| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dusty |
Posted - 15 Dec 2008 : 23:10:04
This is a weird question, but are there any connections between the rules and the history of Toril? Or, did the same thing that happened on the time border of 2nd/3rd[or 3rd/4th] edition cause the rule changes between 2nd/3rd[or 3rd/4th]?
Although my memory of what happened between 2nd and 3rd is fuzzy, I know that the Spellplague/etc. is supposed to justify the rules differences between 3rd and 4th editions. I can't remember what the split between 2nd and 3rd was, though. I thought it was the Time of Troubles, after which the new Mystra would allow divine 8th level spells, but that complicates Baldur's Gate II...
If this is just me taking this question way too seriously, or if I'm drawing weird conclusions based off strange 4th edition retcon, "I'm sorry!  " is what'd I say. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 31 Dec 2008 : 21:14:16
I was interested at first, but I don't like the way its been going.
|
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 31 Dec 2008 : 01:36:46
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
I think I'm going to have to check out this Pathfinder I keep hearing about on these forums. At first I just figured it was something to counter 4th edition, but as I keep hearing favorable reviews it is worth a look. I would be most pleased to be able to dust off the numerous 3.X books I have stored. So thank you for bringing this to my attention.
~Ghost King~
It's definitely worth a look especially since it's a free download  |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 30 Dec 2008 : 21:42:19
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
I'd like to point out to everyone that preferring a previous edition of the rules/setting does not make one a "fanatic".
Splitter.
 |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 30 Dec 2008 : 18:28:47
quote:
While a small core of FR fanatics were alienated on the Realms-L list (for example), the great majority of D&D Fans made the switch to 3E D&D. I'd wager most FR fans either switched or started concurrent 3E games, too.
I'd like to point out to everyone that preferring a previous edition of the rules/setting does not make one a "fanatic". |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 30 Dec 2008 : 18:24:30
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
To me the climate shift was enough of a drastic change with the one-hundred year jump, although I have no idea why the Shining South or Sea of Fallen Stars was drastically changed. There was hardly any lore there to begin with...
Agreed, that's what many of us have been saying all along. |
| ranger_of_the_unicorn_run |
Posted - 29 Dec 2008 : 21:25:52
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
See, I don't care what they do with 4e Realms either for the same reason... but the point is, the changes they made alienated a lot of people that WOULD continue to have something to do with the 4e Realms by shattering the Forgotten Realms, slapping together the mess they have, and presenting it with the Forgotten Realms name on it. Apparently, WotC management thinks alienation of consumers is good business.
I don't really care so much about the gaming changes because I don't know anyone willing to DM FR, so I end up DMing and I can do whatever I want with the setting. It's the change in the storyline of the novels that bothers me. The novels have been slowly drifting away from the aspects of the realms that I consider interesting and now they are getting rid of deities and powerful characters, which are some of the biggest most necessary players in the novels. By hacking out half of the powerful figures in FR, they may have made things more player friendly (maybe), but they have drastically limited their choices in novels. At first, they will have "exciting" things like cataclysms and disasters and whatnot, but eventually they will cover all of the exciting stuff, the excitement will die down, and they will have to create another disaster to fill the void. I personally liked the novels that characterized the realms more than the action and "exciting new changes" stories, so I'm a little upset that the realms that I knew and loved will be entirely different, and everything that came before is thrown out the window. |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 28 Dec 2008 : 08:44:48
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The only problem with how 4th edition 'balances' the classes where 3.5 didn't is that Paizo was able to balance them out without going to a completely new rules set. Anyway, that's why I'm going with Pathfinder and reserving 4E for games outside what I'd consider D&D.
That's very understandable, I don't think balance should be the end all be all of a game. After all, life is unfair so games should have unfair advantages and disadvantages to simulate that.
I think I am going to have to check out this Pathfinder I keep hearing about on these forums. At first I just figured it was something to counter 4th edition, but as I keep hearing favorable reviews it is worth a look. I would be most pleased to be able to dust off the numerous 3.X books I have stored. So thank you for bringing this to my attention.
~Ghost King~
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 28 Dec 2008 : 04:11:32
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
<snip>
Hey can't say I blame them for their cynical outlook on that. I don't like wizards as they stand; for I think if you play one from 1st to 20th you should be very powerful and tossing around fireballs like they are nothing. Doesn't mean I'm going to let a game company ruin my fun, in fact I like what they did for the melee classes. Now you have that option of playing a Leader fighter as a warlord or a paladin/anti-paladin with just a change the type of damage they do from 1st level. (For those that typed about paladins in other threads there you go 4th listened to you.)
<snip>
~Ghost King~
The only problem with how 4th edition 'balances' the classes where 3.5 didn't is that Paizo was able to balance them out without going to a completely new rules set. Anyway, that's why I'm going with Pathfinder and reserving 4E for games outside what I'd consider D&D. |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 28 Dec 2008 : 03:33:36
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
WotC/Hasbro is notorious at this point for alienating the core fans with the new crowd. They did it with 3rd,
That's stretching the facts, considerably.
While a small core of FR fanatics were alienated on the Realms-L list (for example), the great majority of D&D Fans made the switch to 3E D&D. I'd wager most FR fans either switched or started concurrent 3E games, too.
Well I only have personal experience to argue from but the people that played AD&D 2nd Edition continuously argued with us new crowd how things should go down. Maybe they were that small crowd you are talking about, but I never really put much stock into what they said.
1) Because they were very much full of themselves, but hey so am I so I guess I should expect the same response.
2) They repeatedly told us how great the previous edition was before 3rd and how 3rd ruined everything that was good in the Realms. The loss of the Ring of Winter was one such example when they removed it from the lore timeline.
Granted when 3.5 edition came out they changed their tune some. Saw how the classes like the Ranger actually got some abilities every level instead of "Here have two-weapon fighting, an animal companion and spells." When 4th came out they bought the books, played the game once then quit refusing to play just like with 3.0. And their only reason was this time because of how wizards got reduced in power.
Hey can't say I blame them for their cynical outlook on that. I don't like wizards as they stand; for I think if you play one from 1st to 20th you should be very powerful and tossing around fireballs like they are nothing. Doesn't mean I'm going to let a game company ruin my fun, in fact I like what they did for the melee classes. Now you have that option of playing a Leader fighter as a warlord or a paladin/anti-paladin with just a change the type of damage they do from 1st level. (For those that typed about paladins in other threads there you go 4th listened to you.)
Now while I may have stretched the truth of a fact, I think you see now why I had that perspective. I should have worded it better to start with that is true, and for that I apologize. When I get typing I sometimes forget to be careful with my word choice, which when I write a story I don't worry about because I usually make a draft then read through later. If you notice, sometimes I edit my posts quite frequently because of typos, misspellings and so on.
But I still stand that a fair amount of people had the same response to 3rd as they did to 4th. My anger/frustration for 4th Edition mainly is with how illogical the whole story is of why the Realms is what it is. Or for that matter why Mulhorand, Unther and Maztica got the boot, but new lands and territories were gained with even less detail then was already given to those lands they removed.
And while very wise words have been said to the fact of, "Not in my Realms", which I totally agree with I still feel opposition should be voiced to the changes. Otherwise, how will people know what was liked and disliked about the changes. You're just encouraging even worse decisions if they get no input at all from the masses.
But I'll admit this much, the changes in 3rd didn't make as big a splash as the change to 4th.
~Ghost King~ |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 28 Dec 2008 : 02:16:50
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost King
WotC/Hasbro is notorious at this point for alienating the core fans with the new crowd. They did it with 3rd,
That's stretching the facts, considerably.
While a small core of FR fanatics were alienated on the Realms-L list (for example), the great majority of D&D Fans made the switch to 3E D&D. I'd wager most FR fans either switched or started concurrent 3E games, too. |
| Ghost King |
Posted - 28 Dec 2008 : 00:04:11
quote:
Originally posted by Nerfed2Hell
See, I don't care what they do with 4e Realms either for the same reason... but the point is, the changes they made alienated a lot of people that WOULD continue to have something to do with the 4e Realms by shattering the Forgotten Realms, slapping together the mess they have, and presenting it with the Forgotten Realms name on it. Apparently, WotC management thinks alienation of consumers is good business.
WotC/Hasbro is notorious at this point for alienating the core fans with the new crowd. They did it with 3rd, now with 4th, and probably will with 5th if their still around by then. Personally, I don't think they made the changes to spite the fans, but to make it hip like World of Warcraft and copy paste it. The only reason why that business model worked was because it already had a huge fan base and Blizzard company has a history of releasing quality games, not for just hip new looks. Plus the stories have at least a logical progression to them. The new FR has some places where it is logical, the Cormyrian Empire is one example of that happening and it pretty much ends there.
Other stuff like Mystra needing to die to support new rules changes and killing off all but two her Chosen - not needed in the slightest. I think the death of Khelben and a few sisters would have been plenty, and maybe Mystra reverting into a neutral alignment after taking the Shadow Weave away from Shar to put magic back to its former power before the Fall of Netheril.
Have the Spellplague just warp people into Dragonborn if they wanted more then what already existed in the Realms and there you go. New Realms, keeps most of the old lore, bump it up to 1479 with a few wars here and there and you get the same affect without the colossal mess and alienation of the fans.
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
It's like deja vu all over again. :)
Indeed it is.
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
It's like deja vu all over again. :)
Indeed it is.
~Ghost King~ |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 27 Dec 2008 : 19:52:22
It's like deja vu all over again. :) |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 27 Dec 2008 : 19:13:11
EDIT: n/m |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 27 Dec 2008 : 17:29:54
See, I don't care what they do with 4e Realms either for the same reason... but the point is, the changes they made alienated a lot of people that WOULD continue to have something to do with the 4e Realms by shattering the Forgotten Realms, slapping together the mess they have, and presenting it with the Forgotten Realms name on it. Apparently, WotC management thinks alienation of consumers is good business. |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 27 Dec 2008 : 13:54:28
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Then again, as the 4E Realms are not my Realms, they can do what they want. I think you'll get the feeling from those lines, even not exactly Realmsian:
Because these green hills are not Highland hills
Or the island hills, they're not my land's hills!
And fair as these green foreign hills may be
They are not the hills of home.
Bingo! Zanan FTW. I ain't gonna play 4ed (any more) so I don't care what they do to the 4th ed Realms. It doesn't exist for me. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 27 Dec 2008 : 10:20:26
quote:
Originally posted by Pandora
All changes before 4e did not change the style of D&D - with apologies to Douglas Adams: "In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, Mages were REAL Mages, Fighters were REAL Fighters, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri." Now everything has changed, so an explanation is sorely needed.
No. I wouldn't agree here. Not because you are wrong (something I have no right to argue about), but because I simply do not want to see any in-setting explanation of all the 4E changes. For it would ruin the setting even more, IMHO. Then again, as the 4E Realms are not my Realms, they can do what they want. I think you'll get the feeling from those lines, even not exactly Realmsian:
Because these green hills are not Highland hills
Or the island hills, they're not my land's hills!
And fair as these green foreign hills may be
They are not the hills of home.
|
| Ghost King |
Posted - 27 Dec 2008 : 09:51:29
As I am playing more into 4th Edition Realms the more I find I like certain aspects such as Cormyr growing into an imperial power, Myth Drannor back up and running, and seeing the return of Netheril. To me the climate shift was enough of a drastic change with the one-hundred year jump, although I have no idea why the Shining South or Sea of Fallen Stars was drastically changed. There was hardly any lore there to begin with to screw with the new system and a climate shift there wouldn't affect as much that far south.
And the only reason why Mulhorand and Unther got the boot was because they didn't want to have the show down between Eygptian gods vs Faerunian gods. Which by the way, would have been a lot better explaination for gods getting the axe then the random death of Mystra.
You would think after the Times of Trouble Mystra would be a little more cautious in protecting herself from insane murderers in her own plane. I'm sure she has the best home security system in creation! Plus I guess her two other associates that shared the plane with her, that are sworn to serve her (which one is a diviner wizard), was not able to see an intruder like Cyric entering the plane.
What they should have done is resurrected Bhaal and Myrkyl and brought back the big bad three. Got rid of the chump known as Cyric and gave Shar a healthy dose of a 'slap' back into her place with no access to the shadow weave giving it completely over to Mystra to manage. Which I am still curious how Shar could be as active in the timeline as she could considering Mystra managed the Weave and it took nearly her entire focus to maintain. Shar is good at being a thorn in everyone's side, but she is hardly that good where she can manage an alternate 'Weave' and still be on her best game. Besides you're telling me her twin sister Selune isn't going to notice her going around messing with everyone. If any deity that should know Shar best it is Selune and would have actively warned or put a wrench in her plans.
Bah, I gave up on trying to put logical reasons together for irrational changes long ago. Spellplague wasn't a bad idea in and of itself, but with smashing together two worlds to bring in dragonborn was kind of lame.
Why didn't they just have a Dragonborn Gate open built by some strange wizard that summons them from another world to conquer Toril. The humans, elves, dwarves and gnomes/halfings form an alliance to fight back the dragonborn horde back to their homeworld of Abeir. Then they go to Abeir, kill off some powerful dragon rulers, ticks off one of the dragonborn warlock that uses some uber ritual that blows up Abeir (on accident) into some floating chunks in outerspace, but still hold air, gravity and life in the planes.
Then the dragonborn just take up shop in the Shaar make a modest alliance with minotaurs that help them fight off the wemics from their lands. Taught to be druids/shamans again and move away from their "warlock" pacts from other planes. Then the humans become more accepting of the Drae...I mean, Tieflings, so they ride in on their huge elephants to combat the dragonborn nation in the Shaar.
After that they find out some human paladin fell victim to corruption into an evil blackguard that rules all in the Great Glacier with a vast undead army. But first they need to take out the rest of the dragon rulers that caused this to happen in the first place, so they go back to Shattered Abeir as a combined force of both coalitions to defeat the very last threat there.
Then they both join forces again and go north to defeat the evil blackguard that just so happens to be that upstart Prince from Cormyr (can't remember his name at the moment). They end up slaying him and the end...then 5th Edition gets released.
Sorry for the rant, but I felt if you look at the absurd nature of the changes, they could have just slapped World of Warcraft rip-off in front of Forgotten Realms and it would have worked just fine. As much as I enjoyed the Warcraft universe, when I play the Realms I don't want it to be like Warcraft or vice versa. Otherwise, I should just blown my money on a video game if I want hack 'n slash, party combos needed to defeat dungeons/creatures/bosses, and zero rping/impact on the world history.
Of course, who am I to argue with the main-stream crowd?
~Ghost King~ |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 23:54:19
Jeopardy Theme Music plays*
Answer? Rules and History.
*beep* What are things Arion throws out of every campaign he runs?
That's correct. :) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 23:40:24
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Not a big fan of the setting, but a few guys in my brother-in-law's group were, an they stopped playing DL after that. Also, the Dragonlance timeshift is one of the things many people compare the FR one to on the Internet, saying it "split the fandom" (which it did). I juts go by what others are sayin - I couldn't personally tell one age from another.
Really? I didn't think the time-shift in DL was that significant. Certainly not when compared to the difference between 1375 DR and 1479 DR.
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 21:04:20
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
I think the triple whammy is an admission that 4e rules had no place in the Realms. They had to invent an entirely new setting to accomodate them. :)
-Maybe, in their eyes. Mind you, I don't know the 4e rules- I only have a passing knowledge of them. Most rules don't require explanations in-setting. Fighters being able to perform 'Exploits'? Doesn't need an in-game explanation (with the exception of Fighters being able to perform magical-type abilities without explanation. But, that's a problem with the rule, not it's implementation). Skill challenges and social challenges? Don't need in-game explanations. 'Bloodied'? Doesn't need an in-game explanation. Most rule changes have a fairly minimal- if even- impact on the setting, as a whole.
-The most drastic and sweeping of 4e changes, the magic system, doesn't necessarily need a 'major' explanation, as Rich Baker, Bruce Cordell and Chris Perkins all mentioned. Chalk it up to something that happened in the transitory timeline that will never be detailed, give a quick explanation, and even the biggest ruleset change doesn't ripple much in-setting. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 19:05:55
I think the triple whammy is an admission that 4e rules had no place in the Realms. They had to invent an entirely new setting to accomodate them. :) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 17:12:36
It appears my "stray bit of code" had someone working overtime. 
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Just my take, but if it didn't work in Dragonlance, why the hell did they think it was going to wotk now? 
I've got to disagree with you there, Markus. I thought it worked with DRAGONLANCE. In fact, it's one of my favorite aspects of the setting, actually. And that's coming from a DL fan whose been with Weis & Hickman's grand creation since the beginning.
Not a big fan of the setting, but a few guys in my brother-in-law's group were, an they stopped playing DL after that. Also, the Dragonlance timeshift is one of the things many people compare the FR one to on the Internet, saying it "split the fandom" (which it did). I juts go by what others are sayin - I couldn't personally tell one age from another.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Markus, I don't think we're discussing the validity of the 4E changes here.
We are discussing lore changes that occur because of edition changes here, and I was saying how I thought the Spellplague was perfect for that. I didn't realize offering my opinion about the triple-whammy was so offensive.
Or am I only supposed to talk about stuff I like? |
| Nerfed2Hell |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 16:01:49
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
There were changes with the former editions, yes... but not like this.
The death of Mystraand the destruction of the Weave (the Spellplague), Returned Abeir, and the hundred-year tiimeshift.
Any ONE of those would have been adequate. Any two (except, perhaps, the timeshift) would have been more then adequate, and fans probaly would have just grumbled and kept on playing.
All three? Overkill! It was like they couldn't decide which to use, so just shoved them all in.
If we had gotten the Spellplague and 1390 DR re-boot, I think we wouldn't be seeing this division in the ranks, and the setting could have made it through the first bumpy year or two.
Nuking every single NPC we ever paid for, along with at least half the locales, while at the same time shoveling that Abeir retcon at us was just too much for the fandom to take, IMHO. Abeir was bad, but I think the timeshift was the veritable "straw that broke the camel's back". The Spellplague was perfectly suited to explain-away the 4e changes, and I'm starting to appreciate the versatility of that plot-device, but the rest was just more then we could swallow... and completely unnecessary.
Just my take, but if it didn't work in Dragonlance, why the hell did they think it was going to wotk now?
In addition to the death of Mystra, don't forget the utter shakeup of the the planes, the killing off of other gods, the various retcon divine merges, and similar acts. I can accept some things, but turning the three part elven goddess into one elven goddes, one human goddess, and one primordial doesn't sit well with me any more than Mystra's utterly illogical murder.
Mod edit: tweaked a stray bit of coding, because everything was being italicized.  |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 07:02:23
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
There were changes with the former editions, yes... but not like this.
The death of Mystraand the destruction of the Weave (the Spellplague), Returned Abeir, and the hundred-year tiimeshift.
Any ONE of those would have been adequate. Any two (except, perhaps, the timeshift) would have been more then adequate, and fans probaly would have just grumbled and kept on playing.
All three? Overkill! It was like they couldn't decide which to use, so just shoved them all in.
If we had gotten the Spellplague and 1390 DR re-boot, I think we wouldn't be seeing this division in the ranks, and the setting could have made it through the first bumpy year or two.
-Of course. It is the advancement of the timeline of the setting that does it for myself, and plenty of others. The death of Mystra, and the invalidation of the Weave, that's not something I want (I would have liked a minimization, not the death of), but it doesn't inherently change the setting. The Spellplague, as in magical disasters that pop up around the planet, same thing. It's not something that I was looking for, but it's not something that inherently changes the setting. Introducing 'Abeir', utterly moronic in my view, considering that it isn't anything inherently different or 'new', to set it apart from everything else. Bumping up the timeline by over one-hundred years? That's the deal breaker, especially when coupled with the fact that the books are limited in number (TWO), and they take a purposeful "hand-off" approach in explaining things. Essentially, the entire world is changed- via Spellplague (and the whole 'Abeir' nonsense) or via the fast forwarding of the timeline- and they don't even fully tell us how.
Mod edit: tweaked a stray bit of coding, because everything was being italicized. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 04:46:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Just my take, but if it didn't work in Dragonlance, why the hell did they think it was going to wotk now?
I've got to disagree with you there, Markus. I thought it worked with DRAGONLANCE. In fact, it's one of my favorite aspects of the setting, actually. And that's coming from a DL fan whose been with Weis & Hickman's grand creation since the beginning.
Add to that, the fact that it's still a referenced piece of information in most of the setting lore that came later. So I think it survived the transitional period for the most part. And I think it also helped to improve on parts of Ansalon. I mean, there were some areas and/or elements of the setting that never got much attention until the Chaos War and the Second Cataclysm. But now these areas are definite places of interest when it comes to the campaign material. That has to account for something.
|
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 03:57:35
Markus, I don't think we're discussing the validity of the 4E changes here.
Anyway, one cannot consider the disruption of social order and the chaos that ensued for four months in the year 1358 and conclude, “not much happened to the Realms.”
Deities openly battling each other above and below the Realms, the land itself shaking and warping due to the instability of reality itself.....just because the Realms came out relatively unscathed doesn’t mean the event itself was not Realms Shaking. Far from it.
I’m just surprised Clangeddin was kept around even after Labelas Enoreth slew him.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 03:26:03
There were changes with the former editions, yes... but not like this.
The death of Mystra and the destruction of the Weave (the Spellplague), Returned Abeir, and the hundred-year tiimeshift.
Any ONE of those would have been adequate. Any two (except, perhaps, the timeshift) would have been more then adequate, and fans probaly would have just grumbled and kept on playing.
All three? Overkill! It was like they couldn't decide which to use, so just shoved them all in.
If we had gotten the Spellplague and 1390 DR re-boot, I think we wouldn't be seeing this division in the ranks, and the setting could have made it through the first bumpy year or two.
Nuking every single NPC we ever paid for, along with at least half the locales, while at the same time shoveling that Abeir retcon at us was just too much for the fandom to take, IMHO. Abeir was bad, but I think the timeshift was the veritable "straw that broke the camel's back". The Spellplague was perfectly suited to explain-away the 4e changes, and I'm starting to appreciate the versatility of that plot-device, but the rest was just more then we could swallow... and completely unnecessary.
Just my take, but if it didn't work in Dragonlance, why the hell did they think it was going to work now?
Mod edit: tweaked a stray bit of coding, because everything was being italicized.
Mark Edit: Thanks - I usually go back and self-edit, but I didn't on this one for some reason. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 26 Dec 2008 : 00:31:44
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Okay, there was a bit of godslaying, but that was not exactly edition-related.
Sure it was. It was intended to explain the difference in how the rules worked. I don't believe it was needed--just as I agree with the decision not to provide in-game explanations for the 3e rule changes--but that was its purpose.
The sourcebook Forgotten Realms Adventures was published to update the Realms for second edition. At the beginning of the chapter on class changes it states:
quote:
This chapter outlines changes that DMs and players should make in their Forgotten Realms campaigns to bring them up to date with AD&D 2nd Edition and the Avatar trilogy.
For those readers unfamiliar with the Avatar trilogy, it deals with a war fought between the the gods of Faerun. In a nutshell, several of these gods were slain, the armies which arose to fight their causes laid waste to huge territories, and tremendous physical chaos was let loose in the world. This changed not only the appearance of the land, but its political and social fabric as well.
The chapter then goes on to detail all the changes that were made in the rules for classes, and under Wizards it discusses how to handle spell changes. Changes were made to both the level and descriptions of spells, and some spells disappeared completely. Clearly, the ToT was meant to explain all those changes.
quote:
Changing names of a handful amongst 150 deities was nothing Realms-shaking.
There may be 150 gods in the entire Realms, but the Faerunian pantheon is much smaller, the list of major gods in that pantheon is still smaller, and the list of evil major deities becomes fairly exclusive. Three of the most powerful were knocked off.
And replaced with a weasel.
So I think 1e DMs can be excused for thinking that it was a pretty major change.
|
| Zanan |
Posted - 25 Dec 2008 : 22:06:42
quote:
Originally posted by ErskineF
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Just out of interest ... what where the really rule- and setting-touching things that shook the world of D&D when it switched to AD&D (2nd edition) post the Time of Troubles?
Let's see... I think most of the changes were god-deaths, and a few ascensions by mortals.
Dead list: Bhaal, Myrkul, Mystra*, Bane, Waukeen... I think I'm missing some.
Ascension list: Kelemvor, Cyric, Midnight/Mystra*
*Mystra only sort of died. She placed part of her essence in Midnight, who then became the goddess of magic, but with some part Mystra remaining.
There were no geography changes, afaik, and I can't think of any major NPCs who died. A lot of property damage was done, and a bunch of redshirts died. Several towns ended up with "what happened here during the ToT" entries.
That doesn't sound like much compared to 4e. It still managed to irritate a lot of people. I think the main criticisms were that Cyric was a poor replacment for such archetypal villains as Bane and Myrkul; having a good god of the dead was lame; and the notion that mortals could slay gods was munchkinish. Mr Miscellany could probably tell us much more. When I came in the changes had been in place for awhile. There was still grumbling, but I may not have summed it up accurately.
Okay, there was a bit of godslaying, but that was not exactly edition-related. It was meant to explain the Time of Troubles in-setting ... and explain it with some fall-out. Essentially, not much happened to the Realms as such though. Changing names of a handful amongst 150 deities was nothing Realms-shaking. Which was my point. Not that I agree to the deaths of Leira or Ibrandul or Myrkul. Nor do I like the meddling of über-heroes amongst the deities like they were Greek-lookalikes. |
| ErskineF |
Posted - 25 Dec 2008 : 17:58:20
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Bottom line - we want IG explanantions, but we want GOOD ones. Maybe because most of the lore lately has been very ill-conceived that some folks would prefer no explanations.
*bows to Markustay. |
|
|
