| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kyrene |
Posted - 18 Jul 2008 : 10:48:02
Edit 1: The official link points to Excerpts: Chult. I'm leaving the rest of this post as is, since the old link still also works for now.
A bit of a preview preview*:
Excerpts: Chult
* I was playing around and found this by adding an "a" to the second Excerpts: Loudwater URL. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 16:23:00
quote:
Originally posted by StarBog
Don't worry, White Wolf already tried that with the Camarilla and the new WOD. 
And then they ended up hosting an OWoD Wiki. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 13:49:30
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Alternatively WotC could create a "gaming police" and barge into players houses and check if they only use the "officially sanctioned playing aids (time to check the fine print in your 4e books to see if they added this condition to the purchasing agreement).
Don't worry, White Wolf already tried that with the Camarilla and the new WOD. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 13:36:17
quote:
Originally posted by chance87
I've been anticipating that in 09, or early 10, we'll see Power cards released by WotC. The Powers stat blocks I've seen in the excerpts seem ready made to plaster on cards. Any takers on whether the cards will be randomized, and every pack guaranteed to have at least 1 Rare or Very Rare? 
quote:
This was discussed over at Paizo - while such cards would be VERY lucrative to a company producing them, WotC reserves the SOLE right to produce such playing aids (for 4e).
Hmmm ... "sole right to produce playing aids"? Since you CAN use miniatures from other manufacturers they should go on a crusade to sue them?
Alternatively WotC could create a "gaming police" and barge into players houses and check if they only use the "officially sanctioned playing aids (time to check the fine print in your 4e books to see if they added this condition to the purchasing agreement). I am just my sarcastic little self here. 
On the power cards anything other than sorting them by class (and probably power level if the spells for a class have to be split up into several batches) and "general powers" would be nonsense / blatant moneymaking. |
| chance87 |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 03:10:11
I've been anticipating that in 09, or early 10, we'll see Power cards released by WotC. The Powers stat blocks I've seen in the excerpts seem ready made to plaster on cards. Any takers on whether the cards will be randomized, and every pack guaranteed to have at least 1 Rare or Very Rare?
quote:
This was discussed over at Paizo - while such cards would be VERY lucrative to a company producing them, WotC reserves the SOLE right to produce such playing aids (for 4e).
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 19:10:37
Oh, I know - those are the ones I use in my Shaar, though. The regular, two-trunk variety I have as a more advanced culture to the south, in the Utter East.
Still, a lot of the art and fluff I like to go through for ideas - tons of good stuff in there (along with some bad, but thats the case with everything).
Those were only the rough sketches of the Loxodon, BTW - the finished pics were much better.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 17:48:06
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I even like their version of the Loxo better.
That doesn't match the description of FR loxo, though... The loxo of FR do not have a single abbreviated-but-otherwise-normal trunk. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 17:26:11
While looking for some pics to use with some of my homebrew stuff awhile back, I made a wonderful discovery - the MtG site right at WotC!
Noy only is the fluff FAR superior to anything produced by the D&D division, but by-and-large the art also tends to be better. I've adapted a number of things from the Mirrodin material for the Utter East, and cherry-pick from all the sets, artwork, and fluff for ideas. I even like their version of the Loxo better.
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
'two core brands' of D&D and Magic
Hmmm, you got me thinking. Is there a D&D trading card game on the market? What I gather from 4e is that it wouldnt be hard to adapt that into one. "Once per encounter powers" are kinda like "Tap to activate and dont untap next round." Then you have the "tap and untap" powers that work once a round ... As usual I hope I am wrong about this, but always ready to be disappointed. Even if it doesnt turn into a trading card game marketing cards for the powers would be a lucrative idea as "playing aids" for those who dont even want to read a book and just "in style" with plastic miniatures.
Isn't there already 'Power Cards' for sale? And the way that 4E feels to me, from the persective of its emphasized group dynamics, is like building a MtG deck -- you optimize the group efficiency and supplement each other's powers, instead of optimizing your own character as an individual.
This was discussed over at Paizo - while such cards would be VERY lucrative to a company producing them, WotC reserves the SOLE right to produce such playing aids (for 4e).
So if we see any, they will probably be s__t.  |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 16:15:52
I've actually thought that it would be interesting if they developed the Magic: the Gatering campaign setting as a D&D campaign setting. It seems like some rather interesting worlds. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 12:11:32
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
'two core brands' of D&D and Magic
Hmmm, you got me thinking. Is there a D&D trading card game on the market?
The nearest I can thing of is Spellfire from TSR over ten years ago. Then again, I am usually not the first one to discover something new. |
| Na-Gang |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 10:46:38
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I see there is no Ubtao or Eshowdow (although of the three Chultan dities, Sseth seems to have risen in power and prominence).
I've speculated about those two being Selune and Shar under aliases, so if they play it off that way it would make some sense (not perfect mind you).
I've always had Eshowdow being an aspect of Shar in my campaigns. I guess that makes both of us just as guilty as WotC of not allowing two deities with similar or overlapping portfolios (no matter that they are from different regional 'pantheons'). |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 10:12:58
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
'two core brands' of D&D and Magic
Hmmm, you got me thinking. Is there a D&D trading card game on the market? What I gather from 4e is that it wouldnt be hard to adapt that into one. "Once per encounter powers" are kinda like "Tap to activate and dont untap next round." Then you have the "tap and untap" powers that work once a round ... As usual I hope I am wrong about this, but always ready to be disappointed. Even if it doesnt turn into a trading card game marketing cards for the powers would be a lucrative idea as "playing aids" for those who dont even want to read a book and just "in style" with plastic miniatures.
Isn't there already 'Power Cards' for sale? And the way that 4E feels to me, from the persective of its emphasized group dynamics, is like building a MtG deck -- you optimize the group efficiency and supplement each other's powers, instead of optimizing your own character as an individual. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 12 Aug 2008 : 07:48:02
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
'two core brands' of D&D and Magic
Hmmm, you got me thinking. Is there a D&D trading card game on the market? What I gather from 4e is that it wouldnt be hard to adapt that into one. "Once per encounter powers" are kinda like "Tap to activate and dont untap next round." Then you have the "tap and untap" powers that work once a round ... As usual I hope I am wrong about this, but always ready to be disappointed. Even if it doesnt turn into a trading card game marketing cards for the powers would be a lucrative idea as "playing aids" for those who dont even want to read a book and just "in style" with plastic miniatures. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 23:47:19
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I think the old Realms were a MUCH better example of 'Points of Light' then the new version, but whatever.
Briefly (lest the wrath of WR come down on this off-topic divergence like a bad-tempered giant panda bear with haemorrhoids), yes, but the new WOTC Points of Light is a totally player-centered concept. Just like, oh you know...an MMO....
Anyway, yes, the new Chult. Again, I'm not impressed. It seems much less mythic and grand in scale. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 22:33:13
I think the old Realms were a MUCH better example of 'Points of Light' then the new version, but whatever.
We seem to have strayed a bit from Chult...
I see there is no Ubtao or Eshowdow (although of the three Chultan dities, Sseth seems to have risen in power and prominence).
I've speculated about those two being Selune and Shar under aliases, so if they play it off that way it would make some sense (not perfect mind you). |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 21:25:10
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
They 'had to' in so far as Wizards made a major business decision that everything must serve their 'two core brands' of D&D and Magic. The Realms designers have, conspicuously, never publicly made the argument for why the Realms must be changed to match D&D. But we know it was a business decision, not a creative one.
Yep.
Though, honestly, I don't see how 4E Realms serves D&D more than 3E. I can see ways that it might potentially serve D&D better but . . . well. . . I just don't really buy it. |
| StarBog |
Posted - 11 Aug 2008 : 13:33:11
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
They 'had to' in so far as Wizards made a major business decision that everything must serve their 'two core brands' of D&D and Magic. The Realms designers have, conspicuously, never publicly made the argument for why the Realms must be changed to match D&D. But we know it was a business decision, not a creative one.
Yeah, reading between the lines of the many utterances that WOTC peeps have written, you're exactly right. They have effectively de-Realmed the Realms and took away what made it special, for me at least.
Ah well. The Realms will always stay 1375 for me, and I won't be gicing WOTC any more money for sure. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 08 Aug 2008 : 18:06:17
They 'had to' in so far as Wizards made a major business decision that everything must serve their 'two core brands' of D&D and Magic. The Realms designers have, conspicuously, never publicly made the argument for why the Realms must be changed to match D&D. But we know it was a business decision, not a creative one. |
| ShadezofDis |
Posted - 08 Aug 2008 : 17:55:49
Does anyone who's actually seen the 4E rules agree that it wouldn't work in the 3E realms? Because I'm pretty sure I could run a WoD game in the 3E realms, a paladium game in the 3E realms, a freaking marvel superheros game in the 3E realms, etc.
I just don't buy that they had to change things to fit the system. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 08 Aug 2008 : 00:58:42
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Fire Wraith
I would move that while there is something to be said for both of these arguments, they in no way justify the extent or scope of what has been done.
Exactly!
Indeed... |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 07 Aug 2008 : 23:03:23
quote:
Originally posted by Fire Wraith
I would move that while there is something to be said for both of these arguments, they in no way justify the extent or scope of what has been done.
Exactly! |
| Fire Wraith |
Posted - 07 Aug 2008 : 22:07:38
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Well the only "good" explanation I have found so far is that the drastically changed rules of 4e wont work in the "old Realms", so some changes were necessary. That's it for me though for reasonable logical conclusions though.
The other primary argument seems to be "The Realms have to change to bring in new fans, so we have to remove all of these things that are possibly acting as barriers to new people playing in the Realms."
I would move that while there is something to be said for both of these arguments, they in no way justify the extent or scope of what has been done. |
| Pandora |
Posted - 07 Aug 2008 : 21:49:15
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Kinda sounds like someone made a list of "things to erase from the Realms" and then ran out of good explanations on how to explain this.
I am still looking for the original "good explanations" you speak of. "Illogical" is mildly putting how they have so far explained any of the changes they have made to the 4e Realms (IMO).
Well the only "good" explanation I have found so far is that the drastically changed rules of 4e wont work in the "old Realms", so some changes were necessary. That's it for me though for reasonable logical conclusions though.
The "best" solution would have been to keep the FR as a "3.X world" and create a totally new one for 4e. That way they could have still marketed some 3rd edition stuff and would have a truly clean plate to start with the new rules. But the Elephant found the keys to the china shop, so we have to live with the "new Realms" (or rather not). |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 07 Aug 2008 : 16:13:41
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
Kinda sounds like someone made a list of "things to erase from the Realms" and then ran out of good explanations on how to explain this.
I am still looking for the original "good explanations" you speak of. "Illogical" is mildly putting how they have so far explained any of the changes they have made to the 4e Realms (IMO). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Aug 2008 : 14:49:37
You know, something else bugs me about the loss of Mezro... How did it affect Ubtao? Is he even still around, or did he also get nerfed to an Exarch? And how with this affect things when Dendar sticks her head out? |
| Pandora |
Posted - 07 Aug 2008 : 14:29:50
Hmmm ... has the "Forsaken Tree" been around before Spellplague? If not I am wondering how something so huge could have grown in just a few decades. Big trees usually take hundreds of years to do that. Oh and I know the answer would probably include "magic", but that would be a bit too simple IMO. Anyway, combining the "drowned Chult" and "ancient Tree beyond all imagination" according to the cannibals (how did they survive being drowned?) doesnt mix in my book.
The ruins of Mezro are explained in a confusing way as well: Apparently Chult / Mezro got
a. drowned in a cataclysm,
b. raised above the water again and
c. Mezro got stamped down to 200 feet below the surrounding ... "precisely cut out" like christmas cookies ...
Kinda sounds like someone made a list of "things to erase from the Realms" and then ran out of good explanations on how to explain this. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Jul 2008 : 18:54:41
That looks like the Cormyr super-impose I did, which I will not link to save certain people embarassment.
I did a 4e version of my 3e Chult, for anyone who is interested -
Chult 4.0
I came to the same exact conclusion you did BTW, and even apologized for it in a thread at WotC. Calimshan did NOT appear on my 3e Chult Map, but when I pull back the 'camera angle', it does appear to be approximately in the same place.
For all info on that map, please check my original postinmg of it on this thread. |
| Kyrene |
Posted - 26 Jul 2008 : 18:02:15
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Chult is too close to Calimshan
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I don't really understand it's new position either - continental plates simply do not move that much in a century. Magic is all well and good, but how does that explain how Chult became a 'floating' island? 
Especially since the Volcanoes are still in the same freakin' place!!! 
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But as many of you know, I am VERY familiar with the maps, and I know for a fact that Chult is MUCH further north and west then it was.
Destroying the land-connection to the continent is one thing, but shifting the entire thing over a few hundred miles doesn't make any sense, what-so-ever.
You know, this point has been bothering me for a while now, so I thought I'd actually "verify" the "new" Chult position.
Here is the result of super-imposing the 4E map over the old 3E map.
It seems the "island of Chult" is still in exactly the same position -- compared to the southern islands of Lantan -- and that it is indeed Calimshan that has become BIGGER?!? Bare in mind that my attempt at scaling the new map is still rather rough, but it does illustrate my point. The Shining Sea is smaller, probably leaving Calimport now landlocked (conjecture on my part). This of course raises other questions, but I don't like the logic of the Halruaa BOOM!!! anyway. |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 24 Jul 2008 : 16:58:17
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
As regards the Chult preview, Chult was never a place I ran adventures in. Other than, what, that Harper novel The Ring of Winter (I think that is its name), I don't know that I've even read all that much more about the place.
There's the Jungles of Chult adventure module. And some tidbits in Serpent Kingdoms. As well as Lost Empires of Faerūn, Dragons of Faerūn, and Grand History of the Realms. The Vanity's Brood novel, and Jess Lebow's Master of Chains novel also contains a few bits about Chultan society.
If I recall correctly, one of the characters in Crypt of the Shadowking was Tabaxi as well |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 24 Jul 2008 : 16:53:23
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Well, we've not had any tribes of Amazon warrior women show up yet...
At least then there'd be something worth visiting the area for. As it stands, it's totally lost all interest for me. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 24 Jul 2008 : 16:46:58
quote:
Originally posted by Wizbane
I share the same feelings, but the reason is the shortage of scheduled 4E products with the FR logo. A D&D setting cannot be sustained by novels alone, imho.
That is when it becomes a novel setting, which I would not be opposed to, and in my mind it pretty much has become now. It started as a novel setting for me, and then when I finally got into D&D 3.x (because of the Realms no less), it was a bit more. Now that I no longer care for the changes they are implementing on the D&D setting, IMO, it seems appropriate that it is returning to a novel setting for me. |
