC-Heroes really deserve something like this after saving Magic/Mystra in the Cormyr/Shadowdale/Anauroch-Triology, only to see her die by Cyrics hand?
Brown-skinned Dark Elves (Brownies) instead of good drow? Ok… But did they have to have black hair to make them 'un-drowish'? Did someone think about the fact that some people do like the 'cool contrast' look of the traditionel dark elves? Silver Hair in honor to Eilistraee at least on some of them might be nice if the become a PC race in FR4ed.
Will Zakhara and Kara’tur still be around or will they be ‘exchanged’ like Maztica?
And by the way ‘Returned Abeir’ is a pretty stupid name for a continent…maybe you could translate ‘Returned’ into a FR –Language ?
Best wishes
Lirdolin
I don't look up stats for novel characters in the sourcebooks - they tend to be way off. I was referring to the way he acts (and he never does anything evil unless there is some gain to be made, and he is just as capable of doing 'good things', making that 'official' source innacurate... like usual), which to me is true neutral (self-serving) with chaotic tendencies.
Thanks for taking the time to look it up, though. ;)
I didn't look it up, I knew it off the top of my head. I've known it for a long time, actually.
To be honest, you heard as much as me that critic - 'FR made the drow 'pansies'' and the 'all CG ranger rebels' joke. So, in a way, it's something the base may have unconsciously called for...
No offense, but what does that mean?
I doubt the idea of drow that could be good was all that unpopular with the fanbase, even if it was unpopular with a vocal minority. The Drizzt books sell quite well, and in the years I've been an FR fan, I've found it VERY easy to bump into characters similar to Drizzt.
And I think there's no going back from that--the old days of drow just being scary monsters is gone for good, thanks in large part to Drizzt.
The rules even support worshippers and clerics of Lolth who are unaligned (though none that are good, lawful good, or just evil), based on the 4e PHB.
Also, I would like to point out that even though drow are "evil" in the 4E MM, it is stated right at the beginning of the book that exceptions to the general rule can exist (that is, alignment isn't set in stone).
and in the years I've been an FR fan, I've found it VERY easy to bump into characters similar to Drizzt.
You should've seen City of Heroes after they introduced the Twin Blades powerset (which includes Scimitars). Drizzt was EVERYWHERE!!!
Also, I would like to point out that even though drow are "evil" in the 4E MM, it is stated right at the beginning of the book that exceptions to the general rule can exist (that is, alignment isn't set in stone).
Rick,
There is a contradiction in the core books re drow alignment. Most drow worship Lolth. The PHB says Lolth is chaotic evil. The MM says drow are evil. The PHB specifies that chaotic evil gods cannot have evil clerics, only chaotic evil or unaligned.
Which alignment entry is wrong? (I assume the drow entry.)
Sure, but you want your players basing their characters off of those in novels - the ones that DON"T abide by the rules of the very game system they are part of?
Novel characters can do the stuff they do BECAUSE they are meant to be over-the-top. If everyone can be just like Drizzt, that destroys the concept of who he is.
As long as you use the official rules for drow abilities, then a character based on a novel drow that desn't follow the rules will only be inspired by the novel character, not a clone. No problem.
Supposedly new novels with drow are supposed to conform in general with the official rules, so it should be easier to emulate them. Characters from old novels can't be expected to fit, or be more than insperation.
1. IS anyone writing novel/s about/with Dragonborn character in the near Future?
2. Since Dragonborn came from different world, what Gods are they mainly worshipping in FR or what Gods have they adopted since coming?
3. Fly spell seems to be 16 Level Utility Wizard Power in PHB, Can you tell me are the characters in Swordmage around level 15-17 Since Sarth could Fly or is that Power lower for Sorcerers.
4. How is Corsair coming along and can you tell us any spoilers about it yet?
Maybe how long time has passed between it and Swordmage, and are there gonna be new faces and who old ones stick around, something. Also any info about publishing date? (Can't WAIT!)
:D You should've seen City of Heroes after they introduced the Twin Blades powerset (which includes Scimitars). Drizzt was EVERYWHERE!!!
Oh, I believe it.
Rick,
There is a contradiction in the core books re drow alignment. Most drow worship Lolth. The PHB says Lolth is chaotic evil. The MM says drow are evil. The PHB specifies that chaotic evil gods cannot have evil clerics, only chaotic evil or unaligned.
Which alignment entry is wrong? (I assume the drow entry.)
I was thinking about this, myself. I'm not Rich, but I can share my thoughts about it:
I do think it's a bit wonky that Lolth won't allow "evil" clerics. Did 4E retain something like the 3E one-step rule? If so, that might explain it. "Evil" is now quite similar to the old LE (from what I understand).
As for the average drow alignment not matching up with Lolths--I can sort of buy that. After all, Lolth has always been CE, but even back when 3E came out, drow were considered to be usually NE. You don't have to be the same alignment as a deity simply to worship said deity.
The good thing about alignment in 4E, is that it is no longer so tied to mechanics, so you can just tweak it or ditch it entirely if you want. I'd love Rich to share his thoughts on this myself, though.
Dear Designers,
Let me see if I have this straight. The dark-skinned elves in your game (Black skin, last time I checked) are inherently evil. Because goodness is incompatible with being a drow (black), any good-tending drow are now Brown (with black hair). The "good" drow (black) goddess had to be removed to make it more challenging for a drow to be "good," since it's just so inconcievable.
Whether you realize it or not, you are incorporating a very ugly stereotype into your shared world.
PS Why is it that Drizzt's complexion has "lightened" in cover art after his popularity increased?
I was thinking about this, myself. I'm not Rich, but I can share my thoughts about it:
I do think it's a bit wonky that Lolth won't allow "evil" clerics. Did 4E retain something like the 3E one-step rule? If so, that might explain it. "Evil" is now quite similar to the old LE (from what I understand).
As for the average drow alignment not matching up with Lolths--I can sort of buy that. After all, Lolth has always been CE, but even back when 3E came out, drow were considered to be usually NE. You don't have to be the same alignment as a deity simply to worship said deity.
The good thing about alignment in 4E, is that it is no longer so tied to mechanics, so you can just tweak it or ditch it entirely if you want. I'd love Rich to share his thoughts on this myself, though.
It looks like the MM is incorrect in the Drow Priest stat block, it should be chaotic evil.
If you check the DMG you will see that it says;
Lolth is the chaotic evil god of shadow, lies, and spiders.
Scheming and treachery are her commands, and her priests are a constant force of disruption in the otherwise stable society of the evil drow.
Bel
What does this diminish?
I say nothing... I say the world moves on and it 'feels' right, that selfless service toward a people could uplift them from social stigma and 'redeem' them. It still requires each individual to 'prove' their worth and doesn't stop any who were 'left behind' from fighting to prove themselves, does it?
What's the problem?
Plus artists made the drow have brownish or lighter skin because coloring or painting them with obsidian skin was a major chore apparently. Perhaps it has to do with shading. Who knows?
Not only is it entirely possible, but this pic was from 1990's Valley of the Mage. If an artist is having troubble with black skin, its time to hire a new artist.
Important Question:
I have just caught wind of something VERY disturbing - a line has been adding to the GSL (4e's OGL) that states that there will be a new fansite policy, and heard speculation that this is to prevent fan-conversions of 4e material to 3e, and vice-versa. The idea is that if you want to play with the 4e rules, you MUST use the 4e settings. I was aware that companies were not allowed to simultaneously produce 3e and 4e material, but this appears to directly attack the fans now.
Is this true?
Did 4E retain something like the 3E one-step rule?
See 4e PHB page 62. The allowed cleric alignments per deity alignment are:
lawful good deity - lawful good or unaligned cleric
hood deity - good or unaligned cleric
evil deity - evil or unaligned cleric
chaotic evil deity - chaotic evil or unaligned cleric
unaligned deity - lawful good, good, evil, chaotic evil, or unaigned cleric
Thus, no cleric of Lolth can be evil. Thus drow clerics of Lolth are not evil, and at least some drow are chaotic evil rather than evil.
Let me see if I have this straight. The dark-skinned elves in your game (Black skin, last time I checked) are inherently evil. Because goodness is incompatible with being a drow (black), any good-tending drow are now Brown (with black hair). The "good" drow (black) goddess had to be removed to make it more challenging for a drow to be "good," since it's just so inconcievable.
-As I said a few moments ago...Oh, I'll just copy and paste it...
"-I think, right now, this is the biggest misconception.
-The "Dark Elves" aren't necessarily good. Just like Drow aren't necessarily evil. Hallistra, the Lady Penitent, would have been transformed, as she was a Melarn, a family that descended from "good" Miyeritari blood. Had she survived much past the casting that transformed her, what were the odds she would have arbitrarily turned a new leaf? Slim. Likewise, Drizzt Do'Urden is a Drow still, having come from a family that was descended from "evil" Ilythiiri blood. Yet, 100 +/- years from now, Drizzt is still the "good guy" we all know him as."
PS Why is it that Drizzt's complexion has "lightened" in cover art after his popularity increased?
-As Rauric mentioned, it was detail in artwork, actually. Make a picture using jet black, and you can't see those details and outlines (which would have been drawn using black ink).
What's the problem?
-Realmslore.
Not only is it entirely possible, but this pic was from 1990's Valley of the Mage.
That's not remotely "drow black" -- the sunlit areas of skin are brown and the shadowy areas blue. If that painting was done with "proper" drow colors, the lit areas would be pitch black and the ones in shade even blacker.
Important Question:
I have just caught wind of something VERY disturbing - a line has been adding to the GSL (4e's OGL) that states that there will be a new fansite policy, and heard speculation that this is to prevent fan-conversions of 4e material to 3e, and vice-versa. The idea is that if you want to play with the 4e rules, you MUST use the 4e settings. I was aware that companies were not allowed to simultaneously produce 3e and 4e material, but this appears to directly attack the fans now.
Is this true?
If that's true then more reasons not to even buy anything from WotC for the rest of my life.
WotC score: -500
If that's true then more reasons not to even buy anything from WotC for the rest of my life.
WotC score: -500
Agreed.
Regarding the art look of the drow: Basically, until Todd Lockwood was willing to take a try at true inky black, most other artists have gone with brown or gray or purple for drow skin tones. We're not trying to pass out any kind of message with our depictions of the drow--we're just happy that someone is finally painting them the way we've always said they looked.
I was thinking about this, myself. I'm not Rich, but I can share my thoughts about it:
I do think it's a bit wonky that Lolth won't allow "evil" clerics. Did 4E retain something like the 3E one-step rule? If so, that might explain it. "Evil" is now quite similar to the old LE (from what I understand).
As for the average drow alignment not matching up with Lolths--I can sort of buy that. After all, Lolth has always been CE, but even back when 3E came out, drow were considered to be usually NE. You don't have to be the same alignment as a deity simply to worship said deity.
The good thing about alignment in 4E, is that it is no longer so tied to mechanics, so you can just tweak it or ditch it entirely if you want. I'd love Rich to share his thoughts on this myself, though.
This is as good a place to ask as anywhere...
Rich, are there plans to release an actual Sava game, complete with all the wacky rules for hiding, adding, switching pieces similar to that portrayed in recent books? I realize it's like chess, but it's also clearly different. I think it will do really well at the FLGS.
I'll ask again since it wasn't answered.
Also, wanna get on these IT guys, to improve the bandwidth or something, these forums are consistently laggy...
1. I would expect so, but I don't know of any yet. I have only the broadest familiarity with what other authors are up to, since my day job is focused on gameside R&D, not book team stuff. So I could very well be wrong.
2. We address that in the upcoming FRCG and FRPG. I don't want to issue any pantheon spoilers yet.
3. Sorcerers will get flying a little faster than wizards do, but keep in mind, Sarth's flight might be derived from a magic item. That said -- yeah, I think most of the Swordmage characters are around level 10 to 15.
4. Corsair begins about 5 months after Swordmage ends. It should be published around the same time in '09 that Swordmage appeared in '08, maybe a bit earlier. I'm about 2/3rds of the way through my first draft. It's definitely action-packed! Geran's chasing pirates all over the Moonsea -- pirates allied with Sergen and Rhovann.
Few Questions Rich... :D
1. IS anyone writing novel/s about/with Dragonborn character in the near Future?
2. Since Dragonborn came from different world, what Gods are they mainly worshipping in FR or what Gods have they adopted since coming?
3. Fly spell seems to be 16 Level Utility Wizard Power in PHB, Can you tell me are the characters in Swordmage around level 15-17 Since Sarth could Fly or is that Power lower for Sorcerers.
4. How is Corsair coming along and can you tell us any spoilers about it yet?
Maybe how long time has passed between it and Swordmage, and are there gonna be new faces and who old ones stick around, something. Also any info about publishing date? (Can't WAIT!)
Still didn't answer the question as to how Lolth's followers worship her, when it is clearly against the RAW. Maybe you can have one of the guys who wrote the rules come on here and explain it to us - Thanks.
Also, any light you can shed on that GSL would be appreciated. Fansites were pretty much left alone in the past, and I was wondering what their status would be with 4e.
One last thing - we are to assume that the promised 'Gods' article will NOT be forthcoming at this point? Was looking forward to updating my FAQ, actually...
Will there be any more 'Countdown' articles at all?
See 4e PHB page 62.
I can't do that because my books have not arrived yet.
The allowed cleric alignments per deity alignment are:
lawful good deity - lawful good or unaligned cleric
hood deity - good or unaligned cleric
evil deity - evil or unaligned cleric
chaotic evil deity - chaotic evil or unaligned cleric
unaligned deity - lawful good, good, evil, chaotic evil, or unaigned cleric
I appreciate the information. It looks to me like they've basically retained the one-step rule. I stand by what I said though--that can just be waived as desired, at least if it's true that alignments are no longer mechanically important.
Note that I'm not saying it should be a free-for-all (ie. evil clerics of LG deities...although the idea of corrupt priests seems to work in Eberron). However, I don't see why, for example, Unaligned is closer to Lawful Good than Good.
Still didn't answer the question as to how Lolth's followers worship her, when it is clearly against the RAW.
I haven't seen anything that limits the alignment of followers in the same way as Clerics and Paladins.
As for the Drow Priest being Evil instead of Chaotic Evil, not a huge deal. Not as if it has any bearing whatsoever on the way the game is played. Besides, it's an NPC, and one without a PC class. So alignment restrictions on the Cleric and Paladin, once again, may not apply in this particular case.
As for the Drow Priest being Evil instead of Chaotic Evil, not a huge deal. Not as if it has any bearing whatsoever on the way the game is played. Besides, it's an NPC, and one without a PC class. So alignment restrictions on the Cleric and Paladin, once again, may not apply in this particular case.
Those are good points. I also don't see why it's a big deal.
Hey Rich, is there any particular reason why the "one-step" rule, or something similar, was retained for clerics?
My take on it is that there are 4 distict alignments for religious purposes for deities and creatures that care about alignment, and then there are those that don't care (unaligned).
Deities require paladins to match there alignment views exactly (even those that don't care about alignment require their paladins not to care). A paladin has to sware to one deity with a matching view on alignment.
Deities are a bit more lenient re clarics - an aligned deity won't accept a cleric who feels strongly in a different way, but will accept one who doesn't care much about any alignment. An unaligned deity doesn't care how a cleric feels about aignment. A cleric can sware to a single deity or to multiple deities, a weaker attachment than for a paladin.
Thus, there aren't "steps" between alignments; there is the same alignment, a different alignment, or no alignment. Good, lawful good, evil, and chaotic evil are different alignments, while unaligned is no alignment.
In more general terms, there are the old LG, NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, NE, and CE, but they don't affect game mechanics and can be simplified into the new system.
An unaligned character could have good tendenciies, evil ones, or even a mixture, and be considered the same under the rules. If he feels strongly on the topic of good vs evil, he should be of one of the four significant alignments.
Lolth can only have paladins that are chaotic and evil like her, but can have clerics who are either chaotic and evil, or who don't care that she is chaotic and evil.
Hope it pops up.
Anyhow...I figured by one-step logic Lolth's clerics would either be CE or E but alas that isn't how it works in 4e. It's kind of wonky as-is since Lolth's clerics are either CE or 'ehhh I just serve her...don't know why really'...that squishy unaligned bunch.
I would've thought the unaligned should at best be able to serve an unaligned or G/E deity...I mean really, if I was CE or LG I'd settle for those who are one step off instead of two, but that's just me.
It's kind of wonky as-is since Lolth's clerics are either CE or 'ehhh I just serve her...don't know why really'...that squishy unaligned bunch.
I don't see unaligned as having no reason for doingthing - they just don't judge based on alignment. They can still like some seities and dislike other. They many seem contradictory, such as (using PHB deities) a cleric of Bahamut and Tiamat (reveres dragons, regardless of alignment), or a cleric of all aspects of nature (Corellon, Melora, Moradin, Pelor, The Raven Queen, Sehanine, and others). You may be unaligned simply because you haven'tr made a commitment to a moral exteme, because you identify with more than one moral extreme, or because you don't want any moral extreme to dominate.
I suspect most NPCs would be some form of unaligned, and even a major portion of the deities would be. Alignment is for those who are committed to a moral stand, good or evil. If your character sees the world in shades of grey rather than black and white, he probably should be unaligned.
And who can see evil clerics of Corellon in 4e FR? I don't, except for those who stray from their god's precepts at a later point in their career. In some ways there's no way to get it right but still.........
And who can see evil clerics of Corellon in 4e FR? I don't, except for those who stray from their god's precepts at a later point in their career. In some ways there's no way to get it right but still.........
"The god of spring, beauty, and the arts, Corellon is the patron of arcane magic and the fey..."
"Evil characters don't necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they're perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want..."
I see nothing strange about an evil cleric of Corellon, who has a love of beauty and the arts, but no respect for the lives and property of others. A meciless collector of magic items and works of art. Attitudes towards good and evil are quite separate from the 4e PHB portfolio for Corellon.
-An evil Cleric of Corellon Larethian would be...wrong. He shuns the Eldreth Veluuthra, an evil organization, on the basis that they are an evil organization, and refuses to grant them spells. Thus, we have precedent that Corellon Larethian does not allow for evil Clerics.
Agreed, I can't possibly see an evil cleric of Corellon. Unaligned, maybe.
Agreed, I can't possibly see an evil cleric of Corellon. Unaligned, maybe.
-Now, what exactly is the definition of 'Unaligned'. I've seen two different ones.
-Is it that the character in question has both good, bad (and lawful and chaotic) tendencies, and doesn't favor any of them, or that the character in question just "doesn't care"?
-And, where is Rich? Haven't seen him around for a while...
-Now, what exactly is the definition of 'Unaligned'. I've seen two different ones.
-Is it that the character in question has both good, bad (and lawful and chaotic) tendencies, and doesn't favor any of them, or that the character in question just "doesn't care"?
Probably either would suffice.
-And, where is Rich? Haven't seen him around for a while...
He answered 2-3 questions this morning.
Probably either would suffice.
-In that case, 'Unaligned' doesn't fit very well with the Forgotten Realms' Corellon Larethian. He has very clear sentiments on good vs. evil and law vs. chaos (he favors the first in both pairs), nor does he "not care".
-In that case, 'Unaligned' doesn't fit very well with the Forgotten Realms' Corellon Larethian. He has very clear sentiments on good vs. evil and law vs. chaos (he favors the first in both pairs), nor does he "not care".
True, but that's why I said "maybe". In the absence of neutral good and chaotic good, "unaligned" might work for a character who tries to do their best but often fails.
Agreed, I can't possibly see an evil cleric of Corellon. Unaligned, maybe.
Agreed, I had meant to say I understand why Corellon isn't good... I don't see him having evil cleric's though.
A few dodgy answers for you, sorry...
1. I would expect so, but I don't know of any yet. I have only the broadest familiarity with what other authors are up to, since my day job is focused on gameside R&D, not book team stuff. So I could very well be wrong.
2. We address that in the upcoming FRCG and FRPG. I don't want to issue any pantheon spoilers yet.
3. Sorcerers will get flying a little faster than wizards do, but keep in mind, Sarth's flight might be derived from a magic item. That said -- yeah, I think most of the Swordmage characters are around level 10 to 15.
4. Corsair begins about 5 months after Swordmage ends. It should be published around the same time in '09 that Swordmage appeared in '08, maybe a bit earlier. I'm about 2/3rds of the way through my first draft. It's definitely action-packed! Geran's chasing pirates all over the Moonsea -- pirates allied with Sergen and Rhovann.
Here's hoping that Dragonborn novels will start coming.
Pantheon spoilers, sounds interesting.. :D
Magic Item, true, didnt think of that..
, But 10-15 sounds good, since/if Geran was maybe Bladesinger of Myth Drannor Paragon Path.Corsair, sounds really fun..'09 Sounds so far away but I guess all good things are worth the wait..
Now few questions.
1. Are you gonna be Author of many ForgottenRealms DDI PDFs in future like "Dragon 364 - Playing Warforged" was Chris Sims? Or since your name isnt on the cover of FRCG or FRPG and you want others to take more serious role in FR you are gonna give way to others in DDI too?
2. And if you are gonna be Author, can you tell me about what sort of projects are you working on? If you can I mean.
3. Finally, I dont know if ppl have asked or you have answered this already, but do you have a area in FR thats your responsibility / you are writing about in FRCG, in FRPG or in some future DDI update?
:D Agreed, I can't possibly see an evil cleric of Corellon. Unaligned, maybe.
In the 3.5e MM elves were "usually chaotic good". in 4e MM their alignment is "any". You must change your attitudes owards alignment when dealing with core rules. In your own campaign, you can modify alignment as you wish, but there are changes to canon with the new rules. Most of the deities in the PHB are unaligned, accepting clerics of any alignment. The unaligned deities can still have conflict (Erathis vs Melora, for example), but this isn't based on alignment, but on the deities' actual interests. Even the 3.5 concept of racial gods, who only accepted clerics of specific races, is gone; creatures have more choice as to who they worship, or for whom they may become clerics.
I can see him letting evil clerics. Some clerics may do some evil deeds to fight off greater evil.
No, Corellon doesn't allows any kind of evil on those who serve him.
2. We address that in the upcoming FRCG and FRPG. I don't want to issue any pantheon spoilers yet.
-Does this mean we should stop waiting for the Countdown to the Realms article we were promised that dealt with the deities of the 4e Forgotten Realms that was supposed to be in the pipes since March/April?
-And, another question, while I am at it:
-Being as that you are the 'executive designer' of Player's Guide to Faerûn...Kaliesh'Erai, the Elven Psionic organization...What does Kaliesh'Erai mean in Elven?
Even the 3.5 concept of racial gods, who only accepted clerics of specific races, is gone;
-This was never the general rule in the Forgotten Realms.
Now few questions.
1. Are you gonna be Author of many ForgottenRealms DDI PDFs in future like "Dragon 364 - Playing Warforged" was Chris Sims? Or since your name isnt on the cover of FRCG or FRPG and you want others to take more serious role in FR you are gonna give way to others in DDI too?
2. And if you are gonna be Author, can you tell me about what sort of projects are you working on? If you can I mean.
3. Finally, I dont know if ppl have asked or you have answered this already, but do you have a area in FR thats your responsibility / you are writing about in FRCG, in FRPG or in some future DDI update?
He already answered the first one just three pages ago -
Thanks, Markus! I'd like to do more of them, but I'm so crazy-busy with the novel trilogy my Realmslore bits are going to be few and far between for a while.
The second one is kind of obvious - AFAIK, Rich ONLY writes FR novels, and beyond the current trilogy he has no set plan (although I'm sure he has a hundred or so stories he would like to write). Third, since Rich ISN'T on the FRCG design team, I would have to say "no", and his answer I quoted above was in direct response to MY asking him if he was going to produce any more of his excellent Realmslore articles.
If anyhting, I would say his novel Swormage helped define the flavor of the Moonsea region in 4e, and maybe his "Warlock Knights" shaped Vaasa somewhat, but thats probably as far as it goes.
As for the Drow Priest being Evil instead of Chaotic Evil, not a huge deal. Not as if it has any bearing whatsoever on the way the game is played. Besides, it's an NPC, and one without a PC class. So alignment restrictions on the Cleric and Paladin, once again, may not apply in this particular case.
Good Point...
You actually made me think of another related possibility - NOT all members of a race follow their racial alignment, so even if most Drow are evil, her clergy can all be chaotic evil. Followers do NOT have to meet the alignment requirements, only Priests, Paladins, Shaman, etc...
Meaning in Drow society, the CE types rule over the much larger group of E types.
Hmm, I kind of equated 4e alignment as follows
Thanks - that helps a lot.
Thinking of it in linear terms rather then circular makes a lot more sense. I break your chart down like this -
LG = Do-gooder; a person who's willing to make sacrifices to help others.
G = Basically a decent person, but won't neccessarily put themselves at risk for someone.
UA = Unerathed Arcana? Typical person, capable of anything depending on the situation.
E = A person who doesn't mind doing 'bad things' in order to get ahead.
CE = A person who actually enjoys the 'Bad things' he/she are doing; Socio/Psychpath type.
Sadly, this 'linear' approach to alignment is much more real-worldy and far less 'fantastical'. I always like the interplay between Good & Evil, Law & Chaos -- even Marvel Comics used the two seperate symetries - and now we basically just have a line determing how good or evil you are. The "Law & Chaos" juxtaposition is a common theme in fantasy works, and it seems to be just one more flavor element that got cut in the streamlining.
Hmm, I kind of equated 4e alignment as follows:
Hope it pops up.
Anyhow...I figured by one-step logic Lolth's clerics would either be CE or E but alas that isn't how it works in 4e. It's kind of wonky as-is since Lolth's clerics are either CE or 'ehhh I just serve her...don't know why really'...that squishy unaligned bunch.
I would've thought the unaligned should at best be able to serve an unaligned or G/E deity...I mean really, if I was CE or LG I'd settle for those who are one step off instead of two, but that's just me.
I kind of look at is as a 4-spoked wheel. UA is at the hub. G and LG are spokes above the meridian. E and LE are spokes below the meridian. G and E are left of center. LG and LE are right of center.
Selvarin's way of looking at it makes more sense, in that you can see a steady progression from one extreme to the other in a straight line. I'm used to this, and don't mind it that much, because one of the first game systems I ever used had something along these lines.
From the Chivalry & Sorcery rules -
Lawful
1. Saintly
2. Devout
3. Good
4. Virtuous
5. Worthy
6. Trustworthy
7. Honourable
Neutral Alignment
8-9 Law Abiding
10-13 Worldy
14-15 Corruptible
Chaotic
16. Unscrupulous
17. Base
18. Immoral
19. Villainous
20. Diabloic
They include descriptions for each, but I don't want to violate any Copyrights. The weird thing is, you rolled a D20 to determine your alignment... there wasn't even a 'curve' involved. We houseruled it to 2D10 +/- 1, your choice.
I prefer a system with two seperate axis, like we used to have - I don't like my fantasy looking so much like the RW.
Also, don't look at Lawful Good as "gooder than Good." As I mentioned in a post a few pages back, the current system in place derives from a version where we had Lawful, Good, Chaotic, and Evil, but those were "spun" 30 degrees off of their 3e meanings -- so Lawful was LG, Good was CG, Chaotic was CE, and Evil was LE.
I don't see unaligned as having no reason for doingthing - they just don't judge based on alignment. They can still like some seities and dislike other. They many seem contradictory, such as (using PHB deities) a cleric of Bahamut and Tiamat (reveres dragons, regardless of alignment), or a cleric of all aspects of nature (Corellon, Melora, Moradin, Pelor, The Raven Queen, Sehanine, and others). You may be unaligned simply because you haven'tr made a commitment to a moral exteme, because you identify with more than one moral extreme, or because you don't want any moral extreme to dominate.
I suspect most NPCs would be some form of unaligned, and even a major portion of the deities would be. Alignment is for those who are committed to a moral stand, good or evil. If your character sees the world in shades of grey rather than black and white, he probably should be unaligned.
Tombollis is pretty much right on this. We look at it like this: Having an alignment means that you're "signed up" on that team. You are seriously committed to those principles, and you're willing to fight and die for them. An unaligned cleric of a good deity could easily be a kindly, generous, and compassionate person--but that doesn't make him a "soldier for good," or mean that he'd necessarily travel hundreds of miles from his home to risk his life on behalf of people he doesn't know with no real expectation of reward, which is the sort of thing a Good-aligned character is willing to do (possibly after some moral wrestling with himself).
This is both interesting and helpful. Thank you.
Regarding the PGtF elven psionic organization... I have no idea. I think that Travis Stout might have come up with them. I know I didn't work on that part. I checked with James Wyatt and Dave Noonan, and neither of them worked on that section. Clearly, someone did!
-Does this mean we should stop waiting for the Countdown to the Realms article we were promised that dealt with the deities of the 4e Forgotten Realms that was supposed to be in the pipes since March/April?
-And, another question, while I am at it:
-Being as that you are the 'executive designer' of Player's Guide to Faerûn...Kaliesh'Erai, the Elven Psionic organization...What does Kaliesh'Erai mean in Elven?
-This was never the general rule in the Forgotten Realms.
Are 1rst level only feats like Luck of Heroes still in the FRCS or the players guide?
In the new PHB they cut the feat fluff - will we get some in the Forgotten Realms?
I'm not sure about the next Countdown article. The DRAGON staff is managing those. Sometimes I'm asked to write or contribute to 'em, sometimes other people are.
-Gotcha.
Regarding the PGtF elven psionic organization... I have no idea. I think that Travis Stout might have come up with them. I know I didn't work on that part. I checked with James Wyatt and Dave Noonan, and neither of them worked on that section. Clearly, someone did!
-Geeze, the phantom article...
You've said before that Iconics like Elminster and such will probably get a mention such as: Elminster, x level Wizard. Since this is the case, I was wondering if you could please shed some light on Drizzt and Artemis Entreri. I don't need levels, just classes. The reason for this is because in 3E both Drizzt and Artemis had at least 3 classes (Ftr/Bbn/Rgr and Ftr/Rog/Rgr/Asn respectively). Since 4E multiclassing while balanced in general, seems more strict at 1st hand in the sense that you can only have two (half-elves not included). Well, enough of my ramblings...
Drizzt Ftr/Rgr? or Rgr/Ftr? He couldn't really be the two weapon fury he is without starting in ranger, right? Thing is, ranger didn't come into play until after he met Mooshie in the World Above...
Artemis Ftr/Rog? or Rog/Ftr?
Obviously paragon paths would factor into this and I could do it myself, but I was hoping for an official answer since it might likely be in the FRCG/FRPG.
Thanks ahead of time Rich for your time
Can you tell us what's going on with the portal system in 1479; is it still there and if so what changed?
Thanks.
Mr. Baker,
You've said before that Iconics like Elminster and such will probably get a mention such as: Elminster, x level Wizard. Since this is the case, I was wondering if you could please shed some light on Drizzt and Artemis Entreri. I don't need levels, just classes. The reason for this is because in 3E both Drizzt and Artemis had at least 3 classes (Ftr/Bbn/Rgr and Ftr/Rog/Rgr/Asn respectively). Since 4E multiclassing while balanced in general, seems more strict at 1st hand in the sense that you can only have two (half-elves not included). Well, enough of my ramblings...
Drizzt Ftr/Rgr? or Rgr/Ftr? He couldn't really be the two weapon fury he is without starting in ranger, right? Thing is, ranger didn't come into play until after he met Mooshie in the World Above...
Artemis Ftr/Rog? or Rog/Ftr?
Obviously paragon paths would factor into this and I could do it myself, but I was hoping for an official answer since it might likely be in the FRCG/FRPG.
Thanks ahead of time Rich for your time
I would say that Drizzt is Rgr/Barb. No, I am not joking, and the fact that the PHB2 isn't out yet with those classes doesn't really matter. :P
G = Basically a decent person, but won't neccessarily put themselves at risk for someone.
That's actually more like "unaligned" in 4E. Good actually does mean you defend against evil, you don't just have good ideals.
And yes, as I said before, racial alignments in 4E are supposed to be guidelines rather than absolutes.
Tombollis is pretty much right on this. We look at it like this: Having an alignment means that you're "signed up" on that team. You are seriously committed to those principles, and you're willing to fight and die for them. An unaligned cleric of a good deity could easily be a kindly, generous, and compassionate person--but that doesn't make him a "soldier for good," or mean that he'd necessarily travel hundreds of miles from his home to risk his life on behalf of people he doesn't know with no real expectation of reward, which is the sort of thing a Good-aligned character is willing to do (possibly after some moral wrestling with himself).
Thanks for clarifying this issue. I might still tweak it, but it makes a bit more sense for me now.
Mr. Baker,
You've said before that Iconics like Elminster and such will probably get a mention such as: Elminster, x level Wizard. Since this is the case, I was wondering if you could please shed some light on Drizzt and Artemis Entreri. I don't need levels, just classes. The reason for this is because in 3E both Drizzt and Artemis had at least 3 classes (Ftr/Bbn/Rgr and Ftr/Rog/Rgr/Asn respectively). Since 4E multiclassing while balanced in general, seems more strict at 1st hand in the sense that you can only have two (half-elves not included). Well, enough of my ramblings...
Drizzt Ftr/Rgr? or Rgr/Ftr? He couldn't really be the two weapon fury he is without starting in ranger, right? Thing is, ranger didn't come into play until after he met Mooshie in the World Above...
Artemis Ftr/Rog? or Rog/Ftr?
Obviously paragon paths would factor into this and I could do it myself, but I was hoping for an official answer since it might likely be in the FRCG/FRPG.
Thanks ahead of time Rich for your time
Arent the god awful, overbearing, campaign destroying NPCs one of the reasons we have this mess that is the 4e Realms to begin with? Wouldnt statting out those very same NPCs be counter to... Nevermind, trying to make sense of the designers mentality in this whole thing is an exercise in futility.
I'm reading Swordmage right now (Good book so far, btw) and was wondering what an Elven 'backsword' was? Typo or a name for something we have yet to see?
Thanks in advance,
RAK
Drizzt could very well have used the style before becoming a Ranger... in fact, since he NEVER used Ranger spells, I would just say he was a ftr with the Two-Weapon feat and be done with it. He was a follower of Mielikki, but not necessarily one of her clergy. IF you want to give him a more acurate build, go with something like the Scout class for all the tracking and what-not. You could even do Bbr/Ftr for when he is "The Hunter", and just toss Ranger all-together.
Mr. Baker,
You've said before that Iconics like Elminster and such will probably get a mention such as: Elminster, x level Wizard. Since this is the case, I was wondering if you could please shed some light on Drizzt and Artemis Entreri. I don't need levels, just classes. The reason for this is because in 3E both Drizzt and Artemis had at least 3 classes (Ftr/Bbn/Rgr and Ftr/Rog/Rgr/Asn respectively). Since 4E multiclassing while balanced in general, seems more strict at 1st hand in the sense that you can only have two (half-elves not included). Well, enough of my ramblings...
Drizzt Ftr/Rgr? or Rgr/Ftr? He couldn't really be the two weapon fury he is without starting in ranger, right? Thing is, ranger didn't come into play until after he met Mooshie in the World Above...
Artemis Ftr/Rog? or Rog/Ftr?
Obviously paragon paths would factor into this and I could do it myself, but I was hoping for an official answer since it might likely be in the FRCG/FRPG.
Thanks ahead of time Rich for your time
Just to point something out here. Unless there is something very bizarre going on that I don't know about, Artemis Entreri is dead in 4th edition (of old age), and therefore he probably won't get shiny new stats.
Unless the shade essence or whatever he absorbed through his dagger gave him a longevity boost, but I doubt it would be enough to maintain his youth for a hundred years.
For Drizzt, I'd guess Ranger/Fighter (Fighter/Ranger just doesn't seem valid for TWF), IF he is a multiclass at all. To be honest, I think his stats will be those of a pure ranger, even if it doesn't quite fit his history. The 4e ranger seems to be more focused on the 'guerilla warrior' aspect of the class than that that of a woodsman, and thats how I picture drow warriors. When I think of Drow soldiers, I think striker, not defender, so therefore it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to use the ranger class to represent his fighting style from day one. IMHO.
For Drizzt, I'd guess Ranger/Fighter (Fighter/Ranger just doesn't seem valid for TWF), IF he is a multiclass at all. To be honest, I think his stats will be those of a pure ranger, even if it doesn't quite fit his history. The 4e ranger seems to be more focused on the 'guerilla warrior' aspect of the class than that that of a woodsman, and thats how I picture drow warriors.
Well, since rangers can pick if they are trained in Nature or Dungeoneering, I guess the people creating the PHB thought of a certain Drow to allow him to be a pure Ranger of the Underdark ;)
As an aside, it was mentioned in one of the Sellsword books that Two-Weapom fighting is a 'Drow Style', and Jarlaxle is proficient with it, even though he is obviously NOT a Ranger.
Drizzt could very well have used the style before becoming a Ranger... in fact, since he NEVER used Ranger spells, I would just say he was a ftr with the Two-Weapon feat and be done with it. He was a follower of Mielikki, but not necessarily one of her clergy. IF you want to give him a more acurate build, go with something like the Scout class for all the tracking and what-not. You could even do Bbr/Ftr for when he is "The Hunter", and just toss Ranger all-together.
In 4th Edition the Ranger killed the Scout and took his stuff. The new ranger is pretty much a Scout with a bit more sneaking added, they don´t cast spells, and they don´t have animal companions - they pretty much became the perfect Drizzt class. In the end I have to say that it´s more important for me that an NPC has fitting powers - not what class he has and ranger fits perfectly.
But I was really thinking about what he SHOULD have been all along...
The new Ranger DOESN'T have animal companions? I must have missed that.
That doesn't really sound much like the Ranger from earlier editions though. Sounds to me they re-worked the class to fit Drizzt.
In 4e...
But I was really thinking about what he SHOULD have been all along...
The new Ranger DOESN'T have animal companions? I must have missed that.
That doesn't really sound much like the Ranger from earlier editions though. Sounds to me they re-worked the class to fit Drizzt.
*ahem* CE "paladins (:yuck
nuff saidIn 4e...
But I was really thinking about what he SHOULD have been all along...
The new Ranger DOESN'T have animal companions? I must have missed that.
That doesn't really sound much like the Ranger from earlier editions though. Sounds to me they re-worked the class to fit Drizzt.
Well since it started with someone asking about the new stats I was kinda thinking 4th.
I haven´t read the current books, but the way Drizzt did fight wasn´t really reflected in his 3rd edtion writeup - thats just how the old edition worked.
In the new edition one of their design goals was to limit summoning and one player controlling several creatures - remembering the old days the companion frequently did more damage than the ranger(depending on equipment of course) - and it´s really not fun if the fighter gets one attack and is done with his turn, but them comes the cleric with his 2 dozen summoned monsters .
Well what does define a Ranger in D&D and FR (especially if you look at the novel characters)? Florin Falconhand never hand an animal companion (as far as I know I still have to read some more books with him), but he was most certanly a Ranger. He knew how to survive in the wilderness, could sneak like a panther and fight like a lion (claws=2weapons). Not really more to it than that and if you look at the 3rd edition Ranger, he does get some nice powers and a furry friend - but other than very limited spellcasting I don´t soo so many differnces.
Ok another Ranger would be Montelio (sp?) it´s been long since I read the books (and I don´t know if the comic with him is out already) the only thing that seems much more Ranger to me is that he could sorta speak with his animal companions. Speaking with animal would make a nice ritual for a Ranger, and at the end of the day an animal companion is just an animal you befrended. There is really no reason why a Ranger of after all any character with the Nature skill in 4th could not befriend an animal.
Ok past editions of D&D made your companion stronger - but that was only for game balance (if you did not want to get something like a dire bear or wolf ). On the other hand, bringing an animal along can be very difficult if not outright impossible in certan adventures, so I am not surprised that it was dropped.
What I am trying to say is: Rangers in other editions of D&D were a good class, I really don´t want to badmouth 3.5 it was fun to play for several years and it´s still one of the best roleplaying systems we have today.
Now with 4th edition D&D is changing again, it might be a better system for many (especially new players for which 3.5 wasn´t a preferable option) but many others might prefer to keep their 3.5 and there is nothing wrong with that. I might even go so far to say that 4th edtion is today not as good as it can be in a year or 2 (the same with 3rd ) so be happy with what you have until scott rouse comes to your house and burns your books. Maybe you will look in a year at the new edition and think, hey I could use this or that.
In the end it comes down to roleplaying and as far as I am concerend it can work with 3.5 just as well as with 4th edition.
Sorry if this sounds a bit like a 4th vs 3rd argument I just wanted to point out that the glass is half full.
In my mind, I see Geran's blade as something that's slightly curved, single-edged, with a light hilt guard, and fairly long--not really a saber, not really a longsword. So I dug up a Ren-Faire gearhead term that suggested something closer to what I was after.
Rich,
I'm reading Swordmage right now (Good book so far, btw) and was wondering what an Elven 'backsword' was? Typo or a name for something we have yet to see?
Thanks in advance,
RAK
Hey Rich,
Can you tell us what's going on with the portal system in 1479; is it still there and if so what changed?
Thanks.
Mr. Baker,
You've said before that Iconics like Elminster and such will probably get a mention such as: Elminster, x level Wizard. Since this is the case, I was wondering if you could please shed some light on Drizzt and Artemis Entreri. I don't need levels, just classes. The reason for this is because in 3E both Drizzt and Artemis had at least 3 classes (Ftr/Bbn/Rgr and Ftr/Rog/Rgr/Asn respectively). Since 4E multiclassing while balanced in general, seems more strict at 1st hand in the sense that you can only have two (half-elves not included). Well, enough of my ramblings...
Drizzt Ftr/Rgr? or Rgr/Ftr? He couldn't really be the two weapon fury he is without starting in ranger, right? Thing is, ranger didn't come into play until after he met Mooshie in the World Above...
Artemis Ftr/Rog? or Rog/Ftr?
Obviously paragon paths would factor into this and I could do it myself, but I was hoping for an official answer since it might likely be in the FRCG/FRPG.
Thanks ahead of time Rich for your time
*ahem* CE "paladins (:yuck
-Just call them Blackguards at 1st level. :D
18DELTA :P
......no :PEDIT: Thank you for answering Rich, will we see a backsword type weapon in any upcoming books or would it be best as fluff to a longsword or such?
will we see a backsword type weapon in any upcoming books or would it be best as fluff to a longsword or such?
A scimitar would probably be best for that.
Just to point something out here. Unless there is something very bizarre going on that I don't know about, Artemis Entreri is dead in 4th edition (of old age), and therefore he probably won't get shiny new stats.
Unless the shade essence or whatever he absorbed through his dagger gave him a longevity boost, but I doubt it would be enough to maintain his youth for a hundred years.
I think it was implied at the end of Road of the Patriarch, that Artemis was granted longevity and would be active for many years to come.
Nevermind my dislike of that whole shade essence humbug. Hmph.
And thanks for everyone else for your input as well. My follow up question is this:Is there a way to hit with two weapons in a round (a la Artemis being a Rog, etc.) without starting as a ranger?
It seems the PH says you can hold two weapons (one in each hand) but only use one to attack/round and the Feats (Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense) just talk about the fact that you get the benefits while, 'holding a weapon' in each hand. Maybe I'm reading it wrong?
P.S. - I'm liking how the Drizzt = Ranger and Artemis = Rogue ironically fits, since they are both the only two STRIKERS in the PH. So, since Rgr and Rog have different Niches to fill, just like in the novels, they, both Drizzt and Artemis, ARE REALLY DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED. It's nice to see game stats reflect the flavor, instead of the other way around. ;)
Is there a way to hit with two weapons in a round (a la Artemis being a Rog, etc.) without starting as a ranger?
It seems the PH says you can hold two weapons (one in each hand) but only use one to attack/round and the Feats (Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense) just talk about the fact that you get the benefits while, 'holding a weapon' in each hand.
The limitation seems to be one weapon per action, not per turn. Extra actions, such as opportunity attacks on other creatures' turns or by spending action points on your turn should allow switching which held weapon you use.
To attack with two weapons in the same action seems to require ranger powers (not necessarily Two-Blade Fighting Style, which allows any one-handed weapon in the second hand, rather than just an off-hand weapon). Non rangers can gain ranger powers via multiclass feats.
I don't see other ways at the moment.
Shade lifespan is about 10 times that of humans, so Mr. Entreri should be alive and kicking if he got even half of that. Well, at least where aging is concerned.
Nevermind my dislike of that whole shade essence humbug. Hmph.
-That's if he's a Shade. We don't know what he is.
It seems that, to make Artemis equal in two-weapon fighting to Drizzt, he needs either:1) To take levels in Ranger 1st
or
2) To take a Paragon Path that lets him do it (maybe in FRCG/PG?)
And Lord Karsus,
Pretty sure the books talk about him on the path to becoming a Shade...
Pretty sure the books talk about him on the path to becoming a Shade...
How so? There isn't really a 'path' [edit: unless it became a Paragon Path, but thats something else) to becoming a shade. You either are one or you aren't. Artemis killed one with a vampiric dagger, and the books have since shown him with some watered down shade-like quirks, but I have seen nothing that indicates that he will actually be a full blown shade. To my knowledge, that would require a ritual that exchanges his soul with shadowstuff. Frankly, I don't see the life essence he absorbed doing very much.
(I'm guessing it will still be a template, but figured I'd ask)
And NO, it isn't to please US. Artemis makes RAS money, and thats the bottom line.
Backsword, eh? Thats a term I haven't come across before...
I think that was actually already known.
It was.:P
Oops, my bad
-You did nothing wrong. It's ok to be excited about the 4E Realms if you want to. Don't let anybody take that away from you.
18DELTA ;)
-You did nothing wrong. It's ok to be excited about the 4E Realms if you want to. Don't let anybody take that away from you.
18DELTA ;)
Cheers for 4E Realms it's officially ok for me to like it!
Cheers for 4E Realms it's officially ok for me to like it!
No, no it's not ok to like 4e Realms...
I'll be watching you!
Rich,
I know we've been asking this on and off for months, but is there any new information you can tell us about Bladesingers? Will we see them in any upcoming books, Paragon Path or.....?
Thanks in advance for anything you can let slip.
I know we've been asking this on and off for months, but is there any new information you can tell us about Bladesingers? Will we see them in any upcoming books, Paragon Path or.....?
-I believe that he answered this already. Bladesingers will be "Paragon Paths". I'm not sure what book they will show up in, though. Being as that Bladesingers have always been more "at home" in the Forgotten Realms than in any other setting, it's a possibility they will show up in a Forgotten Realms sourcebook.
The story was written in order to keep Artemis alive a hundred years down the road. If you can't see that blatant'Author Caveat' in regards to one his new favorites, then you really don't understand why authors write.
And NO, it isn't to please US. Artemis makes RAS money, and thats the bottom line.
Backsword, eh? Thats a term I haven't come across before...
This is a Backsword
Basically its a cut and thrust type of sword with a some kinda of enclosed hilt (basket, clamshell ect) that appears at first glance to be a double egde sword but is in fact a single egde one.
They were the primary calvary weapons of choice in europe untill they replaced by the saber somewhere around the 18th century. They are also famous for the wooden weapons that were used for backsword practice called singlesticks. Backswords fell out of use as military weapons but single sticking remained a popular sport in Europe untill the dawn of the 20th century.
Another famous kind of backsword is the scottish claymore (the basket hilted one handed sword not the giant two handed "Braveheart" sword) but I see elves favoring a more elegant type of weapon like english civil war era "mortuary" sword shown in the pic ....
I dont know how a backsword would be different from a longsword or rapier gamewise though?
I dont know how a backsword would be different from a longsword or rapier gamewise though?
My dictionary says "a sword with one sharp edge; a broadsword"
Bel
Rich, will there be more Deity based feats and powers in the FRPG than there were in the PHB? Kind of along the lines of the Warlock's pact powers?
Bel
I was thinking about something like that. Like a Bane based Warlock pact (Other gods as well, but I have yet to get to it.) With a pack which would cause a person to become immobilized when another character is brought to 0 or below hp by a warlock's cure. With an at will power which can stun a person. Each based on the idea of Bane being the lord of Fear in the realms. I can think of some flavour text where The Black Lord's eyes turned on the subject, paralyzing them with fear of the Black Hand.
Not sure what to do for higher powers and I would have to see the deity list before making more divine pacts. But there you go.
Rich, will there be more Deity based feats and powers in the FRPG than there were in the PHB? Kind of along the lines of the Warlock's pact powers?
Bel
I was wondering about this as well, but with regard to deity-specific Cleric feats. I've taken the liberty of converting those in the 4e PHB to similar FR god worship prerequisites.
Wow this is a big thread!
Sorry if this seems like old news to many of you, but as is normal, I am the last to hear the latest bad news...
Rich,
I read your post that seems to confirm that Eilistraee is indeed killed off in the new 4e Realms, and the only way I can describe my reaction is dismally depressed.
My favorite Realms character, indeed favorite D&D character of all time, is a cleric of Eilistraee. If what I am reading on these boards is really true, her goddess is dead, her faith is scattered, and it is quite possible that most of them are not even drow any more, but some new type of "dark elf" that of all things is brown!?!? with dark hair?!?!?!
I am not trying to blast you here Rich, or anyone else for that matter. I just need to express my thoughts and feelings about this in a place where maybe someone involved will see them and understand the turmoil that some of these decisions have wrought with many of the fans.
My question to you is, where does this leave me? Is there any ray of hope considering that there is nothing I want from the realms more than to have the opportunity to continue this character in 4e? Does a dead Eilistraee mean truly dead, or does it mean I cannot tell you because the rest of the story hasn't unfolded yet? Does it mean that none of the priestesses from before the spell plague have survived, yet one silly stubborn ranger is still carrying on just fine? If some of the clergy of Eilistraee still lives, and in 4e divine power is granted for life, will there be rules to support making characters such as mine? Is someone going to write up an official Sword Dancer Paragon Path to support characters of a "dead" Deity? Am I expected to accept that my character would have been transformed to a "dark elf" even though I am revolted by such a change, as I am sure she would be? Will I be recommended to some new deity as a fill in, even though I am sure my character would never make such a switch, instead choosing to make sure that Eilistraee was always venerated and never forgotten as long as she still held breath? Would such a replacement deity still promote dancing under the moonlight, the High Hunt, Moonfire, and have the Moonblade as a weapon? Is it true that Drow will be detailed as a core race in the new books, supporting the concept of drow PC's in a stronger way than ever before? Even opening them up for official RPGA play, something that previously required a special dispensation at best? Yet despite this, there was not a way to keep the concept of my little drow priestess alive, somewhere within all of this?
I don't really expect an answer to all of that stuff. I typed it as much to put my thoughts into words and share them with you as anything. I really have loved the Realms in the past, but I am not sure that I can bear it if all of the best parts of it, that I loved the most, are to be cut away and discarded. I have gone from excited and cannot wait for the new FR books to the point where I am not sure I will have the heart to buy them at all.
If you do want to answer one question for me, make it this... Is there any hope that you can offer me that things are not so bad as they appear? I would be delighted to know, even if that answer is a simple Yes :D or No
Xantia
I was wondering, when the books come out and you guys determine how well they are doing, how will you determine whether theyre selling for the setting or for the things like Half-Orcs (which people would have liked in core) and Swordmage?
Mostly I ask because in another thread someone mentioned that they believed if the setting sold poorly it could possibly be 'fixed'. I dont think that would be the case anyway but it made me think. How do you determine whether people actually liked the setting or if they grudgingly bought the book for the crunch stuff they wanted, and whether that even matters or not?
One comment, there is an enormous amount of FR content out there...I have alot of it. It seems that the 4e system is quite divergent and I am concerned that unlike previous editions, the ability to leverage that content will go away. As an example, Shadow Weave magic, which is unique to the Realms...the way that magic works in 4e I do not see how this can/will remain based on the new mechanics. Is someone willing to comment on this?
Also thoughts on 3.x to 4.x conversions?
Though I believe the devs said that conversion was not really possible in their view, and after having looked at the new rules, I'm rather inclined to agree with them by and large. Rebuilding seems about the only real option available, and that's going to be limited for a while until new material emerges.
With regard to the alignment diagram I showed, I based it upon the idea that 'unaligned' is the most generic of alignments. The next two, Good and Evil, are on 'teams', per se...with LG and CE being on a more commited/specialized form. There are no 'lawful unaligneds' or 'chaotic unaligneds', obviously. They come from the larger bases of Good and Evil. Not "better", but the diagram shows that they are derived from the two larger bases.
Which is why, regardless of how WotC decided it, I don't see why a LG would accept an Unaligned cleric when a Good cleric--one who's at least shown an interest in the greater battle--is standing right there as well. It's like saying, "Yeah you've done well helping to stem the tide of Orcus and protect the villagers here....but you know what? I kinda prefer that slack-jaw over there."
With regard to Corellon, in FR (if nowhere else) he's been portrayed at the very least as a strong 'Good' deity, a counterpoint to Lolth and her Evils. I could see Sehahine as 'unaligned', to be above the fray as it were (being more 'fey') but generally supporting Corellon against the Spider Queen. Thus, with the elves and eladrin being more fey in 4e it made more sense. I see this more as an attempt to break previous D&D concepts than as an accurate interpretation of what Corellon represents. Just as alignment is 30 degrees off, so this is...
Along with Eilistraee's death. Sheese. :P
To each their own.
As for 3.x and 4...Got the new books. Not quite enthused but I wish the best for its success.
I think it is a mistake to destroy the continuity of all the 3.5 rule worlds to keep that old money rolling in. I think if WotC wants to implement this rule change they need to fire up a new world for it, it is not like they have no talent on hand. If they are friends to the Role Playing community they will not do this to us. Destroy all those books, all that work and tradition. Scrap it all...they need to create their own new world for this experiment so they do not do any irreparable harm.
They are not destroying the books or your brain to use them so that is pretty cool of them. ;)
With regard to the alignment diagram I showed, I based it upon the idea that 'unaligned' is the most generic of alignments. The next two, Good and Evil, are on 'teams', per se...with LG and CE being on a more commited/specialized form. There are no 'lawful unaligneds' or 'chaotic unaligneds', obviously. They come from the larger bases of Good and Evil. Not "better", but the diagram shows that they are derived from the two larger bases.
However, I don't agree with your interpretation. I see Lawful Good as strongly commited to law and good, Chaotic Evil as strongly commited to chaos and evil, Good as strongly commited to good and oposed to commitment to law (basicly chaotic good, but WotC doesn't seem to see much difference between neutral good nd lawful good),
and Evil as strongly commited to evil and opposed to commitment to chaos (basicly lawful evil, but WotC doesn't seem to see much difference between lawful evil and chaotic evil). Unaligned is anyone who doesn't have any of those strong commitments, regardless of any biases in favor of one or another. There is actual opposition between those who champon any of the four alignments and those who champion any of the other thre, but no actual opposition between aligned and unaligned.
4e core Corellon is a god of spring, beauty, and the arts, a patron of arcane magic and the fey. Any of these can be appreciated by beings of any alignment, for whatever reasons, so he can have clerics of any alignment. He is opposed to Lolth and her followers, but not to any alignment.
Avandra is a god of chance and luck, favoring freedom, trade, travel, adventure, and the frontier. She commands her faithful to strike back against those who rob them of freedom (which includes lawful good, who restrict personal freedom, and evil which ignores the rights of others).
Moradin is a god of creation, a patron of artisans, iespecialy minors and smiths. He commands his faithful to be loyal to the group (fammily, clan, leaders, your people), which is lawful, and to promoe the highest good by making something that lasts. Evil promotes destruction and goes against the good of the people.
Lawful Good clerics aren't compatable with Avandra, but can be with Moradin and Corellon. Good clerics aren't compatable with Moradin, but can be with Avandra and Corellon, while unaligned clerics can be compatable with any of them.
An alignment diagram would be ab X array
Lawful Good _______ Good
_________ Unaligned _________
Evil ______________ Chaotic Evil
rather than a linear array.
My question to you is, where does this leave me? Is there any ray of hope considering that there is nothing I want from the realms more than to have the opportunity to continue this character in 4e? Does a dead Eilistraee mean truly dead, or does it mean I cannot tell you because the rest of the story hasn't unfolded yet? Does it mean that none of the priestesses from before the spell plague have survived, yet one silly stubborn ranger is still carrying on just fine? If some of the clergy of Eilistraee still lives, and in 4e divine power is granted for life, will there be rules to support making characters such as mine? Is someone going to write up an official Sword Dancer Paragon Path to support characters of a "dead" Deity? Am I expected to accept that my character would have been transformed to a "dark elf" even though I am revolted by such a change, as I am sure she would be? Will I be recommended to some new deity as a fill in, even though I am sure my character would never make such a switch, instead choosing to make sure that Eilistraee was always venerated and never forgotten as long as she still held breath? Would such a replacement deity still promote dancing under the moonlight, the High Hunt, Moonfire, and have the Moonblade as a weapon? Is it true that Drow will be detailed as a core race in the new books, supporting the concept of drow PC's in a stronger way than ever before? Even opening them up for official RPGA play, something that previously required a special dispensation at best? Yet despite this, there was not a way to keep the concept of my little drow priestess alive, somewhere within all of this?
I don't really expect an answer to all of that stuff. I typed it as much to put my thoughts into words and share them with you as anything. I really have loved the Realms in the past, but I am not sure that I can bear it if all of the best parts of it, that I loved the most, are to be cut away and discarded. I have gone from excited and cannot wait for the new FR books to the point where I am not sure I will have the heart to buy them at all.
Xantia, I'd say if you dislike the changes regarding Eilistraee, why not disregard them in your version of the Realms? Your Realms does not need to conform to what is "canon".
It's not too hard, I've made the Realms my own for quite a while now.
Xantia, I'd say if you dislike the changes regarding Eilistraee, why not disregard them in your version of the Realms? Your Realms does not need to conform to what is "canon".
It's not too hard, I've made the Realms my own for quite a while now.
Hi Rinonalyrna,
Oh I agree with you 100% on that. I am sure that is the direction I will be going as well if most of what I hear is true. And I agree that "canon" isn't that important, but it is nice to have it on your side rather than against you ;)
In any event, thank you for your response.
But I'll stick to my own, thanks, since alignment means so much less in 4e.
And now a question for Richard Baker:
Any new deities in the Forgotten Realms, whether completely new creations or borrowed from other settings?
And now a question for Richard Baker:
Any new deities in the Forgotten Realms, whether completely new creations or borrowed from other settings?
I doubt with all the trimming of non-Faerunian deities they will import new ones from other settings. I could be wrong.
Bel
I doubt with all the trimming of non-Faerunian deities they will import new ones from other settings. I could be wrong.
Bel
Everything else has been done, adding a new one ("Banjo" from OOTS) wouldn't surprise me. When a forest fire burns a bunch of trees you kind of see a few new ones come up from beneath the ashes.
Everything else has been done, adding a new one ("Banjo" from OOTS) wouldn't surprise me. When a forest fire burns a bunch of trees you kind of see a few new ones come up from beneath the ashes.
Rich, will there be a paragon path option for my new FR Cleric of Banjo the Puppet God?
For whether effects function on a creature, both Good and Lawful Good count as good, both Evil and Chaotic Evil count as evil.
As for Good being generic, without concern for Law vs Chaos, that disagrees with PHB pages 19-20. The hilighted sumary says: A character's alignment (or lack thereof) describes his or her moral choice:
- Good: Freedom and kindness;
- Lawful Good: Civilization and order;
- Evil: Tyrany and hatred;
- Chaotic Evil: Entropy and destruction;
- Unaligned: Having no alignment; not taking a stand.
Good aligned can follow rules and respect authority, but are keenly aware that power tends to corrupt and is often exploited; when it does, they don't feel obliged to follow the law blindly. They prefer authority in the hands of members of the comunity to the hands of an individual or social class. They believe exploitive law is evil and are compelled to oppose it. Good and lawful good characters get along, but good thinks lawful good is too focused on the law, rather than doing right.
Evil aligned are willing to take advantage of others to get what they want; they use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don't care whether laws hurt others and support institutional structures that give them power, even at the expense of others' freedom. They desire slavery and rigid cast systems, as long as they personally benefit.
Umaligned aren't commited to any of the four specific alignments. some are undecidd about alignment, but some unaligned individuals and most unaligned deities have chosen not to align, either because they see benefits of both good and evil, or because they see themselves above moral concerns.
I would see 4e Corellon as above concerns for morality. He is concerned with spring, beauty, and the arts. He is a batron of arcane magic and the fey. He is opposed to Lolth not because she is evil or chaotic, but because she is opposed to most fey, even disrupting the society of the evil drow. He is quite willing to have clerics that are aligned, especially if they are fey or if they will try to thwart the followers pf Lolth.
I'll disagree, Tom, on the basis that Good here is 'generic' Good, without concern for Law vs. Neutral vs. Chaos. A Good character is more concerned with Good, a Lawful Good character believes order is more likely to bring about that Good. Again, my interpretation. They appear to do it as in example 2 below, while I'd rather it be like example 1 it would've made alignment even more meningless for the purpose of choosing who can be a cleric of whom:
Xantia, I'd say if you dislike the changes regarding Eilistraee, why not disregard them in your version of the Realms? Your Realms does not need to conform to what is "canon".
It's not too hard, I've made the Realms my own for quite a while now.
While this is true, and many of us have always made changes to suit us, I think that it has gone from a 'voluntary' diviation from canon to a 'mandatory' one.
In other words, while many of us tried to keep as close to canon as possible while personalizing our own Realms, we now feel the need to split ours off entirely into its own 'pocket dimension'.
What that means is that while there were always a few small things about the setting people didn't agree with and felt the need to change, it is now the SETTING ITSELF that requires a change, which is a pretty big difference, IMHO.
On the one hand, doing it this way closes off one RP opportunity--realms of evil elves who worship Corellon and whose priests openly wield power in his name (nevermind how the cleric bit's changed in 4e). Then again it works for me...
OK, question for Rich: Does WotC plan 'paragon paths' for individual deities?
OK, question for Rich: Does WotC plan 'paragon paths' for individual deities?
Ooh, you mean similar to the Specialty Priest Prcs of 3x? Yes, please!
Seconded!
Bel
OK, question for Rich: Does WotC plan 'paragon paths' for individual deities?
Actually, I think the 4e pantheon looks more like the "original" FR pantheon as spelled out in the gray box or the 2nd Ed. Forgotten Realms Adventures hardbound than the Realms pantheon has in almost twenty years. There are some exceptions (the deities of magic, obviously), but terms of the number of deities present and the relative importance of those deities, I think it's pretty close. In other words, not paying much attention to second-tier deities means that the stars of the pantheon seem to shine a lot brighter. I know that "demoting" those deities was a controversial call on our part, but I think it really has been a service to the setting.
And now a question for Richard Baker:
Any new deities in the Forgotten Realms, whether completely new creations or borrowed from other settings?
...but I think it really has been a service to the setting.
-Just wondering: How so? Especially if there isn't going to be a Faiths and Avatars/Faiths and Pantheons-type book, like you said there probably wouldn't be, for the foreseeable future.
Can't say I want the list as short as has been discussed (25-30 or so) but...I digress.
Think of it this way, with fewer actors on-stage then you notice who is on-stage even more.
I know that "demoting" those deities was a controversial call on our part, but I think it really has been a service to the setting.
Everyone keeps saying "we needed to do this" or "it really helps the setting" without anyone giving one good reason as to why.
At the same time one can say just by highlighting the 'stars' and leaving the rest in the background for people to discover on their own (minus demotion/death)...that would've worked as well.
How did Eilistraee die?
What of the Harpers? Are they still around, and how has the Spellplague affected them and their work?
What about Evermeet? Has it been affected?
I have a few questions.
How did Eilistraee die?
What of the Harpers? Are they still around, and how has the Spellplague affected them and their work?
What about Evermeet? Has it been affected?
As to your first question there is a thread about Eilistraee with heavy spoilers on that very subject. Check it out. I have no idea about the other 2 questions hehe
(...) Actually, I think the 4e pantheon looks more like the "original" FR pantheon as spelled out in the gray box or the 2nd Ed. Forgotten Realms Adventures hardbound than the Realms pantheon has in almost twenty years. There are some exceptions (the deities of magic, obviously), but terms of the number of deities present and the relative importance of those deities, I think it's pretty close. In other words, not paying much attention to second-tier deities means that the stars of the pantheon seem to shine a lot brighter. I know that "demoting" those deities was a controversial call on our part, but I think it really has been a service to the setting.
Why? Making other deities "brighter" continues to draw attention away from the players, not to mention away from low level, non-epic stories that DMs have.
There's been -far- too much of a focus on deities having active, personified roles in the Realms. Wasn't that the primary complaint with Mystra, and the reason she's been killed? Now, in addition to the pregnant question of "what really happened to Mystra, Azuth and Savras?", we will have a brand new Amaunator, and the weirdness of the Tyr-Helm issue, all of which draw attention to the godly realms (i.e. epic play) and away from the players.
This leaves DMs and players with a Realms that is VERY far away from the Realms of the "original gray box". Not only because the deities are still overly active, but because they have been anthropomorphized (often with really stupid weaknesses, or having them display childish reasoning) in novels that are canon for the setting. But it's not only deities, it's the entire flavor of the setting. We had a pretty interesting soup or stew, and the designers have fished out most of the interesting parts and have added in a lot that doesn't make sense. In many ways, we had a nice meat and potatoes stew, and now all the carrots and onions have been taken out and replaced with anchovies and pineapple. I'm glad that you think it's better, but it's just not something I can stomach.
Designers make their decisions I guess. But I've made my decision as well: I will not be buying the 4E Realms, and I'm no longer interested in purchasing 4E novels.
Or not. ;)
Question; Will we see new magic items & Artifacts in the upcoming FR books?
If one was to take off the +8 geek rage goggles of DOOM!,(...)
It's fine to insult me, I suppose... but this isn't just some random angry decision that I'm making. I'm not buying anything that's 4E, and that's my choice. You, obviously, can remain blind in your own way to all of the ridiculous things they've done and you're welcome to buy whatever you like. Enjoy your "4E fanboy goggles", as it were.
Therise, I believe Rich meant that with fewer 2nd-tier deities the major ones left over would be that much more visible or prominent---he didn't mean they'd outshine the PC's.
I fully realize he meant that the greater gods would outshine the (previously) lesser deities.
But it doesn't matter. Whenever designers or DMs put a spotlight on the deities, it -always- detracts from the PCs.
I fully realize he meant that the greater gods would outshine the (previously) lesser deities.
But it doesn't matter. Whenever designers or DMs put a spotlight on the deities, it -always- detracts from the PCs.
What "spotlight on the deities" has been designed into 4e FR? I'm not aware of any. It is posters (including you) who seem to be spotlighting deities, making the changes to deities pivital to the worth of 4e FR.
Until 4e FR content is actually released, conclusions re spotlight being on deities rather than PCs seem unfounded. It's my impression that the annouced changes re deities, and the 4e rules are more likely to take the focus off of deities in heroic and paragon adventures. The stories should be more about the mortals, with little divine intervention, deities relegated to the background.
It's fine to insult me, I suppose... but this isn't just some random angry decision that I'm making. I'm not buying anything that's 4E, and that's my choice. You, obviously, can remain blind in your own way to all of the ridiculous things they've done and you're welcome to buy whatever you like. Enjoy your "4E fanboy goggles", as it were.
I do not think he was trying to insult anyone just to poke a little fun at people who are pretty upset with the changes. It read as levity to me. In the end there is no way to make people who are against the changes to see why some/any of the changes might be a good thing. It is a tough sell to some people who made a "connection" to the Realms that I don't feel.
Again, we will see in Aug what's the deal.
What "spotlight on the deities" has been designed into 4e FR? I'm not aware of any. It is posters (including you) who seem to be spotlighting deities, making the changes to deities pivital to the worth of 4e FR.
Until 4e FR content is actually released, conclusions re spotlight being on deities rather than PCs seem unfounded. It's my impression that the annouced changes re deities, and the 4e rules are more likely to take the focus off of deities in heroic and paragon adventures. The stories should be more about the mortals, with little divine intervention, deities relegated to the background.
We'll see about that, won't we?
The only reason to change something like the deities, is because novel authors have plans to use them in novels; hence, it's a "spotlight". It's -very- likely that you'll see future 4E novels that concentrate on not only deities (new and re-imagined) but dragonborn, Far Realm aberrations and bizarro-spellplagued "new geography" and spellscars.
You're already seeing the beginnings of it - with the upcoming conclusions of the Empyrean Odyssey novels, the conclusion of the Byers' series on Szass Tam and the undead (e.g. spellscar powers outweigh the character), and the "cleaning up" of Eilistraee at the end of the 3.5E generation so that the stage is set for brown "dark" drow.
... I mean why should evil spellcasters revere Mystra--oops, Selune or whoever when they can invoke Shar?
Just a thought, you know: evil mages never -did- have to worship or revere Mystra. Good mages didn't have to, either.
Because it makes those deities a more obvious choice. Instead of looking at 3 or 4 deities with the same general bent I can look at one as the most likely contender for my character's faith. If I were a human bard I could choose between Oghma, Milil, whoever the Nameless Bard became...in some cases under the 'new Realms' there will be more choices with fewer deities, at least in certain areas. I mean why should evil spellcasters revere Mystra--oops, Selune or whoever when they can invoke Shar?
If I had time I could do a very long list of characters that would show how important each one of those gods is. I don't even need to think for the evil spellcaster that follows Mystra, that's a very easy one.
...It read as levity to me. (...)
Again, we will see in Aug what's the deal.
Indeed, and to me (at whom it was clearly targeted), it read as a dismissive, handwaving insult. Funny how perspective changes everything, no?
As you say, we'll see the real deal in August.
What "spotlight on the deities" has been designed into 4e FR? I'm not aware of any.
-There isn't going to be any, as I mentioned in my question to Rich. As of now, there are no plans to make a 4e book along the lines of Faiths and Avatars/Powers and Pantheons/Demihuman Deities/Faiths and Pantheons. Which is why I question how getting rid of a large portion of the deities that exist in the setting (be it by making them exarchs, immortals, primordials, whatever) is going to be doing a "service to the setting". There isn't going to be an excess of room to detail the "left over" deities in much detail anyway, so...
The only reason to change something like the deities, is because novel authors have plans to use them in novels; hence, it's a "spotlight". It's -very- likely that you'll see future 4E novels that concentrate on not only deities (new and re-imagined) but dragonborn, Far Realm aberrations and bizarro-spellplagued "new geography" and spellscars.
You're already seeing the beginnings of it - with the upcoming conclusions of the Empyrean Odyssey novels, the conclusion of the Byers' series on Szass Tam and the undead (e.g. spellscar powers outweigh the character), and the "cleaning up" of Eilistraee at the end of the 3.5E generation so that the stage is set for brown "dark" drow.
The conclusions of series is no indication of the focus of new novels, just the focus of the old novels.
The novel authors are not the only motivators for changes to something like deities - changes to adventures awy from focus on deities can also motivate such changes. Some aspects of paladins and clerics may be deity specific, but most are more generic, the specific deity more a support to character design than a primsry shaper of the character.
I see more focus on the characters themselves than who they worship. To me, that's an attraction of 4e FR.
If there is enough interest in it I think we may see one in a DDI article somewhere down the line. Just a thought.
-Which does not "justify" eliminating things in order to preserve "page count", or whatever you want to call it, because the DDI is extraneous to the campaign books, and has an unlimited amount of "pages", since there are no pages to begin with. So, there's one reason we can check off.
The conclusions of series is no indication of the focus of new novels, just the focus of the old novels.
These authors are paving the way for what you'll see in 4E. They are -exactly- the kinds of things that you'll see in 4E novels. Otherwise, there would be no reasons whatsoever to make such changes.
I see more focus on the characters themselves than who they worship.
Interesting conclusion... based on?
-Which does not "justify" eliminating things in order to preserve "page count", or whatever you want to call it, because the DDI is extraneous to the campaign books, and has an unlimited amount of "pages", since there are no pages to begin with. So, there's one reason we can check off.
They tone back the multiple (redundant to some) gods so they could focus more on a core group of main gods that have endured through the last century. New players may look at it and like that there are only 30 or so gods and not 200 or so. That is one possibility. The other is that older fans that left the FR to try other less "bloated" (their feelings not necessarily mine) settings will look and go "Hey there are only a few gods like in the Gray box. Wait, no Mystra? Even better. Thank the gods!" Yes some of their attitudes are silly buy they are consumers and may actually have been a large audience for FR products (not sure about this it is just my opinion).
So after they have their product out for a few months and potentially brought in new fans and/or brought back older fans they can bring out a DDI article with some info on what the "other" gods are doing. The article will let the DM or players do what they will with these gods but the article will/should downplay their role in the Realms and not elevate them over the other Greater gods and PCs. That is my opinion on the matter.
I think focus is a key word for the newer Realms. In the end it is like a new setting. It is still in the Realms though. The flavor may be all too different for some. Just my opinion.
Interesting conclusion... based on?
The 4e PH, and what it says about classes, deities, and flavor text. The focus is on the characters, even for paladins and clerics, rather than the deity, and the player is empowered to to create his own interpretations and attitude of character to deity.
Until I see proof otherwise, I am convinced that, for the game, it's about the characters, with deities just part of the background setting.
Description of level tiers imply that deities (as opposed to religions and character organizations) should not have a significant presence in adventures before epic tier, if then.
It's the game that matters to me, not the novels.
(...) It's the game that matters to me, not the novels.
That's funny, because you're posting in not the general DnD area but the Forgotten Realms-specific area. The novels are canon to the setting, and regardless of what you might believe or say otherwise they have a huge impact on the overall game if you're playing in the 4E Forgotten Realms.
What of the Harpers? Are they still around, and how has the Spellplague affected them and their work?
What about Evermeet? Has it been affected?
Also, what of Lantan and its gnomes?
That's funny, because you're posting in not the general DnD area but the Forgotten Realms-specific area. The novels are canon to the setting, and regardless of what you might believe or say otherwise they have a huge impact on the overall game if you're playing in the 4E Forgotten Realms.
Not so funny. FR is aD&D game setting, not just a setting for novels. Regardless of what takes place in the novels, the game is about the characters. The impact of trhe novels on a campaign depends on whoever runs the campaign.
Apparently, there is to be more coordination between the novel authors, WotC's module authors, and RPGA administrators than in the past, but I see the indications as the deities having less direct impact on the PCs in the the officially released materials than in 3.5e days. The novels have an impact on the the official campaigns, but the campaigns may also have imppact on the novels.
Regardless, in a 4e campaign in the FR, the Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers should have more impact on interaction between deities and mortals. Clerics no longer get spells from deities, or need to adhere to the deity's interests. The deities are part of the background setting, a prop for the character's stories; the characters aren't props in the deities' stories - unless the campaign administrators decide otherwise, which you are free to do in your own campaign.
I expect to play 4e D&D in the Forgotten Realms with focus on mortal concerns at Heroic and Paragon levels. I expect to be aware of the deities, but not dominated by them. I think that is one of the purposes for the changes - for thew benefit of the players, more than the novel readers.
And yes, Therise, you are correct evil spellcasters didn't have to worship Mystra. But I'd read somewhere that spellcasters of other stripes would invoke her name to improve the chances of successful spell research or item creation. With no Mystra, no need for lip service. And without Mystra less of an imperative to choose the 'right' deity of magic, now there are several that can be favored on both sides of the good-evil aisle.
Not saying she had to go (and in my mind I'm working it in another way should Selune still be around and not subsumed into Sehahine), just saying there is a change in the mindset of some gamers with her removal.
Alediran--I love the various pantheons but even I have trouble using so many. With the elves I'm thinking of reforming them into a smaller pantheon:
Corellon--Greater Power, Good (not unaligned as said in the PHB)
Eilistraee--Demipower, Unaligned
Sehahine/Selune--Greater Power, Unaligned
(unnamed demigod)--Demipower, unaligned
Lolth--Greater Power, Chaotic Evil
In my version Eilistraee survives and serves Sehahine as her stepdaughter and 'moon maiden', while the unnamed demipower (a son born of Corellon and Sehahine) serves his father. There is no Rillifane or Deep Sashelas, the former a guise of Silvanus and the latter being the sea elves' name for Corellon.
Not so funny. FR is aD&D game setting, not just a setting for novels. Regardless of what takes place in the novels, the game is about the characters. The impact of trhe novels on a campaign depends on whoever runs the campaign.
It is funny because you're not seeing the impact of what they'll be doing.
Apparently, there is to be more coordination between the novel authors, WotC's module authors, and RPGA administrators than in the past, but I see the indications as the deities having less direct impact on the PCs in the the officially released materials than in 3.5e days. The novels have an impact on the the official campaigns, but the campaigns may also have imppact on the novels.
So... you're saying that there's going to be an even tighter relationship between what happens in novels and what happens in the game, and yet arguing that it'll have less of an impact on the game? Do you not see the difficulty with how that will actually work out in practice?
Regardless, in a 4e campaign in the FR, the Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers should have more impact on interaction between deities and mortals. Clerics no longer get spells from deities, or need to adhere to the deity's interests. The deities are part of the background setting, a prop for the character's stories; the characters aren't props in the deities' stories - unless the campaign administrators decide otherwise, which you are free to do in your own campaign.
And here, tiers are going to have more impact on deity-mortal interaction, and yet somehow less of an impact on the game story? This argument doesn't even follow logically. Clerics who don't have to adhere to the deity's interests? What? Do you even remotely see the leaps in logic that you're making (which, granted, are based on the designers' rosy claims), or how the changes lead to disconnects in some pretty important areas, like clerics who "no longer get spells" from their deity and don't need bother with adhering to important details of the faith, much less listen to the deity? It's ridiculous!
I expect to play 4e D&D in the Forgotten Realms with focus on mortal concerns at Heroic and Paragon levels. I expect to be aware of the deities, but not dominated by them. I think that is one of the purposes for the changes - for thew benefit of the players, more than the novel readers.
That's nice. Enjoy whatever game you decide to play. However, if you're going to try and convince me that these changes are of any "benefit" to the players -for the story- then you'll need to do a bit better of a job.
They tone back the multiple (redundant to some) gods so they could focus more on a core group of main gods that have endured through the last century.
-And, as I just said, there isn't going to be much of any of a focus, because the extent (right now) to the "focusing" is circa an estimated 30 pages (about 10%) of the FRCG, in theory, and whatever theoretical unannounced articles on the DDI.
-With the physical book, as I said, I can understand eliminating things that are seen as unnecessary to make more room, and/or to focus on specific things. That makes sense. In this case, however, we're not really getting any extra anything. And, with the DDI, extra information for anything can be published at any later time. Same thing with the online DRAGON magazine, too, as another source.
That's nice. Enjoy whatever game you decide to play. However, if you're going to try and convince me that these changes are of any "benefit" to the players -for the story- then you'll need to do a bit better of a job.
I don't expect to convince you of anything. But I have indicated why I don't hold with your gloomy view of the 4e Realms, and won't join with you in refusing to buy anything 4e.
I read this thread to learn what is coming for the 4e Forgotten Realms setting, not to hear complaints that it is different from 3.5e or earlier and not worth buying. I would like to know why changes are being made, but I care more about what the changes are and how they impact characters in the game.
stuff
I wasn't picking on you or anyone in general, sorry if you felt that way kiddo.
As you say, we'll see the real deal in August.
No we wont. With things like the Half-Orc, Swordmage, and Genasi in the 4e FR book even if 100% of people dont like it they WILL buy it for those things. Even if 100% of people buy it ONLY for those things and hate the setting, it sold, and WotC can call it a success.
And yes, Therise, you are correct evil spellcasters didn't have to worship Mystra. But I'd read somewhere that spellcasters of other stripes would invoke her name to improve the chances of successful spell research or item creation. With no Mystra, no need for lip service. And without Mystra less of an imperative to choose the 'right' deity of magic, now there are several that can be favored on both sides of the good-evil aisle.
I guess no one here knows how a polythestic society works. Im already certain the designers certainly havent bothered to look it up. Theres no such thing as a "right" deity. Everyone gives lip service to many deities all the time. Going on a trip? Stop by the temple of the god of travel, and the one of good luck while youre at it. Probably want to offer a tithe to the god of bad luck as well. Oh and dont forget to say a prayer to the god that controls the weather, the one that represents banditry, and so on so forth. Many of our own real world religions have had more gods in a single pantheon than the FR has had all together. In a world with numerous gods, characters can and SHOULD pay lip service to a number of gods. Patron deities was stupid and if the 4e Realms are so much less restrictive in picking your deity (IE not not getting spells for not choosing one) then having a larger number of them is more conductive to roleplay than less as it makes the world that much more cohesive and real.
I wasn't picking on you or anyone in general, sorry if you felt that way kiddo.
Maybe you shouldnt have phrased it as an attack then.
I guess no one here knows how a polythestic society works. Im already certain the designers certainly havent bothered to look it up. Theres no such thing as a "right" deity.
Read the 4e PHB. The designers showed awareness. Even clerics need not restrict themselves to representing single gods. Aligned clerics are restricted to representing gods of their alignment and unaligned gods. Unaligned ckerics can represent any or al gods. Even a paladin, dedicated to a specific god, can respect ans show lip service to others; he's just limited to who he represents.
4e FR is being designed as polytheistic, though some creatures in the setting may be monotheistic.
It may bring a mass of people back. People that dropped the setting for other settings or people that just gave up on it because it felt too ... I don't know 2Eish?
Why do you think a mass of people dropped the setting. Any proof? FR is clearly still the most popular setting
Fans that left probably got tired of the RSE's - and 4e FR was created by the mother of them all.
Fans that hated the setting before? Well... we all know how haters work - they'll find something new to hate.
Remember - the setting's popularity is only supposed to last one year, until next year's setting comes out. I think, with that in mind, that the 4e setting is exactly the "flash-in-the-pan" they were looking for.
Its called 'planned obsolescence' - the idea is to NOT have everyone satisfied with FR forever, elst they wouldn't buy the 'latest & greatest' 4e setting.
If the idea was to insure everyone gets bored with the 'minimalist' settings every year, then I think they hit the nail on the head and WotC should do quite well. The last thing in the world they would want is to recreate that feeling of "Entitlement" (their words, not mine) that causes fans to stick with one thing for twenty years.
Nothing wrong with that... they just shifted their strategies to maximize and grow the IP, by removing the notion of single-setting fans who do not buy products outside of their chosen line.
Maybe you shouldnt have phrased it as an attack then.
I didn't, I said if people (read anyone) stopped being angry and/or feeling sorry for themselves for whatever reason and tried rational thought, they just might be able to see the other side of the road. It goes both ways and I'm not pointing fingers.... just stating the obvious.
Some of the reasons I think it's a service to the setting:
1. The percentage of Greenwood-created deities/faiths that are important players in the setting goes up (as compared to 2e or 3e), so I think it's closer to the original vision.
2. 30-ish deities that are important are better than 120-ish deities ranging from important to irrelevant. Fans can "internalize" the setting much better. Look at it like this: Quick, without looking it up, what are the significant differences between Shiallia, Sharess, Lliira, and Milil? How many gods of singing and dancing really improve the setting, and at what point do they start to detract?
3. A smaller number of deities also means that the incidence of temples/priests/NPCs of any specific deity will be greater than it was before. In other words, if we mention 3 or 4 temples per city, the smaller the number of deities that we draw from, the more likely it is that one of those temples will be devoted to your PC's deity or a deity the DM wants to use. It *means* more when the PCs earn the enmity of Cyric or Bane, or the friendship of Tymora or Torm, because those temples are more commonly encountered in a more tightly focused pantheon.
Therise, I believe Rich meant that with fewer 2nd-tier deities the major ones left over would be that much more visible or prominent---he didn't mean they'd outshine the PC's.
It may bring a mass of people back. People that dropped the setting for other settings or people that just gave up on it because it felt too ... I don't know 2Eish? Anyway I think they hope to hook new palyers as well as older players who left the Realms due to God, NPC concerns. Just my 2cents. An opinion. I have no hard evidence this is true LK. It is just an opinion. Hope that is clear LK. Just a little ol opinion from myself. Don't want to get chastised again by the "VCL".:D
Do you have any basis for this opinion, beyond what you have read from what the R&D staff as posted here? Do you personally know people who have dropped the setting? I have never heard of anyone in 3e not playing a 3e campaign setting because they felt it felt too 2e-ish. The concept just seems a bit ludicrous to me. From what I can tell from what the designers have said, they think that the 4e Realms will pull in new players from the demographics who did not like the campaign setting to begin with. And with that foundation as the basis of a new version of an old campaign setting, how can you (rhetorical) say that you are not in fact creating a new campaign setting with the old label in hopes of pulling in those who disliked the campaign setting and those who liked/loved it before alike?
Evermeet still exists; our new take on the cosmology finally allows us to complete the Sundering. I can't say more than that now.
Lantan suffered grievously in the Spellplague. If you care to place warforged in the Realms (*IF*, and only because they're in the Monster Manual, not because we're Eberron-ifying the Realms, so don't even start on that!), I'd speculate that Lantan's one of the places they might be from. If.
I'll re-ask my questions.
What of the Harpers? Are they still around, and how has the Spellplague affected them and their work?
What about Evermeet? Has it been affected?
Also, what of Lantan and its gnomes?
Yep, Selvarin's got it right. I don't know how someone managed to read "the gods are more important than the PCs" out of my previous post on this subject, that's not at all what I said or meant.
And as I -explained- to Selvarin, I did not read that into what you wrote. Nice way to continue the misperception of me, though. I did say that when a game spotlights the deities, it will by default detract from the PCs. As big of a deal as you've all made of Mystra's death and the many other changes to the deities, the focus on the story is shifted from the PCs to the -extremely- anthropomophized deities (which novelists have done).
30-ish deities that are important are better than 120-ish deities ranging from important to irrelevant. Fans can "internalize" the setting much better. Look at it like this: Quick, without looking it up, what are the significant differences between Shiallia, Sharess, Lliira, and Milil? How many gods of singing and dancing really improve the setting, and at what point do they start to detract?
It's the minor differences that enhance the feeling of diversity, not only for regions and cultures within the Realms, but also for the PCs. Now, it'll be gone.
(...) A smaller number of deities also means that the incidence of temples/priests/NPCs of any specific deity will be greater than it was before. In other words, if we mention 3 or 4 temples per city, the smaller the number of deities that we draw from, the more likely it is that one of those temples will be devoted to your PC's deity or a deity the DM wants to use. It *means* more when the PCs earn the enmity of Cyric or Bane, or the friendship of Tymora or Torm, because those temples are more commonly encountered in a more tightly focused pantheon.
It's the DM who imparts this kind meaning in the game (or fails to do so), regardless of the numbers of deities and temples devoted to a particular god. I'm beginning to agree with dav, who said that the designers don't really seem to understand the nature of worship in a polytheistic society. You're treating the deities as a collection of monotheistic deities, all thrust together: "worshipper" would seem to mean "those completely devoted to", at least with respect to numbers of temples.
In a true polytheistic society, what we would call "lip-service" to a particular deity counts for a lot more than a temple devoted to a singular deity. In fact, temples to single deities were rather rare and considered odd (old norse temples, for instance, served multiple gods). For the Realms, until you get into later 2nd edition and beyond, the grand temples of Realms' deities in very large cities were very rare. Now it's a competition between different "singular" faiths, if you go the route of "a temple is the measure of the deity's faithful". And that's just wrong for polytheism.
Simplifying the deities as you've done not only paves the way for reduction of the feel of polytheism, it dilutes a primary feature of the Realms even further.
And in 4E (at least, according to tombollis and other things I've read here), such "wholly devoted" clerics who no longer derive their spells from their gods... not needing to adhere to the motives of their deity and faith... how does that work? The general population needs to have a patron deity or they get stuck in the wall of the faithless when they die, but a cleric devoted to a particular deity doesn't need to worry all that much about what the deity wants? Ugh.
Evermeet still exists; our new take on the cosmology finally allows us to complete the Sundering. I can't say more than that now.
-Interesting. So we should expect Evermeet to have been a piece of The Feywild in 4E?
18DELTA ;)
Quick, without looking it up, what are the significant differences between Shiallia, Sharess, Lliira, and Milil?
Shiallia I never read before this, I'm going to check my F&P book.
Sharess, she is a godess of physical sensuality and seduction. The dancer is only one aspect of her.
Lliira is a goddess of joy and happyness, which can come from any source (she should be at least an Intermediate, because Happyness is one of the most powerful forces of existance, equal to love, who has a Greater Goddess)
Milil is the god of music, something very important in the Realms, so he should be more powerful. I've played a cleric if Milil once, it was the most fun cleric I ever played.
Enough differences to have them listed as gods.
I think you should read Exalted from White Wolf, where everything has a god behind it (even the rocks you see in the floor). It's based on animistic beliefs where everything has a spiritual equivalent and the spirits are the gods, from the smallest gods of the least important thing (from a certain point of view), to spiritual manifestations of the planets, stars and the whole universe.
Therefore I think the less than 150 gods of FR are too little for my animistic tastes. I would love to have gods for every Greater, Intermediate and Lesser aspect of the realms, and guides to build more, so they can represent aspects of existance that don't have a god.
1. The percentage of Greenwood-created deities/faiths that are important players in the setting goes up (as compared to 2e or 3e), so I think it's closer to the original vision.
The original version? If I wanted to play the original version, which I can because I have the gray box set, I would...
2. 30-ish deities that are important are better than 120-ish deities ranging from important to irrelevant. Fans can "internalize" the setting much better. Look at it like this: Quick, without looking it up, what are the significant differences between Shiallia, Sharess, Lliira, and Milil? How many gods of singing and dancing really improve the setting, and at what point do they start to detract?
Don't you think its presumptuous to tell us what is important or irrelevant? It's like Uncle Sam saying that we are going to take away your Constitutional Rights because they just get in the way...
3. A smaller number of deities also means that the incidence of temples/priests/NPCs of any specific deity will be greater than it was before. In other words, if we mention 3 or 4 temples per city, the smaller the number of deities that we draw from, the more likely it is that one of those temples will be devoted to your PC's deity or a deity the DM wants to use. It *means* more when the PCs earn the enmity of Cyric or Bane, or the friendship of Tymora or Torm, because those temples are more commonly encountered in a more tightly focused pantheon.
I think it's clear from these statements, and many others past, that your Current FR design team just doesn't get the setting...
The point to the Realms has always been diversity. Diversity in religion, culture, and climate and so on. You want to run a city intrigue game? sure. You want to run some dungeon crawls? sure. You want to run epic nation vs. nation adventures? sure. You want to play the historical based, archaeologist type campaign? sure. By eliminating options you are in fact changing the entire dynamic of the setting. You can't undo the growth of the setting, that is unless you do what you guys did with the RSE's/Retcons. You guys may come up with a few tidbits that are decent or even good, but it does not make up for the damage already caused. I've spoken with close to 50 or so people in my area, not a single person wants anything to do with this farce. Even people who generally like 4e, can't stand what is being done to the Realms. I don't mean this to be a personal attack on you Rich, but as the spokesperson for the FR Dev team, you get the full effect, for that I apologize.
*On a different note however, Are there plans to release Sava rules or a complete Sava game? Please pass the request on to your Hasbro overlords. I've asked a couple times before and no answer
1. The percentage of Greenwood-created deities/faiths that are important players in the setting goes up (as compared to 2e or 3e), so I think it's closer to the original vision.
-The Forgotten Realms have evolved past Ed Greenwood's original vision of them. Deities that he created are not necessarily more/less important than other deities, especially in the context of the setting itself.
2. 30-ish deities that are important are better than 120-ish deities ranging from important to irrelevant. Fans can "internalize" the setting much better. Look at it like this: Quick, without looking it up, what are the significant differences between Shiallia, Sharess, Lliira, and Milil? How many gods of singing and dancing really improve the setting, and at what point do they start to detract?
-Wholly unrealistic. None was ever required to memorize the list of deities active in Faerûn, nor are all deities active in every part of the setting. Should we expect to see a list of 10-ish deities in 5e, because 10-ish is easier to "internalize" than 30-ish? That said, who determines what deity is important, and which is not? All have specific roles, and would not exist if those roles did not need filling to begin with. I'm sure that those playing the Clerics of Lathander would deem him important. So would the those playing adherents of, say, Leira. Sharress. Ubtao. Finder Wyvernspur. And so on and so on.
3. A smaller number of deities also means that the incidence of temples/priests/NPCs of any specific deity will be greater than it was before. In other words, if we mention 3 or 4 temples per city, the smaller the number of deities that we draw from, the more likely it is that one of those temples will be devoted to your PC's deity or a deity the DM wants to use. It *means* more when the PCs earn the enmity of Cyric or Bane, or the friendship of Tymora or Torm, because those temples are more commonly encountered in a more tightly focused pantheon.
-What does this matter? If a DM wants to use a specific deity in a specific city, he/she is going to use that specific deity in that specific city. That said, I think it's silly, and borderline unrealistic to find a place of worship that is relevant to you wherever you go. Neither should a PC know to find a temple of his/her/its deity in Backwardsville-Inbred-Nowheresville, Dalelands.
-All feedback based on what was said, based on my own thoughts.
-
-What does this matter? If a DM wants to use a specific deity in a specific city, he/she is going to use that specific deity in that specific city. That said, I think it's silly, and borderline unrealistic to find a place of worship that is relevant to you wherever you go. . Neither should a PC know to find a temple of his/her/its deity in Backwardsville-Inbred-Nowheresville, Dalelands.
Can someone please explain to me why the designers at WoTC think we are just too dumb to get our hands around 120 deities? Why do they think we can only handle 30 of them?
I answered the Harper question a few pages back. Yes, they're still around. The organization is a little smaller and more tightly focused now; the rise of the Empire of Netheril has got the Harpers' full and undivided attention at the moment. The bit about the Moonstar-Harper schism is long in the past by 1479 DR.
Evermeet still exists; our new take on the cosmology finally allows us to complete the Sundering. I can't say more than that now.
Lantan suffered grievously in the Spellplague. If you care to place warforged in the Realms (*IF*, and only because they're in the Monster Manual, not because we're Eberron-ifying the Realms, so don't even start on that!), I'd speculate that Lantan's one of the places they might be from. If.
Thank you.
Good to know that those who harp are still going strong. So, their interest in the Zhents has diminished? Are the Zhentarim weakened after the Spellplague?
Good news about Evermeet. Can't wait.
I'm glad that Lantan exists. I love the way it provides the Realms with a small amount of technology, yet ensure that the technology doesn't spread due to their monopoly and secrecy. Will there be some sort of tinker-like class available in a future supplement? Maybe restricted to gnomes and humans, and perhaps dwarfs.
However, I'm not too keen on the Warforged. They don't fit in. Glad that you don't intend to include them in FR.
Can someone please explain to me why the designers at WoTC think we are just too dumb to get our hands around 120 deities? Why do they think we can only handle 30 of them?
Because it's about roll-play and sooper kewl powerz! And purple lewts!
Have you seen the new gods for the "core" 4E? Even dumber, IMO.
Can someone please explain to me why the designers at WoTC think we are just too dumb to get our hands around 120 deities? Why do they think we can only handle 30 of them?
Can you tell me how many people you've gamed with or have seen in your campaigns that revier the deities Akadi, Eldath, Finder, Garagos, Gargauth, Grumbar, Gwaeron Windstrom, Istishia, Larue, Savras, Shiallia, Siamorphe, Ubato, or Ulutiu? If the answer is more than 10 i'll be impressed. The thing is, most of the above named deities have portfilios that have 1 or more aspects that are the same as greater deities. To me, that's just stupid. Why are there 5 dieties of the forest? I don't know. Well which one has dominance? I don't know. Well which deity do I pay tribute to for a fair voyage? Umberlee, Valkur, Istishia, Shaundakul, and might be good to offer some prayers to Talos so you don't get wracked by storm and to Akadi for good winds, and....the list goes on. Thats why the list has been culled down the 30 or so.
Because it's about roll-play and sooper kewl powerz! And purple lewts!
Very mature.
Can you tell me how many people you've gamed with or have seen in your campaigns that revier the deities Akadi, Eldath, Finder, Garagos, Gargauth, Grumbar, Gwaeron Windstrom, Istishia, Larue, Savras, Shiallia, Siamorphe, Ubato, or Ulutiu? If the answer is more than 10 i'll be impressed. The thing is, most of the above named deities have portfilios that have 1 or more aspects that are the same as greater deities. To me, that's just stupid. Why are there 5 dieties of the forest? I don't know. Well which one has dominance? I don't know. Well which deity do I pay tribute to for a fair voyage? Umberlee, Valkur, Istishia, Shaundakul, and might be good to offer some prayers to Talos so you don't get wracked by storm and to Akadi for good winds, and....the list goes on. Thats why the list has been culled down the 30 or so.
And the culling down is nothing more than a narrowing of vision, a basic disrespect for 20 years of Realms history and tradition where gods were, in fact, unique entities.
Individual (large) tribes of Germanic peoples had their own local deities, and often worshipped specific tripartite goddesses (sometimes, different from tribe to tribe). They were not the same as tripartite deities from India, which partly define the subtle and large differences between the two cultures. Romans and Greeks worshipped similar deities, but were they exactly the same? Are Zeus and Odin the same being, either culturally, in their goals and motives, or in the stories that describe them? How about Ptah and Yahweh?
What we're seeing is nothing more than the Christianization of the Realms. Ao and his "saints". You might like that, I certainly don't. The true polytheism of the Realms was one of the things that made it interesting, and it'll be gone.
Imagine the roleplaying opportunities as a player who worships a local forest goddess moves into another region which has a distinct, very different forest god. That's roleplaying gold! But it has no new place in the "new order" because it's 1) gosh, too complex!, 2) keeps the players on edge about what to expect, and 3) doesn't "jive" with the powers of the core setting, such as it is.
By your (and the designers') logic, why have a Mielikki forest deity and a Silvanus nature deity at the same time? Aren't forests "nature" by definition? Why have separate lake and ocean deities, for that matter, since they are part of nature. Fire, Earth, Air, and Water... all part of nature. Why not just have Silvanus?
Why have both Mask -and- Shar, for that matter?
Very mature.
It wasn't meant to be. From now on, the designers will get the same respect from me that they have shown to the FR setting's long-term fans: none. In fact, they've been dismissive of all logical disagreements with their position. Also very... dogmatic, let's say.
Can you tell me how many people you've gamed with or have seen in your campaigns that revier the deities Akadi, Eldath, Finder, Garagos, Gargauth, Grumbar, Gwaeron Windstrom, Istishia, Larue, Savras, Shiallia, Siamorphe, Ubato, or Ulutiu? If the answer is more than 10 i'll be impressed.
-Doesn't matter. These deities exist to fill a specific "role", however minor and/or insignificant the perception of that role is. Many of these deities are local deities, but are extremely important in their local areas (Imagine Chult without Ubtao, or the Ulutians without Ulutiu!). Someone of them are perceived as minor, but certainly represent a very powerful idea (Finder Wyvernspur with change, and the Elemental deities with their respective elements).
-All that said, in polytheistic cultures such as Faerûn, there are going to be numerous deities, both big and small, important and unimportant, who cover a broad range or ideas, and specific ideas. The Romans and Greek had deities who served as patrons of specific cities, to give an example.
-To remove this is unrealistic and...silly. Why is it that, for the past twenty years or so, there's been no problem with this set up, and then suddenly, now, there is? What happened?
By your (and the designers') logic, why have a Mielikki forest deity and a Silvanus nature deity at the same time? Aren't forests "nature" by definition? Why have separate lake and ocean deities, for that matter, since they are part of nature. Fire, Earth, Air, and Water... all part of nature. Why not just have Silvanus?
-Why bother with Silvanus at all? Forests can be shared domains of the Elemental Deities. As the Greeks liked to do, everything can be broken down into the basic elements. Let's do it here, too!
Can you tell me how many people you've gamed with or have seen in your campaigns that revier the deities Akadi, Eldath, Finder, Garagos, Gargauth, Grumbar, Gwaeron Windstrom, Istishia, Larue, Savras, Shiallia, Siamorphe, Ubato, or Ulutiu? If the answer is more than 10 i'll be impressed. The thing is, most of the above named deities have portfilios that have 1 or more aspects that are the same as greater deities. To me, that's just stupid. Why are there 5 dieties of the forest? I don't know. Well which one has dominance? I don't know. Well which deity do I pay tribute to for a fair voyage? Umberlee, Valkur, Istishia, Shaundakul, and might be good to offer some prayers to Talos so you don't get wracked by storm and to Akadi for good winds, and....the list goes on. Thats why the list has been culled down the 30 or so.
Very mature.
On one hand I could agree, on one hand...forest deity-wise I'd be bored if I had to choose between just Mielikki and Silvanus. Doesn't do much for me. Likewise if I want to play a cleric of the sea I sure don't want to choose Umberlee if I can pick Valkur instead.
Obviously I go back and forth on the idea, because on one hand there's more than a few deities that have never had an impact in my game (e.g., Llirra), on the other hand if it gets cut down too far then some interesting ones get lopped off (e.g., Eilistraee). More than a few should've stayed as demipower servants of higher powers--Gwaeron, for example, should've stayed under Mielikki's wing with not much else mentioned. 60-90 would've been more manageable. Oh well we'll see what it looks like when they've got the book out in August.
Why bother with Silvanus at all? Forests can be shared domains of the Elemental Deities. As the Greeks liked to do, everything can be broken down into the basic elements. Let's do it here, too!
There you go! Why not just have Ao? Those silly humans and non-humans making up deities - pshaw! ;)
Individual (large) tribes of Germanic peoples had their own local deities, and often worshipped specific tripartite goddesses (sometimes, different from tribe to tribe). They were not the same as tripartite deities from India, which partly define the subtle and large differences between the two cultures. Romans and Greeks worshipped similar deities, but were they exactly the same? Are Zeus and Odin the same being, either culturally, in their goals and motives, or in the stories that describe them? How about Ptah and Yahweh?
What we're seeing is nothing more than the Christianization of the Realms. Ao and his "saints". You might like that, I certainly don't. The true polytheism of the Realms was one of the things that made it interesting, and it'll be gone.
Apparently some people didn't find it interesting or unique to have 120+ deities, some with really no difference between the two, in their campiagns. And what of Ao's superiors? If Ao is the overlord of the Deities or "saints" as you call them, what would we call Ao's Overlord?
P.S. The "streamlined" 4e SRD has caused me to lose most (if not all) of my respect for WotC. Whereas I was originally going to explore it to make an informed decision on 4e before purchasing it (a few minutes here and there in a FLGS is not enough time), now I cannot do that. IMO, labeling the 4e SRD an SRD is an insult to the 3e SRD (which thankfully they cannot take away from us).
There you go! Why not just have Ao? Those silly humans and non-humans making up deities - pshaw! ;)
-Great idea.
And no one's stopping you from adding said deities into your own Realm campaigns. But from the looks of it, I don't see you supporting 4e anyways so what's the point of arguing against something your not even going to use? The bickering isn't going to bring back pre-spellplague Realms or reverse the situations that have happend. But please, by all means continue. Your childish rants provide endless seconds of amusement.
-No one is talking about specific campaigns, but the Forgotten Realms in general.
--No one is talking about specific campaigns, but the Forgotten Realms in general.
True, i was pointing out that as a DM you don't have to use canon material and thus, the newer pantheon. Though I hardly think it matters as I don't see Therise using 4e in any sense.
And no one's stopping you from adding said deities into your own Realm campaigns. But from the looks of it, I don't see you supporting 4e anyways so what's the point of arguing against something your not even going to use? The bickering isn't going to bring back pre-spellplague Realms or reverse the situations that have happend. But please, by all means continue. Your childish rants provide endless seconds of amusement.
No one was stopping YOU from ignoring the 'uninteresting' ones in your campaign either.
Sure Im not supporting 4e. But that was something I had to decide on. If the FR had been treated with anything resembling respect by the designers I probably would be supporting the 4e Realms. I realize that demonstrating disapproval wont bring it back but everyone here is entitled to express their pleasure or displeasure with the new setting.
Your attacks on posters arent any more mature than what youre attacking either. Your childish responses also provide endless seconds of amusement. *Shrug* not many of us at all, pro or anti 4e Realms, have demonstrated an overabundance of maturity.
True, i was pointing out that as a DM you don't have to use canon material and thus, the newer pantheon. Though I hardly think it matters as I don't see Therise using 4e in any sense.
-Right. But, if you want to use that caveat, it can be applied retroactively, and all of the things that are being changed for the reasons that have been stated don't need to be done, because each and individual DM can do that themselves.
True, i was pointing out that as a DM you don't have to use canon material and thus, the newer pantheon. Though I hardly think it matters as I don't see Therise using 4e in any sense.
I suppose it's some kind of requirement that I own and use it before I'm allowed to comment on it? Yeesh.
Well, how's this: I've bought nearly every single FR resource in every edition over the past 20+ years of the Forgotten Realms. I -think- that gives me the right to express my displeasure as to what they've done to destroy the diversity and wide adaptability of the setting. Did I use everything from 3.5, or even 2E? No, of course not. But this isn't just the addition of some minor things I can ignore and still be relatively "on page" with other users of the setting.
By the way, feel free to try and tear my arguments apart, but let's refrain from name-calling, please.
Apparently some people didn't find it interesting or unique to have 120+ deities, some with really no difference between the two, in their campiagns. And what of Ao's superiors? If Ao is the overlord of the Deities or "saints" as you call them, what would we call Ao's Overlord?
The DM.
Diffan, you should be more respectful for the small gods of every aspect of existance, lest you **** one off, talks with your computer's god and asks it to constantly crash it :P
lol, true. I should tread more softly.
No one was stopping YOU from ignoring the 'uninteresting' ones in your campaign either.
That's precisely what i've been doing for the past 3 years or so without so much as a complaint because I didn't see the point. But now that the tables are turned and you have to add stuff into your campaign where it's not supported......well all hells break loose.
Sure Im not supporting 4e. But that was something I had to decide on. If the FR had been treated with anything resembling respect by the designers I probably would be supporting the 4e Realms. I realize that demonstrating disapproval wont bring it back but everyone here is entitled to express their pleasure or displeasure with the new setting.
Express all you like but when someone expresses pleasure about the 4gotten Realms well, 10 different people will tell you how much it stinks and a waste of money it is to get it.
Your attacks on posters arent any more mature than what youre attacking either. Your childish responses also provide endless seconds of amusement. *Shrug* not many of us at all, pro or anti 4e Realms, have demonstrated an overabundance of maturity
Not attacks, more of a riposte if you ask me. But your right, what I wrote was out of frustration and I apologize for those comments. Suffice to say, I love the Realms in it's entirety and will continue to enjoy playing in those Realms of both editions.
Can you tell me how many people you've gamed with or have seen in your campaigns that revier the deities Akadi, Eldath, Finder, Garagos, Gargauth, Grumbar, Gwaeron Windstrom, Istishia, Larue, Savras, Shiallia, Siamorphe, Ubato, or Ulutiu? If the answer is more than 10 i'll be impressed.
If the answer is zero, it doesn't mak a difference. They are there for flavor and diversity. It is clear from everything I have read that the designers thought there is just too much for our little minds to grasp. They need to remove 3/4 of the gods in order to stop confusing us.
They should be ashamed
-Right. But, if you want to use that caveat, it can be applied retroactively, and all of the things that are being changed for the reasons that have been stated don't need to be done, because each and individual DM can do that themselves.
That's right. It's a specious argument to say on one hand that DMs cannot deal with 120+ deities because it's "too confusing" and need simplification (which implies that newer DMs are stupid), and on the other hand that DMs who liked the old stuff should "just put it back in to their own campaign" (which implies that older DMs are just being crotchety nay-sayers).
The issue here isn't what DMs can or cannot do, the issue is whether or not the reason for removing deities and making RSEs of this caliber were rational, logical choices that considered the long-term effects on a 20-year-old setting.
That's precisely what i've been doing for the past 3 years or so without so much as a complaint because I didn't see the point. But now that the tables are turned and you have to add stuff into your campaign where it's not supported......well all hells break loose.
That's because there's a -huge- difference between 1) picking and choosing only the elements that one likes for one's own campaign and 2) destroying elements and no longer allowing them as options in the primary setting.
In the past, for 20+ years, it was all about diversity and choices. Now, many -popular- choices are being lopped off and have been made unavailable for those who want to generally follow the primary setting.
If the answer is zero, it doesn't mak a difference. They are there for flavor and diversity. It is clear from everything I have read that the designers thought there is just too much for our little minds to grasp. They need to remove 3/4 of the gods in order to stop confusing us.
They should be ashamed
If they knew that I do all the book keeping in our D&D sessions (currently at level 15) inside my head while keeping the flow of battle, answering rules questions (never failing) and thinking what to do next then they would ask to be locked in a mad house. 500 different gods are less effort than that for me.
Express all you like but when someone expresses pleasure about the 4gotten Realms well, 10 different people will tell you how much it stinks and a waste of money it is to get it.
Which is - of course - nonsense. People who have never played in the Realms before might find that the new setting is just their flagon of mead.
But naturally this is the place where you have to expect feedback from long-time fans. And if you take a setting that's grown for twenty years, a setting for which more material has been published than for pretty much any other setting out there, announce that you'll only publish two books for the new edition (and vaguely promise to leave the rest for a very nebulous D&DI that as of yet hasn't been exactly impressive, even less so if you take WotC's past online ventures into consideration), change it in such a massive way in order to appeal to those who don't like it in a pretty blatant attempt to get everybody and their dog to buy it (which doesn't necessarily seem to include the oldtimers) and thereby undo what has made this setting not only special, but unique, you have to expect harsh reactions. At the end of the day it's about the bottom line - it's always been. Still it's sobering when it's so painfully obvious.
DB
If they knew that I do all the book keeping in our D&D sessions (currently at level 15) inside my head while keeping the flow of battle, answering rules questions (never failing) and thinking what to do next then they would ask to be locked in a mad house. 500 different gods are less effort than that for me.
and if they knew how stupid I was they would make all the classes the same, remove most deities, they would make halflings taller, they would.................
Mentioning FR and Warforged in the same sentence? You do like to live precariously. :P
@LordKarsus:
Evermeet still exists; our new take on the cosmology finally allows us to complete the Sundering. I can't say more than that now.
Accent mine. :D
What was that you were saying over at CK, about how often I'm not right?
Just ribbin' you... I know how you feel about those pointy-eared busy-bodies.
-Interesting. So we should expect Evermeet to have been a piece of The Feywild in 4e?
No, Evermeet IS a piece of the Feywild, shifted in Realmspace by the Sundering Ritual, and hence retroactively creating the very cataclysm that drove the Elves (Eladrin) out of Faerie in the first place. Its part of the Yin-Yang principle - for every action, there is an equal reaction.
Pure Conjecture, BTW, but something I've been saying for months now...
Thank you.
Good to know that those who harp are still going strong. So, their interest in the Zhents has diminished? Are the Zhentarim weakened after the Spellplague?
No, the Zhents are not a primary target for the Harpers anymore, because they now have a mutual enemy... and the Zhents are mercenaries in 4e (at least some of them, as per that now-infamous Realmslore article).
Some Random Musings...
Show
Interesting to note that both the Zhents and Halruaans are Mercs now, and with the Zhents hirable by the 'good' guys, it makes me wonder if whats left of the Halruan Mages have taken sides with the Netherease, from whom they sprung. I suppose they lessened Halruaa's all-pervasive magic AND the Zhents all-pervasive evil for the same exact reason - to make Thay shine (darken?) even more in 4e and standout.
I hate to admit it, but I am curious about the dynamic between Thay and Netheril now - It doesn't suit the new setting to have two BBGs fit the same bill.
Then again, Thay is getting weird... perhaps Netheril will be the 'normal evil', and Thay will be for all those antideluvian-style horrors. Now I see the difference between Evil and Chaotic Evil in the 4e Realms...
But Szass Tam is a Necromancer (or was), and Negative energy (something VERY important to Undead) is tied to the Shadowfel now, as are the Shades... which would make them on the same team, of sorts.
And 'Shadow Creatures' would now be living creatures 'tainted' by death... hmmmm
Don't mind me... I'm just thinking out loud...
I hate to admit it, but I am curious about the dynamic between Thay and Netheril now - It doesn't suit the new setting to have two BBGs fit the same bill.
Then again, Thay is getting weird... perhaps Netheril will be the 'normal evil', and Thay will be for all those antideluvian-style horrors. Now I see the difference between Evil and Chaotic Evil in the 4e Realms...
But Szass Tam is a Necromancer (or was), and Negative energy (something VERY important to Undead) is tied to the Shadowfel now, as are the Shades... which would make them on the same team, of sorts.
And 'Shadow Creatures' would now be living creatures 'tainted' by death... hmmmm
Don't mind me... I'm just thinking out loud...
and if they knew how stupid I was they would make all the classes the same, remove most deities, they would make halflings taller, they would.................
-Give yourself some credit.
That's precisely what i've been doing for the past 3 years or so without so much as a complaint because I didn't see the point. But now that the tables are turned and you have to add stuff into your campaign where it's not supported......well all hells break loose.
-I'm going to use an analogy. Try to follow:
-You have some ice cream. Cookies and cream flavor. You love ice cream, but cookies and cream isn't particularly your favorite flavor. So, you pull out all of the cookie pieces and throw them out, leaving you with the vanilla flavor, and a few tiny specks of what used to be oreos. In the end, that works. This is representative taking things out of the Forgotten Realms that you particularly don't like. Now, we have this cookies and cream ice cream again, but this time, thinking that everyone didn't like those cookie pieces, the oreo bits are removed beforehand, and the ice cream is still packaged as cookies and cream. You love cookies and cream. Now that the ice cream labeled cookies and cream doesn't have those cookies, you have to go out, buy oreos, crumble them up, and add them yourself, hoping you get it right, and those cookies taste just as good as they used to, when they were included in the cookies and cream ice cream. This is representative of having to add in things to the Forgotten Realms that always used to be there. Which is a bigger "offense", a bigger problem?
-Hope that made sense. I think it did. I think...
-Right. But, if you want to use that caveat, it can be applied retroactively, and all of the things that are being changed for the reasons that have been stated don't need to be done, because each and individual DM can do that themselves.
There is no need for a Forgotten Realms setting at all, but WotC wanted to produce a setting compatible with 4e rules based on the old FR, while cleaning up things that some believe had gotten out of hand and alienated potential customers.
I think 120 deities is way to many for a campaign setting and they were right to reduce the number. I like the idea of the deities not being treated as NPCs in adventures, but more as basic principles in the background.Reducing and merging the pantheons is a plus. I'm more interested in the 4e Realms than I was in the 3e or 2e Realms, partly because I thought there were to many deities interfering too directly in the affairs of mortals. For those who prefer the old Realms, the books still exist, and they can still use them as a setting for their campaigns. I would raather see what the new Realms have to offer, unnecessary changes and all.
If some of my ideas about what it will be like prove wrong, so be it. But I look foreward to seeing what is to come.
There is no need for a Forgotten Realms setting at all, but WotC wanted to produce a setting compatible with 4e rules based on the old FR, while cleaning up things that some believe had gotten out of hand and alienated potential customers.
I think 120 deities is way to many for a campaign setting and they were right to reduce the number. I like the idea of the deities not being treated as NPCs in adventures, but more as basic principles in the background.Reducing and merging the pantheons is a plus. I'm more interested in the 4e Realms than I was in the 3e or 2e Realms, partly because I thought there were to many deities interfering too directly in the affairs of mortals. For those who prefer the old Realms, the books still exist, and they can still use them as a setting for their campaigns. I would raather see what the new Realms have to offer, unnecessary changes and all.
If some of my ideas about what it will be like prove wrong, so be it. But I look foreward to seeing what is to come.
-None of this negates, or otherwise changes the statement I made.
-I'm going to use an analogy. Try to follow:
-You have some ice cream. Cookies and cream flavor. You love ice cream, but cookies and cream isn't particularly your favorite flavor. So, you pull out all of the cookie pieces and throw them out, leaving you with the vanilla flavor, and a few tiny specks of what used to be oreos. In the end, that works. This is representative taking things out of the Forgotten Realms that you particularly don't like. Now, we have this cookies and cream ice cream again, but this time, thinking that everyone didn't like those cookie pieces, the oreo bits are removed beforehand, and the ice cream is still packaged as cookies and cream. You love cookies and cream. Now that the ice cream labeled cookies and cream doesn't have those cookies, you have to go out, buy oreos, crumble them up, and add them yourself, hoping you get it right, and those cookies taste just as good as they used to, when they were included in the cookies and cream ice cream. This is representative of having to add in things to the Forgotten Realms that always used to be there. Which is a bigger "offense", a bigger problem?
-Hope that made sense. I think it did. I think...
No, it made sense but i do prefer peanut butter chocolate myself :P. In all seriousness though, the question is who was it a problem for? I don't have the numbers so I can only guess that they cut down the pantheon for a reason. Maybe the larger pantheon was more of a problem than people think, maybe it was a large portion of people who didn't play the Realms in part because of that pantheon. For myself, I think it's better to add, in this case more oreos, and leave the ice cream as is. Then, you can add all sorts of toppings....like gummi-bears, sprinkles, hot fudge..... or other deities in FR case
Don't mind me... I'm just thinking out loud...
Thanks for the reply. And it's interesting to hear, so keep up the thinking.
No, it made sense but i do prefer peanut butter chocolate myself :P.
-Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are a favorite of mine.
I don't have the numbers so I can only guess that they cut down the pantheon for a reason.
-No offense to anyone in particular, but the reasons for doing various things have been...how shall I say, "less than extraordinary", if you catch my drift. ;)
Maybe the larger pantheon was more of a problem than people think, maybe it was a large portion of people who didn't play the Realms in part because of that pantheon. For myself, I think it's better to add, in this case more oreos, and leave the ice cream as is. Then, you can add all sorts of toppings....like gummi-bears, sprinkles, hot fudge..... or other deities in FR case
-Like I said to my sister, I'm not going to like Pokemon anymore, even if they eliminate any of those extraneous Pokemon that have been added to the game after Pokemon Gold/Silver (my favorite ones in the series).
Which they turned into Mint Choclate Chip... I HATE that flavor, but they keep telling me its still made with Cream and sugar, and they still call it Ice Cream...
But whatever... I still have my stash of all my 1e-3e Pralines & Cream... :P
And to move away from the Ice Cream analogies for a sec (because this Fat Man's gettin' mighty hungry)...
I'm sure nearly all of us have only used a handful of deities in our games - Anyone who says they've used (and by that I mean an active part in an adventure arc) all 120 is either lying or insane. (or has been DMing the Realms for 20 years straight without a break).
The problem here is that someone else has now chosen which handful we should use. I don't like others making my choices for me, and I think thats where 4e has struck a nerve (for some).
I never used Umberlee, but I've used Auril... I don't like to use anything that may be touched upon in a novel, so I stick with the 'obscure' stuff. Unfortunetly, the obscure lore was the first thing to go.
I don't even mind them axing Mystra (I didn't exactly hate her, but the death of her and her Weave does solve some extra-planar continuity problems), but killing Eilistraee was big No-No in my book.
The goddess of Drow Salvation was one of the most interesting aspects of the Realms, and set it apart from other campaign worlds. I understand fully why they felt they needed to get rid her (getting back to D&D's 'roots', as it were), but I am also deeply saddened by what I feel is a great loss to the setting.
Mystra's come and Mytra's go, but there will only be one Eilistraee.
There is no need for a Forgotten Realms setting at all, but WotC wanted to produce a setting compatible with 4e rules based on the old FR, while cleaning up things that some believe had gotten out of hand and alienated potential customers.
IMHO what seems to irk many of those who are not happy with the 4e Realms is that things that alienated long-time fans didn't get cleaned up, only things FR detractors didn't like. I've known the Realms for almost twenty years now, and I've never felt that a significant amount of FR players disliked Mystra, for example, or found that she featured too prominently. The gods who caught by far the most flack by FR players were Shar and Cyric - especially Cyric, the most unpopular FR god ever, it seems. Guess who's still as prominent as before, if not even more so? The irony is that these two are even directly responsible for a good deal of the upheaval.
Then there's the justified criticism that it was hard to stay on top of things because of the massive amount of Realmslore that's been published over the years. TSR (and later WotC) wanted you to buy their novels, so they made them canon and put as much Realmslore as possible into them. You wanted to know how this or that event - be it Realms-shaking or not so much - came about, you had to read the novels. Had TSR / WotC continued the timeline by (*ahem* indexed) sourcebooks you can easily browse when you're looking for a special information, no problem. (GHotR is the kind of product they should have published at the start of 3e, not at the end of it. Definitive versions of OOP supplements, a gazetteer to keep you up to date, that's what I'd call useful source material. But of course, novels are cheaper to produce, and they sell comparatively better.) Novels aren't browsed as easily, and in many cases they were the only products that detailed important events or places. Guess what? No sourcebooks anymore, novels still are canon.
And what about the infamous über-NPCs? Yes, there were many of those, and I find it easy to picture a considerable amount of them as authors' darlings. Nevertheless, the most hated NPCs have to be Drizzt and Elminster, hands down. Guess who's still around to sell novels?
To get back on topic: If reducing the number of gods is a plus in your book, no problem. That's the way most settings handle religion. But those gamers who like their setting (and its cultures) as complex as possible, who like a plethora of gods about which tons of material have been published, are SOOL and have nowhere to turn to. Whereas the FR once did things unlike any other setting - for better or for worse -, now it plays things safe. After reading about the changes - and especially about the design philosophy behind them - I'm wondering how the Realms is supposed to stand out from the competition in the year it's got left.
DB
PS: Oh dear, this message board is more unstable than plutonium...
2E Realms: one scoop Pralines & Cream, one scoop Mint Chocolate Chip
3E Realms: three scoops of ice cream, your choice of 31 flavors, but you can skip and get only one or two scoops if you're on a diet, or put it in a dish if you don't like the cone.
4E Realms: Bacon and Anchovies Ice Cream that -smells- like Pralines & Cream, and is advertised as such.
:P
Problem; you equate anyone who don't like the Realms as 'hating' it. Problem is indeed, because a significant % is made of people who GAVE the Realms a chance, or used to play in it, and dropped it because of it's problems. Or heard about the problems.
And a lot of hardcore fans speak... but is that % of the base the majority?
4e realms; aspartame instead of sugar (and bio foodies rage?)
doesn't that cause **** leakage.
4e realms; aspartame instead of sugar (and bio foodies rage?)
Problem; you equate anyone who don't like the Realms as 'hating' it. Problem is indeed, because a significant % is made of people who GAVE the Realms a chance, or used to play in it, and dropped it because of it's problems. Or heard about the problems.
And a lot of hardcore fans speak... but is that % of the base the majority?
Lets turn the question around, are all the whiners who were not on board before that are happy with these ridiculous changes, the majority? Only the sales figures will tell the tale. You could come up with stats to prove your point, I can come up with stats to prove mine. In the end, its all about the sales...
**** leakage.
and let us (the people generally interested in the 4e FR) ask our questions without having to wade through page after page of crap to find our answers?
Thanks.
Question; Will we be seeing Regional feats in the new FR books?
-Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are a favorite of mine.
yummy...peanut butter cups are yummy
I feel I've been very patient with some pretty hostile posts over the last few months, but I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns. There really isn't much point in me coming here simply to provide a nice, visible target for people to one-up each other with the purity of their anger. I'm here because I want to be accessible to people who sincerely want to ask what we're up to and why. I'm not here to be pelted by rotten tomatoes -- and in fact it's clearly NOT in the company's interest to provide a platform to the folks who want to throw 'em.
So: If you've got an honest question to ask, I'll try to answer it. But I've had it with the sniping, the insults, and the hostility. If it keeps up, I'll have the mods kill the thread and I'll leave. Better that than what's been going on here lately.
-That said, with the entire debate about the Forgotten Realms logo: Is it actually on the back cover? Would you know why this is? I've heard "rumors" that that's where it is, but I'm not sure if I should believe them or not.
Just curious, folks, has anyone taken the Q's and responses here and put them in a FAQ so people can check there first before asking? Might be a good thing to do.
Like that 4E = the 4th thread.
18DELTA :P
(...) I'm not here to be pelted by rotten tomatoes -- and in fact it's clearly NOT in the company's interest to provide a platform to the folks who want to throw 'em.
These aren't technically rotten tomatoes, they are post-Spellplague super-cool cerulean tomatoes. With spellscars. And they were grown on floating island motes turned into greenhouses, which are run by gnomes who now worship Chauntea. :P
So: If you've got an honest question to ask, I'll try to answer it. But I've had it with the sniping, the insults, and the hostility. If it keeps up, I'll have the mods kill the thread and I'll leave. Better that than what's been going on here lately.
I'm sorry that you feel personally targeted.
Here's an honest question: how do the designers, generally speaking, feel about the reception of 4E Realms on the boards so far?
-I say we close this thread and start a new one after the FRCG is released. It can be The One and Only " Ask the Realms authors/designers thread" #4 ;) :P :D
Like that 4E = the 4th thread.
18DELTA :P
You know 18DELTA, I agree.
Maybe if the thread is shut down it will give those of us that really love the Realms(old or new) a chance to talk it out in threads designed for it. Hopefully the haters will find greener pastures by the time the 4E Realms come out.
Bel
Problem; you equate anyone who don't like the Realms as 'hating' it. Problem is indeed, because a significant % is made of people who GAVE the Realms a chance, or used to play in it, and dropped it because of it's problems. Or heard about the problems.
I, for example, played in the 1e and 2e Realms and the start of 3e. I gave up half a dozen years ago, and am now coming back for 4e. There was too much canon, too many deities, and the deities were too active for my taste. I want more mortal concerns, unusual places, social and political motivations, adventure, interactions between races, etc. The deities should be in the background, not pivotal to the adventures.
I believe there is a market for the new FR, even if it doesn't include a number of those intrenched in the old FR. They still have their books and can continue with what they had, advancing it as they wish.
They can stick with there established mish-mash of flavors. I'll go for a more selective set of basic flavors, with some new ones added; I can mix and add extra touches to my taste as the mood takes me.
As for diversity there were exactly thirty deities described in the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. These deites were not described in any great detail but mostly skimmed over giving people that were at that time new to the setting (like me) absolutely no useful information except that a lot of them had silly symbols and holy weapons. Of course there was a long list of deities with their portfolios and domains and whatnot as well but that was even more useless. If they actually take the time to describe 30 deities in some detail in the new book (including how people actually go about worshiping them or what their actual ideologies are instead of what domains they have and what their holy weapon is. Shurikens, whips and chakrams anyone?) that is actually an improvement over the last edition.
Just because there was actually a book putting things into more detail later and adding anything but a single statline to minor deities later people seem to remember the last first release as a lot better than it was. They spent about the same amount of space in the book statting out one of the aforementioned uber NPCs (Elminster) in a way as they did describing the godesses of Agriculture and Love and Culture. With quite a lot about the personality of the goddesses in question and quite little about how their mortal non cleric worshipers actually lead their lives and what rules they should abide by.
Not saying that the new realms will be perfect. Not saying the old realms weren't better than the new realms will be. Just saying the old realms sure as hell wasn't perfect from the get go. It took quite a lot of books for them in the last edition to just get into any kind of detail about things. It will probably take them a lot of DDI releases to get into detail about all things in the realms in this edition as well.
Either way the arguments about how things were better before are redundant since this is a thread where you ask questions about what the author knows and wants to share and not where he has to defend decisions that might not even have been his in the first place. Now in that vein. On to my questions for today. :D
First one is an easy yes or no question. Will Ilmater still be around? Maybe as a saint of one of the other deities?
Second question. Will you spend more time describing what you are supposed to do if you are a worshipper of the gods than you did in previous decisions. Chauntea for example struck me as a very big deity as far as her portfolio, divine rank and possible base of worshipers went. Still i had no idea what her worshipers were supposed to think about such basics as distribution of wealth, defense of ones home territories, other faiths with contradictory views, (besides the evil ones) marriage, midwifery etc. I am since this is a role playing game not expecting to see all my questions answered but it would be nice to know if the chapter on the different deities that clearly influence everyone in the settings thinking and behavior (or else the wall, if that is still around) will give them more than one column each of description?
P.S. Forgive any typos or grammatical errors. English isn't my first language and I'm a bit tired right now.
the moon elves, suun elves and star elves, will they look like the eldarin, or will they look like what their descriptions stated in races of faerun and UE?
-They will continue to look like they look like in previously mentioned sources. For all intents and purposes, everything about them will be the same, but they will now use "Eladrin" stats.
-They will continue to look like they look like in previously mentioned sources. For all intents and purposes, everything about them will be the same, but they will now use "Eladrin" stats.
Which don't reflect how those three elf subraces are. Now they are all going to have +2 DEX (Sun Elves and Start Elves aren't as dexterous as Moon Elves) and +2 INT (Neither Moon nor Star Elves are as intelligent and focused on the mind as Sun Elves).
Which don't reflect how those three elf subraces are. Now they are all going to have +2 DEX (Sun Elves and Start Elves aren't as dexterous as Moon Elves) and +2 INT (Neither Moon nor Star Elves are as intelligent and focused on the mind as Sun Elves).
-That's what happens when you go from ruleset to ruleset to ruleset.
So here's a question: any chance of seeing any revisions for the Cormyr/Shadowdale/Anauroch adventures for 4th edition? They were released pretty much at the end of 3e, so I haven't had a chance to run them yet. Some of the encounters in them are tricky to implement with current 4th edition rules.
There is one exception worth noting: eye color will probably match the core game eladrin eye color. (I lost the argument with the story team/art directors on that one.) It's a cosmetic detail, but I'm just letting you know so you won't be surprised when you see an illustration of a moon elf or sun elf with white-less eyes. The plane of Faerie's conjunction with Abeir-Toril must have "turned on" a fey switch in those elves who had the strongest faerie heritage in their blood, and it shows.
the moon elves, suun elves and star elves, will they look like the eldarin, or will they look like what their descriptions stated in races of faerun and UE?
As far as more time describing how characters should act as worshippers of particular gods? Not really any more than you saw in the 3rd Ed. FRCS. It's primarily a space issue, at least for the campaign guide. Down the road on DDi, we might explore some of that at more length. A Faiths and Avatars-style treatment for a deity or two might make a great online article.
On to my questions for today. :D
First one is an easy yes or no question. Will Ilmater still be around? Maybe as a saint of one of the other deities?
Second question. Will you spend more time describing what you are supposed to do if you are a worshipper of the gods than you did in previous decisions. Chauntea for example struck me as a very big deity as far as her portfolio, divine rank and possible base of worshipers went. Still i had no idea what her worshipers were supposed to think about such basics as distribution of wealth, defense of ones home territories, other faiths with contradictory views, (besides the evil ones) marriage, midwifery etc. I am since this is a role playing game not expecting to see all my questions answered but it would be nice to know if the chapter on the different deities that clearly influence everyone in the settings thinking and behavior (or else the wall, if that is still around) will give them more than one column each of description?
P.S. Forgive any typos or grammatical errors. English isn't my first language and I'm a bit tired right now.
Keep that in mind when you do any DDi articles (which I hope you will have a hand in, Rich). ;)
There is one exception worth noting: eye color will probably match the core game eladrin eye color. (I lost the argument with the story team/art directors on that one.) It's a cosmetic detail, but I'm just letting you know so you won't be surprised when you see an illustration of a moon elf or sun elf with white-less eyes. The plane of Faerie's conjunction with Abeir-Toril must have "turned on" a fey switch in those elves who had the strongest faerie heritage in their blood, and it shows.
Wow.
hell, if thats all they did, I'd dance a jig.
To be honest, with all the major changes, is eye color really even worth worrying about?
hell, if thats all they did, I'd dance a jig.
No, but it's like the difference between 1 and 1.000000000000000000001. The later number is bigger, even if by little.
I think concentrating on the religous aspects in 4e, rather then the Gods themselves, is far more conducise to running a great game.
Keep that in mind when you do any DDi articles (which I hope you will have a hand in, Rich). ;)
I concur. Different aspects of one religion would be enjoyed by myself.
There is a fun Undermountain thread somewhere on the boards. I would love to see much on this area in DDI but I do not need it fully mapped out. Hopefully it will be made a DM friendly place where anything can be placed in it to help with the DMS game/story. We don't have to see maps on every 29 levels anymore ;) .
Yep, Ilmater is still considered one of the major deities and gets the full-on description in the 4e FRCG.
As far as more time describing how characters should act as worshippers of particular gods? Not really any more than you saw in the 3rd Ed. FRCS. It's primarily a space issue, at least for the campaign guide. Down the road on DDi, we might explore some of that at more length. A Faiths and Avatars-style treatment for a deity or two might make a great online article.
I know now what I want to write
Generally, the sun/moon/star elves retain their appearance from previous editions. Sun elves have bronzed skin tones, moon elves are pale, etc. I look at the change from "sun elf" to "eladrin" as a minor adjustment in nomenclature to keep up with the D&D core rules, not a serious re-envisioning of the race.
There is one exception worth noting: eye color will probably match the core game eladrin eye color. (I lost the argument with the story team/art directors on that one.) It's a cosmetic detail, but I'm just letting you know so you won't be surprised when you see an illustration of a moon elf or sun elf with white-less eyes. The plane of Faerie's conjunction with Abeir-Toril must have "turned on" a fey switch in those elves who had the strongest faerie heritage in their blood, and it shows.
can you tell them
oooh gross for me?
I know now what I want to write
LOL...
I guess under the "One rules to rule them all" mantra, you'll be needing to find a new venue. :P
Looking forward to anything you produce, BTW, but I will miss your Splatbook adaption articles.
I noticed that some of the art in the core Monster Manual was reused 3.5 art. Do you know if the FRPG or FRCG will have all new art, or will there be repeats here as well?
(if this has already been answered, could someone point me in the right direction?)
Thanks!
None come to mind at the moment, but I don't have the manuscript in front of me and I might be overlooking someone.
Rich, with all due respect, I thought it was stated here that there were a few new deities coming to the setting, it's just that you couldn't tell us about them yet.
Don't mind me, I haven't been to this thread in a few days.
Can you give any hints or info on what repercussions Cyric's imprisonment has had on his power/worhipers?
also,
Can I take it that the gods personal domains (ie. The Supreme Throne, etc.) are now floating in the astral sea like deity domains in core? Sorry if this has been answered already.
and lastly
I guess this applies to more than just FR, but in general, can you give a rough estimate on how big/small the gods dominions in the astral sea are? I know that at one time you said that the Abyss in the Elemental Chaos was big like Jupiter (like 80,000 miles or somesuch), and I know that the dominions are not infinite, sooo, where does that put them?
Thanks for any/all/ no answers;)
Looking forward the the Realms!
As for diversity there were exactly thirty deities described in the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. These deites were not described in any great detail but mostly skimmed over giving people that were at that time new to the setting (like me) absolutely no useful information except that a lot of them had silly symbols and holy weapons. Of course there was a long list of deities with their portfolios and domains and whatnot as well but that was even more useless. If they actually take the time to describe 30 deities in some detail in the new book (including how people actually go about worshiping them or what their actual ideologies are instead of what domains they have and what their holy weapon is. Shurikens, whips and chakrams anyone?) that is actually an improvement over the last edition.
You mean like what they did in 2E?:P
Generally, the sun/moon/star elves retain their appearance from previous editions. Sun elves have bronzed skin tones, moon elves are pale, etc. I look at the change from "sun elf" to "eladrin" as a minor adjustment in nomenclature to keep up with the D&D core rules, not a serious re-envisioning of the race.
There is one exception worth noting: eye color will probably match the core game eladrin eye color. (I lost the argument with the story team/art directors on that one.) It's a cosmetic detail, but I'm just letting you know so you won't be surprised when you see an illustration of a moon elf or sun elf with white-less eyes. The plane of Faerie's conjunction with Abeir-Toril must have "turned on" a fey switch in those elves who had the strongest faerie heritage in their blood, and it shows.
Thanks for the information! I was discussing the "pupilless eladrin" with a few people on Candlekeep, and we were wondering what the Realms "eladrin" would look like.
I think concentrating on the religous aspects in 4e, rather then the Gods themselves, is far more conducise to running a great game.
I agree with that basic principle, if not most of the deity changes to the Realms. For example, just because I'm POed about Mystra, Eilistraee, etc. doesn't mean I think gods should be anthromorphized characters and that novels should focus on them and not mortals.
In the preview material, I saw a great (and for me, inspirational) picture of a female tiefling fighter wielding what I believe was called a "dire blade/sword" in 3E--an exotic weapon that basically looks like a pole with a sword on each end of it. I was a bit sad that such a blade was not to be found in the recently released core rulebooks. I was wondering, are there plans to release information about weapons like that, and if so, do you have any idea of when we might see it?
If the answer is no, would you be willing to give your opinion about how to make/implement such a weapon in 4E? Thanks in advance.
If the answer is no, would you be willing to give your opinion about how to make/implement such a weapon in 4E? Thanks in advance.
I am not Rich, but my guess would be to use the stats of two shortswords and the rules for fighting with two weapons.
Perhaps give it a bonus vs cavalry, if properly braced for such.
Also, consider calling it a Tiefling Dire Blade - if it has the racial descriptor, Tieflings will get proficiency with it for free.
Sorry - didn't mean to field Rich's question, just offering my opinion. ;)
Atticus, do you have the GHotR? It mentions how only the Greater Powers are able to maintain their realms in the aftermath of Mystra's death. Since the lesser powers couldn't then they thus had to hop onboard...so likely fewer deific domains floating about the Astral Sea.
Which brings up an interesting question but not a critical one:
With Mystra's death, her domain dissolved. What happened to all the souls that resided there? Swept back into the proverbial 'river of souls' and reborn somewhere, scooped up, or?
Well considering Orcus was worshipped in Vaasa I'd imagine that buggernut coming back with a vengeance at least cult-wise. And with Asmodeus's connection to Gargauth (who's been sponsoring the Knights of the Shield) maybe Asmo will cut out the middle man and make it is bonafide proxy of his? Pure speculation.
Atticus, do you have the GHotR? It mentions how only the Greater Powers are able to maintain their realms in the aftermath of Mystra's death. Since the lesser powers couldn't then they thus had to hop onboard...so likely fewer deific domains floating about the Astral Sea.
Which brings up an interesting question but not a critical one:
With Mystra's death, her domain dissolved. What happened to all the souls that resided there? Swept back into the proverbial 'river of souls' and reborn somewhere, scooped up, or?
Yes! What does happen to all the souls of Gods that have been killed or demoted? (as my understanding is a lot of gods are no longer gods now but powerful outsiders???) So what happens to all thier petitioners and all that...
And if you could let me know if my fav god Mask is still around? That would be cool > : )
Can we agree to improve the climate on this board?
Rich,
I'm very sorry you've had to put up with this. I've started a thread on the Community Business forum that asks G0 to look into the issue.
I've always appreciated your taking the time to answer our questions and hope we can keep you here as long as possible.
With the 4E Realms coming, you're the best resource we have for help in using the new setting.
-M.
Perhaps it's time to re-start this thread?
Aha! So you are the mysterious VCL (Volunteer Community Lead)
Are you the only one of your kind?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;;
Maybe it is time to restart it, with refined (and more strict) ground rules?
As for me, honestly, from what I know of 4e and the 4eFR, it certainly isn't for me, but that doesn't mean its not for someone else, and more power to them if they can find enjoyment in it. WotC is not in the business of making us happy and fulfilled as individuals, its in the business of making a product they feel will appeal to the most people possible. We're not the audience they're going for, and to that I say to them, good luck, hope it works out, and thanks for previous efforts I've enjoyed.
And with that, I'm probably going to be leaving these boards for the foreseeable future, as I've better ways to become frustrated and annoyed with the world...
And with that, I'm probably going to be leaving these boards for the foreseeable future, as I've better ways to become frustrated and annoyed with the world...
And this is the reasonable response. If you don't like it by now, you probably have made your point. Stop beating a dead horse and move the negativity elsewhere. At some point the moderators should just delete any post on this particular thread that is not directly related to the actual topic. For all intented purposes, that is threadcrapping and we all know it. And the fact that several prominent users of this forum keep doing it casts a foul shadow on the entire forum, however active it may be in irrelevant banter.
Yes! What does happen to all the souls of Gods that have been killed or demoted? (as my understanding is a lot of gods are no longer gods now but powerful outsiders???) So what happens to all thier petitioners and all that...
And if you could let me know if my fav god Mask is still around? That would be cool > : )
I believe Rich answered this awhile back, the souls of Mystara's worshipers were either reassigned to Corellon, Selune, Shar or sent back to the Fugue Plain to await Kelemvor's Judgement. Or something like that. Since lesser deities dwell upon a greater deities domain their worshipers more than likely go with them. Same for Exarchs, I would think.
Bel
And this is the reasonable response. If you don't like it by now, you probably have made your point. Stop beating a dead horse and move the negativity elsewhere. At some point the moderators should just delete any post on this particular thread that is not directly related to the actual topic. For all intented purposes, that is threadcrapping and we all know it. And the fact that several prominent users of this forum keep doing it casts a foul shadow on the entire forum, however active it may be in irrelevant banter.
I agree, I also think to ask Rich a question then to vent your anger on his answers is very unfair.
I would like to say thanks Rich for your answers so far and I hope you will stay and answer more for us.
Perhaps it's time to re-start this thread?
-No, now is not the time. If the thread is restarted, then this one needs to be unstickied, and the new one stickied. Being as that this thread is still a large resource for answers about all of the 4e stuff, that wouldn't be a smart move, letting it slip into oblivion. Once August hits, and the two new books are released, many of the questions/answers here become less relevant. Then is the time to start a new thread.
FR may have lost its luster for me, but I still have a major interest in it, weather I use it or not - I can't just toss away twenty years of devotion (or all those purchases).
And it's always the same people saying the same things - I think all the regulars here know each other's opinions by now, so can we PLEASE get back to what matters - THE LORE!
If you decided that both ends were like longswords, and you charged the character a Weapon Proficiency feat (it would pretty much be a superior weapon, I think), you wouldn't be far off.
Rich, I'm going to ask another question about a weapon.
In the preview material, I saw a great (and for me, inspirational) picture of a female tiefling fighter wielding what I believe was called a "dire blade/sword" in 3E--an exotic weapon that basically looks like a pole with a sword on each end of it. I was a bit sad that such a blade was not to be found in the recently released core rulebooks. I was wondering, are there plans to release information about weapons like that, and if so, do you have any idea of when we might see it?
If the answer is no, would you be willing to give your opinion about how to make/implement such a weapon in 4E? Thanks in advance.
I believe Rich answered this awhile back, the souls of Mystara's worshipers were either reassigned to Corellon, Selune, Shar or sent back to the Fugue Plain to await Kelemvor's Judgement. Or something like that. Since lesser deities dwell upon a greater deities domain their worshipers more than likely go with them. Same for Exarchs, I would think.
Bel
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKBrowncoat
Yes! What does happen to all the souls of Gods that have been killed or demoted? (as my understanding is a lot of gods are no longer gods now but powerful outsiders???) So what happens to all thier petitioners and all that...
And if you could let me know if my fav god Mask is still around? That would be cool > : )
For some reason, that just made me laugh - I imagined 'projects' springing up in the Fugue, with the 'Demons' and 'Devils' acting like gangs, recruiting new members.
One Petitioner to another: "Yo Gee, it ain't easy growing up the hood".
Response: "Cheese it! 5-0... theres a Maraut cruising down the block, holmes..."
The Fugue Plane just became the Astral's 'Ghetto'.
I'm sorry for that... it just popped into my head. :D
"D&D In the Hood
Coming in 2009,
Starring Steven Colbert, Vin Deisel, and some Guy You've Likely Never Heard Of!
It's like 'Leprechan in the Hood' only 100% geekier!"
[/announcervoice]
Hmmmm... would make a great article on the Fugue - Petitoners abandoned when their 'Afterlife' fell apart, some looking for salvation of any sort (picture dime-store churches popping up everywhere), while others are just looking to survive.
Add in the Fiends cruising for Souls, offering 'irresistable deals', and Kelemvor's Marauts patroling the whole thing (if Kelemvor is even still around)...
Kind of like Newark, NJ...
I think that has a LOT of potential as an adventuring site.
In Fallcrest several gods are represented, but which FR gods would be there?
House of the Sun: Temple of Pelor with shrines to Kord and Bahamut.
Temple of Eratis: Eratis with shrines to Moradin and Ioun
Moonsong Temple: Temple of Sehanine with shrines to Corellon, Melora and Avandra.
It would be really nice of you to he with this. Thanks
As for the god conversion, you could probably get some help from the Shadowfel Conversion for ideas.
I made a Map showing Fallcrest in FR, as per Rich's excellent suggestion.
As for the god conversion, you could probably get some help from the Shadowfel Conversion for ideas.
I have seen your map, very good work, but I can´t use it since I put Fallcrest north east of Wheelon and the KotS in the mountain range close to sembia. This means that I can´t use the map of the vale but I prefer Cormyr.
I currently have a paladin (of Torm since we weren´t shure about the other gods and he´s a great god for paladins), a wizard and dwarf fighter.
I have a rogue joining the game soon and I plan to bring him in as a purple dragon highnight (I read about on in a Ed Greenwood story, so I guess I can assume that they are still existing) and so Cormyr fits really well.
IIRC they exchanged Orcus for Shar and Bahamut for Selune in the realms conversion of KotS and since they are enemies it fits well, but I can´t really do the same thing to the temples.
can we have this thread turned into a FAQ, and then have the thread restarted?
You know, I think it was just a bit rude of people to discuss restarting the thread when I still had unanswered questions (I wasn't the only one, either).
I agree with LK's opinion, btw.
For the moment, it's mostly artistic vision; I don't think we've seriously examined double-weapons in 4e yet. In 3e, of course, they worked much like fighting with a weapon in each hand. In 4e, I'd imagine we would use a similar approach--which means that you don't get extra attacks with the "off-hand" end unless you use a power designed for two-weapon fighting, like some of the ranger attacks. And I suppose some of the feats for the two-weapon wielders would work just fine.
If you decided that both ends were like longswords, and you charged the character a Weapon Proficiency feat (it would pretty much be a superior weapon, I think), you wouldn't be far off.
Thanks Rich, I appreciate the answer (as always).
Markus and Hawkins, I appreciate your suggestions as well.
You know, I think it was just a bit rude of people to discuss restarting the thread when I still had unanswered questions (I wasn't the only one, either).
I agree with LK's opinion, btw.
Well actually it would be a very interresting idea to put all questions and answer from Rich on the same page so one could use a browser search to find his answer.
That way interrested seachers would no longer have to read several hundred pages, but instead just seach for their topic, considering that Gleemax could be easily used for this I really like the idea.
Can we agree to improve the climate on this board?[/board] This will take time. A lot of people are passionate, and upset with many of the changes that were made to D&D. the realms in particular. This anger isn't going to evaporate over night. In some cases people need someone to vent, your responsible for some of those changes, and that makes you a good target. Sometimes this venting helps, other times it doesn't. Either way, eventually people will get tired of venting, and move on. Maybe they'll come around and continue with 4e, or maybe they'll play something. Either you did your best, and you know that, and I know that. So you have nothing to be ashamed about, but just remember not everybody has the same tastes as you, and will not everybody is going to like what you did.
Either way, the climate on these boards is going to be hostile for the foreseeable future. It isn't your fault, or the people who angry fault either. It just is. Try not to take it personally.I feel I've been very patient with some pretty hostile posts over the last few months, but I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns. There really isn't much point in me coming here simply to provide a nice, visible target for people to one-up each other with the purity of their anger. I'm here because I want to be accessible to people who sincerely want to ask what we're up to and why. I'm not here to be pelted by rotten tomatoes -- and in fact it's clearly NOT in the company's interest to provide a platform to the folks who want to throw 'em.
This really isn't helping anything, or anyone. All this is going to do is anger more people. One of the downsides of being a company face is that you also become a legitimate target when people are ****** off. You really have two options when it comes to this, take it and smile, or don't interact with the customer base. No people shouldn't be hurling insults at you, or blaming you everything that is wrong with FR or anything else. But they are going to anyways. And whining about it on the company forums, make you, and WotC look extremely unprofessional.
I have worked in CS before. For a major cell phone during a merger with another company. It's not the same thing, but the people were just as angry. Yaa I got swore at, I got death threats, I've been called things i would never have imagined were insults. One person even accused me, personally, of ruining her families entire xmas. But I wasn't allowed to tell them what i thought of them, or how it wasn't my job to take their crap. (It technically wasn't, I was there to fix their phone, and answer questions.) All i could do was say that I'm sorry they felt that way. And that pretty much all you can do with a raging customer, emphasize with them, and try honestly. You don't like when the waves knock you over. But if they want something you can't give them, or just want someone to vent at, then really the only you can do is apologize that they feel that way, but what they want isn't going to be changed.
If it gets hard on you, then go have cigarette, or whatever, and talk to other people at work who have to face the something. Trade stories about how dumb the customers are, or how stupid their requests are. laugh it off, and laugh at them. But never, ever let the customer see or hear about it. Just me it will help.
On the other hand, if you can't handle the heat then it is time to leave the kitchen. there's no shame in that. It takes a lot to be a lightning rod of hate. But if your going to stand up and provide a face for your company, then do so, and take the good with the bad. And yes other faces for WotC take it too. Don't believe me? head on down to Mark Rosewater's office, ask him if you can some of his fan mail. In fact I recommend that every single person who is contemplating being a face for WotC D&D, this include Scott too, should shadow Mark for a month while he talks to the M:TG fans.So: If you've got an honest question to ask, I'll try to answer it. But I've had it with the sniping, the insults, and the hostility. If it keeps up, I'll have the mods kill the thread and I'll leave. Better that than what's been going on here lately.
Shutting down this thread will only provide a victory for those whom are hurling insults at you. Worse it will provide a flash point for those who love 4e, but hate the negativity, and rallying cry to those who want to disrupt the company anyway they can. In short it will make things worse. The best thing to do would be to wait out the storm, becuase you sure as hell aren't going to make it dissipate. But if you can't handle the wind, then it is time to go back inside.
Again this isn't aimed at you personally, more at everyone who is trying to be a face for WotC right now.
Question; Are any FR super adventures in the works or might become so?
Thanks in advance.
Along those lines, I have a few questions regarding the 4e Realms redesign.
1) Many of the changes we've heard about so far seem to accomplish two objectives at once, discarding unused/suboptimal aspects of the setting (like Maztica) while simultaneously updating the Realms to 4th edition standards (like introducing the dragonborn). Was this a conscious decision on the part of the design team? If so, are there 4e-transition issues that you think the design team handled particularly well, turning what could have been a liability into an asset for the setting?
2) What implications does the new 4e alignment system have for the Realms? At least at first glance, good-versus-good and evil-versus-evil rivalries seem relatively common in the 3e Realms, which doesn't mesh very well with the 4th edition credo that good guys are supposed to team up with good guys to fight bad guys. Are we going to see a diminution of good-versus-good disagreements (for example the Harpers) and evil-versus-evil disagreements (for example the Blood War)? If so, is there a danger that this might over-simplify the setting?
3) It's interesting that the portion of the Realms most familiar to non-FR gamers, the Sword Coast, is largely untouched by the Spellplague. Was this a deliberate design decision to help new gamers enter the setting? Or was it merely coincidence?
4) Will the races and classes introduced in the upcoming FR Player's Guide be reprinted in the PH2?
Thanks for listening!
Yes the changes to the Realms are a bit extreme and to some seem chaotic or nonsensical, but they're going to happen, they should be sending the FRCS to the printers for typesetting soon, if not already. We can discuss, debate or argue with one another, but we should respect each other's opinions.
One way to do this is if you disagree with someone, don't spend pages and pages of post trying to convince them you're right or they're wrong or whatever. Especially if it's the same point over and over again, just agree to disagree and move on, create a thread for the discussion if you must, don't keep cluttering up this one.
Just respect each other.
Bel
Yep, I did, and yep, that's pretty much what I said. I would expect that the souls inhabiting Dweomerheart returned to the Fugue Plane, where Kelemvor then re-assigned them... or just made room for them. The Fugue Plane isn't all that bad of a place anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKBrowncoat
Yes! What does happen to all the souls of Gods that have been killed or demoted? (as my understanding is a lot of gods are no longer gods now but powerful outsiders???) So what happens to all thier petitioners and all that...
And if you could let me know if my fav god Mask is still around? That would be cool > : )
Thanks to Bel and Rich for reiterating the answer...very interesting, nice to know the cosmos has a Plan B for what happens to those souls.
Question; Are any FR super adventures in the works or might become so?
I'm not Rich, but I believe it's been made clear (even in this thread) that there is only one FR adventure planned/in the works so far. That doesn't mean there couldn't be more in the future.
1) Many of the changes we've heard about so far seem to accomplish two objectives at once, discarding unused/suboptimal aspects of the setting (like Maztica) while simultaneously updating the Realms to 4th edition standards (like introducing the dragonborn). Was this a conscious decision on the part of the design team?
...
3) It's interesting that the portion of the Realms most familiar to non-FR gamers, the Sword Coast, is largely untouched by the Spellplague. Was this a deliberate design decision to help new gamers enter the setting? Or was it merely coincidence?
Again, I'm not Rich, but I think I can answer these questions, as they've been addressed already, within this thread and without.
The answer to both questions is yes, both changes you mention (among many others) were done with intent, not by coincidence.
Yes the changes to the Realms are a bit extreme and to some seem chaotic or nonsensical, but they're going to happen, they should be sending the FRCS to the printers for typesetting soon, if not already.
I mentioned something to this effect in the Ascendency of the Last thread. The FRCG is probably already at the printer. Ascendency of the Last (and any other novel that people might take issue with) has already been published and is canon. We can discuss what we like or what we don't like until we're blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that much of this stuff is already set in stone, so to speak.
One way to do this is if you disagree with someone, don't spend pages and pages of post trying to convince them you're right or they're wrong or whatever. Especially if it's the same point over and over again, just agree to disagree and move on, create a thread for the discussion if you must, don't keep cluttering up this one.
Just respect each other.
Indeed, that's pretty much my personal policy. I usually give my opinion and then move on.
I have seen your map, very good work, but I can´t use it since I put Fallcrest north east of Wheelon and the KotS in the mountain range close to sembia. This means that I can´t use the map of the vale but I prefer Cormyr.
Just checked the Map found HERE - that goes with Cormyr:The Tearing of the Waeve - did you pick that locale because you are also running that (or recently have)?
Anyhow, I was just wondering where you would place Hammerfast using that location - I rejected that region myself because a Dwarven Town is not easy to place there-abouts.
1) Yes, it was deliberate. Given the set of "endpoints" we wanted to reach, coming up with the smallest number of change events to reach those endpoints seemed like the best way to go. For example, rather than have one mechanism to explain the change in cleric magic, another to explain the change in wizard magic, and a third to explain why spell schools aren't around anymore, we'd rather have one change for how magic works. I know it's a controversial call, but I think the death of Mystra/Spellplague is actually a pretty solid explanation. Mystra served as the "interface" or "OS" of magic; removing her means that mortals have had to reinvent their own OS for magic, and that explains a lot of the 4e spellcasting changes. I like that answer better than "magic changed because Mystra willed it so," which would seem to be the only other alternative available.
2) I wouldn't read too much into the core alignment rules as related to established Realms relations/stories. The take on the Blood War we're going with now (and you guys haven't seen it yet) is that the Blood War is indeed still unresolved, but has currently simmered down to a sullen "cold war" in which demons and devils may or may not skirmish with each other. I think that's a decent situation for the "Realms Blood War" to be in, as well.
3) Yes, that was deliberate -- but more for the sake of existing fans than new ones. There are places where you could say "the Realms ain't the Realms if XX isn't there anymore," and places like that, we treated with a light hand.
4) We don't have any plans to do that. I think they will be incorporated in the Rules Compendium, though.
Along those lines, I have a few questions regarding the 4e Realms redesign.
1) Many of the changes we've heard about so far seem to accomplish two objectives at once, discarding unused/suboptimal aspects of the setting (like Maztica) while simultaneously updating the Realms to 4th edition standards (like introducing the dragonborn). Was this a conscious decision on the part of the design team? If so, are there 4e-transition issues that you think the design team handled particularly well, turning what could have been a liability into an asset for the setting?
2) What implications does the new 4e alignment system have for the Realms? At least at first glance, good-versus-good and evil-versus-evil rivalries seem relatively common in the 3e Realms, which doesn't mesh very well with the 4th edition credo that good guys are supposed to team up with good guys to fight bad guys. Are we going to see a diminution of good-versus-good disagreements (for example the Harpers) and evil-versus-evil disagreements (for example the Blood War)? If so, is there a danger that this might over-simplify the setting?
3) It's interesting that the portion of the Realms most familiar to non-FR gamers, the Sword Coast, is largely untouched by the Spellplague. Was this a deliberate design decision to help new gamers enter the setting? Or was it merely coincidence?
4) Will the races and classes introduced in the upcoming FR Player's Guide be reprinted in the PH2?
Thanks for listening!
Would we do an Undermountain or City of the Spider Queen again? No plans to at the moment, but I wouldn't rule it out somewhere down the road.
Rich has every right to ask people to tone it down and let this thread be used for what it was intended. With that in mind, we should stop the non-question chatter.
Question; Are any FR super adventures in the works or might become so?
Thanks in advance.
I'm not Rich, but I believe it's been made clear (even in this thread) that there is only one FR adventure planned/in the works so far. That doesn't mean there couldn't be more in the future.
Thanks, I thought it might have been asked..... I should triple check next time.
In the works? Other than Sceptered Tower of Spellgard, no. However, there are some Dungeon pieces on the way for FR.
Would we do an Undermountain or City of the Spider Queen again? No plans to at the moment, but I wouldn't rule it out somewhere down the road.
Thanks again, always good to hear from the source.
Thanks, I thought it might have been asked..... I should triple check next time.
You're welcome.
Just checked the Map found HERE - that goes with Cormyr:The Tearing of the Waeve - did you pick that locale because you are also running that (or recently have)?
Anyhow, I was just wondering where you would place Hammerfast using that location - I rejected that region myself because a Dwarven Town is not easy to place there-abouts.
Well to be honest I only looked for a good place for Fallcrest and the Keep (and a mountain range so close to shade dominated Sembia seemed perfect, so I can stress the danger if the dragon and Netheril were to become allies), a Cormyr did fit the bill. And yes I DMed Cormyr, we came to the keep in the swamp, but never finished the adventure.
Q: What is the Rules Compendium? Some sort of large online database for those with D&DI?
Since we are only getting 2 books on the Realms, where will there be information of adapting new races, classes and the like to the Realms? For example, clearly the Goliath will be a part of the second Players' Handbook. Will info on adapting that race to the Realms appear in the PHB2, in DDi, somewhere else, nowhere at all?
Thanks
Q: What is the Rules Compendium? Some sort of large online database for those with D&DI?
-The Rules Compendium is a 3e book, if I'm not mistaken. The very last one. A big ol' book of all the rules.
Will info on adapting that race to the Realms appear in the PHB2, in DDi, somewhere else, nowhere at all?
-Sounds like something for the DDI, to me. And, to be more specific, sounds like the job of Eytan Berstein!
to be more specific, sounds like the job of Eytan Berstein!
Thats a splendid idea
Does WotC have plans to develop or release any rules or separate games of Sava? After all, WotC/Hasbro is a game company...
Rich,
Can you give any hints or info on what repercussions Cyric's imprisonment has had on his power/worhipers?
also,
Can I take it that the gods personal domains (ie. The Supreme Throne, etc.) are now floating in the astral sea like deity domains in core? Sorry if this has been answered already.
I would like to second this.
I would like to second this.
I would like to third it...;)
Q: What is the Rules Compendium? Some sort of large online database for those with D&DI?
Rich,
Does WotC have plans to develop or release any rules or separate games of Sava? After all, WotC/Hasbro is a game company...
Rich
Since we are only getting 2 books on the Realms, where will there be information of adapting new races, classes and the like to the Realms? For example, clearly the Goliath will be a part of the second Players' Handbook. Will info on adapting that race to the Realms appear in the PHB2, in DDi, somewhere else, nowhere at all?
Thanks
The dominions themselves are not infinite planes any more. Some are pretty big (many hundreds of miles across), others might be as small as a single city or islet. The Nine Hells, for example, are continent-sized caverns within a ruddy, volcanic world adrift in the Astral.
As far as the effects of Cyric's imprisonment, the answer is, not much. Direct assistance from Cyric is harder to come by, but then again, Cyric-like most deities--usually works through proxies, angels, and mortal priests. Of course, it drives *Cyric* nuts, because he can't stand the idea of anyone telling him what he can and can't do. That means he's got a big score to settle.
I would like to second this. [request for info on cyric's imprisonment, astral domains]
I was wondering what happens in the Lands of Intrigue. I read, in Countdown to the Realms (I think...) that Amn gets a great show off, understandable since they are part of many video games and more. Amn outshine Tethyr and Calimshan. But after the Spellplague, are they still there ? What happenned ? The Empire of Sothillis ? The Queen ? The Wealdath and the Suldaness Elves ?
Thank you !
I'll tackle the second question first. Yes, godly domains/astral dominions are now "floating in the Astral Sea." However, the Astral Sea isn't really a sea per se; it's a great silvery void, much like it always was, but there is a noticeable "astral horizon" that travelers and vessels tend to orient toward, creating the impression that they're traveling along the surface of a sea. The clouds below that horizon tend to take on a darker, gunmetal-silver color, while the ones above are a little brighter. Stars glitter in the spaces between the clouds. Really, the Astral Sea is a medium in which the finite, unique astral dominions can exist.
The dominions themselves are not infinite planes any more. Some are pretty big (many hundreds of miles across), others might be as small as a single city or islet. The Nine Hells, for example, are continent-sized caverns within a ruddy, volcanic world adrift in the Astral.
As far as the effects of Cyric's imprisonment, the answer is, not much. Direct assistance from Cyric is harder to come by, but then again, Cyric-like most deities--usually works through proxies, angels, and mortal priests. Of course, it drives *Cyric* nuts, because he can't stand the idea of anyone telling him what he can and can't do. That means he's got a big score to settle.
If I was an FR deity and my domain was suddenly diminished from "infinite" to "single world" or "single city" size, I think I'd be incredibly upset with Cyric. It makes the murder of Mystra seem rather pale in comparison, given that this affects every single deity and every godly Realm in the setting. Why didn't the good -and-evil gods come together on this one issue and impose a death sentence for Cyric? Imprisoning him for 1000 years (or whatever it is) where he still has the ability to do -anything- at all through intermediaries and proxies, seems an incredibly mild punishment to me.
Were all the other deities afraid of Cyric? Afraid of Ao's response?
Across the Sea of Swords, the Moonshaes have fallen into a patchwork of small kingdoms. Caer Calidyrr still stands as the chief kingdom of the native Moonshavians (the Ffolk), but over the last century the powerful mainland realm of Amn has set its sights on this land. Amnite merchant-lords control much of the large island of Gwynneth, while the warlike Northlanders hold Oman and Norland. The Feywild, the realm of Faerie, lies close to Faerûn here, and from its shadows a dire new threat is gathering—the terrible fomorians, who dream of sweeping away the human kingdoms and subjugating the islands beneath their mighty fists.
If I was an FR deity and my domain was suddenly diminished from "infinite" to "single world" or "single city" size, I think I'd be incredibly upset with Cyric.
Who's to say they weren't always finite. Mortals may just have been misinformed that they were infinite.
Who's to say they weren't always finite. Mortals may just have been misinformed that they were infinite.
Because your suggestion here would be a huge retcon for not only the Realms but also the Manual of the Planes and the Planar Handbook. I'm not saying that all of the planes were infinite, because many clearly were not (per the rules, which are written for the DM and players, and are not really up to interpretation by NPCs and PCs living in the setting).
Because your suggestion here would be a huge retcon for not only the Realms but also the Manual of the Planes and the Planar Handbook. I'm not saying that all of the planes were infinite, because many clearly were not (per the rules, which are written for the DM and players, and are not really up to interpretation by NPCs and PCs living in the setting).
Maybe they were not that much infinite... as per Rich Baker stated, many are continent size and other are only city size. So, maybe the Spellplague forced those domain to shrink depending on the power of the god. Greater god could have a greater domain than lesser ones. Cyric punishment is good and he may use minions or proxies but it will surely be more difficult than before. he is mostly a Dead God since if he can give prayers, people will stop praying to him and he will lose power until one day... (I'll be back - Cyric the Terminator). Anyway, its now "finite" and pretty good like that because infinity brings too much problem ! and nothing is infinite or eternal. That's a rule of Life ;)
Also thanks GreenKnight for the quote on the Countdown to the Realms. I only hope they haven't made Tethyr and Calimshan provinces of a Greater Amn...
Maybe they were not that much infinite... as per Rich Baker stated, many are continent size and other are only city size. So, maybe the Spellplague forced those domain to shrink depending on the power of the god. Greater god could have a greater domain than lesser ones. Anyway, its now "finite" and pretty good like that because infinity brings too much problem ! and nothing is infinite or eternal. That's a rule of Life ;)
That's my point, actually: Cyric directly causes the destruction of vast amounts of godly domain territory, for multiple gods. Imprisoning him seems like a non-sentence for something so major.
That's my point, actually: Cyric directly causes the destruction of vast amounts of godly domain territory, for multiple gods. Imprisoning him seems like a non-sentence for something so major.
Please start another thread for this conversation.
Please start another thread for this conversation.
Glad to, if someone else wants to. But I see this as merely a clarification of people's responses to my question to Rich Baker.
So we have official confirmation of bard, barbarians, druids and gnomes?
apparently, but thats not really news since at least barbarians are on the cover and we know the power sources. But confirmation is always good
apparently, but thats not really news since at least barbarians are on the cover and we know the power sources. But confirmation is always good
-Linky?
18DELTA
-Linky?
18DELTA
Here's the cover of the second player's handbook, It tells you the three power sources covered are arcane, divine and primal
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/9780786950164
It also shows a pic of goliath barbarian and some sort of druid or shaman (both presumably in the book). Some believe that pic depicts a shifter. I am not so sure
Anywho, we also know the first initials of all the classes. there are 2 Bs and a D. We also know that one new race begins with "gn" so............
18DELTA
Here's the cover of the second player's handbook, It tells you the three power sources covered are arcane, divine and primal
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/9780786950164
It also shows a pic of goliath barbarian and some sort of druid or shaman (both presumably in the book). Some believe that pic depicts a shifter. I am not so sure
Anywho, we also know the first initials of all the classes. there are 2 Bs and a D. We also know that one new race begins with "gn" so............
I think the cover depicts a Goliath Barbarian and a Gnome Shaman with wolf spirits. I really want to play a new gnome now.
Bel
Also, does anyone have any idea what sort of class it would be? If it's a hybrid placing totems I'm gonna laugh.
I look forward to gnomes, druids, barbarians etc though.
I think the cover depicts a Goliath Barbarian and a Gnome Shaman with wolf spirits. I really want to play a new gnome now.
Bel
I agree that she looks like the new gnome but she is awfully tall. if goliaths are 7 to 8 feet, the gnome has gotta be over 5 feet tall
Can anyone clarify why a Shaman class is needed? I continually get the feeling that they are ripping of and copying WoW to draw gamers. As I see it, a Shaman is just an Arcane or Divine spellcaster but in a more primitive civilization. Is there really a need for a primitive version of the class?
Also, does anyone have any idea what sort of class it would be? If it's a hybrid placing totems I'm gonna laugh.
I look forward to gnomes, druids, barbarians etc though.
Well, the spirit shaman in 3e was a unique class IMHO. I like the idea behind a primal shaman, although, its my understanding there is a warcraft-ness to it. There is no info on how it will work. However, there has been references to making the druid less a spellcaster and healer and more of a wildshaper. Thus, the druid will likely be the primal striker, IMHO
The shaman will likely be the primal leader or perhaps controller. Using spirits and fey in that role
Can anyone clarify why a Shaman class is needed? I continually get the feeling that they are ripping of and copying WoW to draw gamers. As I see it, a Shaman is just an Arcane or Divine spellcaster but in a more primitive civilization. Is there really a need for a primitive version of the class?
As others have surmised, shaman will probably be a primal spellcaster, rathr than arcane or divine, and druid probably will be more a shapechanger thn a caster. A shaman should have quite different powers from a wizard or cleric.
Even if otherwise, a primitive caster is as valid as barbarian (which is basically a primitive fighter) or ranger (a specialized figter).
And. shaman has been part of fantasy long before WoW.
Can anyone clarify why a Shaman class is needed? I continually get the feeling that they are ripping of and copying WoW to draw gamers. As I see it, a Shaman is just an Arcane or Divine spellcaster but in a more primitive civilization. Is there really a need for a primitive version of the class?
-Freedom of choice. Options. I'd rather have 30 classes, only ten of which I like than 10 classes, only one of which that I like.
I agree that she looks like the new gnome but she is awfully tall. if goliaths are 7 to 8 feet, the gnome has gotta be over 5 feet tall
You're right, if she was a Gnome she'd only come up to his kneecap. Maybe a Longtooth Shifter, hence the wolf spirits.
Bel
How much information, if any, will pertain to the Realms in the Manual of the Planes? Will it fit easily and/or will we see anything about the difference between FR and core?
Thanks in advance.
I do hope that is fixed.
FYI, those things you refer to as "wolf spirits" are actually feline.
they do appear so yes
I'm a WoW player, a D&D gamer, and an FR fan, and although I do see certain similarities bewteen the new rules and a MORPG, I don't think we should be attributing every single fantasy innovation to the 'gods' over at Blizzard.
Anything and everything in WoW I can find somewhere else first, and I think if anything, Blizzard steals D&D fluff, while WotC borrows some mechanics (Computer-Games have simplified ruleset to allow them to play easily online - which is what 4e tries to emulate).
It goes both ways, and Shaman have been around long before electricity, let alone Computers. ;)
EDIT: However - changing Druids from nature priests to shapeshifters over the course of two editions is directly a consequence of WoW influence.
FYI, those things you refer to as "wolf spirits" are actually feline.
Ahhh... nice kitties!
Bel
However - changing Druids from nature priests to shapeshifters over the course of two editions is directly a consequence of WoW influence.
Good points. True that Blizzard themselves have borrowed endless amounts of fantasy concepts from others.
I did like druids as nature priests, too, and if they are indeed turned into shapeshifters I'll be sad. What will be their role, fluffwise? Will they still be community leaders and spiritual leaders in the wilds, or will they be reduced to feral shapechanging warriors?
Good points. True that Blizzard themselves have borrowed endless amounts of fantasy concepts from others.
I did like druids as nature priests, too, and if they are indeed turned into shapeshifters I'll be sad. What will be their role, fluffwise? Will they still be community leaders and spiritual leaders in the wilds, or will they be reduced to feral shapechanging warriors?
Not sure but I thought I heard there would be some elemental/natural powers with the Druid. I might be wrong about that. Perhaps they will do it like two seperate builds like the Ranger (who has one melee build and a second bow/ranged build).
We shall see.
I've got a Paladin of Helm in my Paragon group and he'd really like to know:
Could you tell us about what happened to the followers of Helm after he was killed? Are some sects still around carrying a grudge against tyr or did they fade away after the spellplague? Did another god take over Helm's portfolio?
thanks a lot.
As for the druid, I believe that's the case--more elemental powers, with shapeshifting a separate thing. One or the other, doubt the 'builds' are provided within the same class considering how 4e keeps choices simple for the player.
Too bad, though, because the Shaman would be better suited to Shapeshifting (Animal Totem Spirits) then a classic druid, who should go back to being a nature priest.
The shapeshifting Druids are based of Scandanavian myths of Hamhleypa - Men who can take the form of a bear or wolf. Thats where Tolkien got the idea for his Beornings. Druids are Celtic, and although the two mythologies did get mixed together when the Germanic people's invaded Gaul and Briton, these two types of 'being' certainly were never mixed up with one-another.
I would much prefer to see the Shaman class get the Shape-changing stuff, and the Druid get all the Totemic/Nature-based magic (the EXACT opposite of WoW, and far more historically accurate, though still not perfect).
Hello!
This one’s kind of long, so I bolded the questions for you.
Unlike during the release of the 3E Realms, the FR Section of the WotC website seems kind of dead.
You've got this huge rectangular art footprint with a smallish FR logo, front and center on the web page, but there are no obvious links or text on it to what’s coming up that is FR related.
You guys certainly started out good by giving us information about certain parts of the Realms post-Spellplague, but since there hasn’t been new preview content.
There are no “Realms Roundtable” equivalent designer interviews like we had for the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback when it was released just after 3E D&D several years ago. Those were highly informative features that served to connect the fan base with what you guys were doing.
Do you know why nothing similar is being published online?
For what it’s worth I've found the designer/staff blogs page here on the Forums and I know we have online Dragon/Dungeon stuff coming for FR, but the blogs are really hit and miss when it comes to Realms information and there isn’t even a note on the FR page about the upcoming Cormyr article.
In fact, the latest FR Content that's featured on the website is nearly a year old. It's under the “Features” tab and links to info on Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land. Why are there no obvious links on it to what you and Bruce Cordell have written for the 4E Realms?
Do you know if your coworkers over on the web side plan to make any changes to the FR page?
Time is running out!!!!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As I understand it, the FR Campaign Guide and the FR Player's Guide are going to be the only paper-based 4E game products (aside from the H series of adventures) that WotC will release until next year when the PHBII comes out.
It seems to me like 4E gamers will be drawn to these products for new rules, mechanics and DMing ideas, because that’s all they’re going to get until next year.
Also, based on statements by Bill Slavicsek, WotC wants people to know they can port stuff out of the 4E Realms for their own custom campaigns.
This is a tailor made opportunity to get new blood (or old blood that's come around for a second look) back into the Realms. The Realms fan base needs to be rebuilt and proactively informed that the Forgotten Realms is an exciting, accessible campaign setting.
However undeserved it might be, the Realms’ reputation as a clunky, lore-laden setting needs to be dispelled. Now is the time to do it.
Rich, there just ought to be more preview content and, well, hype than there is for the upcoming FR Campaign Guide. This is an important product that requires more marketing attention than it is getting.
To the extent that you are willing and able, can you please crack the whip? ;)
(Sorry to get all ranty, I just really want to see the 4E Realms succeed and grow.)
That said, my gaming group is having a blast playing through H1: Keep on the Shadowfell in the Forgotten Realms. I can’t wait to get my hands on the FR Campaign Guide and spring its surprises on my players.
Thank you for reading! :D :D :D
Anyway, to my question:
Rich, I see that Bane, in the core setting, is a god of war and conquest rather than the god of tyrrany that he has always been portrayed as in the Realms, with the portfolio of tyrrany going to Asmodeus. Firstly, I do think this is a very good idea for the core setting. Before I got my books I was unsure as to how to use both Asmodeus and Bane in my core game in a meaningful way, which is fixed with the change of portfolio. So cookies from me to whoever's responsible for that gem (especially the goblins worship Bane thing).
However, in the Realms, I know I would be a bit bummed if Bane lost his Tyrrany aspect to Asmo, so my question is: Is FR's Bane going to still be the god of Tyrrany, or will he lose this to Asmodeus and become, as in the core setting, purely a god of war and conquest? And, more generally, do you have any comments on how Bane and Asmodeus will fit together in the Realms, seeing as their tradtional roles overlap somewhat?
But anyway, just wanted to point out that just because a god has one set of portfolios in one pantheon, it doesn't mean he can't have a different set of portfolios (or even a different godly rank) in another pantheon. Asmodeus having Tyranny in the core pantheon doesn't mean that Bane can't still hold Tyranny in the Faerunian Pantheon. Likewise, Bane having War in the core pantheon doesn't mean that he's going to be taking war from Tempus in the Faerunian Pantheon.
Is Asmodeus even worshipped in the Realms?
But anyway, just wanted to point out that just because a god has one set of portfolios in one pantheon, it doesn't mean he can't have a different set of portfolios (or even a different godly rank) in another pantheon. Asmodeus having Tyranny in the core pantheon doesn't mean that Bane can't still hold Tyranny in the Faerunian Pantheon. Likewise, Bane having War in the core pantheon doesn't mean that he's going to be taking war from Tempus in the Faerunian Pantheon.
Oh yes I know. Which is why I felt the need to ask. They (not intentionally using 'they' in a negative way) have shown that they want Faerun to be compattable with core material, by including the dragonborn in such a prolific way, changing the elven subraces to conform to eladrin and core elven statistics etc. I thought it possible that this might include Asmodeus' promotion to deity status. Since the new realms is using the new core cosmology, and within that cosmology Asmodeus in now a deity, and a deity of tyranny at that, and since the designers have expressed intent to minimize portfolio overlap, I felt this a pertinent question to ask.
By the by, I don't mean any of this in a negative way. Not trying to critisize.
Is FR's Bane going to still be the god of Tyrrany, or will he lose this to Asmodeus and become, as in the core setting, purely a god of war and conquest?
-As far as I know, yes. Bane has become a multispheric entity, now. Good for him, I guess.
Is Asmodeus even worshipped in the Realms?
-Yes, yes he is. Devil cults and such.
But anyway, just wanted to point out that just because a god has one set of portfolios in one pantheon, it doesn't mean he can't have a different set of portfolios (or even a different godly rank) in another pantheon.
One could even argue that the Core Bane and the FR Bane have nothing in common except for the name "Bane".
I'd also like to mention for reference that the "Core" gods are not necessarily going to be ported to the 4E Realms. Brian James has already mentioned (on Candlekeep.com) that Zehir is not a god in the 4E FR.
My favorite version of Bane is the one found in Ravenloft, though. There he's also known as the Lawgiver and his Portfolios are "Law, Fate, Judgment, Obedience, Order, Rulership, and Tyranny". He's still Lawful Evil, but he's more a god of civilization. Harsh civilization, certainly, but a god of civilization nonetheless.
Why are so many of them evil? I've read what's there about their history, and I'm aware that Primordials (elementals) fought against the Gods, but I fail to see how that in itself makes them "evil". Not all of the gods or even most of the gods are "good". I would hope that the same kind of variation would exist with elemental creatures (and that most would be "unaligned"), but I'm seeing a bias towards evil, and I'm not seeing good reasons for why that is. Take Storm Giants--the MM says they are "evil", but going by the lore given for them, they could just as easily and perhaps more appropriately be considered "unaligned". Any thoughts?
Why are so many of them evil? I've read what's there about their history, and I'm aware that Primordials (elementals) fought against the Gods, but I fail to see how that in itself makes them "evil". Not all of the gods or even most of the gods are "good". I would hope that the same kind of variation would exist with elemental creatures (and that most would be "unaligned"), but I'm seeing a bias towards evil, and I'm not seeing good reasons for why that is. Take Storm Giants--the MM says they are "evil", but going by the lore given for them, they could just as easily and perhaps more appropriately be considered "unaligned". Any thoughts?
-My thoughts: More things to fight.
-I recall whoever it was the designer saying/writing that there were a lot of creatures in the Monster Manuals that most parties wouldn't be fighting, because of their 'Good' alignments, and that was one of the things they wanted to address in 4th.
I think it's the same god, just with different portfolios...
That works, I just figured I'd suggest another possibility.
Well the primordials are angered at the travesty the gods have made of the World, imposing order on what they originally created. So they seek to unmake it. When someone wants to unmake me and the place I live in, I tend to have a dim view of his morality.
The MM is supposed to give an unbiased view (IMO). Even if you are correct, I still don't think "unaligned" would be inappropriate for some types of giants and such.
It seems to me like the lesser elementals DO tend to be "unaligned". Anyway, while this discussion is interesting, I would like to mention that I'd prefer not to debate about it here.
-My thoughts: More things to fight.
-I recall whoever it was the designer saying/writing that there were a lot of creatures in the Monster Manuals that most parties wouldn't be fighting, because of their 'Good' alignments, and that was one of the things they wanted to address in 4th.
Agreed on all points...but having seen the MM, many creatures are actually "unaligned" rather than strictly "evil". My question is why that's not being applied to many of the elemental creatures who don't seem to me to be overtly evil. In fact, some creatures that are called "unaligned" seem more evil than the aforementioned Storm Giants.
Well the neutral uncaring elementals that focused on simply existing are a thing of the past. There are not even basic elementals anymore in the MM but rather elemental creatures
Once again, I don't intend to get into a debate about this. I posted my question for Rich Baker, as that is what this thread is for.
That works, I just figured I'd suggest another possibility.
True. But I've always liked Bane, so I'm all for seeing him worshipped on other worlds.
Not to mention that I always liked the idea that part of the reason that Bane was able to come back to life was his continued worship in Ravenloft (and now the core world). Which means that all those Banedeaths that Cyric instigated across Faerun were a waste of time, as he never really came close to wiping out worship for Bane. With the Feywild being an important part of 4E and it's confirmed presence in FR, can we count on getting more information on the creatures of Faerie that have always been there in FR canon like the lythari? Any chance we will find out more about the place were the elves came from, including the fate of Tintageer?
The novel Dark Vision introduced us to something new to the Realms.. the Elemental Lords. The one in the novel - Prince Monolith - I found very interesting. Now, I know Mr. Cordell helped design the new Realms, and that he was well into the 4e design plans when he wrote that book, and given 4e's more 'elemental' take on certain things (like Giants), can we expect to see more about these mysterious beings in the new Realms, and hopefully in the FRCG?
This question is more about 4e, although it is Realms-related, and as much as I think Bruce Cordell would be better to answer this question, I suppose Rich may know the answer as well. -
The novel Dark Vision introduced us to something new to the Realms.. the Elemental Lords. The one in the novel - Prince Monolith - I found very interesting. Now, I know Mr. Cordell helped design the new Realms, and that he was well into the 4e design plans when he wrote that book, and given 4e's more 'elemental' take on certain things (like Giants), can we expect to see more about these mysterious beings in the new Realms, and hopefully in the FRCG?
Moreover, can we expect to see a larger Giant presence in the Realms?
This question is more about 4e, although it is Realms-related, and as much as I think Bruce Cordell would be better to answer this question, I suppose Rich may know the answer as well. -
The novel Dark Vision introduced us to something new to the Realms.. the Elemental Lords. The one in the novel - Prince Monolith - I found very interesting. Now, I know Mr. Cordell helped design the new Realms, and that he was well into the 4e design plans when he wrote that book, and given 4e's more 'elemental' take on certain things (like Giants), can we expect to see more about these mysterious beings in the new Realms, and hopefully in the FRCG?
Wasn't the elemental lords already existing -those greyhawk-born Elemental Princes? Forgot their names, though....
Got another question for you Rich
I've got a Paladin of Helm in my Paragon group and he'd really like to know:
Could you tell us about what happened to the followers of Helm after he was killed? Are some sects still around carrying a grudge against tyr or did they fade away after the spellplague? Did another god take over Helm's portfolio?
thanks a lot.
I'll poke a few people when I get back into the office (taking some more time off to work on my thrice-darned novel).
Hey Rich
Hello!
This one’s kind of long, so I bolded the questions for you.
Unlike during the release of the 3E Realms, the FR Section of the WotC website seems kind of dead.
You've got this huge rectangular art footprint with a smallish FR logo, front and center on the web page, but there are no obvious links or text on it to what’s coming up that is FR related.
You guys certainly started out good by giving us information about certain parts of the Realms post-Spellplague, but since there hasn’t been new preview content.
There are no “Realms Roundtable” equivalent designer interviews like we had for the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardback when it was released just after 3E D&D several years ago. Those were highly informative features that served to connect the fan base with what you guys were doing.
Do you know why nothing similar is being published online?
For what it’s worth I've found the designer/staff blogs page here on the Forums and I know we have online Dragon/Dungeon stuff coming for FR, but the blogs are really hit and miss when it comes to Realms information and there isn’t even a note on the FR page about the upcoming Cormyr article.
In fact, the latest FR Content that's featured on the website is nearly a year old. It's under the “Features” tab and links to info on Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land. Why are there no obvious links on it to what you and Bruce Cordell have written for the 4E Realms?
Do you know if your coworkers over on the web side plan to make any changes to the FR page?
Time is running out!!!!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
As I understand it, the FR Campaign Guide and the FR Player's Guide are going to be the only paper-based 4E game products (aside from the H series of adventures) that WotC will release until next year when the PHBII comes out.
It seems to me like 4E gamers will be drawn to these products for new rules, mechanics and DMing ideas, because that’s all they’re going to get until next year.
Also, based on statements by Bill Slavicsek, WotC wants people to know they can port stuff out of the 4E Realms for their own custom campaigns.
This is a tailor made opportunity to get new blood (or old blood that's come around for a second look) back into the Realms. The Realms fan base needs to be rebuilt and proactively informed that the Forgotten Realms is an exciting, accessible campaign setting.
However undeserved it might be, the Realms’ reputation as a clunky, lore-laden setting needs to be dispelled. Now is the time to do it.
Rich, there just ought to be more preview content and, well, hype than there is for the upcoming FR Campaign Guide. This is an important product that requires more marketing attention than it is getting.
To the extent that you are willing and able, can you please crack the whip? ;)
(Sorry to get all ranty, I just really want to see the 4E Realms succeed and grow.)
That said, my gaming group is having a blast playing through H1: Keep on the Shadowfell in the Forgotten Realms. I can’t wait to get my hands on the FR Campaign Guide and spring its surprises on my players.
Thank you for reading! :D :D :D
When we were putting together the core pantheon, we had a LE spot reserved for a god of war and conquest that we regarded as "somebody like Bane" for a long time. I proposed the name Tuern at one point (as in the Iron Flask of Tuerny the Merciless), and later proposed Acher (as in a theoretical war god Acheron was named for). But after the tenth meeting where we said "somebody like Bane," we just dropped the "somebody like" and decided that Bane was the guy we really wanted.
As always on this thread, if this has been asked before, can someone please intercept it before Rich has to answer it and point me in the direction of the response? I made an effort to check, but it wouldn't surprise me if I missed it.
Anyway, to my question:
Rich, I see that Bane, in the core setting, is a god of war and conquest rather than the god of tyrrany that he has always been portrayed as in the Realms, with the portfolio of tyrrany going to Asmodeus. Firstly, I do think this is a very good idea for the core setting. Before I got my books I was unsure as to how to use both Asmodeus and Bane in my core game in a meaningful way, which is fixed with the change of portfolio. So cookies from me to whoever's responsible for that gem (especially the goblins worship Bane thing).
However, in the Realms, I know I would be a bit bummed if Bane lost his Tyrrany aspect to Asmo, so my question is: Is FR's Bane going to still be the god of Tyrrany, or will he lose this to Asmodeus and become, as in the core setting, purely a god of war and conquest? And, more generally, do you have any comments on how Bane and Asmodeus will fit together in the Realms, seeing as their tradtional roles overlap somewhat?
Rich, I have a question about the Elemental creatures in the MM.
Why are so many of them evil? I've read what's there about their history, and I'm aware that Primordials (elementals) fought against the Gods, but I fail to see how that in itself makes them "evil". Not all of the gods or even most of the gods are "good". I would hope that the same kind of variation would exist with elemental creatures (and that most would be "unaligned"), but I'm seeing a bias towards evil, and I'm not seeing good reasons for why that is. Take Storm Giants--the MM says they are "evil", but going by the lore given for them, they could just as easily and perhaps more appropriately be considered "unaligned". Any thoughts?
There was a recent excerpt from the FRCG on Amn. Can you confirm if that is the final version that will appear on the FRCG? Is that only a part of the section on Amn?
Thanks in advance
Are Ghostwise halflings in the Players' Guide or Campaign Book, and if so, how do you handle psionics? And if not, since they are in your book, when will we get them stated up in 4E?
Rich
Are Ghostwise halflings in the Players' Guide or Campaign Book, and if so, how do you handle psionics? And if not, since they are in your book, when will we get them stated up in 4E?
-Since the notion of subraces is being eliminated (for stats), it'll be interesting to see what's done. Maybe some kind of racial feat, if they still do that? I don't know...
-Since the notion of subraces is being eliminated (for stats), it'll be interesting to see what's done. Maybe some kind of racial feat, if they still do that? I don't know...
well according to Swordmage, there are still ghostwise halflings who have psionic powers
well according to Swordmage, there are still ghostwise halflings who have psionic powers
-Well, yes, in the setting, they all still exist. D&D stats wise, subraces don't exist. Sun/Moon/Star Elves are Eladrin, Wood/"Wild" Elves are Elves, and Drow are Drow, statistically. The same thing would follow suit with Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, and so on. There aren't different types of Gnomes, statistically, like there are Elves (Elves, Eladrin, and Drow). That's what I meant.
-Well, yes, in the setting, they all still exist. D&D stats wise, subraces don't exist. Sun/Moon/Star Elves are Eladrin, Wood/"Wild" Elves are Elves, and Drow are Drow, statistically. The same thing would follow suit with Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, and so on. There aren't different types of Gnomes, statistically, like there are Elves (Elves, Eladrin, and Drow). That's what I meant.
but the problem is ghostwise halflings are psionic and there won't be psioincs until at least 2010
GHOSTWISE TELEPATHY
Prerequisites: Halfling, must be chosen at level 1.
Benefit: You gain the Ghostwise Halfling Telepathy power.
GHOSTWISE HALFLING TELEPATHY [Halfling Racial Power]
You form a telepathic bond with a nearby ally.
At-Will ✦ Psychic
Minor Action / Close burst 4
Targets: You and one ally in burst
Effect: Targets can communicate telepathically with each other out to a range of 4 squares. You can switch targets once every round as a minor action.
but the problem is ghostwise halflings are psionic and there won't be psioincs until at least 2010
Ghostwise halflings were introduced in the 3E FRCS. I am not sure but wasn't that before the 3E Psionics book? The telepathy can be an at will power or encounter when in combat I guess. Eberron is going to have to do the same thing with their Kalashatar and that races Mindlink. Psychic descriptors are already in effect. They will deal with pseudo-psionics by looking at Illithids and play off of that. We may get a DDI about it before the books even come out.
Plus I think Psionics will be out in 2009 around the same time as the Eberron launch due to the fact that psionics are heavily tied into that campaign setting.
Plus I think Psionics will be out in 2009 around the same time as the Eberron launch due to the fact that psionics are heavily tied into that campaign setting.
I suppose thats possible but we do know they won't be in the 2009 PHB
Can you say anything about 1479DR Dambrath yet? Will it still be there/ruled by halfdrow Crinti? Will the Halfdrow become a player race in one of the upcoming Realms books?
Best wishes
Lirdolin (who happens to be a Crinti 3e sorceress - probably soon a 4e warlock awakening from stasis)
Dear Mr. Baker,
I am a big DragonLance fan in addition to being into FR. It's a little eerie to see the FR community apparently going through what the DL community did a few years back.....incredibly traumatic change! For what it's worth, I empathize with a lot of their feelings, but I also wanted to say that in the end I have faith that you'll try to create a good story and keep FR alive for everyone.
On to my question...Would the dark elves (i.e., the ones recently transformed) automatically use PHB "elf" stats? I'm a little fuzzy on the way, way, waaaay back FR elven history.
- If the 4e core elven history (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20071221) matches FR elven history, then the dark elves are actually members of the original race before the elf/eladrin split (which we know little about, let alone have stats for).
- If in the FR elven history beginnings we had "eladrin" elves, "elf" elves, and dark elves (i.e., pre-Lolth "drow" elves)...and then the dark elves were banished and transformed into "drow" elves...and now some of them are transformed back...then the dark elves are again members of one of the original three, the dark elves (i.e., pre-Lolth "drow" elves). Why wouldn't we then use the MM "drow" stats with something in place of "Lolthtouched" abilities and maybe the Intimidate bonus as well?
- If in the FR elven history beginnings we had just "eladrin" elves and "elf" elves (with their split being original or prehistoric), and the dark elves were just a subset of these that didn't stand out as different until......they got banished as a whole and transformed into "drow" elves...and now some of them are transformed back...then I see how/why they would use the stats of PHB "elf" elves. Technically they might also or instead use "eladrin" elf stats, but some posters on another thread mention ties to Green Elves, whose history I don't recall very well but would probably spell "elf" more than "eladrin."
Anyway, regardless of what mechanics are used for the dark elves, they are dark (but not jet) skinned, dark haired, dark eyed, and stealthy, yes? PHB "elf" elf could fit that just fine. I think, though, that it might be cool if they also retained darkvision and were nocturnal.
Actually, in general I think the coolest option might be to have them use "drow" mechanics with a sub for the Lolthtouched abilities (& probably Intimidate).But that's just my opinion at the moment. Is there anything you can tell us officially about their stats?
On to my question...Would the dark elves (i.e., the ones recently transformed) automatically use PHB "elf" stats? I'm a little fuzzy on the way, way, waaaay back FR elven history.
- If the 4e core elven history (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20071221) matches FR elven history, then the dark elves are actually members of the original race before the elf/eladrin split (which we know little about, let alone have stats for).
- If in the FR elven history beginnings we had "eladrin" elves, "elf" elves, and dark elves (i.e., pre-Lolth "drow" elves)...and then the dark elves were banished and transformed into "drow" elves...and now some of them are transformed back...then the dark elves are again members of one of the original three, the dark elves (i.e., pre-Lolth "drow" elves). Why wouldn't we then use the MM "drow" stats with something in place of "Lolthtouched" abilities and maybe the Intimidate bonus as well?
- If in the FR elven history beginnings we had just "eladrin" elves and "elf" elves (with their split being original or prehistoric), and the dark elves were just a subset of these that didn't stand out as different until......they got banished as a whole and transformed into "drow" elves...and now some of them are transformed back...then I see how/why they would use the stats of PHB "elf" elves. Technically they might also or instead use "eladrin" elf stats, but some posters on another thread mention ties to Green Elves, whose history I don't recall very well but would probably spell "elf" more than "eladrin."
Anyway, regardless of what mechanics are used for the dark elves, they are dark (but not jet) skinned, dark haired, dark eyed, and stealthy, yes? PHB "elf" elf could fit that just fine. I think, though, that it might be cool if they also retained darkvision and were nocturnal.
-I addressed these points in the "Dark Elf Possibilities" thread. In an unofficial capacity, of course.
Any drow who is "uncursed" should be restored to its green elf ancestry.
Pre-descent dark elves were dark skinned green elves who lived primarily in the deep southern forests of Faerûn. In the Forgotten Realms, green/wild/wood elves are mechanically the same as the standard elf in the 4E Player's Handbook and Monster Manual. (Eladrin are comprised of sun/moon/star elves).
Any drow who is "uncursed" should be restored to its green elf ancestry.
-And thus, I am correct.
-Anyway, Rich: The novel anthology Realms of the Undead. Is this set in pre- or -postSpellplague? Or, a combination of both?
Can you say anything about 1479DR Dambrath yet? Will it still be there/ruled by halfdrow Crinti? Will the Halfdrow become a player race in one of the upcoming Realms books?
I don't expect there'll be a Crinti race. I made a 4th ed Crinti paladin (Tesh Huruafair from East Rift) and just used half-elf. It is easiest. The only difference between half-elves and crinti in 3rd ed was darkvision, iirc. That difference could be handled with a feat (or just ignored - dwarves lost darkvision too).
Gomez
I know that you and Bruce Cordell are both busy, but could you let him know that on the Candlekeep forums there are some unanswered questions dating all the way back to February?
Thanks,
Hawkins
I don't expect there'll be a Crinti race. I made a 4th ed Crinti paladin (Tesh Huruafair from East Rift) and just used half-elf. It is easiest. The only difference between half-elves and crinti in 3rd ed was darkvision, iirc. That difference could be handled with a feat (or just ignored - dwarves lost darkvision too).
QFT.
Given the drop of Half-Orcs from the core races, and the changes to the Drow/Dark Elves, I don't think the Crinti will make it into 4e either.
Add to that they are sandwiched between a nation that physically 'detonated' and another that has become a tsunami-induced swampland, and they don't stand a snow-ball's chance in hell.
But I could be wrong. ;)
QFT.
Given the drop of Half-Orcs from the core races, and the changes to the Drow/Dark Elves, I don't think the Crinti will make it into 4e either.
Half-orcs probably still do exist, as do druids who will at least be mentioned within the FRCS. so maybe the Crinti will at least be mentioned as well?
QFT.
Add to that they are sandwiched between a nation that physically 'detonated' and another that has become a tsunami-induced swampland, and they don't stand a snow-ball's chance in hell.
But I could be wrong. ;)
That's why I asked the question in the first place. It's difficult to portray a character who doesn't know if his homeland was blasted to pieces or not. But as the halflings probably did survive, it's not unpossible, that Dambrath did recover as well.
As for the suggestion by gomeztoo, to just make them dark-skinned half-elves (which i'll probably do as well): As half-elves gain the racial ability to chose from both elven and human feats, would it make sense to give them feats that are exclusive to drow instead (assuming there will be drow-specific feats)?
And Drow who turn from Lolth are no longer Drow in 4e, so I'm not even sure if the Crinti (who worship Loviatar) will be regarded as anything more then ruthless half-Elves now.
In fact... if they were going to create an entire nation of half-Elves a'la Eberron, Dambrath would be the IDEAL location for it...
Bear in mind that the Underdark caved-in in the Shaar vicinity, so the Crinti's home-city of Tlindhet might be gone, or at least badly damaged. Also, the SoFS poured into the Underdark, so it may have also been flooded (although I think it was far enough away and 'high enough' in the Und to survive). Either way, major siemic activity in the region would have caused some sort of 'shake-up', both physically and politically.
I don't think the Underdark (Middeldark in this case) will be flooded a half-continent away. And the 'now-even-Greater Rift' doesn't extend that far.
And Tlindeth isn't the home-city of the Crinti, only it's drow ancestors and allies home.
And Drow who turn from Lolth are no longer Drow in 4e, so I'm not even sure if the Crinti (who worship Loviatar) will be regarded as anything more then ruthless half-Elves now.
I don't think that i works like this. As I understand it, not even all good-natured drow where turned into dark elves.
In fact... if they were going to create an entire nation of half-Elves a'la Eberron, Dambrath would be the IDEAL location for it...
Maybe some Bayou with a sinister New Orleans like citystate ruled by Loviatar-worshipping half-drow Crinti? Bayou of Dolphins instead of Bay of Dolphins? ;)
I'm picturing that misty-spooky scene where we are first introduced to the character of Calypso in the 2nd Pirates of the Caribbean movie.
Half-Drow voodoo priestesses with skull-makeup waving cockatrice bones and giving you bad juju, living in a crodile & snake-infested swamp in stilt-huts.
Oh YEAH..... GOOD times.
Then again, that would make them look like the one on the far right -
Which isn't a bad thing, per se.
4e Question:
Have you guys considered using the 4e rules for anything other then fantasy settings? I think you WotC designers accidentally created the PERFECT set of super-hero genre rules.
Not making fun here - I think they would be ideally suited for that purpose, and look forward to playing/running anything in THAT vein you guys decide to do down the road. I've played in a few of those games before, and none of the rules worked as well as I think the 4e rules would. One of the biggest problems with super-hero genre games is simulating the 'magical types' (Dr. Strange, Zatanna, etc), but you've already solved the problems of mixing 'blaster' types with 'brute force' types and made it all perfectlly balanced.
You should think about it - its a sure-fire winner. ;)
"At Will" powers? I mean... c'mon!
I've never seen a better set of rules for it, and I've played at least four different ones in that genre.
Edit: I just backtracked when I realized I MISSED this - it's my 8000th post! I hope you guys enjoyed it - I just wish I had made it a little more meaningful.
No, ghostwise halflings aren't really touched on in the FRCG or FRPG. If I were to stat them up, I'd use the approach Green Knight suggests -- it would be a racial feat that halflings can pick. Halfings who choose that feat have some ghostwise blood in them; those who don't, don't.
I don't think it would have a big mechanical benefit--maybe a small boost to the party's passive perception? I suppose I'd let the PCs coordinate surprise attacks better, too.
Rich
Are Ghostwise halflings in the Players' Guide or Campaign Book, and if so, how do you handle psionics? And if not, since they are in your book, when will we get them stated up in 4E?
Question to Rich:
Can you say anything about 1479DR Dambrath yet? Will it still be there/ruled by halfdrow Crinti? Will the Halfdrow become a player race in one of the upcoming Realms books?
Best wishes
Lirdolin (who happens to be a Crinti 3e sorceress - probably soon a 4e warlock awakening from stasis)
Hey Rich,
I know that you and Bruce Cordell are both busy, but could you let him know that on the Candlekeep forums there are some unanswered questions dating all the way back to February?
Thanks,
Hawkins
4e Question:
Have you guys considered using the 4e rules for anything other then fantasy settings? I think you WotC designers accidentally created the PERFECT set of super-hero genre rules.
Not making fun here - I think they would be ideally suited for that purpose, and look forward to playing/running anything in THAT vein you guys decide to do down the road. I've played in a few of those games before, and none of the rules worked as well as I think the 4e rules would. One of the biggest problems with super-hero genre games is simulating the 'magical types' (Dr. Strange, Zatanna, etc), but you've already solved the problems of mixing 'blaster' types with 'brute force' types and made it all perfectlly balanced.
You should think about it - its a sure-fire winner. ;)
I'll pass the word along when I get back to the office.
Thanks Rich!
Dambrath fares better than most of the other countries in southern Faerun. More than that I can't really say; can't give out too many spoilers before their time! Half-elf is a pretty reasonable approximation for half-drow, and you'll find that they make very fine warlocks...
Thanks
So at least her homecountry is still around
I probably missed this a ways back, (150+ pages and such...) but is there any word on what happened to the Dalelands? I have an Elliestrae worshiping drow who is from Trollbark Forest, and I wanted a little bit of an idea what happened to the area. He was involved with the rebellion against the Zhentarim, and was trying to formulate a back story for a gap inbetween.
Read the Myth Drannor series...
The Drow were almost completely left out of the loop. It belongs to the cuddly Elvsies now. :P
A good question. In the case of the elemental archons, we wanted to create a replacement for the old Elemental Princes of Evil and strong ties to Tharizdun. I mean, Ogremoch wasn't bad, but Yan-C-Bin... hmmm. So we really do want archons to be evil. Efreeti have always been troublemakers too. In the case of giants, we deliberately tried to move away from "really big people" to something a little more fantastic and monstrous. Anyway, I agree there are plenty of other elementals who'd be just fine at unaligned.
Thanks for the answer.
I can see why you'd want to ditch the name "Yan-C-Bin", although at least it was distinctive, LOL.IIRC, he made an appearance somewhere in The Last Mythal series, but I haven't read it, so I can't be sure.
He did. He also made an appearance in the first Lady Penitent novel.
Rich,
How much information, if any, will pertain to the Realms in the Manual of the Planes? Will it fit easily and/or will we see anything about the difference between FR and core?
Thanks in advance.
Missed, my question was... er, sorry for the Yoda.
I've heard that the Dragonborn made their appearance in the Realms when a part of their parallel world transposed with an area of Faerun. But where?! All I'm trying to do is give my players who want to be Dragonborn a bit of a foothold to start out their character backgrounds. Any help would be great!
I've heard that the Dragonborn made their appearance in the Realms when a part of their parallel world transposed with an area of Faerun. But where?! All I'm trying to do is give my players who want to be Dragonborn a bit of a foothold to start out their character backgrounds. Any help would be great!
-Tymanther, which will be replacing Unther. That's one such place.
I'm wondering if Gond will be around in the new Realms, and what type of deity he might be? I liked him in his previous incarnation as the (effective) deity of technology, and am planning a character who would be a techno-magic-obsessed cleric of Gond. Is this going to be viable in FR4e, in your opinion?
Thanks in advance!
That being said, Gond will definately be in the new Realms, but his form and name may wind up altered a bit.
Thanks for the answer.
Maybe he was one of the Yancy Boys? :P
Only a Ben Grimm fan would get that one... ;)
Map-related Question:
Hey Rich, I know you've seen the new FR map, and I was wondering if you could tell me if the outline of Anchorome is the same as it was in 3e?
I'm not asking for any details, so I'm hoping this is something you can answer.
--- Thanks.
You mentioned that worshippers of Mystra were possibly on the Fugue Plane awaiting an afterworld assignment (sometime around 6-25). If Halaster Blackcloaks shattered soul had found its way to her realm, would it be safe to assume that everyone's favourite madman would be shopping for a new diety and possibly a new lease on life?
I can think of a few dieties who might be happy to offer him a ticket back to the Realms just to stir the pot. Restatting him probably wouldn't be that difficult given the new ruleset (couple of quick blasty powers, portal control inside UM, a delayed effect blast, time stop, etc). Maybe bring him back as the Warlock no-one wants to bump into. Given his level of power in 3x, I'd guess that only someone sitting in a position of greater power (Asmodeus?) would be able to do it (or hold him to some sort of agreement).
If nothing else it'll keep the players watching their backs should they want to take the older, quieter UM out for a spin. :D
I'm here because I'm actually planning and starting to run my very first FR campaign (using 4E). I've been searching everywhere, and I believe my Google Fu is strong, but I can't find a map of what the new Faerun looks like post-Spellplague, etc. Has one been teasered out and I've just managed to miss it somewhere? Or do I need to try and Photoshop an approximation to hold myself and my players until the FR books come out? If I do have to PS one, any suggestions on incorporating teaser material into cartography?
Thanks in advance.
PS - Don't know if my opinion matters at all, Rich, but I think the new FR update bodes to be a lot of fun, and very interesting. On one hand, I love the density of lore of the FR, it's a wonderful grandaddy of a setting. On the other hand, I tried playing 3.0 and 3.5 and just couldn't force my way through the jungle of rules to get to the game itself. I'm genuinely excited about 4E, and bought my first D&D books in 10 years or so to start this game.
Seas and land have desappeared, woods have grown, roads have vanished, new ones are laid.
As for the complexity of 3.0 and 3.5 and 4.0 edition... I wouldn't be surprised that with all the books and DDI they will produce per month, 4ed will become as much complicated as 3.x have become with time. Remember, the game wasn't much complicated with only the PHB, DMG and MM. It complicated itself with all the supplemental books !! Warlock, Favored Souls, Ninja, Scout, more and more and more and more spells, and feats, and stances and this and that... we will talk back in 4 years how 4th edition is bug down by too many options because they have to sell books and provide DDI content by weeks !!
But back on with the map... I would like to see it before the book comes out ! I love to see Muranndin expended !
I'm rewriting a campaign (from 3.5 to 4E) that was to take place in Westgate but part of it hinged on being connected to the Sea of Fallen Stars (which has drained somewhat apparently) and the rest of the Dragon Reach. I think it will actually work out better (story and game wise) with the new ruleset since it was centered on Rogues anyway.
Depending on the (now) lower level of the SoFS, I can see a small army of slave labor being used to redredge the bay since Magic wouldhave been unpredictable at best after the Spellplague.
If I'm right and the setting is to be left more "open ended" for DMs, I can see a lot of interesting options with the changes in the geography. All those places along or in the SoFS that are now available for exploration (sunken cities, shipwrecks, etc) will now be a playground for adventure.
In fact, they were VERY proud of the map changes last time out, and spoke glowingly about them, IIRC.
Why all the secrecy this time around?
18DELTA :embarrass
Something, please!
Bel
What is the status of the Lythari in the 4e Realms and will they appear in either supplement coming out?
Though silence is not necessarily an admission, it is not a denial, either.
In most cases sumple silence conveys no meaningful information, oher than that nothing is being said at this time. A lack of response to a question does not imply admiussion or denial of a suposition.
For example, months ago Rich was asked weather the continents outside of Faerûn would be affected by the Spellplague, and he answered "Kara-Tur and Zakhara should be just fine" (or something close to that).
Thats when I realized Maztica was gone.
Silence doesn't neccessarily mean anything - these guys are mucho busy ATM - but an ommission can speak volumes. ;)
Question: how many online FR articles will be there per month?
right now we're getting nothing, I remember before 3e there was more preview articles ...
I recently came across my 2e preview book (yes, there was one... I had forgotten about it), and it was like 63 pages long... and FREE.
Boy, those were the days...
Catalogs which are just pictures and release dates of products of any size tend to cost money, or at least only come with an order of significance any more.
My friends who collect comic books still tell me how big of a deal Free Comic Book Day is every year. In the late 80s and early 90s when I when began collecting comic books I recall there being anywhere from one to six free comics available every few months. This was also in a small rural town.
Actual FR question
In the new edition will portals across Faerun and even to other worlds still play a prominent role of the backstory? Even more than that, is inter-setting pollinization still going to have the "different worlds" origins or are influences such as Greyhawk going to take on a more "naturally inherent to the Realms" tone?
Like many, I'm planning my 4e Realms campaign and I'm running hard into some brick walls. There are two things that I think we as a community badly need to know...
Could we please get a web preview telling us 1) something definitive about the gods and 2) a broad overview of the map of the 1479 era Realms.
If those are coming, can we get some kind of timetable to know when they will be available (or even that they're NOT going to be available)?
Thanks!
Its like each guy (or gal) works as an independent unit, rather then as a cohesive whole.
I was an efficiency expert for a couple of years - if WotC needs help I'd be happy to whip them into shape.
Back then, we also had wonderful Dragon Magazine countdown articles that made us salivate for more.
Something is very... wrong... this time out.
Unless they are running a 'negative hype' campaign just to sell books, I really can't understand why they aren't flaunting what they have, if it's supposedly so good.
So wait until august ! And do the line up in your local bookstore to see the 4FRCS.
But if I was you... i would wait until august to start any campaign... or keep start in a region that is clearly previewed, like Amn, Baldur's gate (which did not change much) or Waterdeep.
So wait until august !
I know... I can't wait!!!
The Pathfinder setting will be out! I haven't looked forward to something this much since the 2e FR boxed set. :D
But if I was you... i would wait until august to start any campaign...
I think I can get by for now with the adventure arcs and the Pathfinder Gazeteer, but thanks for the advice. ;)
I know... I can't wait!!!
The Pathfinder setting will be out! I haven't looked forward to something this much since the 2e FR boxed set. :D
Neither did I, but for other things.
We haven't shown off the map yet. In fact, it's only in the last few weeks that we got the final back from the cartographer; it was one of the last bits on the to-do list to wrap up the FR Campaign Guide.
Glad to have you back on board! Good luck with your upcoming campaign!
Hi all. So, wow, 157 pages, many of which are scary. :D
I'm here because I'm actually planning and starting to run my very first FR campaign (using 4E). I've been searching everywhere, and I believe my Google Fu is strong, but I can't find a map of what the new Faerun looks like post-Spellplague, etc. Has one been teasered out and I've just managed to miss it somewhere? Or do I need to try and Photoshop an approximation to hold myself and my players until the FR books come out? If I do have to PS one, any suggestions on incorporating teaser material into cartography?
Thanks in advance.
PS - Don't know if my opinion matters at all, Rich, but I think the new FR update bodes to be a lot of fun, and very interesting. On one hand, I love the density of lore of the FR, it's a wonderful grandaddy of a setting. On the other hand, I tried playing 3.0 and 3.5 and just couldn't force my way through the jungle of rules to get to the game itself. I'm genuinely excited about 4E, and bought my first D&D books in 10 years or so to start this game.
The razorclaw shifter from Monster Manual is a pretty good stand-in for the lythari, IMO. The ability score boosts are very elf-like. Shifters are a much more elegant "tech" for shapechanging PCs than the lycanthrope rules (and level adjustment, and animal hit dice) from 3e.
Hey Rich
What is the status of the Lythari in the 4e Realms and will they appear in either supplement coming out?
Going forward, I *hope* we'll see a good FR article or two every month. But that depends on the DDi editorial staff and the contributors, so it isn't anything that I can promise.
busy writing novels?
Question: how many online FR articles will be there per month?
right now we're getting nothing, I remember before 3e there was more preview articles ...
Actual FR question
In the new edition will portals across Faerun and even to other worlds still play a prominent role of the backstory? Even more than that, is inter-setting pollinization still going to have the "different worlds" origins or are influences such as Greyhawk going to take on a more "naturally inherent to the Realms" tone?
They want to keep the "mystery" and "awesomeness" of their new "toy" realm.
So wait until august ! And do the line up in your local bookstore to see the 4FRCS.
But if I was you... i would wait until august to start any campaign... or keep start in a region that is clearly previewed, like Amn, Baldur's gate (which did not change much) or Waterdeep.
Actually, IIRC, Baldur's Gate grew by leaps and bounds during the spellplague era...
Similar to Calimport and Waterdeep (more WD though).
However, they didn't do that for us, they did that for the IP and what it means to the VG crowd - in order to keep an interest in the video-games market, the games have to keep getting bigger and better, and thats the REAL reason why Baldur's gate grew. ;)
Don't expect any lore beyond the blurd in the FRCG - everything else will be in the comp-games.
Or I could be wrong...
Question to RICH:
What as happen to Calimshan and Tethyr, as I read about in the last preview had some duchy that became independent. Does Calim was raised anew ? (I have a campaign arc dedicated at bringing back Memnon and Calim (as per Grand History of the Realms listed someone trying but "visionned" to let go...)?
Also, will there be a short timeline describing major events ? or everything happens the morning of the beginning of the spellplague ?
Thank you !
I don't think Baldur's Gate is bigger...but more detailed like Waterdeep is. If you seek more info, you could use 2e Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate.
Please read the Preview articles before making assumptions -
To the south, the city of Baldur’s Gate became a refuge for countless thousands fleeing the ruin wrought by the Spellplague in the lands south of the Sea of Fallen Stars. Where other cities and lands turned away such refugees, Baldur’s Gate tolerated them… and now, almost a century later, it is the largest city in Faerûn, sprawling for mile after mile along the banks of the Chionthar.
Accent, mine. ;)
Hello!
Will you be attending the Secrets of the Realms seminar on Saturday the
16th at GenCon?
Also, I see they booked both Indiana Ballrooms at the Mariot (with a 100 seat limit). Can you please pass along a "Thank You!" to whomever remembered how packed the 2007 session was?
We'll be in the front row just like last time, armed with plenty of questions!
I've been away from these forums for a while, so I have a lot of questions. I hope they can get answered by any of the designers. Maybe they have been discussed before, sorry if this is the case.
First of all, this deal with eilistraee, lolth and vhaeraun ¿what exactly happened? I have read only the first book of the lady penitent trilogy... I assume the events of these books happened long before the spellplague... so... how is the Drow situation deity-wise now?
What happened to Sshamath? if it is still around its social/power structure must be completely different.
Are the Drow still in Cormanthor?
Is the bladsinger a paragon path now? its appearing in the player's guide? which other paths will be published in the book? any sneak peeks yet? any table of contents from the campaign setting or player's guide available?
Thanks in advance
Hi there
I've been away from these forums for a while, so I have a lot of questions. I hope they can get answered by any of the designers. Maybe they have been discussed before, sorry if this is the case.
First of all, this deal with eilistraee, lolth and vhaeraun ¿what exactly happened? I have read only the first book of the lady penitent trilogy... I assume the events of these books happened long before the spellplague... so... how is the Drow situation deity-wise now?
What happened to Sshamath? if it is still around its social/power structure must be completely different.
Are the Drow still in Cormanthor?
-Read the next two novels in the series.
Is the bladsinger a paragon path now?
-Yes.
I wanted to ask you a favor.
Could you please alert the web team to the fact that if one visits the Forgotten Realms page on the WotC website, the “Features” tab located in the center of the page (along with the other five tabs for GenCon, Dragon, Dungeon, D&D Minis and RPGA) is not updated to show the Loudwater NPCs preview.
A user can only see this if they click on the “Home” tab in the top left of the screen and then click on the Features tab.
Please also tell them that even if a user goes to the Home tab first, there’s only a one in six chance they will see the blurb for the new FR material, because none of the other five tabs besides the “Features” tab have that new information.
All the more reason to update the FR Page.
When I find myself disappointed with something WotC has produced, I try to talk about it in a positive way, but this time around I just can’t.
It’s really, really disappointing and frustrating to see the FR Page not be updated. I don't understand how WotC can push so hard for the idea of web-based content when they won’t even fully update their FR product web page with the most recent information available for it.
Web savvy users will naturally gravitate to the FR page and see......nothing new.
I know it’s not your fault, Rich, just as I know I'm not vested in WotC (I don't own shares in Hasbro), I understand you're shorthanded at the office and I'm certainly no web expert.
That said, a better job can -and should- be done.
I hope you can pass the world along so something can be done about it.
Thank you!
I saw you'll attend Gencon UK. Will you also attend the LFR kickoff on friday evening?
Gomez
Any chance you could dropa teaser on the status of Gond in the 4e Realms? I liked him a lot in his previous incarnation as the god of science/technology/artifice/crafting. What's he up to now? Can I still play a cleric obsessed with techno-magic?
JPA
Well, we had this great plan for a 10-piece preview arc at one point... it just didn't happen the way we intended. I would not expect many more FR previews. The book's out next month, so after that, they aren't really previews anymore.
Going forward, I *hope* we'll see a good FR article or two every month. But that depends on the DDi editorial staff and the contributors, so it isn't anything that I can promise.
who are these contributors, don't they have some quotas to fulfill, or it's dependent on their good will
DDi isn't working but you could still post them on the FR site like before
Any chance you could dropa teaser on the status of Gond in the 4e Realms? I liked him a lot in his previous incarnation as the god of science/technology/artifice/crafting. What's he up to now? Can I still play a cleric obsessed with techno-magic?
The blurb of LFR-CORE1-03 - Sense of Wonder (a Living Forgotten Realms adventure) suggests Gond clerics are all peachy:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga/news/20080519a
LFR blurbs make excellent teasers... ;)
Hope they have something better than a river port these days... nothing ever expands to largest city in the world unless it has a decent open-sea port...
He was talking about REAL cities - the kind you can only find in the U.S. :P
That said, a better job can -and should- be done.
Hear hear! I've been saying this for a year (concerning the poorly-maintained website, that is).
Can I still play a cleric obsessed with techno-magic?
Why does a setting need to change around a player's needs? If you like techno-magic, play in a setting that features it (or conversely, you're DM can present the place any way he likes).
The blurb of LFR-CORE1-03 - Sense of Wonder (a Living Forgotten Realms adventure) suggests Gond clerics are all peachy:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rpga/news/20080519a
LFR blurbs make excellent teasers... ;)
Thanks for pointing those out - they do indeed provide us with a little more info.
Have to update my FAQ again...
I'll be at GenCon and GenCon UK next month. Got a lot of flying ahead of me!
@RICH
Hello!
Will you be attending the Secrets of the Realms seminar on Saturday the
16th at GenCon?
Also, I see they booked both Indiana Ballrooms at the Mariot (with a 100 seat limit). Can you please pass along a "Thank You!" to whomever remembered how packed the 2007 session was?
We'll be in the front row just like last time, armed with plenty of questions!
Hello Rich,
I wanted to ask you a favor.
Could you please alert the web team to the fact that if one visits the Forgotten Realms page on the WotC website, the “Features” tab located in the center of the page (along with the other five tabs for GenCon, Dragon, Dungeon, D&D Minis and RPGA) is not updated to show the Loudwater NPCs preview.
A user can only see this if they click on the “Home” tab in the top left of the screen and then click on the Features tab.
Please also tell them that even if a user goes to the Home tab first, there’s only a one in six chance they will see the blurb for the new FR material, because none of the other five tabs besides the “Features” tab have that new information.
All the more reason to update the FR Page.
When I find myself disappointed with something WotC has produced, I try to talk about it in a positive way, but this time around I just can’t.
It’s really, really disappointing and frustrating to see the FR Page not be updated. I don't understand how WotC can push so hard for the idea of web-based content when they won’t even fully update their FR product web page with the most recent information available for it.
Web savvy users will naturally gravitate to the FR page and see......nothing new.
I know it’s not your fault, Rich, just as I know I'm not vested in WotC (I don't own shares in Hasbro), I understand you're shorthanded at the office and I'm certainly no web expert.
That said, a better job can -and should- be done.
I hope you can pass the world along so something can be done about it.
Thank you!
Hi Rich,
I saw you'll attend Gencon UK. Will you also attend the LFR kickoff on friday evening?
Gomez
Dear Rich,
Any chance you could dropa teaser on the status of Gond in the 4e Realms? I liked him a lot in his previous incarnation as the god of science/technology/artifice/crafting. What's he up to now? Can I still play a cleric obsessed with techno-magic?
JPA
Does the FRCG have any information on duergar or svirfneblin? Is Shanatar reborn as a joint kingdom?
Is that where High Elves come from?
Now, before the 'Karsus Police' shows up...
Question:
Rich, above you mentioned that the DDi 'might' have one or two FR articles a month, but you really weren't to sure about that. If not, then exactly what kind of 'lore' will the DDi have?
Generic POL stuff?
Question
I was reading an update on the Dragon section of the site today and came across an article on the "codex of Betrayal" which discusses alot of info on how Asmodeus ascends to godhood by doing away with a god referenced as "he who was" etc... Since Asmodeus was not a god in 3rd ed Realms, is there any detail on him becoming a god in the 100 year jump in the Realms from 3rd to 4E? Or is this just going to get retcon? Possibly kills a realms god?
Sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere, but I could not find any info on Asmodeus being a God in the Realms.
How has the new Netheril (shades) changed commerce in the Silver Marches/Waterdeep areas?
Hades would be a safe bet. ;)
Just guessing here, BTW. :P
And yeah, most of the pre-historic metropolises were located in Asia, along rivers.
Also Baldur's Gate is not a trade city that expanded naturally. It is a huge refugee camp that became permanent.Does Selune change significantly in the FRCG? She transplanted a city on Unther just a few years before the Spellplague and that little hook about the netherese enclave she saved has been tantalising fans for a while. What did happen to the aasimar she sent on Unther?
At any rate, I'll concede the point to Dimonic's better researched arguement there, since I seemed to have failed to take arable land into account. Oops.
Still though, as it relates to Baldur's Gate, I'd still be in favor of it expanding more towards the sea, rather than further inland. Could have something to do with the new kingdom Rich hinted at that seemed to at least stretch from Elturel to Iraeibor, or perhaps a competitor of that realm, whose name I completely blanked on. Perhaps Rich might be willing to give us some insight into the matter?
Sorry, not much into English History, except as it relates to a larger European history, so not so much up on the proper names of the period. :P
At any rate, I'll concede the point to Dimonic's better researched arguement there, since I seemed to have failed to take arable land into account. Oops.
Still though, as it relates to Baldur's Gate, I'd still be in favor of it expanding more towards the sea, rather than further inland. Could have something to do with the new kingdom Rich hinted at that seemed to at least stretch from Elturel to Iraeibor, or perhaps a competitor of that realm, whose name I completely blanked on. Perhaps Rich might be willing to give us some insight into the matter?
Nah my apologies for being snappy and off topic :embarrass.
Afraid I was carrying on a conversation from earlier today with one of my neighbours to the east and stumbled into your post with my dander up.
;) Won't happen again.
Thinking of it though, perhaps it'd be better to offer that question to Rich a bit more directly...
Rich,
Any chance of getting some insight into the way that Baldur's Gate develops in 4e, as in towards the sea or further inland, how major a port it becomes, things like that?
Thanks in advance
I forwarded this along to Top Men. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the aggravation.
Thank you sir!
MR. Baker, will the tieflings of mask's line still have the no mirror reflection that they had in previous editions
I never even heard of that piece of lore... where is THAT from?
I never even heard of that piece of lore... where is THAT from?
I think it was in races of faerûn.
Probably one of the worst of 3e, IMHO.
Wasn't that bad though, at least it wasn't as bad as MotM. But I'm biased against adventures/modules, so...
I've even been told by at least two deisgners to ignore parts of that book...
Thankfully, I like a lot of the stuff about wood elves myself. Makes them out to be the one elven subrace I can stomach these days.
- Make off-topic posts or chat or trades in the wrong forums or chat rooms (casual chat or roleplay in rooms or forums not designated for these types of activities)
-A reminder.
I just picked up a copy of H2: Thunderspire Labyrinth and had a question or two.
I see that you and Mike Mearls worked on the adventure. Can you elaborate on what parts you worked on?
Also, because this is an adventure for 4th to 6th level characters, can you talk a little bit about encounter design at these levels and what ways -if any- you and/or Mike Mearls tried to challenge players differently than in H1: Keep on the Shadowfell?
-So...Is he really dead. :D
18DELTA
-Rich in Brian R. James article on Cormyr it says that TYR is dead.
-So...Is he really dead. :D
Yes, and GreenKnight took his stuff! Or was that Torm? I keep getting those two confused. As to *how* he died... now that's what I want to know.
(...) As to *how* he died... now that's what I want to know.
Tease. :P
Yes, and GreenKnight took his stuff! Or was that Torm? I keep getting those two confused. As to *how* he died... now that's what I want to know.
-
:D 18DELTA :D
Is there any chance that Dwarves will regain Dark Vision in the Forgotten Realms?
How about a ritual?
Gamers note, it is very difficult to perform recon in a dungeon when you need a light source to see.
Is the Chult map from the Except a part of the full colour poster map from the FRCG?
Rich:
Will the fate of Qysar Shoon VII be detailed in the upcoming campaign guide? Any hints of what he might be up to?
As far as differences from 1st level design... my primary concern when I worked on the adventure was sorting out the details of 4e adventure design. H2 is the first 4e adventure I worked on, so I was very anxious to get it "right." Beyond that, I wanted to create an iconic location with a straightforward plot -- something that a novice DM could handle pretty easily, but would *feel* bigger and more awesome than the DM burden really suggested, if that makes sense. As an added bonus, a DM with a little more experience could easily expand the adventure all the way up to an Undermountain if he really wanted to; there's plenty of city to explore.
One of the things we shoot for when we work on these early-in-an-edition adventures is the "evergreen" -- you hope that you've created something that thousands of people will remember as their first brush with the game. You hope that ten years from now people will swap stories about the Labyrinth in the same way that people in my generation of gaming swapped stories about Tomb of Horrors or the Village of Hommlet. I think I managed just a little of that with Forge of Fury; hopefully Thunderspire Labyrinth captures a bit of that gamer immortality too. I'll let you know in a few years!
Hello Rich!
I just picked up a copy of H2: Thunderspire Labyrinth and had a question or two.
I see that you and Mike Mearls worked on the adventure. Can you elaborate on what parts you worked on?
Also, because this is an adventure for 4th to 6th level characters, can you talk a little bit about encounter design at these levels and what ways -if any- you and/or Mike Mearls tried to challenge players differently than in H1: Keep on the Shadowfell?
Longer answer: Many monsters lost darkvision between editions, too. Dungeons with illumination or ambient natural light sources ought to be the norm, not the exception. You want the players to be able to admire your dungeon-building, after all. In a party with mixed vision capabilities, you pretty much default to the worst-vision-in-the-party anyway, or you make some of the characters stumble around in the dark. Very few DMs have an interest in seriously managing illumination rules, in our experience.
Parting thought: If this drives you nuts, make a feat with dwarf as a pre-req to gain darkvision. We won't do it, but it probably isn't a gamebraker.
Rich,
Is there any chance that Dwarves will regain Dark Vision in the Forgotten Realms?
How about a ritual?
Gamers note, it is very difficult to perform recon in a dungeon when you need a light source to see.
Are the 4e gnomes just going to be FR forest gnomes (thats what they seem to be, with small changes)
and what exactly happened to the shapeshifting celestials called eladrin. Now that eladrin are a new race of teleporting fey, are they called something else now?
Will the large number of tieflings be explained in the frcg?
---------------------------------------------------
Just somehting I would like to note. In 3e/3.5 there were many areas which I wanted an updated supplement on that never came. The solution was for me to convert 2e FR books to 3e so I could play in those regions. (converted the mechanics to 3e).
What I'm saying is, there are a number of older books, that I would pay for a new version of. And I don't mean rewrite all of it, I mean take the 2e book, put whatever information is necessary to make it 100 years in the future, and sell it to me. Out of print books are hard to find. And I want things like a whole book on Menzoberranzan, or a book on Myth Drannor, etc.
I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's worth looking into. But seriously, most of them are so hard to find, and a whole new book isnt necessary(or any more useful), I'd even go as far as to say it would be a waste of effort to do the whole book from scratch. I just want an updated version of the hard to find out of print books. You guys would cut production time to less than half :P
In the Myth Drannor book, provide the timeline, everything that has happened since the 2e Myth Drannor book as well, and then re-stat any applicable monsters into 4e. The quests that were there, I dont care one way or the other, they could be dropped or kept, or replaced. I just want totally updated fluff.
------------------------------------------
Oh. Campaign Setting: Please provide the background on why different things happen. For instance, the drow magic improvement with 3e (not destroyed by sunlight) wasnt listed in the FRCS, or any other sourcebook we could think of that it should have been in. We ended up ignoring it until I accidentally stumbled onto the novel that contained the background reason why. The background reasons need to be in the frcs. There are people who want to know why. For instance, (not that I necessarily expect the answer here) why do dwarves no longer have darkvision? that is something I would look for in the FRCG/FRCS. The why is often as or more important than the what. If the what doesnt have a reason why, myself and the players I game with often find it flavour breaking to use the new rule. New rules are fine, but we need to know what is causing them (not just make something up). Getting rid of drow heatvision, just made sense, because they didnt have heatvision really anyways. They couldnt track people like heatvision would have allowed them to, and if i recall correctly, they could see inanimate objects with no heat, and lizards.
----------------------------------------------
Obviously I can't dictate the new FR, but these are concerns that came up in the past, as well as questions I have.
----------------------------------------------
Oh. this is my first post on the WTC boards. Normally I haunt ENWorld, and I used to haunt Candlekeep.
Hello!
Are dragonborn just going to be dragonkin?
-No. We've all discussed the similarities between them and other Draconic/Reptilian races, but a new batch of Dragonborn are being delivered in Tyamnther, which used to be Unther. If you want to use the Dragonborn stats for Dragon-Kin in your own game (if separate Dragon-Kin stats don't appear, which I personally don't think they will), that'd make sense,
For instance, the drow magic improvement with 3e (not destroyed by sunlight) wasnt listed in the FRCS, or any other sourcebook we could think of that it should have been in. We ended up ignoring it until I accidentally stumbled onto the novel that contained the background reason why. The background reasons need to be in the frcs. There are people who want to know why. For instance, (not that I necessarily expect the answer here) why do dwarves no longer have darkvision? that is something I would look for in the FRCG/FRCS. The why is often as or more important than the what. If the what doesnt have a reason why, myself and the players I game with often find it flavour breaking to use the new rule. New rules are fine, but we need to know what is causing them (not just make something up). Getting rid of drow heatvision, just made sense, because they didnt have heatvision really anyways. They couldnt track people like heatvision would have allowed them to, and if i recall correctly, they could see inanimate objects with no heat, and lizards.
-What you are describing is a retcon. Retcons imply that "it was always like that". They're like changes, but changes to the fabric of the universe. Since the fabric of reality is changing, and "it was always like that", there usually isn't an in-game explanation. This does cause continuity gaffes sometimes (If Drow never had Infravision, then Narbondel [Sp?] in Menzoberranzan is pointless).
Oh. this is my first post on the WTC boards. Normally I haunt ENWorld, and I used to haunt Candlekeep.
-Well, we're as active and awesome as both ENWorld and Candlekeep put together, so hopefully you'll be posting more than just this. ;)
Can you give us any clues as to the survival of the Border Kingdoms post-Spellplague?
Eagerly awaiting the book!
-No. We've all discussed the similarities between them and other Draconic/Reptilian races, but a new batch of Dragonborn are being delivered in Tyamnther, which used to be Unther. If you want to use the Dragonborn stats for Dragon-Kin in your own game (if separate Dragon-Kin stats don't appear, which I personally don't think they will), that'd make sense,
Alright, then this one's for rich, or anyone else who can give a definitive answer (as are any questions from above that are unanswered). What is the main difference between dragonborn and dragonkin, other than origin, and what is "happening" to the existing race of dragonpeople that already populate the realms.
-What you are describing is a retcon. Retcons imply that "it was always like that". They're like changes, but changes to the fabric of the universe. Since the fabric of reality is changing, and "it was always like that", there usually isn't an in-game explanation. This does cause continuity gaffes sometimes (If Drow never had Infravision, then Narbondel [Sp?] in Menzoberranzan is pointless).
Narbondel still makes sense a little bit, its just far less useful than it was with infravision. It's only purpose now is to mark time. Darkvision was a logic based retcon; drow needed either fully functional infravision, or a replacement, and they went with the replacement. Those are ok. Flavor based changes (or even mechanical based changess with flavor based impacts) are the ones that need fluff backing, as opposed to a retcon. Like the loss of vancian magic and dumbing wizards versatility(# of spells that can be learned) to roughly that of a bard, or less. This is supposedly going to be explained as an effect of the reshaping of the cosmology. That is all well and good. Retcons aren't terribly important for minor things like tweaking unimportant monsters (kobolds becoming reptiles instead of vermin), but for something like a major change to a player race or fringe player race that is important to the campaign (drow magic becoming surface workable, the dwarves sudden loss of darkvision(without some comparable ability to compensate it and pass it off as a retcon), the elimination of subraces, the adding of subraces/races, the destruction of countries, the discovery of new continents) These are all things that merit explanation. As for the drow magic becoming better from 2e to 3e,
Show
it was a side effect of a rashemenian? rashemite? artifact finding its way into the possession of a priestess of lolth (who didnt really want to be) trying to escape the clergy and leave the underdark without losing her magic. She used the artifact (which had the ability to hold the magic of a whole land, or some such) to keep her power on the surface. She was unwittingly lolth's chosen, so lolth harnessed it, and passed it down to all the drow. Faerie fire, (from newer novels) apparently comes from channeling energy from the Faerzress in the underdark (Faerzress being created by high magic and partially causing the descent), not from lolth, so I'm not sure what the explanation for that particular one indefinitely working is.
Yes, and GreenKnight took his stuff!
You'd think a GREATER GOD (TM) would carry a little bit more then just a +5 vorpal longsword... There must be a hidden treasure room around here, somewhere, cause otherwise I just got royally gimped on the loot.
It should be early summer '09. That's usually the pattern.
I didn't work on the swordmage class, but as you might imagine, I followed its design and development with a great deal of interest, and kibbitzed when I could. When I started work on the novel, only the broadest strokes of the character concept were in place -- we knew he was an arcane defender, we knew that he relied on magical wards in place of armor, and we knew that he'd achieve some of the defender's "stickiness" through a fair sprinkling of teleport and transposition type effects.
As the class evolved in development, I did find that a few things I'd been working with changed on me. For example, in my book, Geran fights as a skilled swordsman most of the time, and uses relatively few overtly magical attacks. If you play a swordmage at the game table, most of your at-will powers are pretty magical-looking. I wouldn't want to go too far with that in the fiction, just because I like being able to say things like "riposte" and "parry" without describing an obviously magical effect each time I do. In game terms, I guess Geran's pretty fond of his basic melee attack... Anyway, there are a couple of power names that were drawn from my draft of Swordmage--the silversteel veil, scales of the dragon--that I was hoping to see in the final draft, but I'm not sure how many of those actually made it through. You can assume that Geran uses fancy elven names for powers with more straightforward names in the rulebook, I guess.
I did persuade the developers to include a few more nods to my novel late in the game. For example, I asked for a feat for swordmages to get a spellbook that works like the wizard class feature. Given the fact that I mention Geran studying up and changing his powers a couple of times, I'm glad they obliged!
Rich, I was wondering if you had any insight on when Swordmage would be coming out on paperback? I was also wondering if you did the work on the class? I think you mentioned something about this earlier, but I can't remember or find it. If you did work on the class, what kind of philosophy did you bring to the creation of the class, how well does the final product fit that philosophy, and how well does it match what you were expecting? Thanks.
I mean when the Psionic rules are out will certain areas be shown as having a psionic "flair" to them? If so will they be mentioned prior tp the Psionic power source or will it be hush hush until the powersource is revealed?
Here, #1
Here, #2
I don't know if this has been asked before, but what 'core' classes will be included in the FRCG or Player's Guide?
I don't care about new classes - a big part of my decision on what to run soon hinges on when I can get my hands on the Monk and Bard classes. I can live without Monks for awhile (my personal favorite, though), but I really can't see being able to run an FR game without Bards.
Unless you guys decided to ditch the Harpers, as well, which you say you haven't.
Rich do you have any plans for areas that are mostly psionic?
I mean when the Psionic rules are out will certain areas be shown as having a psionic "flair" to them? If so will they be mentioned prior to the Psionic power source or will it be hush hush until the powersource is revealed?
Just a shot in the dark, here, but I'm not seeing any other logical reason for lowering the water-level in the Inner Sea ACCEPT to expose the ruins of Jhaadath, and all the 'long lost' psionic goodies buried therein.
Just a hunch, mind you. ;)
Hi, Reneshat --
It should be early summer '09. That's usually the pattern.
I didn't work on the swordmage class, but as you might imagine, I followed its design and development with a great deal of interest, and kibbitzed when I could. When I started work on the novel, only the broadest strokes of the character concept were in place -- we knew he was an arcane defender, we knew that he relied on magical wards in place of armor, and we knew that he'd achieve some of the defender's "stickiness" through a fair sprinkling of teleport and transposition type effects.
As the class evolved in development, I did find that a few things I'd been working with changed on me. For example, in my book, Geran fights as a skilled swordsman most of the time, and uses relatively few overtly magical attacks. If you play a swordmage at the game table, most of your at-will powers are pretty magical-looking. I wouldn't want to go too far with that in the fiction, just because I like being able to say things like "riposte" and "parry" without describing an obviously magical effect each time I do. In game terms, I guess Geran's pretty fond of his basic melee attack... Anyway, there are a couple of power names that were drawn from my draft of Swordmage--the silversteel veil, scales of the dragon--that I was hoping to see in the final draft, but I'm not sure how many of those actually made it through. You can assume that Geran uses fancy elven names for powers with more straightforward names in the rulebook, I guess.
I did persuade the developers to include a few more nods to my novel late in the game. For example, I asked for a feat for swordmages to get a spellbook that works like the wizard class feature. Given the fact that I mention Geran studying up and changing his powers a couple of times, I'm glad they obliged!
Awesome.
Rich in Swordmage Kara is the first realms character with a spellscar, we currently know that the powrs are gained like a multiclass only class, so how many of these rules were finished when you wrote Swordmage?
Can you tell us something about Corsair already?
Now, that said: There's a real limit to the number of dragon-man races we want running around in the world at the same time. So nothing in the FRPG or FRCG mentions the dragonkin. They weren't all that important before, and there wasn't any real reason to talk about them in the new setting, so why go out of our way to confuse folks?
RE: the eladrin, take a look at the 4th Edition Monster Manual. Creatures like the ghaele, the bralani, and the other varieties of the old celestial race are all considered to be part of the "high elf" eladrin race -- although heavy hitters like the ghaele are probably very high-ranking nobles or champions.
Are dragonborn just going to be dragonkin? The only difference I see is that the women have boobs. But you seem to write about them as if they're a new race. If so, how do they relate to dragonkin?
Are the 4e gnomes just going to be FR forest gnomes (thats what they seem to be, with small changes)
and what exactly happened to the shapeshifting celestials called eladrin. Now that eladrin are a new race of teleporting fey, are they called something else now?
Will the large number of tieflings be explained in the frcg?
---------------------------------------------------
Just somehting I would like to note. In 3e/3.5 there were many areas which I wanted an updated supplement on that never came. The solution was for me to convert 2e FR books to 3e so I could play in those regions. (converted the mechanics to 3e).
What I'm saying is, there are a number of older books, that I would pay for a new version of. And I don't mean rewrite all of it, I mean take the 2e book, put whatever information is necessary to make it 100 years in the future, and sell it to me. Out of print books are hard to find. And I want things like a whole book on Menzoberranzan, or a book on Myth Drannor, etc.
I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's worth looking into. But seriously, most of them are so hard to find, and a whole new book isnt necessary(or any more useful), I'd even go as far as to say it would be a waste of effort to do the whole book from scratch. I just want an updated version of the hard to find out of print books. You guys would cut production time to less than half :P
In the Myth Drannor book, provide the timeline, everything that has happened since the 2e Myth Drannor book as well, and then re-stat any applicable monsters into 4e. The quests that were there, I dont care one way or the other, they could be dropped or kept, or replaced. I just want totally updated fluff.
------------------------------------------
Oh. Campaign Setting: Please provide the background on why different things happen. For instance, the drow magic improvement with 3e (not destroyed by sunlight) wasnt listed in the FRCS, or any other sourcebook we could think of that it should have been in. We ended up ignoring it until I accidentally stumbled onto the novel that contained the background reason why. The background reasons need to be in the frcs. There are people who want to know why. For instance, (not that I necessarily expect the answer here) why do dwarves no longer have darkvision? that is something I would look for in the FRCG/FRCS. The why is often as or more important than the what. If the what doesnt have a reason why, myself and the players I game with often find it flavour breaking to use the new rule. New rules are fine, but we need to know what is causing them (not just make something up). Getting rid of drow heatvision, just made sense, because they didnt have heatvision really anyways. They couldnt track people like heatvision would have allowed them to, and if i recall correctly, they could see inanimate objects with no heat, and lizards.
----------------------------------------------
Obviously I can't dictate the new FR, but these are concerns that came up in the past, as well as questions I have.
----------------------------------------------
Oh. this is my first post on the WTC boards. Normally I haunt ENWorld, and I used to haunt Candlekeep.
Hello!
Question:
I don't know if this has been asked before, but what 'core' classes will be included in the FRCG or Player's Guide?
I don't care about new classes - a big part of my decision on what to run soon hinges on when I can get my hands on the Monk and Bard classes. I can live without Monks for awhile (my personal favorite, though), but I really can't see being able to run an FR game without Bards.
Unless you guys decided to ditch the Harpers, as well, which you say you haven't.
Just a shot in the dark, here, but I'm not seeing any other logical reason for lowering the water-level in the Inner Sea ACCEPT to expose the ruins of Jhaadath, and all the 'long lost' psionic goodies buried therein.
Just a hunch, mind you. ;)
The swordmage class is in the FR Player's Guide. Bard you'll see in PH 2. However, I'd *hope* that an extensive and playable bard preview will hit DDi sometime in the next couple of months.
Thank you very much for this quick and informative response.
The swordmage class is in the FR Player's Guide. Bard you'll see in PH 2. However, I'd *hope* that an extensive and playable bard preview will hit DDi sometime in the next couple of months.
I sure hope so!
Two quick yes/no questions:
1) Will Mask survive into 1479 D.R.?
2) Will Eltab (Demon Lord) be mentioned in the 4e FRCG?
Thank you!
Will
Rich,
Two quick yes/no questions:
1) Will Mask survive into 1479 D.R.?
2) Will Eltab (Demon Lord) be mentioned in the 4e FRCG?
Thank you!
Will
Just passing by to add my support onto both questions.
Can you share any tidbits on possible developments in the Border Kingdoms post-Spellplague?
and Ubtao?
-Can't confuse people with to many Sub-Races of 'Dwarves' now can we? ;)
-Ubtao? He probably got 'Trashed'. Can't have too many Gods now can we. :P
-Who know he may have gotten Merged with some other God. :embarrass
18DELTA :D
-The are probably just 'Dwarves' now.
No...
Them and the Arctic Dwarves took the last Spelljammer out, and got as far away from the Spellplague as possible. :D
And here, we thought they were the 'stupid' versions. :D
This is the third time this question has come up, so I think he either doesn't know (doubtful), or he is avoiding it for whatever reason (probably wants to keep a few things secret for the Gencon release).
We know that the Shaar has undergone drastic change and with the stated FR design of shifting the play experience to western Faerun, my suspicion is the Border Kingdoms---and my favorite Realms' NPC, the Mad Mage--are no more.
If that's the case, I am hoping that the theme and tone of the BK has shifted to the Sword Coast or some such, allowing it to be the new home of "adventurers who would be kings."
The Great, big expanse of the Shaar was one, most of the North another, parts of the Endless Wastes, Thar and the Ride, etc, etc...
Even the Great Dale - its not a real political entity in any meaningful way, and I always wondered why someone like Thay or Zhentil Keep didn't just move right in.
Anyway, I expect they will keep at least one area open to DM development, and this region would make an excellent spot for that - much as it was in 3e.
-The are probably just 'Dwarves' now.
-Can't confuse people with to many Sub-Races of 'Dwarves' now can we?]
Why not? Eberron's designer made a good point against stats for subraces - or at least subraces that could be considered as cultures or are just plain not divergent and unique enough.
You know, that wouldn't make them disapear.
Why create a subrace, when fluff-text and a Feat can do pretty much the same thing?
Are we going to see more PC races other than the Drow and Genasi in the FRPG? Like say for example, half-Orcs?
Is Araeven Teshuur still alive and well?
Thanks in advance,
Teo
Truthfully, I never really 'got' the Border Kingdoms - there are HUNDREDS of places throughout Faerûn one could set up a small kingdom, not just there.
Perhaps.
To me, the Border Kingdoms, perhaps more so than any other part of the established Realms, are designed to be easily customised for particular and/or individual home Realms campaigns -- complete with swiftly shifting borders and ever-changing rulers. So there's plenty of room for changes and/or the addition of new details for your game.
rephrasing the question
what happened to dur Authalar?
Perhaps.
To me, the Border Kingdoms, perhaps more so than any other part of the established Realms, are designed to be easily customised for particular and/or individual home Realms campaigns -- complete with swiftly shifting borders and ever-changing rulers. So there's plenty of room for changes and/or the addition of new details for your game.
Hence, the final sentence in my post which you quoted. :P
I agree completely - although you could build a Kingdom anywhere (and Jarlaxle tried!), the Border Kingdoms are expressly set-up for that purpose. Being the one area that was already 100% 4e-compatible, I can't see why they would change that region - but you never know.
Truthfully, I never really 'got' the Border Kingdoms - there are HUNDREDS of places throughout Faerûn one could set up a small kingdom, not just there.
Totally agreed, but I still love that area.
Being the one area that was already 100% 4e-compatible, I can't see why they would change that region...
I've wondered the same thing.
Thinking about it these last few minutes, I do see a difference. You could carve out a Kingdom in the North (I believe a Halfling was attempting that in Greenfields at the end of 3e), or even on the eastern shore of the Dragon Reach, but you'd have to be a 'good power' in order to get the approval of others in the area (and their support, which you'll probably need).
If you wanted to be "not so nice", then you'd probably be taken off your high horse - and throne - pretty damn quick by some Harpers or a nearby nation. You could try it in the Moonsea region, but the Zhents would kill or subvert you even quicker then the 'forces of good'.
The Shar would force you to contend with Wild tribes, monsters (including dragons and the nation of Veldorn), and at least two mighty empires that lay claim to parts of the region (Calimshan and Mulhorand).
And forget the east - You'd be sandwiched between Thay and Yaïmmunahar (although I always liked the Lake of Mists for a new Raumviaran Kingdom). Nothing like getting caught between a rock and a hard place.
The Border Kingdoms seems to be the only place to set up a 'despotic' kingdom where no-one will bother you. If you want to rule, but don't want any goodie-goodies butting in (or bad-guys for that matter), it seems the only place you'd be pretty much left to your own devices.
That said... the FR Campaign Guide says very little about the Border Kingdoms, and pretty much leaves them the way they were before--a patchwork of petty domains.
Rich,
Can you share any tidbits on possible developments in the Border Kingdoms post-Spellplague?
Rich,
Are we going to see more PC races other than the Drow and Genasi in the FRPG? Like say for example, half-Orcs?
Is Araeven Teshuur still alive and well?
Thanks in advance,
Teo
I don't think I've seen any Arctic Dwarf Heritage or Wild Dwarf Heritage feats yet, but that might be good ground for a DDi article in the future.
what happened to Jungle Dwarves? the Chult excerpt doesn't mention them
and Ubtao?
Not in the FR Player's Guide. However, you'll see half-orcs in core D&D fairly soon.
Let me be the first to say "SWEEEET". Finally, some counterbalance to the 4 kinds of elves already out there.
As Markus observed, I am ducking this one for the moment--I don't want to get tied up in a whole string of 'What happened to X?' questions only a couple of weeks before the book releases.
That said... the FR Campaign Guide says very little about the Border Kingdoms, and pretty much leaves them the way they were before--a patchwork of petty domains.
-Thats good news.
-Thanks Rich. :D
18DELTA
As Markus observed, I am ducking this one for the moment--I don't want to get tied up in a whole string of 'What happened to X?' questions only a couple of weeks before the book releases.
That said... the FR Campaign Guide says very little about the Border Kingdoms, and pretty much leaves them the way they were before--a patchwork of petty domains.
Very understandable, Rich, and I'll refrain from such posts again--and many thanks for giving a response, too.
Specifically, I have a character who was a close follower of Ioun, who is transferring to a FR4e campaign, and I need an indication of an appropriate goddess for him to follow.
Thanks in advance, folks, and I apologize for not going through more of the thread, I just found out I got approved to join the FR game, and I need an idea for how to finish converting my character's flavor.
I'm sure I've missed this, having neither time nor patience to sift through 161 pages, but do we have confirmed FR deities for 4e? And what core/previous edition deities have been wrapped up into them?
-This has, indeed, been asked many times. Right now, there is no answer. There was supposed to be a DRAGON/DDI (Whatever it is. Is there even a difference? I don't even know.) talking with deities. In short, for whatever reason, it was scrapped. Because there's what? A few weeks between now, and when the FRCG book is being publishing, the article isn't going to be released. So, for a definitive answer, you'll have to peruse the book itself.
-This has, indeed, been asked many times. Right now, there is no answer. There was supposed to be a DRAGON/DDI (Whatever it is. Is there even a difference? I don't even know.) talking with deities. In short, for whatever reason, it was scrapped. Because there's what? A few weeks between now, and when the FRCG book is being publishing, the article isn't going to be released. So, for a definitive answer, you'll have to peruse the book itself.
Thank you. Uhm...where could I get some information on 3.X FR goddesses, then? I'd like to at least have a clue, since it's an important aspect to my character.
Thank you. Uhm...where could I get some information on 3.X FR goddesses, then? I'd like to at least have a clue, since it's an important aspect to my character.
-The 3e book Faiths & Pantheons gives a brief overview of the deities of the Forgotten Realms. The 2e era sourcebooks Faiths & Avatars, Powers & Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities. Do the same thing, only better. Basically, F&P is those three books squished into one. So, obviously, you will be losing a lot of information. F&P only has a few updates to a few deities, information on the Orc Pantheon, and an adventure.
-The 3e book Faiths & Pantheons gives a brief overview of the deities of the Forgotten Realms. The 2e era sourcebooks Faiths & Avatars, Powers & Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities. Do the same thing, only better. Basically, F&P is those three books squished into one. So, obviously, you will be losing a lot of information. F&P only has a few updates to a few deities, information on the Orc Pantheon, and an adventure.
Is any of that available through download/free content? Not really worth spending the money on, with a new edition just a few weeks away.
Is any of that available through download/free content? Not really worth spending the money on, with a new edition just a few weeks away.
-F&P, no. eBay, you can probably get a good deal. All those others, you can download them for $4 a pop on Paizo.com, as .PDF files.
-F&P, no. eBay, you can probably get a good deal. All those others, you can download them for $4 a pop on Paizo.com, as .PDF files.
Eh, I'll try to hit a gaming store later this week. $4 may not seem like much, but it's not really worth it, to me. Considering it could be inaccurate information, anyway. Close, at least, yes, but no guarantee of direct translation.
Eh, I'll try to hit a gaming store later this week. $4 may not seem like much, but it's not really worth it, to me. Considering it could be inaccurate information, anyway. Close, at least, yes, but no guarantee of direct translation.
When you're buying a PDF from Paizo or Drivethrurpg.com, you don't have to worry about that. It's not something you get on torrents, but official PDF versions. So every single page from the original product will be included.
When you're buying a PDF from Paizo or Drivethrurpg.com, you don't have to worry about that. It's not something you get on torrents, but official PDF versions. So every single page from the original product will be included.
-I think he meant inaccurate, in the context that 4e might change things.
EDIT: Never mind. I read this statement more clearly.
Originally Posted by Cohen95
I'm sure I've missed this, having neither time nor patience to sift through 161 pages, but do we have confirmed FR deities for 4e? And what core/previous edition deities have been wrapped up into them?
I foresee conversions/adaptations notes as in the 3,X books....
Rich, the question came to my mind in a discussion about some races - like Duergar. Any words on what happened to the Svirfneblins?
-I think he meant inaccurate, in the context that 4e might change things.
This, actually, is what I meant. Plus, with 4e books so close, I don't have any compulsion to spend $4 on something I can probably find in a bookstore and sit and read through for free.
Sorry, I've been out of the office for a few days.
No, ghostwise halflings aren't really touched on in the FRCG or FRPG. If I were to stat them up, I'd use the approach Green Knight suggests -- it would be a racial feat that halflings can pick. Halfings who choose that feat have some ghostwise blood in them; those who don't, don't.
I don't think it would have a big mechanical benefit--maybe a small boost to the party's passive perception? I suppose I'd let the PCs coordinate surprise attacks better, too.
...while in this more recent post you say the following.
We don't want to create subraces the same way we did in previous editions. We think the game is stronger if a dwarf is a dwarf. However, some races do have feats like "Ghostwise Heritage" that lets you steer your PC concept toward what would have been a subrace in 3rd Edition. You'll have the same stat modifiers and basic racial abilities of any halfling, but you'll have a little extra touch of ghostwise about you.
I don't think I've seen any Arctic Dwarf Heritage or Wild Dwarf Heritage feats yet, but that might be good ground for a DDi article in the future.
So I take it that something changed between then and now? If so, can we expect the aformention Ghostwise Heritage Feat in the FRPG or is that something we'll see in DDI later on? Also, any other former subraces getting Heritage Feats? Thanks.
Rich, the question came to my mind in a discussion about some races - like Duergar. Any words on what happened to the Svirfneblins?
-With Duergar, I think it'll be the same as Ghostwise Halflings and such. 'Dwarf' stats, with specific feats (like Invisibility and Enlarge). Svirfneblin, too.
-With Duergar, I think it'll be the same as Ghostwise Halflings and such. 'Dwarf' stats, with specific feats (like Invisibility and Enlarge). Svirfneblin, too.
Duergar as monsters are in H2, Words of God.
18DELTA
Duergar as monsters are in H2, Words of God.
-Well, never mind that, then. Are they still considered Dwarves?
-Well, never mind that, then. Are they still considered Dwarves?
I think it's the case where they are considered related to dwarves, lorewise, but aren't technically dwarves, ruleswise. They might have been in the MM (have to check).
-They are Devil Dwarves in 4E. (Medium natural humaniod, dwarf(devil) page 20 and 21 in book 1 of H2)
-Also according to H2, the Duergar worship Asmodeus. They came to believe that Moradin Abandoned them when they were enslaved to the Mind Flayers. ;)
-So thats another batch of damned souls for the 9 Hells.
18DELTA
@RICH
Wanted to say thanks for all the FR Campaign Guide preview material that's been released of late. There's lots of good, useful stuff in there.
Also, is it too early to talk about the seeming-reorg that appears to be going on at WotC? I'm just hoping the net result is more in-print FR Sourcebooks.
I would drop a spoiler about the pantheon, but it's going to be revealed in the Living Realms materials in just another eight or nine days. I don't want to step on 'em.
I can't really talk about company organization stuff. You've all seen the Gleemax announcement and the book line changes. As they say, the company is narrowing its attention and focusing on the core brands for now.
Nice work Delta, as usual.
@RICH
Wanted to say thanks for all the FR Campaign Guide preview material that's been released of late. There's lots of good, useful stuff in there.
Also, is it too early to talk about the seeming-reorg that appears to be going on at WotC? I'm just hoping the net result is more in-print FR Sourcebooks.
I believe that there are a few more "subrace" feats in the FRPG.
So I take it that something changed between then and now? If so, can we expect the aformention Ghostwise Heritage Feat in the FRPG or is that something we'll see in DDI later on? Also, any other former subraces getting Heritage Feats? Thanks.
Sweet. So any chance you can let us in on one or two other subraces getting a similar feat? Please, suh, it's Christmas! ;)
If you can think of major subraces which do not require major changes to the core character races, they're likely there.
Examples: Sun, Moon, Star, Wood and Wild elves, Most Dwarves, the three branches of Halflings.
You also might get lucky in they might leak it this month in an excerpt or a hint for the new living realms. Yet either of those are not up to Rich, but the research teams.
-They are not in the MM. H2 was the release of them. They will probably be in MM2.
-They are Devil Dwarves in 4E. (Medium natural humaniod, dwarf(devil) page 20 and 21 in book 1 of H2)
-Also according to H2, the Duergar worship Asmodeus. They came to believe that Moradin Abandoned them when they were enslaved to the Mind Flayers. ;)
-So thats another batch of damned souls for the 9 Hells.
18DELTA
Now you see, this completely goes against what happened at the end of the GHotR, where the Gray Dwarves merged back into the 'regular Dwarves'.
Is H2 'core'? The fluff doesn't match what they were going for at the end of 3e at all.
Unless the Gray Dwarves in H2 become Derro - I can see them being split-off into their own race, the way the Drow were. In fact, I thought that was the reasoning behind rolling the the Duergar back into the normal dwarves (so we wouldn't have two, seperate races of evil, psionic dwarves).
My other problem is (and this has NOTHING to do with 4e, just FR) is that why is it that everything in the UNIVERSE happened on Toril?!
I always joke that FR is the 'bright center of the universe', but it appears that it really isn't a joke. The Drow got changed there, Lolth became a goddess again there, the Duergar (a race available on every world) were 'turned' there, etc, etc...
Whats with relating every piece of the multiverse's history back to Toril? Didn't anything happen somewhere else?
And Mystra's fall re-arranging the cosmos was just the icing on the cake.
18DELTA ;)
Please, suh, it's Christmas! ;)
That's priceless.
-So confusing. Rich, might you be able to clear some of this up?
If it were up to me, and I was writing the FR conversion for it, I would make those Gray Dwarves Derro, so as not to go against canon that was only established a few months ago (with 4e in mind!).
-Now in the Realms maybe 'Asmodeus' or the closest thing to him in the Realms. He/She/orIt Made a pact with them to free them from their 'Bondage' to the 'Mindflayers'. Its just we didn't know all that. Now it's time to collect on that pact. :D
-Some of the changes I don't mind. I just want the changes to make some sort of sense with the Lore that came before.
18DELTA :D
18DELTA ;)
If we have 'FR canon' and 'core' canon, then we wind-up right back where we started. Now that I've wrapped my mind around 4e, I don't want to have to sift through two seperate sets of books anymore to figure out which piece of lore applies to the game I'm running.
-According to H2, the Duergar worship Asmodeus. They came to believe that Moradin Abandoned them when they were enslaved to the Mind Flayers. Thats the 'Core' explanation. ;)
-We know in the Realms that Clan Duregar was enslaved by the Mind Flayers. ;)
-So how can we make the Lore meet in the middle? :D
18DELTA
In the Forgotten Realms books, we will be introduced, completely, to the new Arcane Defender, the SwordMage. Will a multi-class feat for this class be included, as well? Or will that be put off for PHB2/other supplements?
-Thanks.
--So how can we make the Lore meet in the middle? :D
Looking over the entry for 1383 DR, there was a host of Duergar who united with the Gold Dwarves to defeat a common enemy (the Illithids). It does NOT say ALL the Duergar - only the ones that participated in that epic battle (the War of Gold and Gloom).
The Dark Dwarven powers died that same year; the other Duergar in Faerûn (those not invited to 'the party'), would now be friendless and godless... wonderfully ripe candidates for devils to whisper foul things in their ears.
In other words, those that didn't join with the Gold Dwarves to reform Shanatar (expect to see new version of it in 4e ) turned to other Dark Gods when their's died - and Asmodeus is pretty high-up the list of 'Dark Powers'.
-Now what about when they were enslaved by the Mind Flayer's? How can we make the lore fit there? :D
18DELTA
The blurb in GHotR makes it appear that the Illithids were behind the Spawn Wars that lead to the fall of Old Shanatar - once this info was brought to light, the Gold Dwarves made peace with their Deep brethren.
This is the wrong thread for this - sorry Rich, mods, and LK.
18DELTA ;)
Hmmmm... but I thought that would defeat the whole purpose of 'universal rules for everyone'.
If we have 'FR canon' and 'core' canon, then we wind-up right back where we started. Now that I've wrapped my mind around 4e, I don't want to have to sift through two seperate sets of books anymore to figure out which piece of lore applies to the game I'm running.
Universal rules doesn't mean universal canon. If you've got two different settings then it's pretty much a given that things'll be different between them. The cosmology will be the same, but that doesn't mean that how that cosmology came about will be the same for all settings (in core, it's always been that way, while in the Realms, it came about that way because of the Spellplague). Other differences include Dragonborn happily serving dragons in core, while Abeir Dragonborn utterly despise dragons, and so on.
Hmmmm... but I thought that would defeat the whole purpose of 'universal rules for everyone'.
If we have 'FR canon' and 'core' canon, then we wind-up right back where we started. Now that I've wrapped my mind around 4e, I don't want to have to sift through two seperate sets of books anymore to figure out which piece of lore applies to the game I'm running.
Well, I think it is supposed to be a one-way relationship: everything in core is in FR, but not the other way around, so FR can certainly have extra stuff that is not in core.
We want the rule mechanics to be identical, or nearly so. Some aspects of the rule set have strong story implications, of course--for example, creature origins and cosmology. Hence the Abyss moves to the Elemental Chaos in FR, because demons are elemental in nature, not immortals, in core D&D and we have to follow suit. But most flavor can indeed change from setting to setting.
That said, Markus (think it was Markus?) made a sharp observation about duergar having a hundred years to explore their devilish connections since the downfall of Laduguer. If the FR variation on the core duergar story is "they turned to Asmodeus after Laduguer died" instead of "they turned to Asmodeus when the mind flayers enslaved them," that's perfectly in bounds as far as I'm concerned. And it makes good sense. They sure wouldn't come running back to Moradin, would they?
Core lore will probably be different than FR lore in some cases and similar in others right Rich?
ooh! I got one!
In the Forgotten Realms books, we will be introduced, completely, to the new Arcane Defender, the SwordMage. Will a multi-class feat for this class be included, as well? Or will that be put off for PHB2/other supplements?
-Thanks.
Considering the prominent roles Bard's play in Forgotten Realms can we expect to see that class before the PHB II comes out? I think it would be ridiculous to wait two months to view a class that has played such a role in FR. Of course they may not be that prominent in the new era....
-Like so many other things, they will continue to exist in the Forgotten Realms, but won't be given D&D statistics. So, I'd expect to see a somewhat diminished mention of these things in the new books, but once the class is out, DDI stuff concerning them. Perhaps 'Class Chronicle' things, like Eytan Berstein wrote.
By recent I mean around the time of the death of Mystra (*tear*) and such.
(AKA around the time of the creation/change of the edition that caused me to stop playing D&D
)I was wondering if there is a website/book/quasi deity where I could get alot of the info and detail of what happen in the "recent years" in the Realms?
The 'Grand History of the Realms' is the book you want to look for.
I was wondering if there is a website/book/quasi deity where I could get alot of the info and detail of what happen in the "recent years" in the Realms? I like to stay current on whats going on in FR cause I read alot of novels and such and sometimes am going "Huh?! When dat happen!?" It seems like someone took the setting, put it in a blender,hit FUBAR and tried to put it back together upside down!
By recent I mean around the time of the death of Mystra (*tear*) and such.
(AKA around the time of the creation/change of the edition that caused me to stop playing D&D
-For everything before 1385 DR, there is the aforementioned A Grand History of the Realms. For things after 1385 DR, there is the 4e FAQ thread, which MT wrote up, that basically puts all of the information in the various preview articles into one source. In a few weeks, the new FRCG will also be released, and undoubtedly, that will show us some new information on the world.
I was wondering if there is a website/book/quasi deity where I could get alot of the info and detail of what happen in the "recent years" in the Realms? I like to stay current on whats going on in FR cause I read alot of novels and such and sometimes am going "Huh?! When dat happen!?" It seems like someone took the setting, put it in a blender,hit FUBAR and tried to put it back together upside down!
By recent I mean around the time of the death of Mystra (*tear*) and such.
(AKA around the time of the creation/change of the edition that caused me to stop playing D&D
-I suggest you go to this thread The 4E FR Handy Link Thread. :D
-Look at the Countdown to the Realms Articles.
18DELTA ;)
We don't want to create subraces the same way we did in previous editions. We think the game is stronger if a dwarf is a dwarf.
While I don't mean to nitpick (and this may be the wrong place to put this), but if "the game is stronger if race -X- stays race -X-" is the consensus of 4E, then why are we given two types of Elves (Elves/Eladrin) in the Player's Handbook? Your above statement doesn't reconcile well with that fact ;) , unless it's just that Elves are that much more popular than the other races (or that I misunderstand Eladrin).
The same with the Drow - NO subraces - three distinct races that are somehow related in the distant past.
Actually, what you mention was the reasoning behind WHY the Gray (Gold/Silver/Star) Elves became a seperate race - the Eladrin.
The same with the Drow - NO subraces - three distinct races that are somehow related in the distant past.
I fail to see how this would be different for the Duerger or Svirfneblin. They were once Dwarfs and Gnomes, respectively, as Drow were once Elves. While they have different reasons for being as they are now (Divine Intervention or centuries of evolution), I would classify all of the above as subraces. They're all listed as such in the 3.0 FRCS as well as the 3.5 FRPG, anyway.
I fail to see how this would be different for the Duerger or Svirfneblin. They were once Dwarfs and Gnomes, respectively, as Drow were once Elves. While they have different reasons for being as they are now (Divine Intervention or centuries of evolution), I would classify all of the above as subraces. They're all listed as such in the 3.0 FRCS as well as the 3.5 FRPG, anyway.
It's a matter of perspective. They're aren't starting with one race and making changes to it. They are making an entirely new race that shares a history in the past. In cases where a race isn't all that different from another race, instead of making a new race they'll just add some heritage feats. This means a that all members of a race share a set of common traits.
I fail to see how this would be different for the Duerger or Svirfneblin. They were once Dwarfs and Gnomes, respectively, as Drow were once Elves. While they have different reasons for being as they are now (Divine Intervention or centuries of evolution), I would classify all of the above as subraces. They're all listed as such in the 3.0 FRCS as well as the 3.5 FRPG, anyway.
Using this logic then, Tieflings would still be classified as a subrace of Human, right?
Bel
Using this logic then, Tieflings would still be classified as a subrace of Human, right?
Bel
It's my understanding that the Planetouched can be of any racial decent, not just human...
I guess my question is are Drow/Eladrin so much more different from Elves that that they require their own unique racial entries wheras Duergar/Svirfneblin do not? Could not these differences have been explained with a feat/power subset like they have planed for the latter-mentioned races?
It's my understanding that the Planetouched can be of any racial decent, not just human...
I guess my question is are Drow/Eladrin so much more different from Elves that that they require their own unique racial entries wheras Duergar/Svirfneblin do not? Could not these differences have been explained with a feat/power subset like they have planed for the latter-mentioned races?
Planetouched yes, Tieflings in particular no, both 3x and 4E describe them as being of human and evil outsider (3x) or human with an infernal bloodline (4E).
Duergar in 4E are;
Distant kin to dwarves, duergar are a sullen, covetous race tainted by a long association with devils and infernal magic. Known also as gray dwarves, duergar share a love of mining and metalwork with their dwarven kin.
ANd I'm sure Svirfneblin, Derro and Urdunnir will get their own enties if they are deemed worthy.
Planetouched yes, Tieflings in particular no, both 3x and 4E describe them as being of human and evil outsider (3x) or human with an infernal bloodline (4E).
I can't believe I missed that. I guess I just always looked at Planetouched in general. Thanks for that.
Also, thanks for that bit about the Duergar. Here's hoping for the others to have a similar write up!
Bel
-Rich, is the date of the FRCG's release being pushed back? Someone I know told me this, and I've never heard anything to that effect. Amazon doesn't say anything either, but amazon isn't updated every second.
-Ok Karsus dont go and get Markus in a tizy! :P
- Last I heard it was the 19th.
18DELTA ;)
- Last I heard it was the 19th.
18DELTA ;)
-Me, too. But, like I said, someone told me it was being rolled back to early September, and since I've never heard anything of that sort...
Bel
Maybe they want to release all the FR books together?
-Makes sense. I know, that's what *I* would do.
Unless there was a VERY good reason behind it.
-Ok Karsus dont go and get Markus in a tizy!
Two thoughts - maybe they've been listening to the outcry and are re-doing all the maps...
or they are going back through the book to fnd anything that could become a problem - I can think of several things, but since I'm on the 4e train ATM I won't go there.
Either way, its not worth speculating on right now, since it's nothing more then a rumor.
18DELTA
Both he and I have birthdays this month, and it was kinda like a present to ourselves.
It should be intersting, though - wish I was still attending.
-Rich will Gem Dragons make it in 4E?
-Thanks.
18DELTA
-Rich will Gem Dragons make it in 4E?
-Like I said about Gnomes, and Bards, and so many other things that won't be seeing stats immediately, they'll continue to exist in the Forgotten Realms, but they just won't get many mentions until their D&D stats are updated.
-When is your B-Day Markus?
-Rich will Gem Dragons make it in 4E?
-Thanks.
18DELTA
I was wondering, what was the reason behind the major changes to the Harpers?
I love the old Harpers and must say I was disappointed in the change I read in the recent excerpt. So I am curious as to the process behind that change as it is a major one I think.
Hey Rich
I was wondering, what was the reason behind the major changes to the Harpers?
I love the old Harpers and must say I was disappointed in the change I read in the recent excerpt. So I am curious as to the process behind that change as it is a major one I think.
Count 1000000000000 more people for that question.
Setting the Harpers up to be "enemies of Netheril" is a bit narrow, but Netheril is a big threat. It borders dozens of lands, so Harpers might be active anywhere from the Moonsea to the Dragon Coast to the Gray Vale to Luruar. And I'm sure they've got other things on their plates besides the shades.
Hey Rich
I was wondering, what was the reason behind the major changes to the Harpers?
I love the old Harpers and must say I was disappointed in the change I read in the recent excerpt. So I am curious as to the process behind that change as it is a major one I think.
FR lived thank's to it's complexity, it was what make it live all that time where the others failed. And now that complexity is gone.
And to ask a question you can't answer, did all the designers go and hide under their desks or beds when they heard that the Luruar excerpt was going to be released to the masses today? :-)
And since an real question may be obligatory, can you tell me if the various wards that protected settlements across Faerûn from danger still exist, can still be created or if they've all been washed away by the Spellplague? It seems that would make an awful lot of the smaller settlements unviable.
Not to speak ill of previous design directions, but I've long believed that some of the developments at the end of 2nd Edition really knocked the Harpers off-track. The whole "Harper Schism" angle, the focus on internal factions, and the way Harpers were handled in some of the fiction, combined to make this great organization seem very soap-opera-like and excessively angst-y. Most of our internal discussions about Harpers moving into 4e ran toward "oh, just let them die already." But I think it would have been a sadder and more diminished setting without the Harpers at all. So what you're seeing with the Harpers is an effort to rehabilitate the organization, to shake it free of its angst and self-doubt, to restore its secretiveness and exclusivity. In other words, we want joining the Harpers to be something that comes with a real sense of achievement for the player.
Setting the Harpers up to be "enemies of Netheril" is a bit narrow, but Netheril is a big threat. It borders dozens of lands, so Harpers might be active anywhere from the Moonsea to the Dragon Coast to the Gray Vale to Luruar. And I'm sure they've got other things on their plates besides the shades.
-Thanks Rich. So those that were left became focused on a greater evil in the realms.
18DELTA ;)
-Thanks Rich. So those that were left became focused on a greater evil in the realms.
18DELTA ;)
Against Sauron you mean.
But I think it would have been a sadder and more diminished setting without the Harpers at all.
I much prefered the old Harpers--and yes, I did like the developments made near the end of 2E--but I appreciate it that you didn't just get rid of them altogether (as some designers apparently wanted).
I much prefered the old Harpers--and yes, I did like the developments made near the end of 2E--but I appreciate it that you didn't just get rid of them altogether (as some designers apparently wanted).
That would have been even worse
I for one liked the Harpers as they were
That would have been even worse
I for one liked the Harpers as they were
Me too, complexity is more attractive. The easy way is boring.
Thanks in advance.
Will the maps be of the quality in the excerpts or will they be on par with the Cormyr article that was posted in Dragon 366?
In the core books, there are safeguards against dumb/nefarious PCs burning through their colleagues' resources. For example, if I use "healing word" on a 30th level character who has only lost a few hit points, said character gains the right to use a healing surge, but he can decline if he feels that resource would be better spent later in the game.
Judging by the most recent FR preview article, these safeguards aren't as strong in the Realms. The "One Final Sacrifice" power, for example, enables the party warlock to augment his own damage by draining his allies' hit points, whether or not those allies consent to the draining. Which gives me a reason not to want that warlock in the party in the first place, if I don't think he is a very competent player. And that's a troubling incentive to introduce around the gaming table, in my view at least.
What I'm wondering about is whether the Realms designers are pulling back a bit from the general principle that allies shouldn't be allowed to burn each other's resources without consent? Or is that particular warlock power just a one-time exception?
The robin hood example comes to mind since many people will know what they are and what they stand for - but they will have to work in secret to saveguard themselves and their loved ones.
Could work quite well for something like a spionage centered campaign. But still these are bad omens for Storm.
Just a quick question Rich:
Your Last Mythal Triology brought great changes to Myth Drannor, and in Swordmage you told us even more about the city, so is there any chance that we might get a Dragon article about it from you?
I have just one question about 4E Realms.
I am currently playing a cleric of Sehanine in a 4E Realms campaign. I know Selune is going to be around because she was mentioned in the Swordmage preview.
Is Sehanine still going to be around or is she being merged with Selune?
Thanks
Not to speak ill of previous design directions, but I've long believed that some of the developments at the end of 2nd Edition really knocked the Harpers off-track. The whole "Harper Schism" angle, the focus on internal factions, and the way Harpers were handled in some of the fiction, combined to make this great organization seem very soap-opera-like and excessively angst-y. Most of our internal discussions about Harpers moving into 4e ran toward "oh, just let them die already." But I think it would have been a sadder and more diminished setting without the Harpers at all. So what you're seeing with the Harpers is an effort to rehabilitate the organization, to shake it free of its angst and self-doubt, to restore its secretiveness and exclusivity. In other words, we want joining the Harpers to be something that comes with a real sense of achievement for the player.
Setting the Harpers up to be "enemies of Netheril" is a bit narrow, but Netheril is a big threat. It borders dozens of lands, so Harpers might be active anywhere from the Moonsea to the Dragon Coast to the Gray Vale to Luruar. And I'm sure they've got other things on their plates besides the shades.
I can see a whole "Harper Movement" popping up all over the Realms. People here about the "ragtag heros up North keeping Nethril at bay." and other cells of self proclaimed (in secret of course) Harpers start showing up where evil rears its ugly head. Over the course of a few years I can see these cells communicating with each other and aiding each other when they can.
The semisecret organization has just become a secret one for the time being.
So Rich can we assume that this current timeline is like a new Age of Heros type deal? So many people were just trying to survive the last 100 years that the concept of a hero has really gone by the wayside?
Is Sehanine still going to be around or is she being merged with Selune?
Thanks
Considering that Sehanine is a Core 4e deity, I am sure she will be
Where does the Eastern border of Cormyr run, especially in Thunder Gap?
In times past Purple Dragons patrolled Thunder Gap, ensuring safe passage for caravans travelling to and from Deepingdale. Over the last century, however, the crown’s influence in the region has diminished greatly.
Thanks for that. So the Gap isn't part of Cormyr then and stabilising the area (and finding a way of getting through Hullack Forest safely) could yield a lot of money for someone. Hmmm.
I wish we had the guy who did the Cormyr map do more; that was some outstanding work. But unless I'm mistaken we just "discovered" him in the last couple of months, long after the maps for the FRCG were worked on.
Rich:
Will the maps be of the quality in the excerpts or will they be on par with the Cormyr article that was posted in Dragon 366?
As an aside, I sort of wish we'd saved the dark pact warlock for a different book. But the FRPG is where the mechanical design team decided to debut him. There is some method to their madness--drow have the stat modifiers to make outstanding fey pact warlocks, but since fey doesn't seem to be the right pact for a drow warlock thematically, giving that warlock a different pact relying on high Charisma isn't crazy.
Rich, here's a question:
In the core books, there are safeguards against dumb/nefarious PCs burning through their colleagues' resources. For example, if I use "healing word" on a 30th level character who has only lost a few hit points, said character gains the right to use a healing surge, but he can decline if he feels that resource would be better spent later in the game.
Judging by the most recent FR preview article, these safeguards aren't as strong in the Realms. The "One Final Sacrifice" power, for example, enables the party warlock to augment his own damage by draining his allies' hit points, whether or not those allies consent to the draining. Which gives me a reason not to want that warlock in the party in the first place, if I don't think he is a very competent player. And that's a troubling incentive to introduce around the gaming table, in my view at least.
What I'm wondering about is whether the Realms designers are pulling back a bit from the general principle that allies shouldn't be allowed to burn each other's resources without consent? Or is that particular warlock power just a one-time exception?
These are most certanly a differend kind of harpers, and they seem more like robin hood now, and less like the big adventurers club they could be seem as.
The robin hood example comes to mind since many people will know what they are and what they stand for - but they will have to work in secret to saveguard themselves and their loved ones.
Could work quite well for something like a spionage centered campaign. But still these are bad omens for Storm.
Just a quick question Rich:
Your Last Mythal Triology brought great changes to Myth Drannor, and in Swordmage you told us even more about the city, so is there any chance that we might get a Dragon article about it from you?
OK, now on to table-talk: Why does Sehanine survive in the core pantheon, but not the FR pantheon? The answer is simple: the core pantheon doesn't have Selune. Basically, we weren't going to keep two chaotic good moon goddesses around, so who was manifesting who? Selune is a more central and important figure in the Realms than Sehanine. The FR design team wanted Selune, not Sehanine. On the other hand, Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed, chaotic evil gods of destruction. But Gruumsh has a heavier "investment," even in the context of FR, so he stays Gruumsh and reabsorbs Talos.
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
Rich,
I have just one question about 4E Realms.
I am currently playing a cleric of Sehanine in a 4E Realms campaign. I know Selune is going to be around because she was mentioned in the Swordmage preview.
Is Sehanine still going to be around or is she being merged with Selune?
Thanks
In the tumult of the Plague Years, Selune finds that she has to concentrate her power to preserve the Gates of the Moon, revealing that Sehanine Moonbow was one of her manifestations.
Thank you for destroying The Seldarine. Time and time again the FR design team has ignored everything about the FR. We shouldn't expect them to at least do it once. At this moment know that my wish is to see 4th edition tank, as a returning favor for everything that was done to kill the realms.
And Sehanine CAN'T BE SEL
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
Personally, I like the idea of a tighter pantheon and as such, that change (and the others like it) makes perfect sense. Nice job.
Just some quick questions;
How does the House of Nature fare, do Chauntea and Corellon split Silvanus between them?
Judging by the Chult preview, is Ubtao gone?
Bel
But merging Moradin and Yondalla into excisting gods seems a bit strange, as they were mainly the mother/father of the race + a bit of extra.
The question for Rich:
Does each race keep at least one god linked to the race? A protector/father/mother or the race having a special place in the heart of the god(s). It seems unnatural to me that only elves would keep them.
I'd advise anyone to cherry-pick from WotC's offerings and just ignore the rest.
Let 4e set you free.
In the tumult of the Plague Years, Selune finds that she has to concentrate her power to preserve the Gates of the Moon, revealing that Sehanine Moonbow was one of her manifestations. As part of reabsorbing some of the power that she once used to create Mystra, and withdrawing from manifestations such as Sehanine, Selune assumes the strength of a greater god. Several other gods with similar "multiple manifestations" had to do the same: Chauntea and Yondalla, Talos and Gruumsh, a couple of others.
OK, now on to table-talk: Why does Sehanine survive in the core pantheon, but not the FR pantheon? The answer is simple: the core pantheon doesn't have Selune. Basically, we weren't going to keep two chaotic good moon goddesses around, so who was manifesting who? Selune is a more central and important figure in the Realms than Sehanine. The FR design team wanted Selune, not Sehanine. On the other hand, Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed, chaotic evil gods of destruction. But Gruumsh has a heavier "investment," even in the context of FR, so he stays Gruumsh and reabsorbs Talos.
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
So how does this change affect their churches? Do the elves still revere Selune under the name Sehaine or did they came to revere Selune under the "human" name?
Also were the faithfull informed about the change, (not unlike Banes ressurection where the faithfull saw it in a drem) or was it something they had to rediscover?
As you told us already, once a cleric has been inested he now longer has to pray for spells, so the dissapearance of the deity does not matter - so are there still clerics of Talos and Sehaine that were given their powers more than 100 years ago?
Unlike previous editions, official 4e lore is only canon if you want it to be. The designers have no more say over my FR then the rest of you.
I'd advise anyone to cherry-pick from WotC's offerings and just ignore the rest.
Let 4e set you free.
ER... incorrect. You can change the lore for anything you like in your own game. This has been true for all editions...
Yes, but in past editions the lore was worth keeping intact.
In you opinion...
Question; With the consolidation of Higher Powers (which I like, btw), will PC's still be able to (officially) use their preferred version of the Power in question?
18DELTA
In the tumult of the Plague Years, Selune finds that she has to concentrate her power to preserve the Gates of the Moon, revealing that Sehanine Moonbow was one of her manifestations. As part of reabsorbing some of the power that she once used to create Mystra, and withdrawing from manifestations such as Sehanine, Selune assumes the strength of a greater god. Several other gods with similar "multiple manifestations" had to do the same: Chauntea and Yondalla, Talos and Gruumsh, a couple of others.
OK, now on to table-talk: Why does Sehanine survive in the core pantheon, but not the FR pantheon? The answer is simple: the core pantheon doesn't have Selune. Basically, we weren't going to keep two chaotic good moon goddesses around, so who was manifesting who? Selune is a more central and important figure in the Realms than Sehanine. The FR design team wanted Selune, not Sehanine. On the other hand, Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed, chaotic evil gods of destruction. But Gruumsh has a heavier "investment," even in the context of FR, so he stays Gruumsh and reabsorbs Talos.
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
I can understanding the reasoning of having only one CG Moon goddness but I would have thought Sehanine would have won out over Selune. Wasn't Sehanine older than Selune? Didn't Sehanine come with Corellon from the Fey World which was older than Faerun?
I think that during the Spellplague years, it should have been Selune coming to Sehanine for assistance and Sehanine should have absorbed Selune's essence to hold together the Gates of Moon as Selune was waning for many years in power.
Won't Corellon be upset now that his wife/girl-friend isn't who she said she was???
So it I guess it was really Selune who Lolth fought in "Evermeet"?
Going to ask my DM to reverse it so Selune was a manifestation of Sehanine in his campaign.
Thanks for answering Rich
Quick question is Mask still up and about in 4th edition and not emrged into some other deity? I read the Shar Excerpts and read the bit about Shar killing some of ehr enemies during the Spellplague, and I would think Mask would be one of those. Just hoping the god of theieves survives. Thanks in advance for any info.
I think it was already said somewhere awhile ago that Mask WILL still be around.
Going to ask my DM to reverse it so Selune was a manifestation of Sehanine in his campaign.
Thats what I plan as well.
It makes MUCH more sense that way.
In the tumult of the Plague Years, Selune finds that she has to concentrate her power to preserve the Gates of the Moon, revealing that Sehanine Moonbow was one of her manifestations. As part of reabsorbing some of the power that she once used to create Mystra, and withdrawing from manifestations such as Sehanine, Selune assumes the strength of a greater god. Several other gods with similar "multiple manifestations" had to do the same: Chauntea and Yondalla, Talos and Gruumsh, a couple of others.
OK, now on to table-talk: Why does Sehanine survive in the core pantheon, but not the FR pantheon? The answer is simple: the core pantheon doesn't have Selune. Basically, we weren't going to keep two chaotic good moon goddesses around, so who was manifesting who? Selune is a more central and important figure in the Realms than Sehanine. The FR design team wanted Selune, not Sehanine. On the other hand, Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed, chaotic evil gods of destruction. But Gruumsh has a heavier "investment," even in the context of FR, so he stays Gruumsh and reabsorbs Talos.
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
chauntea was ng, Yondalla was LG.
dont see it
dont see selune actually being sehanine
one is the toril moon goddess, other the moon goddess of the feywild.
the amount of gods did not need to be cut down according to me, dont know about anyone else .
do you mind if I BLACKLIST every Wizards of the Coast products after Steven's next book?
I know you're upset... but this is way too much.
At least take some time to digest the news before flaming.
Rich, can you give us any news concerning the Zhents?
Thats what I plan as well.
It makes MUCH more sense that way.
What makes sense to me is that it has been decided that Selune and Sehanine have always been aspects of the same devinity. Whether referred to by one name or the other, whether portfolios sewemed different, the actual being was the same. It is now recognized that they are the same, whichever name is used, and we have a modified view of her primary interests. Call her by whichever name you want in your version of the Realms. WotC will now refer to her as Selune in the Realms, A DM may refer to her as Sehanine instead, while some characters may use one name and others the other. It will be just as true to what WotC is publishing.
Rich, is this an accurate representation of your understanding?
The excerpts are pretty much exactly what you'll see in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. It's been off at the printer for weeks and weeks now, so it's well on its way.
I wish we had the guy who did the Cormyr map do more; that was some outstanding work. But unless I'm mistaken we just "discovered" him in the last couple of months, long after the maps for the FRCG were worked on.
I will be looking forward to more of his work in upcoming articles (I hope). I agree that things would have worked out better had you had access to his talent sooner. I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that his Cormyr map makes you want to learn more about the land it portrays.
On to my next question:
Rich:
Will Westgate be getting an update in this edition? I have made my own adjustments to make it more interesting (using a lot of Thieve's World elements to flesh it out) but would like to know what the official word is.
Come on guys.
I know you're upset... but this is way too much.
At least take some time to digest the news before flaming.
Now I need extra strength pepto bismol
Its part of my Boyscout training - "Be Prepaired"
I haven't even read the last couple of previews. :P
Is the city of Neverwinter still standing? And if so, in what shape?
And while I'm at it, are we going to see any novels dealing with NW, or is going to remain the FR Video Gamers "Playpen"?
IAs part of reabsorbing some of the power that she once used to create Mystra, and withdrawing from manifestations such as Sehanine, Selune assumes the strength of a greater god. Several other gods with similar "multiple manifestations" had to do the same: Chauntea and Yondalla, Talos and Gruumsh, a couple of others.
Shenaine Moonbow and Yondalla (and her darker aspect) were very strong racial 'aspects' though. So how do the races refer to them now? Is it logical to assume that elves continue to refer to Selune as Sehanine, and that halflings still have shrines to Yondalla? Or that there are still cults that speak of Talos?
Gomez,
who also wonders what the Eldreth Veluuthra thinks of this...
Chauntea works for me - it makes sense that each potfolio a deity carries would have a seperate aspect, so Yondalla becomes the 'Earthmother' aspect, while Chauntea remains to represent the land itself (Toril's Gaia). In fact, all the sylvan gods could just be aspects of her (since she is the Torillian 'Mother Nature' figure). Dallah Thaun represents nature's 'corrective' force - for every action, their is a reaction.
The only one I see as a problem is Etugen, who is the Earthmother figure of the Tuigan peoples. Etugen is a female aspect of Grumbar, so that creates a bit of a conundrum.
Unless WotC retcons the Elemental Lords into Primordials (which they should) - because then it makes some sense if the Torillin Gods have a counterpart amongst Abeir's Primordials. Two gods might not be able to share a portfolio, but that doesn't mean a God and a primordial can't.
Since this is the "ask the designers" thread, I need to come up with a question...
I got it! :lightbulb
Hey Rich, I know you guys said you wouldn't be doing any more 'God Books', but how about one on just the female gods?
You could always call it Faiths & Pantyhose.
Hey Rich, I know you guys said you wouldn't be doing any more 'God Books', but how about one on just the female gods?
You could always call it Faiths & Pantyhose.
Markus, Markus... don't be silly. You of all people know the goddesses of the Realms don't wear pantyhose. They wear thigh-high leather boots. Sheesh! :P
Bel
Where does the Eastern border of Cormyr run, especially in Thunder Gap?
In times past Purple Dragons patrolled Thunder Gap, ensuring safe passage for caravans travelling to and from Deepingdale. Over the last century, however, the crown’s influence in the region has diminished greatly.
Thanks for that. So the Gap isn't part of Cormyr then and stabilising the area (and finding a way of getting through Hullack Forest safely) could yield a lot of money for someone. Hmmm.
I wish we had the guy who did the Cormyr map do more; that was some outstanding work. But unless I'm mistaken we just "discovered" him in the last couple of months, long after the maps for the FRCG were worked on.
Rich:
Will the maps be of the quality in the excerpts or will they be on par with the Cormyr article that was posted in Dragon 366?
As an aside, I sort of wish we'd saved the dark pact warlock for a different book. But the FRPG is where the mechanical design team decided to debut him. There is some method to their madness--drow have the stat modifiers to make outstanding fey pact warlocks, but since fey doesn't seem to be the right pact for a drow warlock thematically, giving that warlock a different pact relying on high Charisma isn't crazy.
Rich, here's a question:
In the core books, there are safeguards against dumb/nefarious PCs burning through their colleagues' resources. For example, if I use "healing word" on a 30th level character who has only lost a few hit points, said character gains the right to use a healing surge, but he can decline if he feels that resource would be better spent later in the game.
Judging by the most recent FR preview article, these safeguards aren't as strong in the Realms. The "One Final Sacrifice" power, for example, enables the party warlock to augment his own damage by draining his allies' hit points, whether or not those allies consent to the draining. Which gives me a reason not to want that warlock in the party in the first place, if I don't think he is a very competent player. And that's a troubling incentive to introduce around the gaming table, in my view at least.
What I'm wondering about is whether the Realms designers are pulling back a bit from the general principle that allies shouldn't be allowed to burn each other's resources without consent? Or is that particular warlock power just a one-time exception?
These are most certanly a differend kind of harpers, and they seem more like robin hood now, and less like the big adventurers club they could be seem as.
The robin hood example comes to mind since many people will know what they are and what they stand for - but they will have to work in secret to saveguard themselves and their loved ones.
Could work quite well for something like a spionage centered campaign. But still these are bad omens for Storm.
Just a quick question Rich:
Your Last Mythal Triology brought great changes to Myth Drannor, and in Swordmage you told us even more about the city, so is there any chance that we might get a Dragon article about it from you?
OK, now on to table-talk: Why does Sehanine survive in the core pantheon, but not the FR pantheon? The answer is simple: the core pantheon doesn't have Selune. Basically, we weren't going to keep two chaotic good moon goddesses around, so who was manifesting who? Selune is a more central and important figure in the Realms than Sehanine. The FR design team wanted Selune, not Sehanine. On the other hand, Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed, chaotic evil gods of destruction. But Gruumsh has a heavier "investment," even in the context of FR, so he stays Gruumsh and reabsorbs Talos.
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
Rich,
I have just one question about 4E Realms.
I am currently playing a cleric of Sehanine in a 4E Realms campaign. I know Selune is going to be around because she was mentioned in the Swordmage preview.
Is Sehanine still going to be around or is she being merged with Selune?
Thanks
In the tumult of the Plague Years, Selune finds that she has to concentrate her power to preserve the Gates of the Moon, revealing that Sehanine Moonbow was one of her manifestations.
Thank you for destroying The Seldarine. Time and time again the FR design team has ignored everything about the FR. We shouldn't expect them to at least do it once. At this moment know that my wish is to see 4th edition tank, as a returning favor for everything that was done to kill the realms.
And Sehanine CAN'T BE SEL
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
Personally, I like the idea of a tighter pantheon and as such, that change (and the others like it) makes perfect sense. Nice job.
Just some quick questions;
How does the House of Nature fare, do Chauntea and Corellon split Silvanus between them?
Judging by the Chult preview, is Ubtao gone?
Bel
But merging Moradin and Yondalla into excisting gods seems a bit strange, as they were mainly the mother/father of the race + a bit of extra.
The question for Rich:
Does each race keep at least one god linked to the race? A protector/father/mother or the race having a special place in the heart of the god(s). It seems unnatural to me that only elves would keep them.
I'd advise anyone to cherry-pick from WotC's offerings and just ignore the rest.
Let 4e set you free.
In the tumult of the Plague Years, Selune finds that she has to concentrate her power to preserve the Gates of the Moon, revealing that Sehanine Moonbow was one of her manifestations. As part of reabsorbing some of the power that she once used to create Mystra, and withdrawing from manifestations such as Sehanine, Selune assumes the strength of a greater god. Several other gods with similar "multiple manifestations" had to do the same: Chauntea and Yondalla, Talos and Gruumsh, a couple of others.
OK, now on to table-talk: Why does Sehanine survive in the core pantheon, but not the FR pantheon? The answer is simple: the core pantheon doesn't have Selune. Basically, we weren't going to keep two chaotic good moon goddesses around, so who was manifesting who? Selune is a more central and important figure in the Realms than Sehanine. The FR design team wanted Selune, not Sehanine. On the other hand, Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed, chaotic evil gods of destruction. But Gruumsh has a heavier "investment," even in the context of FR, so he stays Gruumsh and reabsorbs Talos.
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
So how does this change affect their churches? Do the elves still revere Selune under the name Sehaine or did they came to revere Selune under the "human" name?
Also were the faithfull informed about the change, (not unlike Banes ressurection where the faithfull saw it in a drem) or was it something they had to rediscover?
As you told us already, once a cleric has been inested he now longer has to pray for spells, so the dissapearance of the deity does not matter - so are there still clerics of Talos and Sehaine that were given their powers more than 100 years ago?
Unlike previous editions, official 4e lore is only canon if you want it to be. The designers have no more say over my FR then the rest of you.
I'd advise anyone to cherry-pick from WotC's offerings and just ignore the rest.
Let 4e set you free.
ER... incorrect. You can change the lore for anything you like in your own game. This has been true for all editions...
Yes, but in past editions the lore was worth keeping intact.
In you opinion...
Question; With the consolidation of Higher Powers (which I like, btw), will PC's still be able to (officially) use their preferred version of the Power in question?
18DELTA
In the tumult of the Plague Years, Selune finds that she has to concentrate her power to preserve the Gates of the Moon, revealing that Sehanine Moonbow was one of her manifestations. As part of reabsorbing some of the power that she once used to create Mystra, and withdrawing from manifestations such as Sehanine, Selune assumes the strength of a greater god. Several other gods with similar "multiple manifestations" had to do the same: Chauntea and Yondalla, Talos and Gruumsh, a couple of others.
OK, now on to table-talk: Why does Sehanine survive in the core pantheon, but not the FR pantheon? The answer is simple: the core pantheon doesn't have Selune. Basically, we weren't going to keep two chaotic good moon goddesses around, so who was manifesting who? Selune is a more central and important figure in the Realms than Sehanine. The FR design team wanted Selune, not Sehanine. On the other hand, Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed, chaotic evil gods of destruction. But Gruumsh has a heavier "investment," even in the context of FR, so he stays Gruumsh and reabsorbs Talos.
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
I can understanding the reasoning of having only one CG Moon goddness but I would have thought Sehanine would have won out over Selune. Wasn't Sehanine older than Selune? Didn't Sehanine come with Corellon from the Fey World which was older than Faerun?
I think that during the Spellplague years, it should have been Selune coming to Sehanine for assistance and Sehanine should have absorbed Selune's essence to hold together the Gates of Moon as Selune was waning for many years in power.
Won't Corellon be upset now that his wife/girl-friend isn't who she said she was???
So it I guess it was really Selune who Lolth fought in "Evermeet"?
Going to ask my DM to reverse it so Selune was a manifestation of Sehanine in his campaign.
Thanks for answering Rich
Quick question is Mask still up and about in 4th edition and not emrged into some other deity? I read the Shar Excerpts and read the bit about Shar killing some of ehr enemies during the Spellplague, and I would think Mask would be one of those. Just hoping the god of theieves survives. Thanks in advance for any info.
I think it was already said somewhere awhile ago that Mask WILL still be around.
Going to ask my DM to reverse it so Selune was a manifestation of Sehanine in his campaign.
Thats what I plan as well.
It makes MUCH more sense that way.
In the tumult of the Plague Years, Selune finds that she has to concentrate her power to preserve the Gates of the Moon, revealing that Sehanine Moonbow was one of her manifestations. As part of reabsorbing some of the power that she once used to create Mystra, and withdrawing from manifestations such as Sehanine, Selune assumes the strength of a greater god. Several other gods with similar "multiple manifestations" had to do the same: Chauntea and Yondalla, Talos and Gruumsh, a couple of others.
OK, now on to table-talk: Why does Sehanine survive in the core pantheon, but not the FR pantheon? The answer is simple: the core pantheon doesn't have Selune. Basically, we weren't going to keep two chaotic good moon goddesses around, so who was manifesting who? Selune is a more central and important figure in the Realms than Sehanine. The FR design team wanted Selune, not Sehanine. On the other hand, Gruumsh and Talos are both one-eyed, chaotic evil gods of destruction. But Gruumsh has a heavier "investment," even in the context of FR, so he stays Gruumsh and reabsorbs Talos.
I'm sure the next ten posts will explain what morons we are for thinking we could do something like this, but I'll ask you to consider this first: If you take it as a desired goal to present a smaller, tighter-focused pantheon, it's pretty reasonable to assume that Sehanine is the elven name for Selune, and those two goddesses were always in some way the same being, even though they had separate existences for ages.
chauntea was ng, Yondalla was LG.
dont see it
dont see selune actually being sehanine
one is the toril moon goddess, other the moon goddess of the feywild.
the amount of gods did not need to be cut down according to me, dont know about anyone else .
do you mind if I BLACKLIST every Wizards of the Coast products after Steven's next book?
I know you're upset... but this is way too much.
At least take some time to digest the news before flaming.
Rich, can you give us any news concerning the Zhents?
Thats what I plan as well.
It makes MUCH more sense that way.
What makes sense to me is that it has been decided that Selune and Sehanine have always been aspects of the same devinity. Whether referred to by one name or the other, whether portfolios sewemed different, the actual being was the same. It is now recognized that they are the same, whichever name is used, and we have a modified view of her primary interests. Call her by whichever name you want in your version of the Realms. WotC will now refer to her as Selune in the Realms, A DM may refer to her as Sehanine instead, while some characters may use one name and others the other. It will be just as true to what WotC is publishing.
Rich, is this an accurate representation of your understanding?
The excerpts are pretty much exactly what you'll see in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. It's been off at the printer for weeks and weeks now, so it's well on its way.
I wish we had the guy who did the Cormyr map do more; that was some outstanding work. But unless I'm mistaken we just "discovered" him in the last couple of months, long after the maps for the FRCG were worked on.
I will be looking forward to more of his work in upcoming articles (I hope). I agree that things would have worked out better had you had access to his talent sooner. I think the one thing most of us can agree on is that his Cormyr map makes you want to learn more about the land it portrays.
On to my next question:
Rich:
Will Westgate be getting an update in this edition? I have made my own adjustments to make it more interesting (using a lot of Thieve's World elements to flesh it out) but would like to know what the official word is.
Come on guys.
I know you're upset... but this is way too much.
At least take some time to digest the news before flaming.
Now I need extra strength pepto bismol
Its part of my Boyscout training - "Be Prepaired"
I haven't even read the last couple of previews. :P
Is the city of Neverwinter still standing? And if so, in what shape?
And while I'm at it, are we going to see any novels dealing with NW, or is going to remain the FR Video Gamers "Playpen"?
IAs part of reabsorbing some of the power that she once used to create Mystra, and withdrawing from manifestations such as Sehanine, Selune assumes the strength of a greater god. Several other gods with similar "multiple manifestations" had to do the same: Chauntea and Yondalla, Talos and Gruumsh, a couple of others.
Shenaine Moonbow and Yondalla (and her darker aspect) were very strong racial 'aspects' though. So how do the races refer to them now? Is it logical to assume that elves continue to refer to Selune as Sehanine, and that halflings still have shrines to Yondalla? Or that there are still cults that speak of Talos?
Gomez,
who also wonders what the Eldreth Veluuthra thinks of this...
Chauntea works for me - it makes sense that each potfolio a deity carries would have a seperate aspect, so Yondalla becomes the 'Earthmother' aspect, while Chauntea remains to represent the land itself (Toril's Gaia). In fact, all the sylvan gods could just be aspects of her (since she is the Torillian 'Mother Nature' figure). Dallah Thaun represents nature's 'corrective' force - for every action, their is a reaction.
The only one I see as a problem is Etugen, who is the Earthmother figure of the Tuigan peoples. Etugen is a female aspect of Grumbar, so that creates a bit of a conundrum.
Unless WotC retcons the Elemental Lords into Primordials (which they should) - because then it makes some sense if the Torillin Gods have a counterpart amongst Abeir's Primordials. Two gods might not be able to share a portfolio, but that doesn't mean a God and a primordial can't.
Since this is the "ask the designers" thread, I need to come up with a question...
I got it! :lightbulb
Hey Rich, I know you guys said you wouldn't be doing any more 'God Books', but how about one on just the female gods?
You could always call it Faiths & Pantyhose.
Hey Rich, I know you guys said you wouldn't be doing any more 'God Books', but how about one on just the female gods?
You could always call it Faiths & Pantyhose.
Markus, Markus... don't be silly. You of all people know the goddesses of the Realms don't wear pantyhose. They wear thigh-high leather boots. Sheesh! :P
Bel