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...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
2998 Posts

Posted - 15 Dec 2018 :  00:59:23  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

To all Facebook-using FR fans, you might be interested in checking out this page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/450517575051806/
Go to Top of Page

Zeromaru X
Master of Realmslore

Colombia
1156 Posts

Posted - 15 Dec 2018 :  03:19:19  Show Profile Send Zeromaru X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
That's why I just mentioned it as a reference, to understand why they did it. Now, the logic behind it is another story...

Long ago, in the distant past, they fell into decay. The philosopher’s path... The river of glory... Even the saints resting in the darkness rise up without response and block the way...
Go to Top of Page

dwarvenranger
Senior Scribe

USA
427 Posts

Posted - 15 Dec 2018 :  13:56:31  Show Profile  Visit dwarvenranger's Homepage Send dwarvenranger a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thanks all for the responses. Quite informative, although how things were done seems quite convoluted and perhaps a bit arbitrary.

If I waited till I knew what I was doing, I'd never get anything done.

Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
2998 Posts

Posted - 15 Dec 2018 :  14:46:58  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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).

To all Facebook-using FR fans, you might be interested in checking out this page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/450517575051806/
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
7684 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2018 :  12:08:19  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas

Edited by - sleyvas on 16 Dec 2018 13:39:31
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3541 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2018 :  17:51:32  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."

Edited by - Diffan on 16 Dec 2018 17:53:18
Go to Top of Page

Zeromaru X
Master of Realmslore

Colombia
1156 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2018 :  18:28:36  Show Profile Send Zeromaru X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

Long ago, in the distant past, they fell into decay. The philosopher’s path... The river of glory... Even the saints resting in the darkness rise up without response and block the way...

Edited by - Zeromaru X on 16 Dec 2018 18:30:11
Go to Top of Page

JohnLynch
Learned Scribe

Australia
243 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2018 :  21:09:22  Show Profile Send JohnLynch a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3541 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2018 :  23:26:16  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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

Edited by - Diffan on 16 Dec 2018 23:29:14
Go to Top of Page

George Krashos
Master of Realmslore

Australia
5368 Posts

Posted - 16 Dec 2018 :  23:55:14  Show Profile Send George Krashos a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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

"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus

Edited by - George Krashos on 16 Dec 2018 23:55:52
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Great Reader

USA
7684 Posts

Posted - 17 Dec 2018 :  12:48:35  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

JohnLynch
Learned Scribe

Australia
243 Posts

Posted - 17 Dec 2018 :  13:11:40  Show Profile Send JohnLynch a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures.
Go to Top of Page

Razz
Senior Scribe

USA
719 Posts

Posted - 17 Dec 2018 :  21:50:21  Show Profile Send Razz a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3541 Posts

Posted - 18 Dec 2018 :  08:51:28  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
3541 Posts

Posted - 18 Dec 2018 :  09:14:08  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
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.

4E Realms = Great Taste, Less Filling.

"If WotC were to put out a box of free money, people would still complain how it was folded."
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2019 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000