| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Raith |
Posted - 21 Feb 2009 : 03:17:51
So when I heard about Expedition to Undermountain coming out in 3.5, I just about did backflips. My campaign had been stationed in Waterdeep for a long time, and I figured that the "biggest mass grave" in the realms" would be the perfect challenge for a high level party.
...then of course I got the book in my hands.
Not only is this thing for low levels, but it's damn near unusable! Am I just not smart enough to see how the encounters are supposed to be organized from room to room? Whats the deal here?
I kept it because at least it's got some maps and it's (in my mind at least) technically still a part of FR. Has anybody made a GOOD version of 3.0/3.5 Undermountain that I could get my hands on? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| StarBog |
Posted - 03 Mar 2009 : 10:38:40
With regards to ETU's encounter format, it is obvious that it was a trial run for the 4e encounter format. LFR encounters are written up pretty much identically.
As for 4e's new obiqitous Shar, I do get the feeling sometimes that Wizards R&D is staffed entirely by goths hiding in dark corners writing bad "teh angsty" poetry to "teh dark lady of loss". I speak as a goth myself, though one who is definitely angstless.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 27 Feb 2009 : 01:03:42
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Anyhow, its really easily reconcilable anyway, since we have no real rules telling us what the hell the difference between them is. So far, the only definate factual difference we have in canon is that the Primordials came before the gods, and that is it.
Hmmm. The impression I got was not necessarily that primordials predated the gods, but that they were the ones who created the material world, and the gods decided to take it over from them. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 26 Feb 2009 : 04:19:21
-Darn it!  
-So...what about Zehir? 
BRIMMYSTONE |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Feb 2009 : 04:06:41
Actually, Brimmy, doing the maps has a 'calming effect', and thanks to another poster, I'm back to them.
There's just something so... soothing... about looking at pre-4e maps of Faerūn...
Anyhow, she was there before the gods, so by 4e's definition, she is a Primordial.
I suppose one could say that the Torillians, having lost knowledge of the primordials way back, were unaware of a difference, but now they know.
Of course, they probably have her listed as a god in the 4e FRCG, in which case they dropped the ball.. AGAIN.. because by their own definition she should by a Primordial (along with Selune, Chautea, and probably Aumanator... and maybe Mystra, but thats irrelevant at this point).
Anyhow, its really easily reconcilable anyway, since we have no real rules telling us what the hell the difference between them is. So far, the only definate factual difference we have in canon is that the Primordials came before the gods, and that is it. Nothing about 'power levels' or what sort of porfolio differences they may have... nada... nothing...
So Shar can be both, if they decide a Primordial is a being that came before the world was even created, and a god is something worshipped by mortals.
Don't even get me started about Zehir....  |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 26 Feb 2009 : 03:23:23
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
-Uh duh!
-I worded it like thats so...Markus would run off on that rabbit-trail for about a week. I like it when Markus rabble-rouses on the Wizbro Forums.   
BRIMMY 
Gah! Ever since you posted that I've been dying to say: "BUT... BUT that's what she IS!" 
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 26 Feb 2009 : 02:40:24
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
-It calls Shar a PRIMORDIAL DEITY of night. 
I doubt they mean "primordial" in the 4E D&D sense. I take it to mean "primordial" as in the regular definition of the term, and besides, in 4E primordials are not deities.
-Uh duh!
-I worded it like thats so...Markus would run off on that rabbit-trail for about a week. I like it when Markus rabble-rouses on the Wizbro Forums.
BRIMMY |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 26 Feb 2009 : 01:34:20
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
And in that sense, doesn't it fit?
In the sense that Shar's been around from the beginning, yes, it does. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 26 Feb 2009 : 01:04:45
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I doubt they mean "primordial" in the 4E D&D sense. I take it to mean "primordial" as in the regular definition of the term, and besides, in 4E primordials are not deities.
And in that sense, doesn't it fit?
That's what I like about Shar is that she is ANCIENT. It's really hard to take a deity seriously when he's younger than you are. "Ayup... knew Cyric when he'uz jest a boy. He'uz rotten then, and he's even rottener now. Spare the rod, spoil the child, I alluz sez." |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 26 Feb 2009 : 00:34:30
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
-It calls Shar a PRIMORDIAL DEITY of night.
I doubt they mean "primordial" in the 4E D&D sense. I take it to mean "primordial" as in the regular definition of the term, and besides, in 4E primordials are not deities. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Feb 2009 : 00:17:36
Thank You Brimstone - I thought this was going to be another case of me stating something before checking my facts. 
Yup, that's it - not overly specific, but enough to get under our skin for turning Shar into the "end-all, be-all" super-baddy she is.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
It's alluded to in Anauroch: Empire, where they had the nerve to retroinfect... <snip>
Retro-infect?
Love it! I am so going to have fun with that one. 
That even tops my Misbegotten Realms. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 23:10:28
While I did find the encounter pages distracting, I'll admit that I've never actually used them. In the entire printed history of 3e encounters, I've never once utilised them in any of my campaigns. Preferring instead, to construct and run my own.
Annoyingly, the fact that those amount of pages used to detail these encounters could be more readily used for lore or source material was also off-putting.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 22:48:59
It also takes up literally ten times the space a sensible (though requiring slight DM creativity) one would. |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 25 Feb 2009 : 18:45:23
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Oh, and I hated the whole "encounter format" thing they had going on with the last 3.5E books. Rather than making me flip back and forth while running the encounter (which somehow wasn't a problem before), I had to flip back and forth from the room description to the encounter. Yeah, there's an improvement.
Glad to see I'm not the only person who found the new arrangement offputting. |
| Raith |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 23:53:28
My poor thread has fallen prey to Shar's dark influence. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 14:19:56
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Somehow, Shar caused Karsus to do what he did.
Anyhow, I hate 'hearsay', so I'll try to track-down exactly which of the three it was in, and the details surrounding it (and page numbers for citation).
-Its on page 63 of the Anauroch adventure. 
-It calls Shar a PRIMORDIAL DEITY of night.
-"It hints at the involvement of an archwizard named Karsus."
BRIMSTONE
Yeah, I found that reference last night.... And not only is it an annoying retcon, it's a pretty weak one at that. I'm not sure that I could argue that that one vague blurb in the book of someone known to be mad means anything at all.
It also strikes me as odd... The Book of the Black is supposedly "dark secrets and hidden knowledge", seen thru visions sent by Shar. Uh... Shar? The deity who is so secretive she'd deny knowing about the sky if you asked what color it was? She's going to suddenly start sharing all sorts of info, particularly info about her own plans? |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 10:44:48
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Somehow, Shar caused Karsus to do what he did.
Anyhow, I hate 'hearsay', so I'll try to track-down exactly which of the three it was in, and the details surrounding it (and page numbers for citation).
-Its on page 63 of the Anauroch adventure.
-It calls Shar a PRIMORDIAL DEITY of night.
-"It hints at the involvement of an archwizard named Karsus."
BRIMSTONE |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 09:01:16
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And besides... would we really all be hating on Shar so much, if they didn't love her so much? I find myself hating anything 'Shadowy' just because the designers are so fond of her, and it is becoming very hard to stay objective about stuff. We shouldn't just hate 'Shadowcrap' because they are shoving it down our throats - we had no problem with it before. I have to admit Paul Kemp made me "see the light" in this regard - 'Shadowy' stuff can still be good.
Its like this - don't hate Paint because all your seeing these days is Finger-paintings by Kindergarteners. We have to keep in mind that Ed's 'Rembrandt' is still hidden under there somewhere, and 'Paint' can be a good thing (when applied properly).
Well, the "finger painting" as you call it would be a different game world and system if metamorphicaly speaking. 4th (and much of 3ed.) is painting over an old work. It might have qualities of its own, but it still ruining the original work.
There is a difference between hate and lack of interest.
I don't hate Shar, but as with most of 3ed. lore it is a long way from what I have always used in my campaign. I used Shar as a mysterious, hidden deity of loss and forgetfulness, with the clergy having a neutral role as soothers, thereby drawing people into the net of the goddess. |
| Julian Grimm |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 05:11:42
quote:
Besides, I have to point out on other thing: the vague description given in EtU of what Halaster foresaw doesn't sound a thing like the Sellplague.
Hal saw what was going to happen to the product line and the 4e designers offed him so he wouldn't tell us. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 24 Feb 2009 : 01:14:32
Couldn't have said better myself. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 23:12:59
It's alluded to in Anauroch: Empire, where they had the nerve to retroinfect Augathra with the shadowbullpoopy syndrome.
Mod edit: While I can agree with the sentiment, we need to watch the language. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 23:08:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wait, what? Where is this lore?
LOL - another WTF? moment?
Its true, but I couldn't tell you the exact page numbers because I found out second-hand myself. It is part of the back-ground story of those final three 'super-modules' set in 3eFR. I don't know all the details, but it was discussed at-length over at WotC.
Somehow, Shar caused Karsus to do what he did.
Anyhow, I hate 'hearsay', so I'll try to track-down exactly which of the three it was in, and the details surrounding it (and page numbers for citation).
See, I'll admit that my memory is far from perfect, and there has been a lot that's happened in me life since reading those modules... Still, I'd expect to remember reading something like that, and I don't recall anything like that. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 23:04:59
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
Yes, but it's an ugly baby, and the last thing I need is another mouth to feed.
Thanks... now I need to clean my monitor.
that was VERY funny.
quote:
Originally posted by Rabiesbunny
Didn't they also retcon the elves causing Toril to go 'boom' when they made Evermeet? I'm pretty sure that I read in the book it was a natural disaster that caused Toril's continents to explode apart, not the elves being their super CG selves and making it so.
:( That stuck with me as a change that made me sick to my tummy. Because we CAN'T have good guys causing something bad inadvertantly.
No, there was two completely different 'Sunderings' - one done by Ao during the Time of the Creator Races (-31000 DR), and later a second one done by the Elves (-17600).
Which is funny, because' Ao's 'version' was much more a 'Sundering' the the Sundering was.
And its still entirely possible that the two may be connected somehow, gven that the High Magic Ritual "reached both backwards and fowards in time".
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Wait, what? Where is this lore?
LOL - another WTF? moment?
Its true, but I couldn't tell you the exact page numbers because I found out second-hand myself. It is part of the back-ground story of those final three 'super-modules' set in 3eFR. I don't know all the details, but it was discussed at-length over at WotC.
Somehow, Shar caused Karsus to do what he did.
Anyhow, I hate 'hearsay', so I'll try to track-down exactly which of the three it was in, and the details surrounding it (and page numbers for citation). |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 21:37:07
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Shar and Selune, IMHO, should BOTH have more prominent roles in the Realms - I'd have to (regrettably) agree with the designers that Mystra was just too 'puffed-up' by previous lore, and had become more then the goddesses that gave birth to her.
I think if they had Selune step-up to the plate and take-over a lot of Mystra's former duties and church, we would have achieved more of a balance, which is what always kept the Realms 'viable'. As it is, the world is completely thrown off-balance now (WHAT, exactly, is keeping all the Uber-baddies, like Szass Tam and the Shades, from over-running the rest of the planet?! ), and we are letting all the bad-design color our judgement about other things.
I think Shar being a 'behind-the-scenes' monolithic evil is right up her alley, and always has been - we just need something (like Selune) to balance her out, and we got NONE of that in 4e. We got a total wipe of powerful good guys, without explaining how the hell the world hasn't gone to hell-in-a-handbag with all the Uber-baddies still being around.
This goes with my idea where Cyric and Shar do succeed in killing Mystra, but Savras was able to warn her of the plan and so she 'passed' most of her portfolio to her mother, Selūne, thus preventing the Spellplague. Over all, the death of Mystra caused a backlash that fused the Weave and Shadow Weave into one, erasing wild magic and dead magic zones and solving other issues. Now, when the weave is accessed, it can be through Shar or Selūne, but neither is 'in charge'. Kinda makes the weave more yin-yang balanced...
quote:
Originally posted by Rabiesbunny
Didn't they also retcon the elves causing Toril to go 'boom' when they made Evermeet? I'm pretty sure that I read in the book it was a natural disaster that caused Toril's continents to explode apart, not the elves being their super CG selves and making it so.
:( That stuck with me as a change that made me sick to my tummy. Because we CAN'T have good guys causing something bad inadvertantly.
The Elven High Magic that connected the Feywild to Faerūn, creating Evermeet, basically created a lot of the disturbances throughout the rest of the weave, including the Dracorage, IIRC. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 21:30:30
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Also, it has now become canon that Karsus was 'lead astray' by Shar ( ), so even if that was part of the 4e lead-in, it is still historic 'fact' that effects our 3e lore.
Wait, what? Where is this lore?
|
| Rabiesbunny |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 20:37:42
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Had they not tried to feed us that incredibly awful 'Abeir' storyline, which is the only true retcon, I think a lot of us could have handled the other changes better.
Didn't they also retcon the elves causing Toril to go 'boom' when they made Evermeet? I'm pretty sure that I read in the book it was a natural disaster that caused Toril's continents to explode apart, not the elves being their super CG selves and making it so.
:( That stuck with me as a change that made me sick to my tummy. Because we CAN'T have good guys causing something bad inadvertantly. |
| Raith |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 19:50:26
Shar lives in Undermountain and...she made the book bad by having an ugly baby and then clubbing Halaster to death with the Tablets of Fate?
*Sparks and smoke pouring from ears*
 |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 19:27:32
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I feel like a lot of us are "throwing the baby out with the bath-water" on this one.
Yes, but it's an ugly baby, and the last thing I need is another mouth to feed. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 19:05:50
Just one last thought, even though this is somewhat off-topic:
I think the biggest problem with excepting the 4e changes is that they went WAY overboard.
Had they not tried to feed us that incredibly awful 'Abeir' storyline, which is the only true retcon, I think a lot of us could have handled the other changes better. I feel like a lot of us are "throwing the baby out with the bath-water" on this one.
Shar and Selune, IMHO, should BOTH have more prominent roles in the Realms - I'd have to (regrettably) agree with the designers that Mystra was just too 'puffed-up' by previous lore, and had become more then the goddesses that gave birth to her.
I think if they had Selune step-up to the plate and take-over a lot of Mystra's former duties and church, we would have achieved more of a balance, which is what always kept the Realms 'viable'. As it is, the world is completely thrown off-balance now (WHAT, exactly, is keeping all the Uber-baddies, like Szass Tam and the Shades, from over-running the rest of the planet?! ), and we are letting all the bad-design color our judgement about other things.
I think Shar being a 'behind-the-scenes' monolithic evil is right up her alley, and always has been - we just need something (like Selune) to balance her out, and we got NONE of that in 4e. We got a total wipe of powerful good guys, without explaining how the hell the world hasn't gone to hell-in-a-handbag with all the Uber-baddies still being around.
Thats why I take some of the new premises, and re-work them into something feasable. The ideas themselves aren't truly awful - aside from that abysmal Abeir - its just the rather poor implimentation of them.
Sometimes you just gotta play with the hand your dealt. |
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 18:43:11
I don't really hate Shar, I just think that she should have a lesser role than the one they give her. I think that the concept of the Dark Roll of years and Shar taking part in various disasters could be interesting, it's just that there's too much of it. The other problem I have with it is the pseudo-retconning. They chose parts of Realms history where there was room to stretch things a little, so they stretched it to fit their new ideas about the Realms. I don't think that the history should be that convenient. It should be organic like read history, where things make logical sense and don't all tie in to the lastest major threat. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Feb 2009 : 18:08:01
Hence my use of the words "in hindsight".
This is all new, and NOT the origianl intent of the Karsus lore (which wasn't even part of the Realms originally, or even D&D for that matter).
That is why I also state at the end that my current 'take' is subject to change when the design team changes, and a new set of 'trends' develops from the new team. I've learned to view lore through the highly-filtered lens of the deisgners, and what I 'think' they are going for.
There was time when lore was just 'lore', without any RW 'politics' involved, but that is no longer the case, and I have to unfortunately add-in what I perceive as their 'design goals'. The Dark Roll of years was obviously created for a reason, but like so much else leading into 4e, it was never elaborated on, and probably never will be. We can only theorize about what they had in mind.
Also, it has now become canon that Karsus was 'lead astray' by Shar (), so even if that was part of the 4e lead-in, it is still historic 'fact' that effects our 3e lore. Its not so easy to 'drawn a line' where 3e ends and 4e begins, since the GHotR and other final 3e products changed certain canon bits (or at least, modified events to suit their needs).
Even though I am NOT a fan of 4eFR, I still feel the need to 'backwards engineer' the 4e lore so that everything makes sense.
Edit:
And besides... would we really all be hating on Shar so much, if they didn't love her so much? I find myself hating anything 'Shadowy' just because the designers are so fond of her, and it is becoming very hard to stay objective about stuff. We shouldn't just hate 'Shadowcrap' because they are shoving it down our throats - we had no problem with it before. I have to admit Paul Kemp made me "see the light" in this regard - 'Shadowy' stuff can still be good.
Its like this - don't hate Paint because all your seeing these days is Finger-paintings by Kindergarteners. We have to keep in mind that Ed's 'Rembrandt' is still hidden under there somewhere, and 'Paint' can be a good thing (when applied properly).
|
|
|
