I love the Feydark.

[Windjammer]

If you love the Feydark, be sure to (re)read the original article by Chris Youngs, which you can download here:

The Eye of Madness: Tyrants of the Feydark

This article illustrates my major beefs with 4E books: they have to be PG-13. The article made it into the Manual of the Planes, but all non-PG references (to torture and breeding experiments) had to be edited out and were replaced by bland descriptions of ye old typical Feydark dungeon.
I'm not as huge a fan of Paizo's fluff books as I was some time ago, but I give them kudos for not having to cuddle to a PG-13 audience (see their Pathfinder Bestiary).

PS. Further source material on the Feydark:

#1 passing reference in the Mithrendrain article in Dragon # 366
#2 appearance in the module "Dark Heart of Mithrendrain" in Dungeon #157

 

[JPL]

From the new preview of the Shadowdark, it appears that we now have the Underdark broken up into the classic drow/abberation Underdark; the more psychedelic fairyland Feydark; and the realm of the dead-themed Shadowdark.

I like this change for the same reason I like the new elf/eladrin split --- you try to cram too many disparate details into one archetype, you end up losing focus.

 

[Dausuul]

I love the fomorian lords and the cyclopes, but I don't think they need a Feydark to be in - I'd prefer to just put them in the darker parts of the Feywild. I would prefer to see the Feydark and the Shadowdark (ugh, horrible name) eliminated, and a single Underdark extend through all three planes.

[size=-2]Also, on a more pedantic note: There's only one "R" in "fomorian." There's also only one "R" in "formian," which is something totally different (extraplanar ant-people). I don't know what a "formorian" is, but I'm sure it ain't pretty.[/size]

 

[JPL]

Indeed.

 

[TerraDave]

From the new preview of the Shadowdark, it appears that we now have the Underdark broken up into the classic drow/abberation Underdark; the more psychedelic fairyland Feydark; and the realm of the dead-themed Shadowdark.

I like this change for the same reason I like the new elf/eladrin split --- you try to cram too many disparate details into one archetype, you end up losing focus.

But to go back to my point, and others, you don't need multiple dimensions for that. The whole point of the underdark, is that it is big. You can just have a feyish set of caverns and a deadish set of caverns plus "underdark classic". And, I don't really know what the extra dimmensions give you.

 

[avin]

I don't like the idea of stepping in the big cave and moving from Faerie (or Feywild) to the Prime (or The World) instead of being in a big cave in Faerie.

Unless you guys are saying you want all of them to be similar, Underdark traditional style, but being the same place won't work for me...

 

[JPL]

You need a certain amount of separation between the different areas to keep them distinct, but that could be accomplished geographically rather than extradimesionally. Which one works better may be a matter of taste. I certainly like the current role of fomorians and cyclopses . . . in earlier editions, they were just more giants.

I like putting the fey stuff and the horror stuff into separate dimensions because it feels like it's easier to say that the normal rules might not apply here. Again, you could accomplish that by defining a geographical region and putting it under the influence of fey or dark powers, but separate dimensions works better for me.

And I really dig this correlation between different planes and different power sources. Looking forward to the elemental power source, linked to the Elemental Chaos . . .