while your at it, can you review it
So effectively he has to be stopped before he does more damage to the surrounding area and such forth. He's a level 19 solo controller with - what I must concede - is a very interesting stat block. Personally I would never bother using this, but the stat block is really great and easily crafted into any other near epic spellcaster of need (with names and energy types changed around as appropriate). It's well thought out and should be pretty challenging actually, so the encounter itself is pretty easily translated along with it if required.
Other than the stat block I wasn't terribly enthused with it.
I just can't believe that they statted him out after all the complaints about statting out NPCs in the past.
I can. It was inevitable, really, and I'm not in the least surprised. They wanted to kill Mystra and Eilistraee, and they've done so. They wanted to kill off and/or mutilate the Chosen, and they've done so. They wanted to re-format deities and re-arrange various demons and devils, and they've done so. They wanted to eliminate Halruaa, the old Harpers, Khelben, Halaster...
I'm not sure why turning Elminster into an insane villain and giving him a depowered stat block would be that much of a surprise. They're catering to everyone who hated the previous Realms, so it makes complete and total sense that Elminster is now a monster that isn't even an epic-level kill.
Did they actually have Elminster kill the Simbul, as Aegeri says above? That would be the equivalent of the malicious beheading of Eilistraee/Qilue, the little extra twist of the knife in the back of Old Realms' fans, so that wouldn't surprise me much either...
I just can't believe that they statted him out after all the complaints about statting out NPCs in the past.
All of the complaints are not about stat themselves...actualy the general type of players that I see play 4th ed...and love the new Realms generaly love stats over anything else.(this is a generalization based on my experience there are exceptions to this) But the problem with the stats before was that they could not kill Elminster. Either thier DMs don't run campaigns that high level or actualy played the NPCs with some intelligence. So they get frustrated and cried about it here and in your various gaming stores or your conventions.
So I have to say I am not surprise at all they are just catering to what makes up their fan base right now.
?
I was surprised to see him as just a level 19 solo, actually. Sure, he's been greatly weakend by the Spellplague and the loss of his Chosen-ness.
That makes sense to me actually. Of course why on earth Drizzle is level 21 is something I don't know about, but then again he has taken out monsters like Mariliths and similar. Those are in 4E terms epic level creatures, so it's possibly not that surprising to be honest. Also, while Drizzle (I like your name btw, so I will persist in using it as well) is level 21, this doesn't mean he's more powerful. While his stat block is high attack and damage, he's completely vulnerable to conditions. This means he can be stun/daze and similar locked to prevent him doing a whole lot - especially to an epic level party.
Equivalently, Elminster is much stronger against a level 19 party than Drizzle is against a level 21 party. In fact, Elminster would do better against a level 21 party than Drizzle.
Also just as an aside, but before I continue I want to absolutely emphasize that monsters DO NOT absolutely follow PC rules in ANY manner for what abilities they may have, it technically makes sense he's not epic in some ways. Chosen is, usually, an epic destiny for PCs and having lost that from Mystra exploding is a way of framing it for PCs who wonder. Of course, it's a very very very poor reason because NPCs don't follow the same structure that PCs do. He could be level 19 and still a chosen anyway, because "Chosen" as a game element for PCs does not have to be equivalent to those for monsters (Defiling in Dark Sun is another example, NPCs often have defiling powers that behave differently to those of PCs). Technically though, it can be assumed that someone who loses chosen status would lose a considerable amount of power. That could be considered as abilities or levels - depending on your viewpoint.
One of the most powerful spellcasters that the Realms has ever known is now below a Drow that fights orcs?
I don't imagine such spellcasters stay as powerful as they were when their direct access to magic gets annihilated. Surviving the spellplague with his close connections to Mystra was surprising enough.
I just can't believe that they statted him out after all the complaints about statting out NPCs in the past.
I can. It was inevitable, really, and I'm not in the least surprised. They wanted to kill Mystra and Eilistraee, and they've done so. They wanted to kill off and/or mutilate the Chosen, and they've done so. They wanted to re-format deities and re-arrange various demons and devils, and they've done so. They wanted to eliminate Halruaa, the old Harpers, Khelben, Halaster...
All changes I actually like in the end it's worth noting :p
I'm not sure why turning Elminster into an insane villain and giving him a depowered stat block would be that much of a surprise.
If you actually read his stat block, which I'm aware 90% of the people who respond here won't bother doing anyway - it's actually very good. He's one of the best solo controllers in the game with his abilities. He's impossible to stun or daze lockdown and does ridiculous amounts of damage. He can probably very easily take on and possibly even kill an epic level party. The stat block is well designed and excellently thought out power wise. Unless you know what you're talking about, stop rabbiting on about "depowered" and focus on what the stat block actually *does*.
As an example Orcus is a level 32 solo brute and is one of the most spectacularly useless solo monsters in 4E. A level 30 party will beat Orcus senseless like a red haired step child. Elminster will absolutely brutalize a level 19 party he's that powerful and heaven forbid you use Elminster as an EL +2 or so by himself. A level 17 party might be TPKed by him especially if you use the whole encounter, which is EL21. While level is an indicator of power in 4E, for solos unlike with regular monsters it is not the most reliable measure of a solos power. To really assess how good a solo actually is you must look at the stat block. For what it does, Elminster is far more powerful and flexible than some solos higher level than him. So if the point was to make a very intimidating stat block that would certainly give you the impression he's a powerful archmage - even with the effects of the spell plague - they absolutely nailed it here.
He is completely resistant to a wide variety of debilitating effects - including the most crippling effects for solos daze and stun. He has a pretty nice aura, an expanded crit range (this is like pulling teeth for monsters in 4E it's that rare) and while inactive when bloodied it can be maintained when he stands within a terrain feature that supports him. His main attacks are pretty high damage and when bloodied, he loses some defenses but picks up an additional +2d10 damage on all attacks (making his high damage attacks even better). Essentially just a good combination of well designed powers and abilities. You could make him say, level 28 but it matters very little if you don't give him good powers. That's basically the point, that monsters interact with PCs at whatever level their stat block is. If the stat block is good and the PCs are all bleeding to death at the end of an extremely narrow victory, they don't care if it wasn't a level 21 creature: Just that they won. Elminster will most certainly do that.
Well designed solos make parties of their own levels sweat, poorly designed solos are meat for continuous stun and daze locking. Elminster falls very much in the "well designed" category and is an excellent template for any high paragon/low epic spellcaster villain too.
They're catering to everyone who hated the previous Realms, so it makes complete and total sense that Elminster is now a monster that isn't even an epic-level kill.
That is explained in the article, due to losing power from the spellplague. It isn't far off what I thought his stats should be as well. No longer epic level, but being on the verge of it and very high paragon.
Did they actually have Elminster kill the Simbul, as Aegeri says above?
Yes, but it's done to set up the encounter and isn't IIRC canon in these scenarios. She gained an addiction to magic, so was being "fed" magical items by Elminster to sate it. Eventually he couldn't keep up with the demand and she went berserk, so he had to kill her. In doing so, he picks up the same affliction, which is why he is attacking the dales and such forth.
Also, a good well produced solo that fights as a solo creature and does well is something I have to respect given how difficult it is to do at paragon/epic levels. I can't take anything away from the stat block, it's good and given how easy it is to take something like that, change names and energy types you can make a lich, crazed red wizard or anything easily from it (probably need to modify 1-2 traits) I found it quite pleasing overall.
Edit: Strictly put, it's also not technically a "canon" stat block either.
...The stat block is well designed and excellently thought out power wise. Unless you know what you're talking about, stop rabbiting on about "depowered" and focus on what the stat block actually *does*.
How is it "rabbiting on" to note that he's been depowered? He's significantly depowered. If Mystra was still alive, if he was still one of her Chosen, his stats block would reflect that. But his power is no longer at the epic level, so it's just nonsense to tell me I'm wrong that he's depowered.
But whatever, I couldn't give a flying rat's hind end how masterfully crafted his current stat block is. It's completely irrelevant to me, considering that they have completely gutted the story of his character, not to mention most of the "fluff" of the Realms. Everything that he stood for, worked for, believed in, it's all pretty much gone and/or rendered meaningless. And from what you're relating, if they did indeed have him kill Alassra (the Simbul), then they had him kill his lover. Creepy final touch, really. Has the lingering scent of Cordell on it.
But oh well, let's all worship at the temple of masterfully crafted stat blocks. Story doesn't matter any more, and heroes of the Realms usually meet their doom in the form of insanity, disfigurement, loss, and "needing" to kill the ones they loved most. And since they're villains, now you can fight them at the upper Paragon level! I hope he drops epix purpz lewts!!
But whatever, I couldn't give a flying rat's hind end how masterfully crafted his current stat block is. It's completely irrelevant to me, considering that they have completely gutted the story of his character, not to mention most of the "fluff" of the Realms. Everything that he stood for, worked for, believed in, it's all pretty much gone and/or rendered meaningless. And from what you're relating, if they did indeed have him kill Alassra (the Simbul), then they had him kill his lover. Creepy final touch, really. Has the lingering scent of Cordell on it.
But oh well, let's all worship at the temple of masterfully crafted stat blocks. Story doesn't matter any more, and heroes of the Realms usually meet their doom in the form of insanity, disfigurement, loss, and "needing" to kill the ones they loved most. And since they're villains, now you can fight them at the upper Paragon level! I hope he drops epix purpz lewts!!
...The stat block is well designed and excellently thought out power wise. Unless you know what you're talking about, stop rabbiting on about "depowered" and focus on what the stat block actually *does*.
How is it "rabbiting on" to note that he's been depowered? He's significantly depowered. If Mystra was still alive, if he was still one of her Chosen, his stats block would reflect that. But his power is no longer at the epic level, so it's just nonsense to tell me I'm wrong that he's depowered.
Except that the stat block is actually very good. Consider that Szass Tam is level 30 (Elite) and IMO, the level 19 solo Elminster is actually considerably more threatening. Power levels are relative in 4E, not absolute. Being what he is, in 4E terms he's one of the most powerful casters in the realms and close to many higher daemons in power.
So it's a bit meaningless. Especially because, without modifying a single power except damage, you could make that stat block up to level 25 (maybe even higher) and he would still be extremely challenging. That is how well it's designed. It's flexible enough that it can suit a wide variety of needs with simple modification. In fact, after thinking about it and making a couple of minor adjustments you could just boost some of the abilities and make him really challenging for a level 25+ encounter.
1) Just change Sage's countermagic to the beginning of the turn - this is a massive boost.
2) Boost the bloodied damage to 3d10 with no defense penalty, and make the increase to current ongoing damage 10.
3) Make arcane fire target up to four creatures.
4) Remove the non-bloodied requirement from the aura and minor action, then make the aura grant an 18-20 crit range.
With appropriate damage expressions you're pretty much done and he would be pretty tough at level 30. That's why carrying on about "depowered" in 4E is so pointless. It's so easy to change anything and if the core design is good, you can literally make it anything you want. If the core design is bad then you have a much tougher time. Given how simple leveling/deleveling monsters is, if you want to make him more "epic" this is a fantastic start. Look at something truly sad like the purple worm and you'll soon appreciate the difference.
But again, given the spellplague and the description in the FRCG, it makes perfect sense that he is upper paragon. You seem to have this odd idea that things in upper paragon aren't powerful, but they are powerful as hell. Many powerful creatures confined solely to epic tier in 3E are upper paragon tier in 4E. You do not need to be epic tier to be considered a major threat or powerful. Generally there aren't even very many NPCs in 4E that are outside of heroic tier (Drizz't and Elminster would be exceptions, where before this was a general rule).
But whatever, I couldn't give a flying rat's hind end how masterfully crafted his current stat block is. It's completely irrelevant to me, considering that they have completely gutted the story of his character, not to mention most of the "fluff" of the Realms. Everything that he stood for, worked for, believed in, it's all pretty much gone and/or rendered meaningless. And from what you're relating, if they did indeed have him kill Alassra (the Simbul), then they had him kill his lover. Creepy final touch, really. Has the lingering scent of Cordell on it.
It was wrote by Chris Sims and again, seems to be a purely theoretical excercise and set up - not something that was canon. It looks like it was done as a justification for the encounter and isn't written into actual "lore". It even outright states that the condition the Simbul suffered from was theoretical and used for setting up the encounter.
But oh well, let's all worship at the temple of masterfully crafted stat blocks.
If you're babbling about power levels, I'm going to tell you that it is actually a considerably powerful stat block. I mean, that's the whole point of your "depowered" comment isn't it? PCs are not going to feel he's a toothless depowered wreck, especially when he's finished mauling them within an inch of their lives through the entire encounter.
Story doesn't matter any more, and heroes of the Realms usually meet their doom in the form of insanity, disfigurement, loss, and "needing" to kill the ones they loved most. And since they're villains, now you can fight them at the upper Paragon level! I hope he drops epix purpz lewts!!
It is just the way they justified it for the article. I personally could care less about what they do to these characters, having historically killed them all off in my games anyway (isn't that what you lot keep claiming people who find them a problem should do?). The point to me was they managed to make an interesting encounter out of something I thought would for sure I would find majorly irritating.
I do believe your reaction is entirely missing the point here, because it's not canon and it's designed to be set up in such a way it produces a combat encounter. In this, it is logically set up and written. The stat block is logically written and actually very fun. The actual encounter is similarly well written and looks to play out in an interesting manner. In terms of what the author wants to achieve it does in fact manage to do that.
Edit: Of course, I would never use it because I literally don't care about it that much. I will defend the authors stat block to the death though, because it is excellent and can be used in so many great ways outside of that encounter.
As to the story, i wished Chris would have picked a less 'definite' story angle. I think it is confusing. If it is 'canon' (i.e. matches the novel), it gives too much away (and also conflicts at a level with some stuff I wrote/had written), and if it is not, it is just terribly confusing.
I am leaning to the 'totally made up' angle, as it conflicts too much: Storm wasn't mentioned, and we know (from teaser chapters) that the Simbul did not reside in Silverhand Farm.
Personally, i would have gone for the more simpler setup: we know Elm goes insane when he casts magic, unless Storm is there to remove the afflction. If you use that as a base, you don't need any background about Elm killing off other Chosen. Just have Storm be absent when Elm is forced to defend himself against an attack, and then have him go wild.
Add a Skill Challenge to the encounter in which PCs can rmeove the affliction, and you are go.
Anyway, I think the article would benefit from a disclaimer, to avoid confusion.
Gomez
... Drizzle (I like your name btw, so I will persist in using it as well)...
Thanks, I'm here all week! Try the veal.
Credit for the name goes to Brian Clevinger of 8-Bit Theater, who had a parody character named Drizzle.
If you actually read his stat block, which I'm aware 90% of the people who respond here won't bother doing anyway - it's actually very good. He's one of the best solo controllers in the game with his abilities.
I don't know about being the best, but I agree. It's a great and interesting stat block. I may use Elminster in the campaign that I DM, or I may not. Either way though, I definitely intend to use the stats when the party is high level enough.
As to the actual difficulty level comparison between Greenwood's Gandalf and Drizzle, I will confess that I didn't really look at Drizzle's stats beyond the fact that he was a level 21 solo. I don't like the character. I had no particular intention to use him as an NPC in my campaign, unless I had some idea involving the Drow-hating PC in the group. When I saw level 21 solo, though, it was immediately decided that if he does appear, I'll be making up my own stats that I think are much more appropriate - probably an Elite somewhere in the 11-20 range.
Except that the stat block is actually very good. Consider that Szass Tam...
Again with the stat blocks. If it was in any way unclear, let me rephrase:
1. I don't care about stat blocks.
2. I don't give a flying rat's butt about stat blocks.
3. Stat blocks are irrelevant to me.
4. Do I care about stat blocks? Nope, certainly don't.
That said, if a lvl 30 stat block is wimpy compared to a lvl 19 stat block, that doesn't merely suggest that the power levels in 4E are "relative" but that the game is broken in some way. Why have levels at all, if "Epic" no longer means that it's more powerful than "Paragon" (or at least that a lvl 30 isn't more powerful than a lvl 19). It's ridiculous, and as you say, somewhat meaningless.
...You seem to have this odd idea that things in upper paragon aren't powerful, but they are powerful as hell.
Didn't say that at all. All I said was: Epic > No Longer Epic.
It was wrote by Chris Sims and again, seems to be a purely theoretical excercise and set up - not something that was canon. It looks like it was done as a justification for the encounter and isn't written into actual "lore". It even outright states that the condition the Simbul suffered from was theoretical and used for setting up the encounter.
"Seems to be" means that you don't really know for sure, and you're just speculating. How many times have we heard in the past that because something is in Dragon or Dungeon, it's canon? Sure, it might be a purely theoretical exercise, but given that gomeztoo is saying that there's no disclaimer... you don't really know. For all we know, it could be accidentally "leaking" a key plot point. Then again, it might not be.
LOL... again, how is it babbling to point out that Elminster is depowered? That's his story in 4E. They have said it in many places, including this article. Sure, he is still quite a beast in combat, as reflected in this current stat block. My point, since you seem to be in love with the stat block so much that it's probably true love, is that no stat block is valuable if they've destroyed the story. I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from, though, as you appear to value very different things than I do when it comes to this game.
Obviously.
It works for you, not for me. I loathe the story behind it, so it'll never see the light of day in my world.
If you're babbling about power levels, I'm going to tell you that it is actually a considerably powerful stat block. I mean, that's the whole point of your "depowered" comment isn't it? PCs are not going to feel he's a toothless depowered wreck, especially when he's finished mauling them within an inch of their lives through the entire encounter.
LOL... again, how is it babbling to point out that Elminster is depowered? That's his story in 4E. They have said it in many places, including this article. Sure, he is still quite a beast in combat, as reflected in this current stat block. My point, since you seem to be in love with the stat block so much that it's probably true love, is that no stat block is valuable if they've destroyed the story. I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from, though, as you appear to value very different things than I do when it comes to this game.
I personally could care less about what they do to these characters...
Obviously.
The stat block is logically written and actually very fun. The actual encounter is similarly well written and looks to play out in an interesting manner. In terms of what the author wants to achieve it does in fact manage to do that.
It works for you, not for me. I loathe the story behind it, so it'll never see the light of day in my world.
Edit: Of course, I would never use it because I literally don't care about it that much. I will defend the authors stat block to the death though, because it is excellent and can be used in so many great ways outside of that encounter.
That said, if a lvl 30 stat block is wimpy compared to a lvl 19 stat block, that doesn't merely suggest that the power levels in 4E are "relative" but that the game is broken in some way. Why have levels at all, if "Epic" no longer means that it's more powerful than "Paragon" (or at least that a lvl 30 isn't more powerful than a lvl 19). It's ridiculous, and as you say, somewhat meaningless.
The level still makes some sense, as it gives you an idea what to throw at a party. A solo is going to be a bit more powerful even if it is the same level as say a soldier or what have you. A solo is designed to take on an entire party all by its lonesome, whereas anybody else will have minions and cohorts to help out, So it does make some sense, and isnt entirely ridicuous.
Except that the stat block is actually very good. Consider that Szass Tam...
Again with the stat blocks. If it was in any way unclear, let me rephrase:
1. I don't care about stat blocks.
2. I don't give a flying rat's butt about stat blocks.
3. Stat blocks are irrelevant to me.
4. Do I care about stat blocks? Nope, certainly don't.
And yet, here you are, on a forum for a dice-based RPG that is made up of oodles and oodles of stats and stat blocks, in an argument over how a character has been statted out.
If you don't care about Elminster's stats, why get up in arms over an article whose sole purpose is to give him a stat block and an encounter built around it?
Edit: Of course, I would never use it because I literally don't care about it that much. I will defend the authors stat block to the death though, because it is excellent and can be used in so many great ways outside of that encounter.
It's utterly beyond me why you think I'm attacking the stat block. It could be the most masterfully designed stat block in the history of gaming, I don't know and don't really care. But if I'm certainly not going to use it, and if you're "never going to use it" despite singing high praises for it, then what's the point? LOL.
Possibly because D&D is a game, the enjoyment of which stems largely from well-constructed enemies, and such high quality game elements are the backbone of the playing experience and an absolute godsend to DM's?
And yet, here you are, on a forum for a dice-based RPG that is made up of oodles and oodles of stats and stat blocks, in an argument over how a character has been statted out.
If you don't care about Elminster's stats, why get up in arms over a Dragon article whose sole purpose is to give him a stat block and an encounter built around it?
All stat blocks, whether they are 1E, 2E, 3E, or 4E, are meant to support a story, not become the central mission. I suppose that makes me old school, wanting quality, richness, and soul in the story before anything else.
Then again, modern culture is twisted to appreciate special effects over plot, flash over depth, shiny stuff over characterization. I suppose it only makes sense that D&D has gone the same route. Warcraft emulated it, and now it emulates Warcraft.
I want quality, richless, and soul in the story, along with solid actual gameplay. If the quality gameplay is not there, there's no reason to even play the game - if what you want is to be an author, then write a book, don't write a D&D campaign. Or read a book, if you prefer. If one is looking for quality, richness, and soul in storytelling though, perhaps the Forgotten Realms novels aren't where one should be looking. I realize that the crowd in the FR subforum is probably not going to be in agreement with me there, but I call 'em like I see 'em.
All stat blocks, whether they are 1E, 2E, 3E, or 4E, are meant to support a story, not become the central mission.
True, but I believe the 'hero battle' articles were bever meant to be taken too serious.
They are an answer to fan-generated queries akin to 'what are X's stats and would we pown him/her?'
You know, even before you read it, that it will be of a kind that gives PCs the chance to either vent their frustrations on the uber-NPC or to be brought in awe of it - depending on DM and/or player approach.
In other words, it's a fun 'what if' scenario.
Confusion arises when the article makes assumptions on other NPCs/locales of import, rather than the 'open-ended' confrontation with the hero-soon-to-be-minced-meat.
Anyway, from what I understand from Candlekeep, the article doesn't match the novel's end, unless some chapters are missing.
Gomez,
who has to still get the book, though wondering if he should wait for softcover.
Choices, choices...
Oh, and let me add that I do like most 4th ed FR books.
And yet, here you are, on a forum for a dice-based RPG that is made up of oodles and oodles of stats and stat blocks, in an argument over how a character has been statted out.
If you don't care about Elminster's stats, why get up in arms over a Dragon article whose sole purpose is to give him a stat block and an encounter built around it?
All stat blocks, whether they are 1E, 2E, 3E, or 4E, are meant to support a story, not become the central mission. I suppose that makes me old school, wanting quality, richness, and soul in the story before anything else.
Then again, modern culture is twisted to appreciate special effects over plot, flash over depth, shiny stuff over characterization. I suppose it only makes sense that D&D has gone the same route. Warcraft emulated it, and now it emulates Warcraft.
It's a game, not a story. That's the old school, 1st edition and earlier, way. You might one day tell a story about the game, but you play the game first. That's why it's a Role-Playing GAME.
...If one is looking for quality, richness, and soul in storytelling though, perhaps the Forgotten Realms novels aren't where one should be looking. I realize that the crowd in the FR subforum is probably not going to be in agreement with me there, but I call 'em like I see 'em.
This statement alone shows exactly how far the Realms have fallen. I too, can call it like I see it.
...If one is looking for quality, richness, and soul in storytelling though, perhaps the Forgotten Realms novels aren't where one should be looking. I realize that the crowd in the FR subforum is probably not going to be in agreement with me there, but I call 'em like I see 'em.
This statement alone shows exactly how far the Realms have fallen. I too, can call it like I see it.
I'd agree, except that I've been calling it that way since about 1998 or so, back when I was an avid reader of fantasy fiction. At no point did I ever see the Realms as quality literature. They're certainly not the worst books I've read, but saying that they were a bit better than Dragonlance was is kind of like saying that a kick in the face is a bit better than a kick in the groin.
I think the Realms are a good campaign setting for D&D games. I've thought so since the TSR days, and I still think so now.
Except that the stat block is actually very good. Consider that Szass Tam...
Again with the stat blocks. If it was in any way unclear, let me rephrase:
1. I don't care about stat blocks.
2. I don't give a flying rat's butt about stat blocks.
3. Stat blocks are irrelevant to me.
4. Do I care about stat blocks? Nope, certainly don't.
Which is hilarious, considering how much you're whining about him being "depowered".
That said, if a lvl 30 stat block is wimpy compared to a lvl 19 stat block, that doesn't merely suggest that the power levels in 4E are "relative" but that the game is broken in some
way.
Szass Tam is an elite, while Elminster is a level 19 solo. If Elminster was an elite, like Szass Tam that would put him firmly in epic tier in power (As solo>elite>standard). Szass Tam of course would crush a level 19 party mercilessly, it wouldn't even be a fight of course because that's how the system works. The point is when you LOOK at their stat block and actually think about how it translates to how powerful they are, Elminster for his level is equivalently more powerful than Szass Tam is for his level. Elminster also scales up very well, as I already explained.
Why have levels at all, if "Epic" no longer means that it's more powerful than "Paragon" (or at least that a lvl 30 isn't more powerful than a lvl 19). It's ridiculous, and as you say, somewhat meaningless.
Because in 4E creatures are balanced against how challenging they are to PCs. In terms of how challenging Szass Tam is compared to Elminster, for their level Elminster is far more so. He also scales better into epic, while Szass Tam suffers a bit from how early on he was published.
Didn't say that at all. All I said was: Epic > No Longer Epic.
Yes, but you don't appear to have any understanding as to what that actually means. A level 19 solo is an epic elite and a high epic standard creature. Being a solo is impressive enough, especially one that takes on five PCs and isn't useless.
"Seems to be" means that you don't really know for sure, and you're just speculating.
Seems logical to me given the way it's written, maybe if you could read it for yourself you would see that as well. Either way, it doesn't bother me at all.
LOL... again, how is it babbling to point out that Elminster is depowered? That's his story in 4E.
Because his stat block truly doesn't reflect this.
is that no stat block is valuable if they've destroyed the story.
Absolute, complete and utter 100% nonsense. I can take that stat block and use it for numerous things. I've stated that I'll use his stat block as the basis for other spellcasters, liches and other things. "Reskinning" is not only common in 4E, it's basically encouraged and so there is no such thing as a good stat block that is useless.
I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from, though, as you appear to value very different things than I do when it comes to this game.
As I said, if you wanted to make an "older" 3.5x Elminster in 4E, this stat block is dead simple to use. You can take the old fluff, put it together with the new stat block and level it appropriately to epic. Add a couple of powers with a more chosen theme and you're done.
It isn't hard to use material.
It works for you, not for me. I loathe the story behind it, so it'll never see the light of day in my world.
The story doesn't bother me and is logically set up in the article, with the understanding of what it is trying to achieve anyway.
But if I'm certainly not going to use it, and if you're "never going to use it" despite singing high praises for it, then what's the point?
As I said, in the context of the encounter I would never use it but as something else it can defnitely be used. Already planning on making it a lich with a few power alterations.
Which is hilarious, considering how much you're whining about him being "depowered".
Uhm, I'm not whining about it at all. It's simply a fact of Realms history that Elminster is depowered. What's actually hilarious (and sort of sad) is your attempt to convince me otherwise, when it's clearly a canon fact both in the novel and the 4E sourcebooks. He retains a measure of his former power, and it's illustrated in this current statblock, but we sorta knew that anyway... Oh well. I'm sorry that you have a problem with the facts as presented in the books.
Now then, lets get our adventuring party together to kick Elminsters ass! Hells yeah!
Really we should all stop trying to explain things to Jorunhast, he just doesnt get it, hes not going to get it, and he doent want to get it.
Now then, lets get our adventuring party together to kick Elminsters ass! Hells yeah!
Personal attacks, lovely.
behave people
now edit posts before the knights of ni show up
NI
NI
NI
to late
runaway
Really we should all stop trying to explain things to Jorunhast, he just doesnt get it, hes not going to get it, and he doent want to get it.
Now then, lets get our adventuring party together to kick Elminsters ass! Hells yeah!
Personal attacks, lovely.
You think thats a personal attack? Its not like Iwas putting you down or anything, or calling you names. It was a joke. Not as funny as some of yours, but still a joke. Well sort of a joke, I am sick of reading through this thread and its just cooments about how you think its stupid, and then someone else trys to explain it to you, and you still think its stupid, and then some one else is like but its like this and then.... IM just saying it doesnt matter how many times some one explains it to you, youre not going to like it, am I right, or no? Im just sayin if you dont like it then fine, lets all move on, instead of trying to get Jorunhast on board, cause it aint gonna happen.
So no I dont see that as a personal attack at all. A personal attack would be if I said you are a *** ***** whyo ****** with his ******* and ***** ***** ***** all day!
But I didnt say that now did I?
Moving on....
hey isnt that against the coc????
behave people
now edit posts before the knights of ni show up
NI
NI
NI
to late
runaway
Thats not what you said!! It was something about playing your fighter named Brave Sir Robin.
I was just about to quote and reply to that but you changed it! Does this mean youre not joining my adventuring party to take out Elminster once and for all! Because we all know, Elminster Must Die!!!
You think thats a personal attack? Its not like Iwas putting you down or anything, or calling you names.
Try it on yourself, and you tell me if you think it's a "joke" or if you think it's a personal attack. If I were to say, "The_Silversword doesn't get it, he's not going to get it, and he doesn't want to get it," what do you think I would be implying? It implies mental thickness (doesn't get it), an inability to learn (isn't going to get it), and ignorant resistance (doesn't want to get it).
It's both rude and dismissive (thanks so much!).
But let's just test these things out about me, shall we?
1. I fully understand Aegeri's points about stat blocks (but I don't care). There are some masterfully crafted stat blocks out there, many of which are not only elegant combinations of powers but are extremely deadly in a competent DM's hands. Furthermore, I well understand the value of a good stat block, in that you can strip the name and brief background and switch it up for use in your game somewhere else. That's all well and good.
But as I have said, it's irrelevant to me. Should I explain why? First, I firmly believe that rule editions don't matter all that much. If you play 1E, 2E, 3E, or 4E, and if you're having fun, that's great! The system, honestly, doesn't really matter all that much if your goal of having fun is met. That's why I don't highly value stat blocks as the first thing I go to in a game. Second, for me "good story" (personal opinion) trumps "good design" every single time. If I'm playing 1E and I don't like the 6E story, I'm not likely to even want to see how masterful a stat block in 6E might be (and yes, I know there's no 6E). Third, it's pretty clear (at least to me) that the things Aegeri is "trying to explain" are more about his personal values and how they dramatically differ from mine. Again, his personal values are not relevant to me. They are relevant to him, and perhaps to you, but not to me. Life is like that, sometimes.
2. As for my ability to learn, let's just say that I have a Master's degree and I'm finishing a doctorate. Believe it if you want, or don't, it makes no real-world difference to me really. But regardless of those, I've demonstrated quite a few times how I've been willing to research some arcane bit of lore, or explain lore on a relatively expansive level. If that's not enough to change your mind about the "he's not going to get it" belief, too bad. =shrug=
3. I can't help it if someone refuses to acknowledge my statement of "it's irrelevant to me" and tries to spend their time trying to prove me "wrong" for something they believe and I don't. To me, crunch is a vehicle and nothing more. I value story above all else in roleplaying games. That's me. Others value pretty and elegant stat blocks. No harm no foul... but yes, it's a total waste of time to try and convince me that stat blocks should be valued above story.
It was a joke. Not as funny as some of yours, but still a joke. Well sort of a joke, I am sick of reading through this thread and its just cooments about how you think its stupid, and then someone else trys to explain it to you, and you still think its stupid, and then some one else is like but its like this and then.... IM just saying it doesnt matter how many times some one explains it to you, youre not going to like it, am I right, or no? Im just sayin if you dont like it then fine, lets all move on, instead of trying to get Jorunhast on board, cause it aint gonna happen.
There is a vast difference between saying "person A will never understand it" and "person A will never like it," though. The former is dismissive and rude, the latter is just speculation. And no, I wouldn't say that there is absolutely no argument that wouldn't change my mind and get me on board. But trying to convince me that awesome stat blocks are awesome, just not the way to do it.
For a few weeks there, I was impressed with WotC for bringing back both Elaine Cunningham and Paul Kemp. It gave me a glimmer of hope that the stories in 4E would improve, that they were perhaps committing to better, richer stories that would become lore. But then, I see this "whee! let's fight Elminster because he's a monster now, woo! I taeks his lewts!" thing, and that built-up hope fell down a pit. Such is life, and such is the way of WotC. They are catering to a specific type of client for DDI that just isn't me. That said, I'll probably still buy the Kemp and Cunningham novels. But 4E gaming in the Realms is pretty much dead to me because of the (mostly) garbage lore IMO.
But oh well... maybe everyone would be happier if I were indeed an undiscriminating thicko that approved of everything with a Realms stamp on it.
hey isnt that against the coc????
behave people
now edit posts before the knights of ni show up
NI
NI
NI
to late
runaway
Thats not what you said!! It was something about playing your fighter named Brave Sir Robin.
I was just about to quote and reply to that but you changed it! Does this mean youre not joining my adventuring party to take out Elminster once and for all! Because we all know, Elminster Must Die!!!
NI
And when I say "put-down" I mean subdue him in an attempt to cure his affliction and restore his sanity. It will probably be the start of a level 21-30 epic campaign involving planar jumping (maybe even some time traveling?) and taking on mighty demons to find the right magical item to restore him. I'm going to use the Cure Affliction ritual to keep him stable yet it won't permanently cure him. Not sure about the specifics but I can say that the entire Hero Battle has given me a great epic level campaign.
@ Journhast- I can agree that it seems like El has been "de-powered" since he's gone from a CR 34 in 3E to only a 19th level Solo in 4E but comparing the two for similar merits just doesn't work well from one edition to another (game stat wise). As far as the situation the PCs find him in (killing the Simbul and everything) I for one don't believe it's Canon. And since you've not been a fan of 4eFR since it's release two years ago, I sruggle to undertand your complaint of Elminster's stats when they don't have any value or meaning to you in the first place?
I'm not saying your opinion isn't wanted but I am wondering what your basing your opinion on if you've never read the article (which I don't know if you have or haven't).
...And since you've not been a fan of 4eFR since it's release two years ago, I sruggle to undertand your complaint of Elminster's stats when they don't have any value or meaning to you in the first place?
I'm not complaining about his stats. I think they should've chose something/someone entirely new instead of Elminster. He just has too much "baggage" whether you love him or hate him.
I'm not saying your opinion isn't wanted but I am wondering what your basing your opinion on if you've never read the article (which I don't know if you have or haven't).
Which opinion are you referring to? That I'm not surprised that they statted out Elminster, why I'm using the word "depowered," or why I think having El kill the Simbul (canon or not) is damaging to the spirit of his character?
I'm not complaining about his stats. I think they should've chose something/someone entirely new instead of Elminster. He just has too much "baggage" whether you love him or hate him.
Well considering that they already did Drizzt, I'm not suprised that they chose to do Elminster too. Think about the campaign settings Wiz-bro has produced (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, and now Dark Sun) and only FR has the iconic/NPC characters since nothing in Eberron is Canon novel wise and Dark Sun isn't fully out yet. It makes perfect sense to do Elminsters stat write-up espically when you figure they're publishing a book called "Elminster Must Die!". And besides, what other near epic level NPC should they have done in his place, Larloch? Don't know of too many other well known NPCs that survived the Spellplague.
Which opinion are you referring to? That I'm not surprised that they statted out Elminster, why I'm using the word "depowered," or why I think having El kill the Simbul (canon or not) is damaging to the spirit of his character?
As I stated, I'm not suprised about them doing Elminster either. But to the other two, yes.
Since the Spellplague dramatically changed magic on Toril that drove many wizards insane and rendered others completely impotent where magic is concerned I think Elminster came out rather well with his Deity dying and all. And be that as it may, Elminster is still a mage not to be trifled with unless your an extreamly well prepared group of over level 20 and his stats are no longer confined/limited to how a PC would be created. I don't think the word "depowered" is accurate since he's still very powerful, so I'd use the term diminished as he's not the most epic monster on the face of Toril which no PC can ever beat. And of course, it always comes down to the DM if he wants the PCs to defeat Elminster or not (stats/powers/spells be damned).
And as far as his story with the Simbul, I think if she became SOO crazed and uncontrollable that Elminster would summon the courage needed to stop her from destroying the Dalelands and Faerun, even if it meant killing her. Would it be a horrible end for her, yes, but I think Elminster's character is above even that to do what's better for the rest of the world.
...It makes perfect sense to do Elminsters stat write-up espically when you figure they're publishing a book called "Elminster Must Die!". And besides, what other near epic level NPC should they have done in his place, Larloch? Don't know of too many other well known NPCs that survived the Spellplague.
Sure, as I said I wasn't surprised at all by the choice of Elminster. It was certainly a logical choice, for the reasons you mentioned. To me, though, it's just sad on a number of levels, and I think they could have just as easily taken a different route. Larloch would be very interesting, as would Liriel Baenre, or perhaps even one of the current "big names" that is up-and-coming.
I don't think the word "depowered" is accurate since he's still very powerful, so I'd use the term diminished as he's not the most epic monster on the face of Toril which no PC can ever beat. And of course, it always comes down to the DM if he wants the PCs to defeat Elminster or not (stats/powers/spells be damned).
Diminished is similar enough in my book, and I don't mind changing to it if "depowered" is felt to be too strong of a word, doesn't matter to me really. I chose "depowered," though, because from what we know Elminster has completely lost his Chosen status as well as a significant portion of his personal power. He once shared the power of a goddess, described as the most powerful deity among the others, in addition to being an archmage of considerable personal power to boot. To have lost both completely, diminished seems too minor a word. But if it's necessary to keep the peace with other posters, I'll use diminished.
And as far as his story with the Simbul, I think if she became SOO crazed and uncontrollable that Elminster would summon the courage needed to stop her from destroying the Dalelands and Faerun, even if it meant killing her. Would it be a horrible end for her, yes, but I think Elminster's character is above even that to do what's better for the rest of the world.
Even more than the loss of his Chosen abilities and archmage status, this breaks him as a character. It is meant to be "powerful" as an image, and it certainly is that, but it goes too far. It offends me as a reader, on a moral level. The "man who fights the good and moral fight" is a theme in many works throughout the world. Such men typically lose a great deal, but to lose everything in one's life and to be casually written as having killed his own lover, it completely and utterly offends me on a moral level as a reader. This is a man who has constantly sacrificed for the greater good, over centuries, and for a moral reader it is completely unthinkable that he should not only be "brought low" but that all of his works and the love that he shared are rendered meaningless. With his goddess slain, he now even has no safe harbor in death... nor do any of the former Chosen. In one small sense, it makes him too real, for the world is often such a cruel place. To bring Elminster to this, IMO it utterly destroys his character as a thematic moral example to be enjoyed. It's a significant, and terribly sad way to end reading about him after having loved his character for decades.
What does it tell me as a reader? Not only does good no longer triumph in these new Forgotten Realms, it is punished severely. Our example is Elminster. But that is the way of these current designers, and IMO reflects a tremendous lack of vision in creating these sad, dark new Realms. It is ugly to read.
Another way to think about it... in the Princess Bride, remember when the grandfather relates to the little boy "the princess marries Humperdink" and the boy gets upset and says, "NO! She marries Westly, I'm sure of it!" or even when the old lady yells "Booo!" at the princess for starting to marry Humperdink... they are relating that there are certain rules in fiction. When one has true love, noble and good, one does not marry the villain. It's offensive! Similarly, when one sacrifices constantly for morality and good to prevail, you don't see them getting crushed and punished later on in the story. The designers have broken that rule with Elminster: he has been a good, noble man, and he is ultimately rewarded with loss of every kind, his allies are all gone, and he has even descended into insanity. And the villains of this world, such as Szass Tam? They're at the very top of their game. It offends the moral sensibilities of the reader.
I hope this helps explain and better clarify my position, and answers at least part of what you were wondering about with me.
Sure, as I said I wasn't surprised at all by the choice of Elminster. It was certainly a logical choice, for the reasons you mentioned. To me, though, it's just sad on a number of levels, and I think they could have just as easily taken a different route. Larloch would be very interesting, as would Liriel Baenre, or perhaps even one of the current "big names" that is up-and-coming.
I would love Larloch myself actually.
Unfortunately, these articles are regretfully named "Hero Battle", which indicates they are battles against powerful heroes and not powerful villains. So I think seeing Larloch in one of these would be rare. After they did Drizz't and Elminster though, who else is really left? Eberron deliberately avoids notable heroes and while there is the gladiator who slew the dragon sorcerer of Tyr, I can't think of anyone in Dark Sun. So these were always going to be a bit realms biased, but due to killing half of them off who is left to even use now?
Diminished is similar enough in my book, and I don't mind changing to it if "depowered" is felt to be too strong of a word, doesn't matter to me really.
In my responses to you, that's all I was trying to get across. If you were running 3.5 fluff with 4.0 rules (as some people are), then all you need to do to make him epic is take this stat block, add some powers (see what I pointed out to change) and perhaps silver fire attack as a minor action (I would make this a 3 failed saves = dead power as well, or even just a straight to zero HP power - representing how powerful he is). The thing is that if the base powers are good, making this stat block level 33 and some extra powers is not much work at all.
Also, he is still one of the strongest creatures in 4E. Not just in FR, but in 4E in general for his level.
What does it tell me as a reader? Not only does good no longer triumph in these new Forgotten Realms, it is punished severely. Our example is Elminster. But that is the way of these current designers, and IMO reflects a tremendous lack of vision in creating these sad, dark new Realms. It is ugly to read.
I have the completely opposite feeling. I actually much prefer this, because if there was a complaint with the old realms the "Superfriends" were far too much in ascendency over the three stooges way most of the evil characters and organizations were often portrayed. I much prefer evil in ascendency and that's really the way 4E FR is at the moment.
I can however completely understand your position, I just disagree with it because I don't think good endings are a requirement or even desireable. I much prefer a victory at incredible loss - or even a narrow one - to a completely ambiguous happy ending.
Another way to think about it... in the Princess Bride, remember when the grandfather relates to the little boy "the princess marries Humperdink" and the boy gets upset and says, "NO! She marries Westly, I'm sure of it!" or even when the old lady yells "Booo!" at the princess for starting to marry Humperdink... they are relating that there are certain rules in fiction. When one has true love, noble and good, one does not marry the villain. It's offensive! Similarly, when one sacrifices constantly for morality and good to prevail, you don't see them getting crushed and punished later on in the story. The designers have broken that rule with Elminster: he has been a good, noble man, and he is ultimately rewarded with loss of every kind, his allies are all gone, and he has even descended into insanity. And the villains of this world, such as Szass Tam? They're at the very top of their game. It offends the moral sensibilities of the reader.
I hope this helps explain and better clarify my position, and answers at least part of what you were wondering about with me.
Sometimes though that's not the way it goes in fiction. Happy endings are not guaranteed even in fairy stories. Joseph Campbell says a fair bit about it. Also as a counterpoint, how many of the Chosen were guilty of Hubris? I'd say, all of them. At which point, it's just as valid to suggest Hubris begets Ate, and that's what happens to Elminster.
Sometimes though that's not the way it goes in fiction. Happy endings are not guaranteed even in fairy stories. Joseph Campbell says a fair bit about it. Also as a counterpoint, how many of the Chosen were guilty of Hubris? I'd say, all of them. At which point, it's just as valid to suggest Hubris begets Ate, and that's what happens to Elminster.
If we are speaking of fiction in a broad, general sense, you're absolutely right. But we aren't. We are speaking here of heroic fiction in the Realms. Whether or not one liked the fairly predictable positive outcomes in those heroic novels, 4E Realms broke the unspoken covenant with the reader. Not only broke it, but stamped it into the dirt.
I agree that tossing away heroic fiction in favor of a more darker tone is radically different from earlier FR novels. I think its a good thing.
My taste for heroic fantasy has been shifting more and more into both newer sword and sorcery tales, which usually provide more gritty realistic tales, and older mysterious worlds like Newhon and Elrics Multiverse. FR's evolution in her novel line is going in that direction when authors like DeBie, Davis, Cordell, Kemp and now even Greenwood take a little more risk in portraying flawed or dark protagonists.
I agree that tossing away heroic fiction in favor of a more darker tone is radically different from earlier FR novels. I think its a good thing.
Agreed.
The article is a neat thought expeirment. I won't take that as a stab at Elminsters fans per se, as I think that its clear the novel will play out differently.
I agree that tossing away heroic fiction in favor of a more darker tone is radically different from earlier FR novels. I think its a good thing.
My taste for heroic fantasy has been shifting more and more into both newer sword and sorcery tales, which usually provide more gritty realistic tales, and older mysterious worlds like Newhon and Elrics Multiverse. FR's evolution in her novel line is going in that direction when authors like DeBie, Davis, Cordell, Kemp and now even Greenwood take a little more risk in portraying flawed or dark protagonists.
I really don't consider it a stab at fans of Elminster....but it is definitly fan service to those who hate him. I will never understand why those fans are not just ignored.
But I agree with you the earlier heroic fiction of earlier FR novels got old...but I also dislike the extreme dark edgier novels they put out now...which I don't find all that realistic IMO. I would like to see a more balanced approach between the two extremes. But that is me personaly. My main problem with the the both styles is that they either treat the villians as keystone cops...or the heroes as keystone cops...or teen angst ridden characters. Both creates...a very poor realistic character in my opinion. A writter who has done a great job with this in my opinion is David Gremwell(I think that is his name). Who take a character that legends are built around...and shows the character that legends will be written about as less then savory.
Anyway just my two coppers.
But I agree with you the earlier heroic fiction of earlier FR novels got old...but I also dislike the extreme dark edgier novels they put out now...which I don't find all that realistic IMO. I would like to see a more balanced approach between the two extremes. But that is me personaly. My main problem with the the both styles is that they either treat the villians as keystone cops...or the heroes as keystone cops...or teen angst ridden characters. Both creates...a very poor realistic character in my opinion. A writter who has done a great job with this in my opinion is David Gremwell(I think that is his name). Who take a character that legends are built around...and shows the character that legends will be written about as less then savory.
Anyway just my two coppers.
The author you're thinking of is the late David Gemmell. Druss is what I like to think of Mirt as being like, minus the magically enforced longevity.
I am not so sure I agree that the tone of earlier FR books was always more heroic and less dark. Consider the original Moonshae trilogy, with the number of dead that gives you. Or some of the early 'harper' series, often with pretty ambivalent victories won at a significant cost. And it's not as if Shandril's Tale ends particularly happily.
But I agree with you the earlier heroic fiction of earlier FR novels got old...but I also dislike the extreme dark edgier novels they put out now...which I don't find all that realistic IMO. I would like to see a more balanced approach between the two extremes. But that is me personaly. My main problem with the the both styles is that they either treat the villians as keystone cops...or the heroes as keystone cops...or teen angst ridden characters. Both creates...a very poor realistic character in my opinion. A writter who has done a great job with this in my opinion is David Gremwell(I think that is his name). Who take a character that legends are built around...and shows the character that legends will be written about as less then savory.
Anyway just my two coppers.
The author you're thinking of is the late David Gemmell. Druss is what I like to think of Mirt as being like, minus the magically enforced longevity.
I am not so sure I agree that the tone of earlier FR books was always more heroic and less dark. Consider the original Moonshae trilogy, with the number of dead that gives you. Or some of the early 'harper' series, often with pretty ambivalent victories won at a significant cost. And it's not as if Shandril's Tale ends particularly happily.
That is the author...thanks. He is great at making both the dark protagonist...and the heroic characters realistic.
I also agree with you...it was some darkness in the early books. Though to me Shandril's End was a little too dark for my taste. I liked the character. And while I don't need a fairy tale ending...I would have like to atleast have respect for a character I care about at the end.
Sure, as I said I wasn't surprised at all by the choice of Elminster. It was certainly a logical choice, for the reasons you mentioned. To me, though, it's just sad on a number of levels, and I think they could have just as easily taken a different route. Larloch would be very interesting, as would Liriel Baenre, or perhaps even one of the current "big names" that is up-and-coming.
I'd love to see what Liriel has been doing for the past century, however, I think Elaine mentioned her story has passed and probably won't be re-visited. But your right, that would've made a pretty good "Hero Battle" too.
Even more than the loss of his Chosen abilities and archmage status, this breaks him as a character. It is meant to be "powerful" as an image, and it certainly is that, but it goes too far. It offends me as a reader, on a moral level. The "man who fights the good and moral fight" is a theme in many works throughout the world. Such men typically lose a great deal, but to lose everything in one's life and to be casually written as having killed his own lover, it completely and utterly offends me on a moral level as a reader. This is a man who has constantly sacrificed for the greater good, over centuries, and for a moral reader it is completely unthinkable that he should not only be "brought low" but that all of his works and the love that he shared are rendered meaningless. With his goddess slain, he now even has no safe harbor in death... nor do any of the former Chosen. In one small sense, it makes him too real, for the world is often such a cruel place. To bring Elminster to this, IMO it utterly destroys his character as a thematic moral example to be enjoyed. It's a significant, and terribly sad way to end reading about him after having loved his character for decades.
What does it tell me as a reader? Not only does good no longer triumph in these new Forgotten Realms, it is punished severely. Our example is Elminster. But that is the way of these current designers, and IMO reflects a tremendous lack of vision in creating these sad, dark new Realms. It is ugly to read.
Another way to think about it... in the Princess Bride, remember when the grandfather relates to the little boy "the princess marries Humperdink" and the boy gets upset and says, "NO! She marries Westly, I'm sure of it!" or even when the old lady yells "Booo!" at the princess for starting to marry Humperdink... they are relating that there are certain rules in fiction. When one has true love, noble and good, one does not marry the villain. It's offensive! Similarly, when one sacrifices constantly for morality and good to prevail, you don't see them getting crushed and punished later on in the story. The designers have broken that rule with Elminster: he has been a good, noble man, and he is ultimately rewarded with loss of every kind, his allies are all gone, and he has even descended into insanity. And the villains of this world, such as Szass Tam? They're at the very top of their game. It offends the moral sensibilities of the reader.
I hope this helps explain and better clarify my position, and answers at least part of what you were wondering about with me.
I'd suggest you never read George R. R. Martin because this is exactly what he strives to do. It really does make for a realistic book. But casting that aside, from my own experience as a reader of older Realms novels (back when cross-overs weren't uncommon between Spelljammer and Ravenloft) they became sort of simplistic and formulative. A few books took me by suprise in it's writing style such as the book Bladesinger in which the hero regains his purpose but loses the woman he loves or R.A. Salvatore's trilogy The Two Swords shows just how catastrophic war can be. Another good one was Death of a Dragon where as a reader I felt that nothing could go right and all was pretty much lost. And at the end of the story, victory often comes at huge sacrifices.
But lets not forget that this Hero Battle is just a "what-if" or "hypothetic" scenario like the Drizzt one was. The Drizzt scenario was not canon and nothing came of it novel-wise and I feel safe in saying the same is true here with Elminster.
And look at Elminster from the previous edition. Lets see, he was a Chosen of Mystra; had a woman, who, by her own right was a queen of a country; had friends, powerful Chosen friends, abound; and was probably more serious about smoking Pipe weed than taking down the next big-bad guy the Zhents threw at him. Didn't seem to me that he was leading a hard life there. Now comes the Spellplague and the loss of the Goddess along with much mystical power. He then spends the next century dealing with his lover (who slowly starts to go crazy) and seeing those he loves die from old age. Well he's been around for many, many centuries and your telling me he wouldn't forsee this happening? What exactly stopped him from making new friends (besides the writers of course)? To me, the moral of what transpired with him shows you that no matter what you do in life time will change everything and nothing one does stay permament. I think Elminster knows this and probably expected things to turn out more or less the way they did.
Of course Elminster is going to see friends and allies come and go, just as he has for the previous centuries. Of course he should expect his enemies (Szass Tam for example) to gain strength because they don't die and neither does their ambition for power. These things come in cycles: good trimuphs for a time, then evil blows good out of the water and good fights to trimuph once again. This is a dark chapter in the Realms for the notable NPCs, but it is also a place where adventurers are needed most and don't forget that the book isn't done.
I get now where you coming from and I definitly understand your view, though I don't agree with it but communication is key for good discussions.
Show
El, the Simbul, Storm, Alusair, Mirt and MYSTRA
El's never wrong. Just ask him. Its probably the ale talking just then, not him...
I think you are confusing ale with... butterscotch pudding.
Personnally, I LOVE the fact that Ed hasShowEl, the Simbul, Storm, Alusair, Mirt and MYSTRA
It is actually a natural development: the 'hero' has been acting as the Realms' guardian for so long that he becomes convinced that he is the only one capable - and sees proof of it in every little thing that goes wrong and every thug that opposes him. They become unable to see the potential in others, both by having seen too many failures, and because they have convinced themselves already. After all, if there ARE other heroes, what place is there in the world for them?
Gomez
That and the effective neutering of the Harpers and the essential effects of news not travelling very fast (or far) in a PoL sort of world. If you don't hear about it, it might as well have not happened as far as you're concerned... so perhaps from an isolated perspective, its quite true, even if it is objectively an incorrect statement. That would be interpretation of it really, more a reflection of just how out of touch El and Storm are these days...
Not that I agree with the notion in the slightest, but it would make sense given the changes they've made to them, officially.
Also look at the typical modules the LFr RPGA modules...are any directed at actualy making the world a better place? Any seeking to restore Mystra? Or any of the lost gods? Clean up the Spell Plague? Even just to reverse the effects...or any are designed to remove the threat of the Shades...or the Zhents...or etc?
If you play in the LFR what have you actualy done to stop the force of evil? Besides maybe saving a village or two. I mean all it is...is just reacting to the villians...because you really can't do more than that in that type of enviroment.
I mean it was very strong when it was tied to cannon...now since that is servered people can actualy start writting the campaign to destroy the Shades..or bring back a lost god...or whatever things that actualy make a difference...so question is have you? If not than I have to agree with Ed(or Elminster) when it comes down to LFR players.
What? neutered Harpers? I dont know about all that. Theyre still around, and they still kick a$$ if you ask me. I think they just act more in secret now. After all, everybody else in the Realms seems to think that theyre solely focused on the Shades. They still got eyes and ears everywhere, EVERYWHERE!
Philosophically and organizationally, from what I've read at least, the new Harpers are nothing at all like the old Harpers. They don't have agents on missions all over the continent trying to combat multiple forces of darkness and evil. They are "reconstructed" as a small group now, focused only on Netheril and the shades. So if you're looking for one of the old style Harpers, who might be working against the Zhentarim, or searching for some lost library or magic item, or off on some secret mission in the southern regions of Faerun, you won't find any of those. Apparently, they also are more hidden, and so individual villages aren't likely to know about them (at least, not like in the past). Honestly, I think "neutered" applies pretty well to the new Harpers.
What? neutered Harpers? I dont know about all that. Theyre still around, and they still kick a$$ if you ask me. I think they just act more in secret now. After all, everybody else in the Realms seems to think that theyre solely focused on the Shades. They still got eyes and ears everywhere, EVERYWHERE!
Philosophically and organizationally, from what I've read at least, the new Harpers are nothing at all like the old Harpers. They don't have agents on missions all over the continent trying to combat multiple forces of darkness and evil. They are "reconstructed" as a small group now, focused only on Netheril and the shades. So if you're looking for one of the old style Harpers, who might be working against the Zhentarim, or searching for some lost library or magic item, or off on some secret mission in the southern regions of Faerun, you won't find any of those. Apparently, they also are more hidden, and so individual villages aren't likely to know about them (at least, not like in the past). Honestly, I think "neutered" applies pretty well to the new Harpers.
It's pretty much on how you use them. The FRCG states that
the small organization is dedicated to one purpose: opposing the growing power of the Shadovar.
but that doesn't necessarily mean in your campaigns that has to be the way it is. In my campaigns, they're still widely used to combat the growing power of the Eldreth Veluuthra, the Cult of the Dragon, Zhent bandit (espically near Darkhold), as well as search artifacts of power so the Shades, Red Wizards, and clergy of Shar don't get to them first.
It's pretty much on how you use them. The FRCG states thatthe small organization is dedicated to one purpose: opposing the growing power of the Shadovar.
but that doesn't necessarily mean in your campaigns that has to be the way it is. In my campaigns, they're still widely used to combat the growing power of the Eldreth Veluuthra, the Cult of the Dragon, Zhent bandit (espically near Darkhold), as well as search artifacts of power so the Shades, Red Wizards, and clergy of Shar don't get to them first.
Well, sure... the argument is always that one can re-write or modify any element of a game for your own use. I could make the Harpers exactly as they were, or I could make them secretly evil worshippers of Asmodeus. I could flip the Zhentarim around and make them heroic.
But that's not the way they're written in the FRCG, as you pointed out. And if everyone ends up re-writing or changing big parts of the FRCG, then to me that says something about the FRCS.
At this point, with 4E I'm just a reader of the Realms, albeit rarely. And I'd assume that any future novels detailing the new Harpers will draw from the 4E FRCG and not the older version. It's just sad to me, that's all. *shrug*
Personnally, I LOVE the fact that Ed hasShowEl, the Simbul, Storm, Alusair, Mirt and MYSTRA
Ed has stated that whats in the 4e FRCG is just what the Realms at large believes, I think he addressed this over on Candlekeep
THO said it, as a reaction to my question:
In 4th ed, the Harpers are now a small group only limited to Luruar.
They are quite a different organisation than the old (3rd ed) Harpers.
I deduce that means that Storm no longer belongs to the Harpers, and neither does the other people that surround and aid Elminster and Storm.
To which she responded:
gomez, your deduction re. Storm's 4e membership in the Harpers is incorrect. I have a strong suspicion that the Harpers lore in the 4e Campaign Guide is "what most folk believe" rather than the truth. We may all learn a little more about this soon. Which is about as far as I can go, given the NDAs in force at the moment.
Ed can probably reply to your other queries (again, given NDAs, "a little"), so of course your queries have been sent on to him, to see what comes back for us all...
So no definite answer on it, though if the Lady Hooded says so, I am not going to argue...
Gomez
Also look at the typical modules the LFr RPGA modules...are any directed at actualy making the world a better place?
Yes. Are they about throwing down Netheril or returning Mystra? No. But that is not necesaarily 'bettering' the Realms. Also, such tasks would be Epic play, which we haven't reached yet.
I do not expect LFR to lead to many (if any) drastic changes to the setting. The return of a deity is unlikely (though I do promise you that I did my best there), as is the elimination of a powerful force - a great set-back or elimination of evil master plans is far more likely to occur.
Rememebr that LFR is limited by what R&D wants us to do. Even if we are 'non-cannon', they would have serious trouble ignoring events that would bring Helm to life, kill Szass Tamm, or destroy Netheril.
This is why, most likely, the LFR epic plotline will be 'save the world' epic, but won't change the face of Faerun.
Then again, we still have a few years...
Gomez
a great set-back or elimination of evil master plans is far more likely to occur.
Which, as johnkretzer said, is reactionary. Is there a "pushing for an age of peace and prosperity" adventure out there anywhere? The ones I have scene seem to be in the good-old-fashioned vein giving the evil doers a good thwarting. There is nothing wrong with this and it certainly makes for an interesting game or three...
...however, it does little to show people that heroes can turn the tide, because the tide isn't being turned. For every evil that is put down, it seems that pretty much anywhere you look there is another one popping up. Someone posted that they preferred this kind of "struggling against the dark tide" world. Personally, I don't, because it feels utterly futile.
If throwing down the Shades wouldn't be for the betterment of the Realms, can you suggest what might be?
However, there are adventures where good NPCs take the intiative, with the bad guys reacting to it - and the PCs there to aid and intervene. Granted, it runs parallel to one of the bad guys evil plots, but is IS an intiative (against Netheril, funney enough), where the PCs can play a role. These are the adventures in the Conspiracy of Ravens story arc (DALE1-1 The Prospect, DALE1-3 Master and Servant, and DALE1-6 The Vesperin Initiative). The results of these efforts are then the subject of attack in some of the other adventure arcs (such as the Pain & Suffering arc, especially in DALE2-2 Agony), but occasionally manage to launch projects that achieve success (i.e. in CORE2-2 Rising of the Dark). The story isn't over yet, though I am unsure whether or how this arc will continue in the new campaign setuip.
So yes, the campaign is mostly reactionary, but there are good forces on the move.
Gomez
LFR, it seems, cannot show us a turning tide, the heroes in it can stand as bulwarks against the onset of evil and chaos but to show them actually winning might run the risk of thining the ranks of antagonists and bringing matters back towards a balance. Which, as has been described on several occasions before brings up worries about overshadowing again.
I sometimes think about characters for the LFR Realms, and coming up with places an adventurer might come from is easy, but what happens then? A career where the world is always teetering on the brink of destruction? That the only real retirement is death or ascention? Because I sure as heck have trouble thinking of a quiet place for an ex-adventurer to settle down after a hard-life's thwarting.
Home games are much much better for this. By deviating from the Realms as chronicled by LFR or in other official products the DM has the capacity to actually change the world for the better. I'm all for that.
Sadly, although home games are full of world saving they are not reflected in the game products. So what we have is a world that is ripe for saving, and people do... but no matter how many times they do, it never visibly improves.
Returning to the original topic of the thread, I am personally of the belief that the Realms has become grim enough without setting out to kill or subdue one of its staunchest defenders, even as a hypothetical.
I think what you ask is something that is in genral a bit harder to realize in the LFR environment. The nature of the campaign is mostly reactionary due to the way players particpate in the campaign. As a PC party, you cannot really set up a plan to overthrow Netheril, since the campaign has no way to react to player initiative.
However, there are adventures where good NPCs take the intiative, with the bad guys reacting to it - and the PCs there to aid and intervene. Granted, it runs parallel to one of the bad guys evil plots, but is IS an intiative (against Netheril, funney enough), where the PCs can play a role. These are the adventures in the Conspiracy of Ravens story arc (DALE1-1 The Prospect, DALE1-3 Master and Servant, and DALE1-6 The Vesperin Initiative). The results of these efforts are then the subject of attack in some of the other adventure arcs (such as the Pain & Suffering arc, especially in DALE2-2 Agony), but occasionally manage to launch projects that achieve success (i.e. in CORE2-2 Rising of the Dark). The story isn't over yet, though I am unsure whether or how this arc will continue in the new campaign setuip.
So yes, the campaign is mostly reactionary, but there are good forces on the move.
Gomez
The LFR enviroment is exactly what I am speaking about. It is like playing WoW in that you don't actualy change the world...because it can't handle people actualy playing heroes and making a actualy difference. It is a very limited form of play. Which is why I am bothered about the statement from the player who was offended at the idea of Elminster going out and doing real good. Because it will fall apart. Heck you go on a adventure and it will always grant one result no matter what you do. Heck it is like WoW with a ton of different groups doing the same quest...with only one result.
I am not saying there is a better way to handle the LFR...or that it is possible to do any other way...but I do find the games unengaging vs a homegame because of this...you are not a hero. You can't be. Most play in the LFR is like watching players play WoW or a board game...any depth beyons the current quest...or the mini's on the board is usualy glaringly missing. Now of course I will say that they are probably alot of great groups that play the LFR...and I know couple of great RPers and DNs who are active in the LRF...and hey if people are playing it and having fun...I got no complaints except that I really hate to see the direction of the game I love being heavily influenced by this type of gaming.
Sadly, although home games are full of world saving they are not reflected in the game products. So what we have is a world that is ripe for saving, and people do... but no matter how many times they do, it never visibly improves.
Returning to the original topic of the thread, I am personally of the belief that the Realms has become grim enough without setting out to kill or subdue one of its staunchest defenders, even as a hypothetical.
I don't really see the problem with this. No world is a perfect place; nobody can save it forever. Has there even been a perfect year in the Realms? Of course not.
As a player I don't get depressed because WotC isn't publishing my world-saving; I expect it of course. As a player, however, I do get annoyed when a specific group of heroes are touted as the world-savers by those who read these game produces or novels.
If you are ready to assume that a world isn't saved because it's not in print, imagine the player or DM who faces a table of people who say, "Oh but that area is already saved/covered by So-and-so." It's easy to say, "Oh well, you can ignore the books." But then you aren't ready to ignore the books when it says how bad things are and that there are no heroes.
I don't really see the problem with this. No world is a perfect place; nobody can save it forever. Has there even been a perfect year in the Realms? Of course not.
On the entirity of the continent of Faerun? I doubt it. I wasn't referring to that though, I talked about balance. Even setting that aside, there were places in the Realms before that I would have thought that it would have been comparatively safe to settle down in, even outside the walls of the major cities. I do not have that feeling now.
If you are ready to assume that a world isn't saved because it's not in print, imagine the player or DM who faces a table of people who say, "Oh but that area is already saved/covered by So-and-so." It's easy to say, "Oh well, you can ignore the books." But then you aren't ready to ignore the books when it says how bad things are and that there are no heroes.
Um, what?
If I was sitting down to a game and saying "Oh well, you can ignore the books" then I would automatically be in a position where I could change the world, and introduce the kind of heroes (or be one) that could restore a bit of balance to the setting... so why would I then complain about there being no heroes?
If on the other hand I wasn't playing in the Realms (as I am currently am not) then ignoring the printed material isn't really an option as I have little capacity to set aside and replace it on my own. I may have problems but even I wouldn't sit on my own and dream about how the Realms would be a better place if it was more balanced. And in this case the table of complaining people part of your point doesn't come up.
The two matters don't directly relate unless you force them to. Effectively you are asking why it isn't possible to parachute underwater.
...Effectively you are asking why it isn't possible to parachute underwater.
I heard the Lantanese gnomes were working on solving exactly this problem, which is why Ao vaporized them.
Good for Ao.;)
Heck you go on a adventure and it will always grant one result no matter what you do.
That isn't true. The adventures outcome is 'determined' only by the assumption made that, on average, the PCs will prevail one way or another. Howe they prevail, and what choices they make, can shape the campaign.
For instance, in the above plot series, an alliance is formed to oppose Netheril and Sembia. Teh PCS have a say in how that allaince is formed, and whether a certain group becomes a member. The outcome was not determined at all - it was decided on feedback received.
These are small choices, but the nature of the campaign (short adventures), and the assumption that parties will generally succeed in the main goal, makes that necessary.
But they do have an impact, which is why, using inout form various adventures in the story line :
Show
there now exists the Velarian Trade Alliance between groups from Myth Drannor, New Velar, Vesperin, and Nathlan (DALE1-6), whose main head quarters are in the former temple of Mystra in New Velar (DALE1-1), and whose greatest asset, thanks to the saving of an informant (DALE1-3) , is the Mistress of the Night, a spell jammer (CORE2-2).
there now exists the Velarian Trade Alliance between groups from Myth Drannor, New Velar, Vesperin, and Nathlan (DALE1-6), whose main head quarters are in the former temple of Mystra in New Velar (DALE1-1), and whose greatest asset, thanks to the saving of an informant (DALE1-3) , is the Mistress of the Night, a spell jammer (CORE2-2).
Heck you go on a adventure and it will always grant one result no matter what you do.
That isn't true. The adventures outcome is 'determined' only by the assumption made that, on average, the PCs will prevail one way or another. Howe they prevail, and what choices they make, can shape the campaign.
For instance, in the above plot series, an alliance is formed to oppose Netheril and Sembia. Teh PCS have a say in how that allaince is formed, and whether a certain group becomes a member. The outcome was not determined at all - it was decided on feedback received.
These are small choices, but the nature of the campaign (short adventures), and the assumption that parties will generally succeed in the main goal, makes that necessary.
But they do have an impact, which is why, using inout form various adventures in the story line :Show
there now exists the Velarian Trade Alliance between groups from Myth Drannor, New Velar, Vesperin, and Nathlan (DALE1-6), whose main head quarters are in the former temple of Mystra in New Velar (DALE1-1), and whose greatest asset, thanks to the saving of an informant (DALE1-3) , is the Mistress of the Night, a spell jammer (CORE2-2).