Reaper Steve
Explorer
Mighty Veil said:
I remember reading (but will never find the source) that a WotC type stated that it was a 'typo.' (Somebody pasted the wrong art into the layout.)
FR Update at WotC-Year of the Ageless One
- Thread starter Badkarmaboy
- Start date
I remember reading (but will never find the source) that a WotC type stated that it was a 'typo.' (Somebody pasted the wrong art into the layout.)
Mighty Veil
First Post
Imban said:
The 7 Sisters can have died in the Spellplague, especially Mary-sue Simbul. I'm sure the old schoos of Thay will be gone and in its place a bunch of Hogwort schools. But if Thay is still around, and I hope it is, with gnolls, slavery, Red Wizards and all. I sure hope they finally kill Simbul and had a military victory against her and those damn berserkers and witches.
I fogot about the minor gods. Yeah, some I like. And like you, some I hope reveal themselves to be demon lords (or iconic demi-power) we all know about. They did it with Bahumet(sp) I see reading the HotR, getting him into the world after having Tiamat in there for so long.
Sammaster and the Cult. I like both of them too.
Telamont Tanthul is who again?
When I saw that warforged picture I thought they might have found a history snippet of golems someone built. Which could be used later, and expanded on, for why warforged are in the Realms (going on the rumor that they'll be in PHB2 and since that silly rule of theirs says all core stuff will be in the Realms...). I think it's safe to say Narfell will be reborn with tieflings again for 4e. My guess, there was a Deep Narfell under the ruins all this time! Gee.
Reading the HotR just showed me again how over-all useless gnomes and even halflings are to that world. Why do they keep them. Even beholders have played a more active role in the Realms then them. Notice that?
Darrin Drader
Explorer
Hussar said:
Actually the reason I didn't actually do it has a lot to do with the fact that I'm finally coming off of a 2 year gaming drought. My life has been complicated for a while (kids being born, moving to a new town, etc), so I haven't had the time to run any of the games I've wanted to. Add to that the fact that I was going non-stop designing for D&D in one manner or another since 3E came out, and I finally find myself a bit burned out by D&D and the fantasy genre in general. Right now I'm actually playing Darwin's World using the True20 rules.
What I had considered doing was running some specifically Egypt flavored adventures, such as Necropolis. There's a couple others that would have fit in as well too. Right now it looks like when I return to fantasy, I'll probably not be using the Realms or any other WotC setting as I've found that the Goodman Games setting is more to my liking.
Mighty Veil said:
Erm, not to burst your bubble, but Sammaster's been dead since late 2e. The Cult of the Dragon is okay as a villain group, but shouldn't really be one of the head-line villain groups of the setting.
Leader of the Shades / new Netheril. Level-ridiculous archmage.
Mighty Veil
First Post
Uzzy said:
That was fine (and obvious). But a warforged with a caption about a green dragon? Couldn't they have reused that (awesome) picture of a knight holding a two-handed sword, getting ready to swing at a green dragon (who's skipping along out of a forest). It's the cover for Basic D&D's Companion boxed set.
Mighty Veil
First Post
Imban said:
But his lich form keeps popping up.
Hardcore FR Fan Reaction
I would consider myself a hardcore FR fan. I have run over ten major campaigns based in the FR, set in all three editions of the game. I own most of the published materials put out for FR, or have at some point. I've read a few of the novels, especially Doug Niles and Ed Greenwood. I've enjoyed reading the bulletin boards, and participating in the community that follows and speculates on the world. Finally, I've attended numerous convention seminars, and participated by questions regarding the history and future of the realms.
I definitely don't consider myself so hardcore that I would be considered a "scholar", just don't know that much detail, and I've always kind of had my own "take" on the FR, which lends itself to my gaming.
So, I've read the story presented on the wizards website. I've always been a fan of seeing the area move forward, and to see the story move forward with it. The introduction of the shades, for example, in third edition was sweet.
These changes are good, albeit pretty significant. There are some areas that I'll have to make some alterations because of the role the heroes in my campaigns have played on areas of the world that they have sent a "wholesale" destruction.
In general, I can tell you that reading this account left a very bad taste in my mouth. I agree with Whisperfoot, that upon further consideration, it is the very "third party" element of this change. When my campaign, and the FR world I run, went from 1st to 2nd edition, the event of the time of troubles did carry that campaign, and my characters through this transition. This wholesale change doesn't offer my players that option, and as such, will limit their "buyin" to these changes. My players have a clear understnanding of ownership of this campaign world (20 years later) and probably would "reject" these ideas if I presented it too them. I'd also be concerned with arbitrarily moving the world forward 94 years for two key reasons. The first (and I hate using it, but it's really true) is the investment we already have in the realms. Specifically, I've spent how much money and time learning the realms? Blackstaff, Laeral, Peirgieron, Mirt, and all are just gone? So if I want to run a Waterdeep campaign in 4e, I'm to dump, City System boxed set, Waterdeep and the North, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition writeup in the respective player's guides, The North boxed set, Undermountain and Undermountain II boxed sets, Volo's Guide to Waterdeep. Oh, no. That's really disappointing. The second concern I would have is the level of understanding my players will have in starting up a new FR campaign, set in the 4e realms. My players know the old realms pretty well, and we've not played D&D together for sometime. At first blush, I think I would have to essentially "ignore" this material to get them to play, and re-write the 4e elements into our "FR" world to make it fit as smoothly as possible. We'll advance the story to do so, but probably not more than 30 to 50 years.
To be specific, regarding the spellplague, I'm not thrilled. The reason is not because of it being "lazy writing", it's just not very cool. When I'm reading this, I'm asking myself, "what's in it for my players." If they're safe in their respective cities, then they are surrounded by destruction and will inherit refugees. There is no cool, big bad guy to kill. There's no big "threat". It's just a plague. In defense of the writers, there's nothing wrong with it. It could much, much worse. It could be "Highlander II" with aliens coming in from nowhere, who'd "always been there" and they're ALL IMMORTALS! This is not that, and there's nothing structurally wrong with it. There are a few tantalizing bits, particularly Baldur's Gate, the Moonshaes, and Cormyr.
So, as everyone else has pointed out, we talk with our wallets. So what if they're daggers! Well, I'll probably be buying 4e FR, at least to check it out, steal their ideas, and write them into my own 4e transition campaign.
I would consider myself a hardcore FR fan. I have run over ten major campaigns based in the FR, set in all three editions of the game. I own most of the published materials put out for FR, or have at some point. I've read a few of the novels, especially Doug Niles and Ed Greenwood. I've enjoyed reading the bulletin boards, and participating in the community that follows and speculates on the world. Finally, I've attended numerous convention seminars, and participated by questions regarding the history and future of the realms.
I definitely don't consider myself so hardcore that I would be considered a "scholar", just don't know that much detail, and I've always kind of had my own "take" on the FR, which lends itself to my gaming.
So, I've read the story presented on the wizards website. I've always been a fan of seeing the area move forward, and to see the story move forward with it. The introduction of the shades, for example, in third edition was sweet.
These changes are good, albeit pretty significant. There are some areas that I'll have to make some alterations because of the role the heroes in my campaigns have played on areas of the world that they have sent a "wholesale" destruction.
In general, I can tell you that reading this account left a very bad taste in my mouth. I agree with Whisperfoot, that upon further consideration, it is the very "third party" element of this change. When my campaign, and the FR world I run, went from 1st to 2nd edition, the event of the time of troubles did carry that campaign, and my characters through this transition. This wholesale change doesn't offer my players that option, and as such, will limit their "buyin" to these changes. My players have a clear understnanding of ownership of this campaign world (20 years later) and probably would "reject" these ideas if I presented it too them. I'd also be concerned with arbitrarily moving the world forward 94 years for two key reasons. The first (and I hate using it, but it's really true) is the investment we already have in the realms. Specifically, I've spent how much money and time learning the realms? Blackstaff, Laeral, Peirgieron, Mirt, and all are just gone? So if I want to run a Waterdeep campaign in 4e, I'm to dump, City System boxed set, Waterdeep and the North, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition writeup in the respective player's guides, The North boxed set, Undermountain and Undermountain II boxed sets, Volo's Guide to Waterdeep. Oh, no. That's really disappointing. The second concern I would have is the level of understanding my players will have in starting up a new FR campaign, set in the 4e realms. My players know the old realms pretty well, and we've not played D&D together for sometime. At first blush, I think I would have to essentially "ignore" this material to get them to play, and re-write the 4e elements into our "FR" world to make it fit as smoothly as possible. We'll advance the story to do so, but probably not more than 30 to 50 years.
To be specific, regarding the spellplague, I'm not thrilled. The reason is not because of it being "lazy writing", it's just not very cool. When I'm reading this, I'm asking myself, "what's in it for my players." If they're safe in their respective cities, then they are surrounded by destruction and will inherit refugees. There is no cool, big bad guy to kill. There's no big "threat". It's just a plague. In defense of the writers, there's nothing wrong with it. It could much, much worse. It could be "Highlander II" with aliens coming in from nowhere, who'd "always been there" and they're ALL IMMORTALS! This is not that, and there's nothing structurally wrong with it. There are a few tantalizing bits, particularly Baldur's Gate, the Moonshaes, and Cormyr.
So, as everyone else has pointed out, we talk with our wallets. So what if they're daggers! Well, I'll probably be buying 4e FR, at least to check it out, steal their ideas, and write them into my own 4e transition campaign.
