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
 Same ol’ Realms...

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
Razz Posted - 13 Nov 2018 : 14:04:22
Been a long time since I posted (hectic life events and all) but I wanted to share some thoughts on the current Forgotten Realms setting and how WotC is writing it.

I feel like it is getting stagnant. Too stagnant. It’s such a wide and diverse setting, yet we constantly deal with the same rehash over and over. Did we really need more Waterdeep? More Undermountain again?

Granted I give them kudos on using Tomb of Annilihation with Chult. Although I wish there was much more Chult lore than there was the adventure, it was a good start.

I just wish for more adventures taking place in newer places. An adventure set in Sossal, for example, giving both setting lore and an adventure. Or something in Mulhorand? The Golden Waters? Heck even the Hordelands?

I try to look at it from a marketing point of view, but I fail to see what the fear is? Fans will not have issues with another part of the Realms being explored, and new customers wouldn’t be bothered either. Where exactly is the disconnect?

Is anyone else burnt out on the “same ol’ Realms” over and over again? I mean I get the setting is ironically called the “FORGOTTEN Realms” but I did not expect for WotC to continue to take that literally.

I would like to see the Realms diversity and evolve more. Do not fans and designers feel the same way, and why not if so?
30   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Diffan Posted - 18 Dec 2018 : 09:14:08
quote:
Originally posted by Razz

PF2e and the changes to PF I have seen gave me the same trauma I felt when 3.5 suddenly was ending and the atrocity that was 4e came along. I'll never understand why game companies do these massive overhauls, especially when their product is still doing great, and risk losing many customers for brand new ones. Here I praised Paizo for years for giving those of us abandoned in 3.5 a 3.75 (I run a 3.5/PF hybrid that works great), because backwards compatiblity was one of their key pillars to PF, and now they're pulling a 4e on us.



Couple of reasons:
1. Games get stale. From the perspective of a consumer AND producer (I'd imagine). To stay in business, you need to keep churning out products and eventually you'll pretty much cover everything.

2. Product quality. As more supplements come out the more it messes with the core mechanics. The more chances are breakage happens. Last thing is you can do is just APs but they don't sell as well as supplement books.

3. Boredom by designers. There has to something said about writing for the same edition year after year and having only a little deviation. If I had to come with 10-20 new PrCs every so many months Id get tired too.

4. Backwards compatibility is only so useful. What worked better is writing mostly edition-neutral adventures with maybe tips on difficultly for various editions. These would hold up a lot more AND apply to more people for them to buy.

5. Reimaging your brand. As for Paizo, I always felt their system was basically a poorly applied band-aid to a seeping head wound that is 3.5 edition. It was 3.5 with Paizo houserules, essentially not "their" system. By making their own they can call something truly Paizo's baby.

But what it does do is open up the line for yet another company to take 3e and do their own thing and comtinue to appeal to the 3e hold-outs who are desperately clinging to the dying system.

Honestly I do hope someone does come out with it. I've been looking at re-camping the system myself and fixing the major glaring problems such as:

· Ridiculously high numbers for no reason.

· BAB (removing iterative attack penalties)

· Fixing full-attack - basically you get an extra attack with a minimal penalty to the rest of them otherwise you attack normally (including extra attacks via BAB and you can move your full distance too).

· Grouping feats into something worth taking and removing excess feats that are pointless.

· Breaking the clutch of power caster have.

· Making fighters and other weapon-based users something worth playing at higher levels.

Etc.
Diffan Posted - 18 Dec 2018 : 08:51:28
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

There's still a LOT to be needed for 5e to actually work, which is only revealed when you actually start building NPC's or trying to plan out encounters only to reveal that necromancers don't have anything, conjurers don't have anything, etc... but at least the math works to a degree.


I'm not sure I follow? 5e necromancers are, arguably, pretty crazy good with how Animate Dead works and their features work. You could theoretically make dozens of undead minions with their own sets of attacks etc. I didnt really check out Conjurers though.


quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

5e misses the mark for multi-classing spellcasters as well, while allowing multi-classing of other classes pretty well.
I haven't really used the rules for MC multiple caster classes but I feel you get more bang for your buck vs. 3e where there was no progression.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

think they took a maul to what a hammer could have fixed in 5e, and they should give some more range, but they're working in the right direction (i.e. my thoughts are instead of going from +2 to +6, spread that range to +1 to +8 maybe). This is where I was really hoping pathfinder would get the clue. They have the team that seems capable of building the options, they just need to reign in the numbers.


I don't mind 1-6 because it's way better than 1-20 and more. Really anything under 10 is fine.
Razz Posted - 17 Dec 2018 : 21:50:21
PF2e and the changes to PF I have seen gave me the same trauma I felt when 3.5 suddenly was ending and the atrocity that was 4e came along. I'll never understand why game companies do these massive overhauls, especially when their product is still doing great, and risk losing many customers for brand new ones. Here I praised Paizo for years for giving those of us abandoned in 3.5 a 3.75 (I run a 3.5/PF hybrid that works great), because backwards compatiblity was one of their key pillars to PF, and now they're pulling a 4e on us.
JohnLynch Posted - 17 Dec 2018 : 13:11:40
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

This is why I find so ironic that Pathfinder 2 is, for all intents and purposes, a clone of 4e.

People may say whatever they want, but that proves 4e was the natural evolution of 3.5, at least mechanics wise.

Unfortunately all it really demonstrates is that if you get a bunch of D&D 4e developers to redesign 3.5e they will come up with D&D 4e.



I haven't been really following Pathfinder 2e but I'm not certain how many (if any) designers on their team actively developed for 4e? Hadn't most of them already jumped ship to Eric Mona's Paizo team to clean up and fix 3.5 for Pathfinder? I doubt WotC would've allowed any crossover.

Also, I do have to laugh at how some of the staunch PF fans have strongly defended the changes to PF while accepting quite a few 4e-isms and stuff. I admire their loyalty but it is pretty hypocritical

Logan Bonner is one name that seems to be in a senior position for PF2e and is from 4e. We won't know for sure until the book is published and we see how much of the PF1e team is left and where the secs from PF2e are from.
sleyvas Posted - 17 Dec 2018 : 12:48:35
Since we're talking about it, I gotta say, I bought the Pathfinder 2e rulebook expansion at GenCon (which is admittedly a prequel), and the one thing I'd hoped they'd learn from 5e was the concept of limiting the range of numbers used when leveling. I also won't profess to having read it thoroughly, as I also have a life and a job, so I kind of flipped through it. There's still a LOT to be needed for 5e to actually work, which is only revealed when you actually start building NPC's or trying to plan out encounters only to reveal that necromancers don't have anything, conjurers don't have anything, etc... but at least the math works to a degree. 5e misses the mark for multi-classing spellcasters as well, while allowing multi-classing of other classes pretty well. I think they took a maul to what a hammer could have fixed in 5e, and they should give some more range, but they're working in the right direction (i.e. my thoughts are instead of going from +2 to +6, spread that range to +1 to +8 maybe). This is where I was really hoping pathfinder would get the clue. They have the team that seems capable of building the options, they just need to reign in the numbers.


I will note as well, I'll still more than likely buy the pathfinder 2e ruleset, because I know that the 5e ruleset isn't exactly the same as its early release either. Perhaps they'll get unofficial feedback like this that makes them take a look at their rules. If it weren't packed away right now (working on the house) I'd probably go dig it out and see if there's any other real improvements.
George Krashos Posted - 16 Dec 2018 : 23:55:14
I really enjoyed Diffan's post as it makes 4E D&D a lot more understandable. Of course, it doesn't explain the 4E changes in the Realms, but then again he's not a miracle worker!

Disclaimer: I was privy at Gen Con 2007 to the fact that there was going to be a 100-year timejump as part of the 4E transition. What I wasn't told was that the Spellplague would change geography, bring back "Abeir" or bring in the wacky joy that are shiny blue tattoos and floating bits of dirt. It was sold to a few of us insiders as a break to give the setting breathing space to allow new ideas and writers into the Realms. The fact that I and a few others indicated that we were prepared (for free) to liaise and consult on FR products (game and novels) to ensure continuity and "fit" and assist all contributors to the setting went by without a response. Of course, the irony is that there were bugger all FR 4E products, at least until right at the end when they went back to the well in an attempt to sell something.

The Sundering is evidence as to how their Realms vision played out. Mind you, having recently listened to some older D&D podcasts featuring Realms "experts" on the WotC staff talking about the 5E adventure products, I realise that things haven't moved on a heck of a lot. They are trying, don't get me wrong, but it just doesn't have the wow factor of a writer who knows and loves the Realms ... my 2cp.

-- George Krashos
Diffan Posted - 16 Dec 2018 : 23:26:16
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

This is why I find so ironic that Pathfinder 2 is, for all intents and purposes, a clone of 4e.

People may say whatever they want, but that proves 4e was the natural evolution of 3.5, at least mechanics wise.

Unfortunately all it really demonstrates is that if you get a bunch of D&D 4e developers to redesign 3.5e they will come up with D&D 4e.



I haven't been really following Pathfinder 2e but I'm not certain how many (if any) designers on their team actively developed for 4e? Hadn't most of them already jumped ship to Eric Mona's Paizo team to clean up and fix 3.5 for Pathfinder? I doubt WotC would've allowed any crossover.

Also, I do have to laugh at how some of the staunch PF fans have strongly defended the changes to PF while accepting quite a few 4e-isms and stuff. I admire their loyalty but it is pretty hypocritical
JohnLynch Posted - 16 Dec 2018 : 21:09:22
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

This is why I find so ironic that Pathfinder 2 is, for all intents and purposes, a clone of 4e.

People may say whatever they want, but that proves 4e was the natural evolution of 3.5, at least mechanics wise.

Unfortunately all it really demonstrates is that if you get a bunch of D&D 4e developers to redesign 3.5e they will come up with D&D 4e.
Zeromaru X Posted - 16 Dec 2018 : 18:28:36
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
The changes to the game system (4e), on the other hand, were 100% directly resulted from the massive cluster-**** that occurred with the 3e/3.5 system. I get that people still love 3.5 and in continuation with Pathfinder, however the entire thing breaks down in mechanics, power structure, and playability past a certain point (before 10th level) to which it becomes a game of rocket-tag and massive amounts of work for a DM.

It's why someone crated the E6 version. It's why someone went to the trouble of making the Class Tier system. It's why someone "tried" to fix it with a new revision (PF). It's why someone retro-cloned the system to appeal to more nostalgia (Dungeon Crawl Classics). Having played the system (still do occasionally) the flaws are more glaring each time I step away to another version. I go back to 3.5 and just...shake my head.

We got the changes in 4E because, on the whole, people got tired of trying to "Fix" 3.5.




This is why I find so ironic that Pathfinder 2 is, for all intents and purposes, a clone of 4e.

People may say whatever they want, but that proves 4e was the natural evolution of 3.5, at least mechanics wise.
Diffan Posted - 16 Dec 2018 : 17:51:32
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan

quote:
Originally posted by dwarvenranger

Thanks all for the responses. Quite informative, although how things were done seems quite convoluted and perhaps a bit arbitrary.



It kinda is WotC's record when it comes to FR. The same could be said for the changes that they decided to make for 4e (including the ones that were made at the end of 3e).



I'll grant that the changes to the Realms were some head scratchers. I understand WHY they happened and the influences that had an impact on the setting - some I agree with and some I don't - but overall it hurt the Realms in the long run.

The changes to the game system (4e), on the other hand, were 100% directly resulted from the massive cluster-**** that occurred with the 3e/3.5 system. I get that people still love 3.5 and in continuation with Pathfinder, however the entire thing breaks down in mechanics, power structure, and playability past a certain point (before 10th level) to which it becomes a game of rocket-tag and massive amounts of work for a DM.

It's why someone crated the E6 version. It's why someone went to the trouble of making the Class Tier system. It's why someone "tried" to fix it with a new revision (PF). It's why someone retro-cloned the system to appeal to more nostalgia (Dungeon Crawl Classics). Having played the system (still do occasionally) the flaws are more glaring each time I step away to another version. I go back to 3.5 and just...shake my head.

We got the changes in 4E because, on the whole, people got tired of trying to "Fix" 3.5.

• Classes became more balanced because there was such a massive imbalance in 3e. Yet in process of balancing things, there appeared to be homogenization of power. Of course actual play showed the differences here but on the surface, with powers being coded into colored boxes I can see why someone would think that.

• Feats started to become more useful over time. Getting a +1 damage feat at 1st would net you a +2 at 11th and a +3 at 21st via the Tier system. Realistically, you were only "required" (via game math) to need Improved Defenses and Expertise in a specific type of weapon/implement. I always give them to players for free at specific levels so it frees up more fun feats.

• Roles also made people mad, for which I find quite hilarious despite roles being forced into the game since there was classes and class mechanics in every version. You're not going to be playing a Healing Rogue in 3e, or a Defender-style Wizard in 1e or a controlling Fighter in 2e. Even with 3e's crazy G.U.R.P.S style plug-and-play approach to classes and features, it still pigeonholed you at the beginning into something specific. What 4E did was foster the notion of class distinction and focus on what the class did well. Fighters, for the most part in almost every version of D&D, well...Fought. They got heavy armor, shield, weapons, and bashed things. Oh sometimes they'd grab a bow, in 3e this cost you 3 of your Starting feats just to not suck at it, but it was an option (and it would cost about the same thin in 4e too, lol).

• Deescalation of power is probably the biggest change when 4E came out. No longer could the wizard wipe out an entire encounter of goblins with a Sleep spell. No longer could the Cleric drop all the undead monsters in a room via Greater Turning. Casters couldn't fly around invisible shooting beams of light like superheroes at a whim due to 50+ spell slots and dozens of scrolls and wands.

In essence, it leveled the playing field and I don't think a lot of people liked that. I don't think a lot of people liked that the weapon-based warrior was not only useful at 18th, 20th, 25th level but practically needed. It had gone against most versions of the game's power curve where the warrior is the godsend at level 1 to protect the squishes and in turn the casters do all the phenomenal cosmic powers at level 17+. It forced players to do more team-work approach, not simply "hey we cast these two spells and the whole thing blows up". Not to mention going from 3e's insane power-gaming to a significantly less needed System Master with 4e.

If there was a change to 4E then most likely it was a contentious issue with the previous edition.

Non-Magical Healing (via Healing Surges) was derived from a lack of proportional healing AND being stuck behind the veil of "magic only" in previous editions.

At-Will magic spells was derived from people being mad spellcasters had only a few things to do that was "magical" and resorting to crappy dart, crossbow, or staff attacks for which they sucked with in previous editions.

Frequency of potent effects (via Encounter-powers) were derived from only having a handful of marginally good effects (smite, stunning fist, rage, etc) on a daily basis that were never as good as magic and always required you to declare the use prior to the attack in previous editions.

Anyways, I think it's important to make the distinction between the vast changes the designers made when regarding the Forgotten Realms during the Spellplague years and the changes to the game system itself
sleyvas Posted - 16 Dec 2018 : 12:08:19
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X


There were also some of these weak gods that had enough power to stand of their own, and thus weren't consumed but insteat turned into exarchs (servants). For instance, the Red Knight.



Thank you Zeromaru. I had not realized the Red Knight had basically lessened in power to exarch status. I'd specifically been wanting to create a confusion with those people I'm having transfer to Abeir, wherein there are "returned gods" named Sifya (for my whole cloth created Metahel pantheon) and Inanna (dead Untheric goddess) interacting with the United Tharchs of Toril on Abeir. I wanted to create confusion with the Faerunians in the Maztica/Katashaka/Anchorome area calling the goddess the red knight, but the Metahel calling her Sifya. Meanwhile back in Faerun, the Untheric and Chessentans whom I've moved down into the transferred portion of the Shaar think its Inanna returned. So, basically, her lessening of power on Toril MAY lend more confusion to it for some when they return, especially since in the late 1360's she was still a Toril-bound goddess (even when they Mulan gods had returned to the outer planes).

I would further this theory by the linking of Sifya to Thoros the thunder god, Inanna to taking Ramman as a lover, and having the Red Knight to have rumored to started up a love relationship with Valkur (and having spurned Torm as too righteous). I was thinking it might be interesting too if Ramman is missing an eye since his return, since we don't know the results of his death other than his lightning rebounded against Hoar.
Irennan Posted - 15 Dec 2018 : 14:46:58
quote:
Originally posted by dwarvenranger

Thanks all for the responses. Quite informative, although how things were done seems quite convoluted and perhaps a bit arbitrary.



It kinda is WotC's record when it comes to FR. The same could be said for the changes that they decided to make for 4e (including the ones that were made at the end of 3e).
dwarvenranger Posted - 15 Dec 2018 : 13:56:31
Thanks all for the responses. Quite informative, although how things were done seems quite convoluted and perhaps a bit arbitrary.
Zeromaru X Posted - 15 Dec 2018 : 03:19:19
That's why I just mentioned it as a reference, to understand why they did it. Now, the logic behind it is another story...
Irennan Posted - 15 Dec 2018 : 00:59:23
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X


In 4e they wanted to get rid of the many gods they felt overlap with others. Sehanine and Selune overlaped each other, and Selune is more important to the Realms than Sehanine, so she was removed (notice, tho, that Sehanine was still an important goddess in the lore of the core 4e world). I never understood why they wanted to remove Talos, tho.



This says a lot about their design criteria IMO. It seems that they didn't even bother to stop and think whether gods actually overlapped beyond superficial similarities. Anyway, discussing this would be beating a dead horse, so I'll just leave it at that.
CorellonsDevout Posted - 15 Dec 2018 : 00:10:04
I am mostly familiar with FR, but I am not surprised the other settings are being affected, as well (I know a little of Nentir Vale, I think from the Abyssal Plague events, IIRC. That is where I first learned of TRQ).
Zeromaru X Posted - 15 Dec 2018 : 00:02:10
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and the Realms is not the only setting being mistreated (see what they are doing to Nentir Vale). I guess, only Eberron has been respected in 5e, and only because the creator is in charge of the adaptation.
CorellonsDevout Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 23:54:50
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Well, even some of the more powerful deities were made to be "aspects" (Sehanine of Selune, Talos of Gruumsh), but thankfully, they aren't anymore. Some of the lesser gods were further reduced to exarchs, but that has been changed too. Most (with some exceptions) that had been done has now been undone.



Well, this doesn't makes sense lorewise, that's why is good to know the designers goals to at least understand the why (even it you don't agree with the designers).

In 4e they wanted to get rid of the many gods they felt overlap with others. Sehanine and Selune overlaped each other, and Selune is more important to the Realms than Sehanine, so she was removed (notice, tho, that Sehanine was still an important goddess in the lore of the core 4e world). I never understood why they wanted to remove Talos, tho.

But this was no lore decision, it was an administrative one. And it happened to other settings as well (Io and Nerull were removed from the core, for instance). So, they just removed them and, for them, that's all it was needed. There was no need for lore explanation beyond "the Spellplague/Dawn War killed them", "this god was this other all along".

But, for 5e they wanted to restore a lot of things that weren't well recieved by players in 4e, including the gods. So, they had to create an in-game explanation for their return. It feels lackluster? Yes, it does. But is seems that is the only explanation we are going to get, at least officially.

WotC doesn't seems to care about previous lore and continuity anymore (that's why they came up with the Spellplague, to begin with), and Ed is still under NDAs, so if we don't like their explanation, we'll have to create a better one.



I know the designers wanted to reduce the pantheon size. Sehanine being an aspect of Selune doesn't make that much sense, as the only thing they really have in common is that they are both "moon goddesses". If anything, Sehanine's role is more in line with Kelemvor's than it is Selune's, at least in FR.


I was okay with the Sundering being the in-game reason, I would have just liked more detail, if that makes sense. I am aware the explanations we got for lore changes (in both 4e and 5e) were subpar, and yes, it is obvious to me they don't care about lore anymore, which is frustrating to me. Sure, we can create our own (as we always have), but it's still irritating. At this point, they seem to be changing lore within the edition. I get that they want to create "tools", if you will, for players and DMs to use, and to take out what they don't like, and leave what they do, but hasn't it always been done that way? This disregard for lore and canon by the creators to me just says "I don't care". I'm sure there are those who are perfectly happy with this approach, and it doesn't sound like it is going to be changing any time soon, but to me it's sloppy. I can do whatever I want in my headcanon and homebrew, but when I pick up a Realms product, I expect there to be some established canon and lore, because otherwise, there seems little point in having an established setting at all. If an author was writing a series, with an established history, lore, and way the world functions, but then suddenly changed (and changed it halfway through a book), then just started throwing things in or taking things out whenever they felt like it…readers would have a real problem. That’s what this current direction in D&D feels like to me. They used 5e to bring back the old feel of the Realms, to restore what 4e had taken away (and I was excited about it), but now they’re just being willy-nilly with it, IMHO.

I don’t’ hate everything they’ve done (though I have a serious problem with certain things in MToF, I won’t go into that here. I did that in the MToF thread lol). I like the inclusivity they are bringing, with more LGBTQ characters, and of course, I’m glad the majority of the gods have been restored, or were put back in their rightful place, rather than being aspects.
Zeromaru X Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 23:02:56
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Well, even some of the more powerful deities were made to be "aspects" (Sehanine of Selune, Talos of Gruumsh), but thankfully, they aren't anymore. Some of the lesser gods were further reduced to exarchs, but that has been changed too. Most (with some exceptions) that had been done has now been undone.



Well, this doesn't makes sense lorewise, that's why is good to know the designers goals to at least understand the why (even it you don't agree with the designers).

In 4e they wanted to get rid of the many gods they felt overlap with others. Sehanine and Selune overlaped each other, and Selune is more important to the Realms than Sehanine, so she was removed (notice, tho, that Sehanine was still an important goddess in the lore of the core 4e world). I never understood why they wanted to remove Talos, tho.

But this was no lore decision, it was an administrative one. And it happened to other settings as well (Io and Nerull were removed from the core, for instance). So, they just removed them and, for them, that's all it was needed. There was no need for lore explanation beyond "the Spellplague/Dawn War killed them", "this god was this other all along".

But, for 5e they wanted to restore a lot of things that weren't well recieved by players in 4e, including the gods. So, they had to create an in-game explanation for their return. It feels lackluster? Yes, it does. But is seems that is the only explanation we are going to get, at least officially.

WotC doesn't seems to care about previous lore and continuity anymore (that's why they came up with the Spellplague, to begin with), and Ed is still under NDAs, so if we don't like their explanation, we'll have to create a better one.
Gary Dallison Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 22:12:50
Still sounds contrived and poorly though out even so many years later. I don't think I will ever get over the spellvague or the blundering.
CorellonsDevout Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 21:42:06
Well, even some of the more powerful deities were made to be "aspects" (Sehanine of Selune, Talos of Gruumsh), but thankfully, they aren't anymore. Some of the lesser gods were further reduced to exarchs, but that has been changed too. Most (with some exceptions) that had been done has now been undone.
Zeromaru X Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 21:12:22
I remember they explained that somewhere (in the GenCon video where they explained the Sundering, IIRC). These gods became too weak after the Spellplague and where either subsumed by allied gods that wanted to save them or consumed by gods/beings that wanted to increase their own power (Asmodeus consuming Azuth is a great example of this), yet they were strong enough to still influence their followers.

And mortals, always prone to make quick conclusions, believed those gods had always been aspects of the others.

There were also some of these weak gods that had enough power to stand of their own, and thus weren't consumed but insteat turned into exarchs (servants). For instance, the Red Knight.

With the Second Sundering, these gods recovered their power and returned to their former stations. That's why Asmodeus needed a big metaplot to retain his divinity: Azuth was going to be restored, whether he liked it or not.
CorellonsDevout Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 20:51:42
There may be a few unaccounted for, but the majority have returned, and those who were made "aspects" of others in 4e are their own entity again.
Irennan Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 20:49:10
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

Not all gods, according to Ed, just the most iconic (+ any god a GM wants, oc). The point is that, officially, there are still some dead gods out there. He said this in an AMA on Facebook last year.

You can check info on the changes of the Sundering here (tho, the article is far from complete)

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Second_Sundering



Judging by the SCAG and MToF, the only currently "dead" gods seem to be those who were already "dead" before the ToT (like Tyche, Murdane, Auppenser--who isn't exactly dead--etc...), plus a few others. From ToA, Ubtao's state seems to be up in the air (or his worship hasn't started again), for example. Others seem to be uncertain, like what the new Gilgeam actually is. But, that said, even some pretty obscure gods, like Selvetarm (whom I believe to have potential, though, if developed from where he sits) have returned.
CorellonsDevout Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 19:15:58
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

Not all gods, according to Ed, just the most iconic (+ any god a GM wants, oc). The point is that, officially, there are still some dead gods out there. He said this in an AMA on Facebook last year.




Seems like a majority of them, though maybe some of the minor ones weren't. But those who were killed in the Spellplague, and others like Eilistraee, Vhaeraun, Myrkul, Bhaal, Moander, etc, have all returned. Oh, and Amaunataur and Lathander are now separate entities.
Zeromaru X Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 19:04:51
Not all gods, according to Ed, just the most iconic (+ any god a GM wants, oc). The point is that, officially, there are still some dead gods out there. He said this in an AMA on Facebook last year.

You can check info on the changes of the Sundering here (tho, the article is far from complete)

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Second_Sundering
CorellonsDevout Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 17:30:29
quote:
Originally posted by dwarvenranger

So So after a long hiatus from FR lore I picked up a copy of The Mad Mage's Dungeon and was surprised to see tha Laduger, Deep Dera, Gorm and Halea was spoken of like they're still around. I thought they were killed off when 4e came about. Has the Sundering been erased from lore? Are we back to how things were in say 1375 DR?




The Sundering has not been erased. It happened, as did the Spellplague. I don't know all the things that have been restored, but all the gods that were killed off in 4e (and before, like Bhaal), have returned to action, so it kind of "feels" a bit more, say 1375.
Wooly Rupert Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 17:29:34
quote:
Originally posted by dwarvenranger

So So after a long hiatus from FR lore I picked up a copy of The Mad Mage's Dungeon and was surprised to see tha Laduger, Deep Dera, Gorm and Halea was spoken of like they're still around. I thought they were killed off when 4e came about. Has the Sundering been erased from lore? Are we back to how things were in say 1375 DR?




More or less. They've undone a lot of the 4E changes, though not all of them.
dwarvenranger Posted - 14 Dec 2018 : 17:26:14
So So after a long hiatus from FR lore I picked up a copy of The Mad Mage's Dungeon and was surprised to see tha Laduger, Deep Dera, Gorm and Halea was spoken of like they're still around. I thought they were killed off when 4e came about. Has the Sundering been erased from lore? Are we back to how things were in say 1375 DR?
JohnLynch Posted - 06 Dec 2018 : 11:12:00
I am quite happy with the current state of the Realms. Although to be honest I have zero need for WotC to produce any new content. I'm looking at starting a new Forgotten Realms campaign next year (although first I have to find a gaming group because I'm leaving my current group in Sydney ad moving to Adelaide at the end of January). I am very comfortable simply taking 1e, 2e and 3e material and farming it for ideas for a 5e campaign.

As for AD&D 2e, I'd happily play in a 2e campaign, although I don't like my chances on finding a group these days ;)

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