Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 A message to all the scribes of Candlekeep...

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert Email Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]
Rolling Eyes [8|] Confused [?!:] Help [?:] King [3|:]
Laughing [:OD] What [W] Oooohh [:H] Down [:E]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
The Sage Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 04:54:48
I'm bringing this up here, because it's one of the sections of Candlekeep that receives the most attention.

Earlier, scribe Brimstone brought up a point that I want to briefly discuss here:-
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone

Yes, keep on insulting the Authors, and Designers that are working on and in the Forgotten Realms.

I'm inclined to agree.

I've grown particularly weary of this increasingly apparent facet of Realms chatter here at Candlekeep. Constructive criticism is fine. And is in line with the established Code of Conduct for the site. But I'm starting to realise that perhaps we Mods have been a little too lax in our efforts to counteract some of the more disturbing trends that seem to make a mockery of the concept of positive and/or negative constructive criticism.

As such, I'm declaring that outright insulting for no other reason than to express one's distaste over the 4e Realms will no longer be tolerated.

We each have our opinions on the 4e Realms. And we each feel the need to express those opinions. That's great. Because that's what Candlekeep is all about. But, at the same time, it should be noted that expressing opinions about an official designer's work and/or efforts with the 4e Realms should receive just as much respect and care as do the opinions made about the works of designers from previous editions of the FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign.

I've no problem with scribes discussing why they may dislike a particular element of the post-Spellplague Realms. But it's becoming increasingly clear that there are those among us here who take that as an opportunity to add nothing to the discussion at hand and only rally against the concept of the 4e Realms.

This ends now!

For this point on, if a scribe wishes to express dislike over something about the 4e Realms, you must also make an effort to respect the opinions of others who may hold opinions counter to your own, and also respect the work of the individual/s and/or products you're referring to. Inane negative commentary that directly insults others -- whether they be fellow scribes or official FR designers -- and adds no new or constructive elements to a discussion, will receive heavy scrutiny each and every time, and discussed privately with the offending scribe.

I make this declaration because I'm concerned about the state of the community here at Candlekeep. And because I'm worried that some of our more dedicated scribes are feeling less inclined to visit and participate here. But, more importantly, I'm troubled over the possibility that some of our most cherished members, the FR designers and authors themselves, will slowly withdraw their presence as Candlekeep continues to collapse under weight of the problems its currently experiencing in terms of opinions and debate over the 4e Realms.

In closing, I'm noting here and now that NO scribe will be exempt from this declaration. That includes both myself and Wooly. If any scribe still feels that there are problems with this state of events, or even with this very declaration, I'm open to discussion and debate. Or if you prefer, please contact Alaundo himself and address your concerns with him directly.

I thank you all for listening, and I appreciate that you will all play your part to ensure Candlekeep remains the open and friendly place for Realms chatter that we've all come to love.



-- The Sage

[Note: I'm leaving this scroll open for the time being, in an effort to encourage both worthwhile discussion and debate on this declaration. Any and all comments that pertain to this, are welcome]
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
DoveArrow Posted - 22 Aug 2023 : 19:01:50
I'm just stumbling onto this thread.

I definitely had a negative reaction to many of the changes they made to the Forgotten Realms in 4E and even 5E. Not so much because I didn't like the changes, but because it became harder to maintain continuity. When I was writing my Rise of the Genie Lords adventure series for the DMs Guild, for example, I was humming along, thinking I was holding steadfast to the lore. Then I would stumble onto something really basic, like the Second Sundering, and I would be like... well shoot. Now what? How do I incorporate this into what I've already written and published?

I didn't like everything they did with the Realms in 4E, but I found a lot of what they did interesting. I'm glad they rolled back some of it, but I do think they put a nice spin on certain areas. It allowed for some additional adventuring possibilities.

I also want to say that I agree with the initial post. It was a bit contentious in here for a while. I myself have received some snide remarks for trying to remain faithful to the canon and current timeline, even if I wasn't totally thrilled with where Wizards took things. (I'll also admit I didn't always respond well and there's one thread I avoid because I... well... I'm embarrassed about how I conducted myself.) I don't have any animosity towards those who want to remain in the pre-Spellplague timeline or who want to rewrite what happened after that period as many did after they announced the 4E changes to Forgotten Realms. Everyone has their preferences and honestly, I would love to play in an alternate Realms timeline some day. I'm glad that things have changed here and that it feels more friendly towards everyone.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 27 Feb 2022 : 05:41:47
There will never be a "final" edition of D&D, unless whoever holds the IP at some future point decides to retire the game entirely.
Razz Posted - 26 Feb 2022 : 18:26:55
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

A new Edition or the re-vamping of an existing one is always going to happen, it's how they (WotC) makes their money. Honestly, not seeing a change or overhaul for the better part of 10 years (2014 to -presumably- 2024) is quite an indication that they've hit a home run in terms of their system. Despite my own personal feelings that it could use some up-grades (but that's what Kickstarter projects and Homebrewed elements are for) the vast majority of the masses seem to be happy with it as it is.


The "majority" are completely new players to the game. Or people who haven't played in over 15 years or more. It's what they wanted; kick the old guard out, bring in the new.

Funny thing is, I've slowly noticed throughout various social media a rising trend in diving back into the older edition books and (in some few cases) even ditching 5e to go back to a pre-4e edition or switched to Pathfinder (either edition). As well as tons of comments or advice seeking for things to be a certain way, or a rule to exist in 5e, and they're either not realizing, or are directed to by a more legacy player of the game, that such things existed in earlier editions.

They're also realizing the extremely slow production schedule of 5e, and the lack of lore, from WotC. Sure they got DMs Guild, but there's a big demographic who either don't bother with DMs Guild content, or simply don't care much for it because it's not "official content."

There's also a rising trend of "D&D Lore" type videos on YouTube, for example some monster lore and planar lore videos I've seen with a significant number of followers. All of them being educated on, in my opinion, how much more rich, detailed, and in some ways better the game was then compared to now. And they're realizing how much they've missed out, and continue to miss out on, because WotC produces for the purpose of cash and not for the purpose of the game. I miss the pre-4e days (well, even 4e had a somewhat more robust release schedule, they still had Dragon and Dungeon even!) where content by D&D designers were in abundance. 3-4 books a month, Dragon/Dungeon Magazine, and then the OGL made it open season for more. To me those were the glory days of the game, where it was less commercialized, tightly packaged, and watered down for the sake of revenue.

I guess another way to put it is is 5e truly the D&D we know, love, and remember? No. It isn't and never will. The current generation is going to remember 5e as if it was, one day. And so on. D&D's going to just be a game of divisive players and lost legacies.

Who knows, I'm hoping Gen Z and up will do that thing where they bring old trends back. Maybe they'll all start to dive back into older editions and demand more from WotC.

Ideally, what I want to happen that would please everybody, and I mean every D&D gamer, is such a simple solution that gives everyone what they want including a massive cash influx straight to Wizbro.

Open up the DMs Guild to allow content creators to publish PDFs/prints of any edition.

Right now it's limited to 5e only. Which is quite stupid. Pathfinder Infinite allows both 1e and 2e content to be published, because they're well aware of wanting to keep the PF1e players around for some nice side revenue. Because that base is still strong.

If the DMs Guild opened up to all editions, with WotC taking a cut obviously as normal, there'll be a plethora of new content for all editions. I'm dying to see someone write up a "Fiendish Codex III: Yugoloths" for 3rd Edition or a "Complete Incarnum" or Forgotten Realms regional books again, but with 3e material (my preference, but my statements go for any edition, yes, including 4e.)

Because right now that kind of content is closed off. No thanks to the OGL's limitations (nothing beyond the SRD, which in and of itself took out things like Beholders, Illithids, etc.). But the DMs Guild is different, it's a medium through which you can write supplements for any of their products because unlike with the OGL, they're getting a percentage of the purchases made.

It's not only a good business move, but also good for the game entirely.

How many times must the D&D base be split before it implodes in on itself? This 5.5e coming is terrible news, I think. Rumor is if 6e comes, that will be their final edition as stated on ENWorld in an interview with the developers. I hope so, and I hope they open up for the other editions in the end.
sleyvas Posted - 12 Feb 2022 : 00:05:38
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Not to start a fight, but some of those, I still question them (some I don't mind you). They may be more accepted in 5e, but doesn't mean they're a great choice. I mainly mention it since there's hints they may make a 5.5e.


A new Edition or the re-vamping of an existing one is always going to happen, it's how they (WotC) makes their money. Honestly, not seeing a change or overhaul for the better part of 10 years (2014 to -presumably- 2024) is quite an indication that they've hit a home run in terms of their system. Despite my own personal feelings that it could use some up-grades (but that's what Kickstarter projects and Homebrewed elements are for) the vast majority of the masses seem to be happy with it as it is.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

The hit die healing.... I turned into an entirely different way to use that mechanic (i.e. turn in hit die for feats).

Advantage.... overused and other options should be used more often, even if it makes the rules "harder" to read. The mechanic itself though isn't bad, just how much it gets thrown about rather than smaller bonuses.

At will Cantrips shouldn't outdo 1st and 2nd level spells that require you to expend a slot.

Channel Divinity having weird options was something that kind of started in 3.5 I thought (but it was more of a feat thing maybe? Too many rules).

That being said, rituals... props. Roles within classes... kind of started in video games, but still, yeah. Short/Long Rest distinction, not a bad addition too. The rest, I just consider "hey, the game changes with time".



I like that Hit Die healing relieves some of burden of HP replacement from the "healer". I also like that some classes - like the Paladin and Fighter - can gain access to limited amount of self-healing when they're in the thick of it (yet another 4E-ism with regards to the Fighter's Second Wind).

Advantage might be overused, but it's quick and easy vs. adding and subtracting a ton of piddly modifiers over the course of a battle. Certainly I would be fine with just adding more dice to the mix, like the spell Bless adds 1d4 to your check (a fun concept vs. continually using Advantage).

In the vast majority of cases, 1st level spells exceed the usefulness of Cantrips except maybe only when you're hitting the 17th level or so. The effects of a leveled spell are almost always better than the effects of a cantrip. Magic Missile cast using a 1st level slot deals 3d4+3 (avg. 10 damage) automatically. It's Force, so not easily resisted, and auto-hits. Compare this to Acid Splash, one or two creatures make a Dex save or suffer 4d6 acid damage (avg. 14 damage), and that's only at 17th level. So for the previous 16 levels, Magic Missile did as much damage on average as Acid Splash but also was automatically successful and isn't resisted by monsters.

I also found this to be on-par with the aspects that Casters want options for those round-to-round combats that don't necessarily require spell-slot investment but still want to feel marginally magical or useful. We saw this in its earliest development at the tail-end of 3.5 with Reserve Feats. With these, a Wizard can siphon off magic from a Delayed Blast Fireball to fuel the Fiery Burst feat, dealing 7d6 fire damage in a 5-ft burst at-will! This was carried over, of a sort, to 4E where they became the main staple points of At-Will magic spell for casters.

As for Channel Divinity, I guess it's kind of homogenized between the Focused ones we saw in 4th Edition and some of the Domain Powers we saw in 3.5. I think they've done a decent job of making them unique to the concepts they're designed for. I just wish there were more of them. Yet another time to use Homebrewed 4E options and retrofit them to 5e.



Agree with most of what you said here except the healing, but that's just that I have a hang up for picturing "how" it happens without magic involved. I also still feel MM and other 1st level spells need just a little more oomph. I especially agree with your note of the 1d4 options with things like bless versus advantage. I will also add that 3.5 got ridiculous with the types of bonuses, and the +3 bonus limit on magic items in 5e is a good addition..... though I still think they went just a little far mathematically and need to open up the proficiency bonus range just a little (instead of +2 to +6.... maybe +1 to +8). But then again, if they opened the leveling up to say 32, they could do that range across that amount.

Oh, and gods they need to give more character options... and something to make multiclasing a spellcaster more viable.
Diffan Posted - 11 Feb 2022 : 16:36:47
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

Now that you guys mention this, the monster design in Monsters of the Multiverse is basically the 4e monster design: self-contained abilities so you don't need to look for spells and stuff in other books.



I'll have to check it out but yeah, that seems to be about right.
Zeromaru X Posted - 11 Feb 2022 : 16:02:04
Now that you guys mention this, the monster design in Monsters of the Multiverse is basically the 4e monster design: self-contained abilities so you don't need to look for spells and stuff in other books.
Diffan Posted - 11 Feb 2022 : 11:41:12
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Not to start a fight, but some of those, I still question them (some I don't mind you). They may be more accepted in 5e, but doesn't mean they're a great choice. I mainly mention it since there's hints they may make a 5.5e.


A new Edition or the re-vamping of an existing one is always going to happen, it's how they (WotC) makes their money. Honestly, not seeing a change or overhaul for the better part of 10 years (2014 to -presumably- 2024) is quite an indication that they've hit a home run in terms of their system. Despite my own personal feelings that it could use some up-grades (but that's what Kickstarter projects and Homebrewed elements are for) the vast majority of the masses seem to be happy with it as it is.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

The hit die healing.... I turned into an entirely different way to use that mechanic (i.e. turn in hit die for feats).

Advantage.... overused and other options should be used more often, even if it makes the rules "harder" to read. The mechanic itself though isn't bad, just how much it gets thrown about rather than smaller bonuses.

At will Cantrips shouldn't outdo 1st and 2nd level spells that require you to expend a slot.

Channel Divinity having weird options was something that kind of started in 3.5 I thought (but it was more of a feat thing maybe? Too many rules).

That being said, rituals... props. Roles within classes... kind of started in video games, but still, yeah. Short/Long Rest distinction, not a bad addition too. The rest, I just consider "hey, the game changes with time".



I like that Hit Die healing relieves some of burden of HP replacement from the "healer". I also like that some classes - like the Paladin and Fighter - can gain access to limited amount of self-healing when they're in the thick of it (yet another 4E-ism with regards to the Fighter's Second Wind).

Advantage might be overused, but it's quick and easy vs. adding and subtracting a ton of piddly modifiers over the course of a battle. Certainly I would be fine with just adding more dice to the mix, like the spell Bless adds 1d4 to your check (a fun concept vs. continually using Advantage).

In the vast majority of cases, 1st level spells exceed the usefulness of Cantrips except maybe only when you're hitting the 17th level or so. The effects of a leveled spell are almost always better than the effects of a cantrip. Magic Missile cast using a 1st level slot deals 3d4+3 (avg. 10 damage) automatically. It's Force, so not easily resisted, and auto-hits. Compare this to Acid Splash, one or two creatures make a Dex save or suffer 4d6 acid damage (avg. 14 damage), and that's only at 17th level. So for the previous 16 levels, Magic Missile did as much damage on average as Acid Splash but also was automatically successful and isn't resisted by monsters.

I also found this to be on-par with the aspects that Casters want options for those round-to-round combats that don't necessarily require spell-slot investment but still want to feel marginally magical or useful. We saw this in its earliest development at the tail-end of 3.5 with Reserve Feats. With these, a Wizard can siphon off magic from a Delayed Blast Fireball to fuel the Fiery Burst feat, dealing 7d6 fire damage in a 5-ft burst at-will! This was carried over, of a sort, to 4E where they became the main staple points of At-Will magic spell for casters.

As for Channel Divinity, I guess it's kind of homogenized between the Focused ones we saw in 4th Edition and some of the Domain Powers we saw in 3.5. I think they've done a decent job of making them unique to the concepts they're designed for. I just wish there were more of them. Yet another time to use Homebrewed 4E options and retrofit them to 5e.
sleyvas Posted - 11 Feb 2022 : 00:35:39
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye

It's dead, as it should be. No insult intended but it was a crap. We all occasionally produce crap and we flush it. Woot for the power of the flush.



Pretty late to the game eh? Like, some 7 years late by my reckoning. Why not just let it go entirely?

EDIT: Also, what I find particularly hilarious here is under the premise that it's "crap" then why did 5E....

- Bring in at-will cantrips that scale with character level?
- Bring in non-Healing via Hit Die healing?
- Keep the concepts of both Dragonborn AND Tieflings, keeping them as options in the PHB?
- Keep the concepts of the Warlock Pacts that 4E Created?
- Keep the concept of Rituals?
- Keep Monster stats similar to 4E?
- Class Roles are still heavily prevalent?
- "Weapon" cantrips: Specifically Sword Burst, Green-Flame Blade, and Lightning Lure which were specifically 4E Powers? Oh, same with Sacred Flame too.
- Short Rest / Long Rest distinction?
- Channel Divinity (a 4e Mechanic).
- Advantage was specifically an ability of the Avenger class.

Yep, all of those are directly pulled from 4E as mechanics and thematic concepts. Must be kind of difficult to know that 5th Edition is build so heavily from 4E-isms AND is the most successful edition of the game of all time.



Not to start a fight, but some of those, I still question them (some I don't mind you). They may be more accepted in 5e, but doesn't mean they're a great choice. I mainly mention it since there's hints they may make a 5.5e.

The hit die healing.... I turned into an entirely different way to use that mechanic (i.e. turn in hit die for feats).

Advantage.... overused and other options should be used more often, even if it makes the rules "harder" to read. The mechanic itself though isn't bad, just how much it gets thrown about rather than smaller bonuses.

At will Cantrips shouldn't outdo 1st and 2nd level spells that require you to expend a slot.

Channel Divinity having weird options was something that kind of started in 3.5 I thought (but it was more of a feat thing maybe? Too many rules).

That being said, rituals... props. Roles within classes... kind of started in video games, but still, yeah. Short/Long Rest distinction, not a bad addition too. The rest, I just consider "hey, the game changes with time".
Dalor Darden Posted - 10 Feb 2022 : 23:54:41
quote:
Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye

<snip>

It's dead, as it should be. No insult intended but it was a crap. We all occasionally produce crap and we flush it. Woot for the power of the flush.



If the words "no insult intended" preface something, then you KNOW as you write it that you are going to insult. Saying that you aren't doesn't change the fact that you intend to.

Let sleeping dragons sleep...
Diffan Posted - 10 Feb 2022 : 17:12:36
quote:
Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye

It's dead, as it should be. No insult intended but it was a crap. We all occasionally produce crap and we flush it. Woot for the power of the flush.



Pretty late to the game eh? Like, some 7 years late by my reckoning. Why not just let it go entirely?

EDIT: Also, what I find particularly hilarious here is under the premise that it's "crap" then why did 5E....

- Bring in at-will cantrips that scale with character level?
- Bring in non-Healing via Hit Die healing?
- Keep the concepts of both Dragonborn AND Tieflings, keeping them as options in the PHB?
- Keep the concepts of the Warlock Pacts that 4E Created?
- Keep the concept of Rituals?
- Keep Monster stats similar to 4E?
- Class Roles are still heavily prevalent?
- "Weapon" cantrips: Specifically Sword Burst, Green-Flame Blade, and Lightning Lure which were specifically 4E Powers? Oh, same with Sacred Flame too.
- Short Rest / Long Rest distinction?
- Channel Divinity (a 4e Mechanic).
- Advantage was specifically an ability of the Avenger class.

Yep, all of those are directly pulled from 4E as mechanics and thematic concepts. Must be kind of difficult to know that 5th Edition is build so heavily from 4E-isms AND is the most successful edition of the game of all time.
BrennonGoldeye Posted - 10 Feb 2022 : 15:38:41
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage

I'm bringing this up here, because it's one of the sections of Candlekeep that receives the most attention.

Earlier, scribe Brimstone brought up a point that I want to briefly discuss here:-
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone

Yes, keep on insulting the Authors, and Designers that are working on and in the Forgotten Realms.

I'm inclined to agree.

I've grown particularly weary of this increasingly apparent facet of Realms chatter here at Candlekeep. Constructive criticism is fine. And is in line with the established Code of Conduct for the site. But I'm starting to realise that perhaps we Mods have been a little too lax in our efforts to counteract some of the more disturbing trends that seem to make a mockery of the concept of positive and/or negative constructive criticism.

As such, I'm declaring that outright insulting for no other reason than to express one's distaste over the 4e Realms will no longer be tolerated.

We each have our opinions on the 4e Realms. And we each feel the need to express those opinions. That's great. Because that's what Candlekeep is all about. But, at the same time, it should be noted that expressing opinions about an official designer's work and/or efforts with the 4e Realms should receive just as much respect and care as do the opinions made about the works of designers from previous editions of the FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign.

I've no problem with scribes discussing why they may dislike a particular element of the post-Spellplague Realms. But it's becoming increasingly clear that there are those among us here who take that as an opportunity to add nothing to the discussion at hand and only rally against the concept of the 4e Realms.

This ends now!

For this point on, if a scribe wishes to express dislike over something about the 4e Realms, you must also make an effort to respect the opinions of others who may hold opinions counter to your own, and also respect the work of the individual/s and/or products you're referring to. Inane negative commentary that directly insults others -- whether they be fellow scribes or official FR designers -- and adds no new or constructive elements to a discussion, will receive heavy scrutiny each and every time, and discussed privately with the offending scribe.

I make this declaration because I'm concerned about the state of the community here at Candlekeep. And because I'm worried that some of our more dedicated scribes are feeling less inclined to visit and participate here. But, more importantly, I'm troubled over the possibility that some of our most cherished members, the FR designers and authors themselves, will slowly withdraw their presence as Candlekeep continues to collapse under weight of the problems its currently experiencing in terms of opinions and debate over the 4e Realms.

In closing, I'm noting here and now that NO scribe will be exempt from this declaration. That includes both myself and Wooly. If any scribe still feels that there are problems with this state of events, or even with this very declaration, I'm open to discussion and debate. Or if you prefer, please contact Alaundo himself and address your concerns with him directly.

I thank you all for listening, and I appreciate that you will all play your part to ensure Candlekeep remains the open and friendly place for Realms chatter that we've all come to love.



-- The Sage

[Note: I'm leaving this scroll open for the time being, in an effort to encourage both worthwhile discussion and debate on this declaration. Any and all comments that pertain to this, are welcome]




It's dead, as it should be. No insult intended but it was a crap. We all occasionally produce crap and we flush it. Woot for the power of the flush.
cpthero2 Posted - 16 Sep 2020 : 00:25:59
Procrastinator Most High Sage,

I just read through this entire message (all seven pages) and have to say: good point.

I myself was called to the carpet by Master Rupert for getting 4e angry even just several months ago, so I get it. Thanks for doing a great job of moderating (yeah, I know it's years later, but I had to reply).

Best regards,


Old Man Harpell Posted - 27 Mar 2018 : 13:40:01
I have no idea why it's taken me this long to have the idea come to mind, but...

...one of the best series I have seen addressing certain aspects of the various editions is by a gentleman named Matthew Colville, in his "Running The Game" YouTube series (he's on episode #55 or so, last I checked).

Essentially, it's a "how to" on being a DM/GM, as opposed to a player, and even grizzled old fossils such as Yours Truly have picked up a trick or three. I have, for instance, taken some of his suggestions for using tricks from Fourth Edition, which I thought was something that would never happen (though I am one of those rare souls who was fairly indifferent to the Fourth Edition ruleset...it simply wasn't my cup of tea).

He differs from many YouTubers in that he's consistently engaging, interesting, and has yet to put me to sleep (which, being on the dark side of fifty, I tend to nod off more often than I like). I will quantify that I have no idea if he has a presence here in Candlekeep (though I am skeptical), so this is not a "paid endorsement" (lacking a better description), but his series is worth the look - I am much more receptive these days to certain aspects of other editions because of his work.

- OMH
idilippy Posted - 01 Dec 2017 : 14:38:59
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Very true, although most of the reactions ive seen about 5e are that its good from first time players (who seem to say that no matter what the rules or setting are like). Whereas from long time players the trend is predominantly positive on the basis that it could have been much worse, it could have been 4e all over again.

Doesnt give me much hope for its longevity if the main selling point for older players is that its not as bad as the very worst thing you have ever played. But then again i still hope it fails and 6e is elminster waking up from a bad dream and realising the last 2 editions didnt happen.


For a different positive 5e response I’ve played since the tail end of 2e, though mostly 3e/PF, and tried every D&D edition at least once. 5e is my favorite edition of D&D now and the only one I would consider running moving forward. I hope it sticks around for the next decade. I like how streamlined it feels compared to the increasingly bloated PF/3.5e ruleset, the way it doesn’t toss out all the old, and it keeps good ideas like rituals from 4e. I also really like the advantage/disadvantage system when compared to the long list of modifiers for every little thing.
sleyvas Posted - 01 Dec 2017 : 12:58:10
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

However, bringing back some of the regions that went away is what they need to do. All these drowned or ruined cities that they just destroyed for no good reason (Cimbar, Soorenar, Laothkund, Akanax, Mordulkin) or even countries (Halruaa, Nimbral, Luiren, Lantan).



A lot of those have already been brought back about 2 years ago, with the SCAG.



Exactly why I mentioned them. They brought some back in different ways than I personally like, and some its personally unclear if they are back (for instance, the old city states of Chessenta, the city of Laothkund, etc..).

On a side note, the more I've been exploring the idea of Laothkund coming back.... the more I'm liking the idea. We theoretically still have the "rebel" red wizards that were inhabiting the city of Escalant and nearby wizard's reach cities. If Laothkund was controlled in Abeir as a remote part of a tharch, it can come back and we can have that whole section of the wizard's reach that can be opposed to Szass Tam and possibly serving as a rallying point for people in Thay who have become disenchanted with the undead. Then if some of the portions of Chessenta also come back and they're friendly with this region, they have allies. If some cities (for instance, Mordulkin) were lost in Abeir to forces there, and then come back to Toril filled with enemies of Unther/Chessenta/Tymanther, it can become a city which can also become an ally (i.e. Threskel and the Northern Wizards and the Enclave may become another point working against Thay). Thus, you can have "not good" people fighting against "oppressive, insane, undead mongering Thay".... or rather, the shades of grey that make things interesting.
sleyvas Posted - 01 Dec 2017 : 12:41:53
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.



Bear in mind, no one has officially said Laerakond is gone. Many of us have stated, we have no problem with it staying and somehow getting "displaced". Same with Tymanther/Akanul... as far as I'm concerned, Chessenta and Unther and the Shaar had a lot of dead space.... so you can fit in both cultures and even use them to create new dynamics that satisfy both. Same with Vaasa and Telos/Warlock Knights. I have no problem with that staying that way. Previously it was nothing but a big swamp.


I know, but odds are high that, if they release an official map or something, or a campaign setting, Laerakond isn't there anymore. And Laerakond isn't the only cool stuff that went away, anyways. And there is a lot of stuff from 3e that also got wiped out as well.

I know that I can just handwave the stuff I like, but in the official materials, that stuff won't be there. And somehow, all that is sad, because, it were a lot of years of development that now are... gone. Somehow, 5e did the same thing that 4e did to the Realms.



Here's the way I look at it.... I personally think we have lurkers from the company here... the more we say things like I'm saying that "it doesn't have to go", the more likely they'll "stay". I think a lot of times they take our ideas and put a slightly different spin on them, just so they can't be accused of stealing ideas. For instance, I can't help but notice that after I've basically spent the last two years saying that I'd like to see cat folk re-explored and a relook at Maztica / Katashaka.... out comes the adventure around Chult. Not saying its all me, because as I spoke, so did others. Did they necessarily do it the way I said I would? No... not at all... but I think they listened. So, maybe Laerakond WILL stay... maybe it WILL get displaced. Maybe it appears right next to Chult. Maybe it actually appears in the waters off the coast of the Utter East. Maybe it appears in the crowded sea off Zakhara. Maybe it even appears between Katashaka and Osse, or off the coast of Osse as a new island. In the end, location has some import, but not a lot when we're talking portals, flying ships, etc....
Zeromaru X Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 02:48:41
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.



Bear in mind, no one has officially said Laerakond is gone. Many of us have stated, we have no problem with it staying and somehow getting "displaced". Same with Tymanther/Akanul... as far as I'm concerned, Chessenta and Unther and the Shaar had a lot of dead space.... so you can fit in both cultures and even use them to create new dynamics that satisfy both. Same with Vaasa and Telos/Warlock Knights. I have no problem with that staying that way. Previously it was nothing but a big swamp.


I know, but odds are high that, if they release an official map or something, or a campaign setting, Laerakond isn't there anymore. And Laerakond isn't the only cool stuff that went away, anyways. And there is a lot of stuff from 3e that also got wiped out as well.

I know that I can just handwave the stuff I like, but in the official materials, that stuff won't be there. And somehow, all that is sad, because, it were a lot of years of development that now are... gone. Somehow, 5e did the same thing that 4e did to the Realms.
Irennan Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 02:00:24
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

However, bringing back some of the regions that went away is what they need to do. All these drowned or ruined cities that they just destroyed for no good reason (Cimbar, Soorenar, Laothkund, Akanax, Mordulkin) or even countries (Halruaa, Nimbral, Luiren, Lantan).



A lot of those have already been brought back about 2 years ago, with the SCAG.
sleyvas Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 01:51:36
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.



Bear in mind, no one has officially said Laerakond is gone. Many of us have stated, we have no problem with it staying and somehow getting "displaced". Same with Tymanther/Akanul... as far as I'm concerned, Chessenta and Unther and the Shaar had a lot of dead space.... so you can fit in both cultures and even use them to create new dynamics that satisfy both. Same with Vaasa and Telos/Warlock Knights. I have no problem with that staying that way. Previously it was nothing but a big swamp.

However, bringing back some of the regions that went away is what they need to do. All these drowned or ruined cities that they just destroyed for no good reason (Cimbar, Soorenar, Laothkund, Akanax, Mordulkin) or even countries (Halruaa, Nimbral, Luiren, Lantan).

While I'm personally glad to see some of the continents (Anchorome, Maztica... and while it wasn't officially gone, I assumed it was because Laerakond had no interaction to it... Katashaka) return, that's more because they're ripe playgrounds to play design in, and not because the realms missed them.... but you can play in them and give links elsewhere and still use the supporting materials of the realms easily.
sleyvas Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 01:23:54
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

One thing I found interesting in the Edition Wars, in regards to just the ruleset itself, and not to the changes in the setting (which have been discussed in plenty!), was the way reactions tended to be extreme in one direction or another.

The reactions I saw to the 4E ruleset were either "I want to have this edition's baby!" or "Kill it! Kill it with fire!"

My own reaction was negative, though I should like to think it wasn't quite to that extreme.

The reactions I've seen to the 5E ruleset have been much more measured, and they've been predominantly positive. I personally have not looked at the rules in any great detail, but what I've seen has not been objectionable to me.

And unlike the 3.x/4E transition, I've not seen anyone else suddenly outsell WotC with a repackaged version of the 4E rules. For me, the fact that -- at least briefly -- Pathfinder was outselling D&D is a very powerful statement on the success of the 4E ruleset.



Actually, I was more the exact opposite. The ruleset was what I was more upset with than anything. While I was unhappy with some of the realms changes, it was more that wizards looked nothing like they did previously. Same with a lot of classes. The one thing I gave them props for was rituals, but honestly that had been kind of done by many people in previous editions.... not as thoroughly though. I'm actually still that way about the 4e ruleset. The 5e ruleset is more balanced, but its also missing so much its not funny.... but therein lies part of its issue, its still only 1/3rd baked.
Irennan Posted - 30 Nov 2017 : 00:15:22
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.




I had one, but WotC deleted their own forum. Maybe someone ported it to the EnWorld forums.
Zeromaru X Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 22:49:22
If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.
Irennan Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 22:15:00
quote:
Originally posted by Spectralballoons
The designers worked hard to make it , and we shouldn't disparage their work on it so easily.



While I agree that disrespect leads to nothing, that's precisely what the 4e team did. They disrespected the work of the designers who made the Realms into the Realms, not because they changed it, but because of how they did that. They actively tried to sever the "new Realms" from all the previous lore and history, they blew up place or killed off stuff because they felt that those things were redundant or unlikable, when--in fact--they removed a lot of iconic elements of the setting, and they did that based on what seemed to be a superficial understanding of the matter (from what I read in their Q&A thread). They also warped characters and concepts for the novels leading up to 4e.

I mean, AFAIK they even had that childish "kill the holy cows and take their stuff" motto. The reason why 4e failed, and why now so much of those changes have been reversed, is not just the changes themselves. It was also WotC's disrespect (and lack of faith in their own IP, if I may add. Because when you feel that you have to take away so much of what your fans like about a setting to make it likable, then you don't have faith in your setting).
Gary Dallison Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 22:06:15
Very true, although most of the reactions ive seen about 5e are that its good from first time players (who seem to say that no matter what the rules or setting are like). Whereas from long time players the trend is predominantly positive on the basis that it could have been much worse, it could have been 4e all over again.

Doesnt give me much hope for its longevity if the main selling point for older players is that its not as bad as the very worst thing you have ever played. But then again i still hope it fails and 6e is elminster waking up from a bad dream and realising the last 2 editions didnt happen.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 21:34:16
One thing I found interesting in the Edition Wars, in regards to just the ruleset itself, and not to the changes in the setting (which have been discussed in plenty!), was the way reactions tended to be extreme in one direction or another.

The reactions I saw to the 4E ruleset were either "I want to have this edition's baby!" or "Kill it! Kill it with fire!"

My own reaction was negative, though I should like to think it wasn't quite to that extreme.

The reactions I've seen to the 5E ruleset have been much more measured, and they've been predominantly positive. I personally have not looked at the rules in any great detail, but what I've seen has not been objectionable to me.

And unlike the 3.x/4E transition, I've not seen anyone else suddenly outsell WotC with a repackaged version of the 4E rules. For me, the fact that -- at least briefly -- Pathfinder was outselling D&D is a very powerful statement on the success of the 4E ruleset.
Gary Dallison Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 21:33:08
Im an old grognard and im not happy with 5e. But i will readily admit that wotc have very little chance of succeeding in that regard.
sleyvas Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 19:49:09
quote:
Originally posted by Spectralballoons

quote:
Originally posted by DarkExcalibur42

I just have the urge to drag this poor, ancient thread back from the dead...

4E... made some bold changes. It definitely gave us a lot of new twists to a beloved world.

While I'm not a big fan of most of those changes, the authors and designers of the Forgotten Realms made something brilliant and extraordinary and unforgettable. Whatever shortcomings 4E may have had, they won't endure so long as those creators continue spinning stories and legends for us. The world will continue to evolve and grow, and eventually even the elements of 4E that frustrated us the most will be changed into another layer of the Forgotten Realms' very storied lore and history.

I haven't had the chance to read much 5th Edition yet, but I'm looking forward to it.


Although 4th Edition FR in particular was far from ideal, it did have some interesting ideas to it. The designers worked hard to make it , and we shouldn't disparage their work on it so easily.
I'm having mixed opinions on 5th Edition. It's a bit of a retcon, returning thing back to the pre-Sundering state of affairs for the most part while making things less black-and-white in terms of morality. Now your character can be a Zhent without being evil, for example. However, the FRCG replacement, the SCAG, is rather sparse on details.

The rules are also rather decent, like a rather simplified version of the 3.5e rules with some nice adjustments and innovations. Modifiers on attack rolls have been simplified to Advantage and Disadvanatge, for example, in recognition of how that's basically what ended up happening anyways once they'd been tallied up, but somewhat less muddled and with more an effect to it.



Why would being a Zhent mean you have to be evil. The Zhentarim at their heart are merchants. I know a lot of people try to link them to being like mobsters, but that's only a veneer. At their lowest levels (the merchants, the caravan drivers, etc...) many of them are just people trying to transport goods from one location to another and sell them. They're trying to figure out what people would like to buy.

In a similar vein, just because someone was from Thay or a red wizard shouldn't mean they were evil pre-spellplague (and even post-spellplague, but its even more likely that they're evil now... the ones that remained in country). Now, I would agree heartily if someone said 75% of them were self-concerned bigots.... but there's probably 25% who were concerned with their families over country and personal power. They were probably simply concerned with growing crops, making money, etc.... and possibly a lot of these individuals who were fed up with the politics at home were periodically working from the enclaves. In fact, I'd bet that interacting with other cultures via the enclaves changed those Mulans who left their country.

In the end, I agree... I was upset with many 4e changes. They essentially changed near everything about much of the realms, and it wasn't well done. Conceptually though, as I look at some of the things that the people came along afterward and tried to do, they were trying to fix things. For instance, in what I saw of the Chessenta redo in dungeon, they essentially "reskinned" a lot of the old cities with new names, slightly offset locations, and smaller populations... but their core concept was the old 3e idea. Now, we head into 5e, and we have an opportunity to reshape the region in a way that will make old grognards and new people both happy as I see it.
Spectralballoons Posted - 29 Nov 2017 : 19:34:05
quote:
Originally posted by DarkExcalibur42

I just have the urge to drag this poor, ancient thread back from the dead...

4E... made some bold changes. It definitely gave us a lot of new twists to a beloved world.

While I'm not a big fan of most of those changes, the authors and designers of the Forgotten Realms made something brilliant and extraordinary and unforgettable. Whatever shortcomings 4E may have had, they won't endure so long as those creators continue spinning stories and legends for us. The world will continue to evolve and grow, and eventually even the elements of 4E that frustrated us the most will be changed into another layer of the Forgotten Realms' very storied lore and history.

I haven't had the chance to read much 5th Edition yet, but I'm looking forward to it.


Although 4th Edition FR in particular was far from ideal, it did have some interesting ideas to it. The designers worked hard to make it , and we shouldn't disparage their work on it so easily.
I'm having mixed opinions on 5th Edition. It's a bit of a retcon, returning thing back to the pre-Sundering state of affairs for the most part while making things less black-and-white in terms of morality. Now your character can be a Zhent without being evil, for example. However, the FRCG replacement, the SCAG, is rather sparse on details.

The rules are also rather decent, like a rather simplified version of the 3.5e rules with some nice adjustments and innovations. Modifiers on attack rolls have been simplified to Advantage and Disadvanatge, for example, in recognition of how that's basically what ended up happening anyways once they'd been tallied up, but somewhat less muddled and with more an effect to it.
Solus Galerion Posted - 23 Sep 2017 : 03:55:49
Working in a creative field myself (game design), I thoroughly appreciate this. Thank you so much for going to such lengths to address this. I may be new, but I know good posts when I see them!
DarkExcalibur42 Posted - 22 Sep 2017 : 15:28:11
I just have the urge to drag this poor, ancient thread back from the dead...

4E... made some bold changes. It definitely gave us a lot of new twists to a beloved world.

While I'm not a big fan of most of those changes, the authors and designers of the Forgotten Realms made something brilliant and extraordinary and unforgettable. Whatever shortcomings 4E may have had, they won't endure so long as those creators continue spinning stories and legends for us. The world will continue to evolve and grow, and eventually even the elements of 4E that frustrated us the most will be changed into another layer of the Forgotten Realms' very storied lore and history.

I haven't had the chance to read much 5th Edition yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000