| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Eltheron |
Posted - 01 Dec 2013 : 16:39:53
So far, I have seen a couple minor deities make stealth returns in novels, and the Weave is supposedly re-woven. But no real "fixes" or any background explanation has happened at all for repairing the damage to the Realms.
And I'm sorry, but Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle was absolutely awful and Murder in Baldur's Gate was incredibly mediocre. The lore and new detail in both is almost negligible and what is there is way below par. New maps? Nope. Updated NPCs with history? Nope. Ghosts is chock full of "yukyuk" and "harhar" jokey nonsense, and MiBG has a few nostalgic nods to the old videogame but is totally uninspired and boring on-the-rails design.
And nothing so far has been "edition neutral" in terms of utility. It's all tacked-on 4th edition.
What's the deal, seriously? FIX THE REALMS.
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Therise |
Posted - 11 Dec 2013 : 23:57:16
quote:
Originally posted by Plaguescarred
Upcoming adventures are Scourge of the Sword Coast and Dead in Thay
These are Encounters series adventures only...?
What is it with WotC not wanting to make money, seriously?
They should sell adventure modules. I have no desire to drive to a store for weekly sessions run by unwashed teenagers. 
|
| Plaguescarred |
Posted - 11 Dec 2013 : 21:30:26
Upcoming adventures are Scourge of the Sword Coast and Dead in Thay |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 11 Dec 2013 : 19:18:25
well there is that other adventure next year something something daggerford that is supposed to tie into ghosts of dragonspear...... |
| Therise |
Posted - 11 Dec 2013 : 19:09:37
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
I will give you that if I never saw another realms product with Chris Perkins in the credits it would still be to soon, but I really do think that you are getting caught up in the bad spots. Nothing in the adventure is loaded down with Realmslore, but it is a solid adventure and if you are willing to put sometime into fleshing out/researching the surrounding area it works really well.
I'll certainly agree that the adventure path was... fine. Solid in terms of how it progresses in a linear way. But for something this expensive, I was hoping that the design team would have done the researching and fleshing out of the area. I'd consider the 4E Neverwinter product a good example of an inspired, good update even if I'm not all that fond of the 4E era.
quote:
I am running it for 8 players(2 FR fans, 4 RGP players and 2 people total new to RPG games) and everyone is having a good time. So far all of the little jokes you are mentioning got a few laughs and nobody really minds them. However, they in no way define the campaign. The PCs have a pretty focused approach on figuring out what to do about the elemental orbs and handling the mountain Illfern situation.
I'm glad you had a great time with it overall. I just think that for something with this price tag and its focus on an area that people have begged for new lore, it really should've been a lot better. To us, it was rather bland and predictable.
quote:
Also, I don't think Delfen Yellowknife was put in due to lazyness. Wizards in FR have a habit of extending their lifespan. I think he is in there on purpose to reflect that realms tradition. How many famous Archmages have extended their life for a few hundred years before needing to resort to Lichdom?
Yes, long-lived mages do have a tendency for survival, and that's certainly a Realms "thing" to have happen. On the other hand, the original Delfen from N5 really wasn't very interesting to begin with. Here, nothing is really added to that rather dull character, except that he survived and he's used primarily to push the PCs down a particular path. Quite literally, Delfen says, "you all should go here next" and that isn't very good IMO.
|
| Therise |
Posted - 11 Dec 2013 : 18:42:29
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Makes you wonder if he is (still?) trying to sabotage FR (because he admitted he prefers Eberron), or is he truly that untalented? 
If they gave him Eric Boyd's amazing labor-of-love and he 'Perkinized it', then thats just a damn shame. Everything he has ever produced is absolute drivel (IMO) - I can't understand how he is still working in the industry. Rant over. 
Well, to be fair I should really get more in-depth about what I think the problems were, and why I thought they were problems.
The thing about Perkins, he's probably one of those editors who is really excellent at coordination, planning, and publishing. You've got to have highly qualified technical editors in any publishing company. Not having worked with him, I don't know if that's true, but he's been in that position a long time. That said, even amazing technical production editors aren't -all- going to be just as good at creative writing and development. Perkins has never really impressed me with his creative side. He seems to prefer juvenile humor, based on his videos (e.g. when he DMs for Penny Arcade public games), the creative stuff he's done with his name as a primary by-line, and what I've heard of his own homebrew setting/world.
I haven't seen the unpublished Illefarn expansion by Eric Boyd, but I am usually impressed with Boyd's work and his creativity. I know that this team did have access to that, and they even reference it. Even so, very little of this feels like Boyd's work. Honestly, I'd give a LOT to see Boyd's unpublished Illefarn update.
And I don't think Perkins or anyone else really ever intended (or intends) to sabotage the Realms. But repeating bad decisions isn't going to help either.
What I didn't like about Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle really extends to more than just the juvenile humor. The whole adventure path just seems uninspired and dull. I agree with the OP when he talks about it being "on the rails" design, because there is really only one way to go and a lot of it is prompted by the new NPC Isteval. Having an NPC repeatedly come up to your party and saying, "hey, you all should do THIS next" is incredibly lazy design, IMO. I did this first as a player not a DM, and there were parts where we just didn't want to do some of what Isteval suggested. My group does prefer sandbox-style, but it wasn't only that. There were times when we simply lost interest in the main storyline and couldn't see the point of following up on parts of it.
It's also missing out on some big things that people have wanted ever since N5 came out. Very little of the area surrounding Daggerford is fleshed out, and the "new" regional map is almost exactly the same as the original N5 map. It doesn't have a good update of Daggerford as a town and it doesn't give a layout of the Floshin estates, talk about the Elvish SongPaths, or even give all that much on Illefarn. When I said that it was lazy to keep Delfen Yellowknife, what I meant was that Delfen is (and was) really little more than a cardboard-cutout wizard without anything interesting about him. Why keep him around?
If I recall, the original N5 and its Daggerford inhabitants were mostly derived from or inspired from the Prydain fantasy novels. They had an opportunity here to really flesh out the area and update it not only for 4th Edition people but advance it into the modern era for use with 5th/Next. Particularly for a large module/campaign that is supposed to be a unique collector's item, it's VERY lacking. At points, Isteval kept referring to the group as "heroes" and the town acted like we were huge big-shots when we'd essentially cleared up some problem "dworcs" and did some other minor stuff. I mean... helpful, sure. Heroes?
The adventure itself is... okay. The elements involved are all pulled from other bigger and better modules of the past. And given that the gaming rules for 5E printed in the latter half of the book are already outdated, this whole product is just overly silly and rather empty for the price. When our DM revealed that the Red Wizard was called "Boo Boo Doll" we all burst out laughing and one of my fellow players said, "that is seriously the dumbest thing I have ever heard." Then, the reveal on -why- she was called that was even worse. It was funny because it was just plain bad design.
|
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 11 Dec 2013 : 15:26:23
I have yet to find anything compelling about this Sundering "event". To me, it reeks very much as War of the Spider Queen did. Really, I would simply have called WotSQ "Lolth's Moving Day", since that's all that really came of that event (and becoming more powerful...which made no sense to me, since she didn't really gain any new worshippers, hell, she lost a LOT from what I could tell).
While I find I like the idea of the Sundering being a background to more personal tales, it's a little too far in the background. Instead of these personal tales interacting with the Sundering, it seems to be little more than a "Huh? Wha?!" moment for the characters in these stories. That's too vague I think.
I soldiered through WotSQ because I don't like not finishing something I start (no matter how dreadful I might find the process). The same will happen with the Sundering novels.
I'm getting a strong impression that The Sundering will end up being better called "Abeir's Moving Day". |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 13:04:09
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
The cross-breed "dworcs" are only part of the problem with Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, IMO. The whole book has a slap-dash cobbled together at the last minute feel to it, and the humor is extremely juvenile. It has Chris Perkins' stink all over it. "Mama Booga" and her sons... a Red Wizard nicknamed "Boo Boo Doll"? It's all just way too stupid, and feels highly derivative of earlier stupid modules of the 1970s and 1980s.
I will give you that if I never saw another realms product with Chris Perkins in the credits it would still be to soon, but I really do think that you are getting caught up in the bad spots. Nothing in the adventure is loaded down with Realmslore, but it is a solid adventure and if you are willing to put sometime into fleshing out/researching the surrounding area it works really well. I am running it for 8 players(2 FR fans, 4 RGP players and 2 people total new to RPG games) and everyone is having a good time. So far all of the little jokes you are mentioning got a few laughs and nobody really minds them. However, they in no way define the campaign. The PCs have a pretty focused approach on figuring out what to do about the elemental orbs and handling the mountain Illfern situation.
Also, I don't think Delfen Yellowknife was put in due to lazyness. Wizards in FR have a habit of extending their lifespan. I think he is in there on purpose to reflect that realms tradition. How many famous Archmages have extended their life for a few hundred years before needing to resort to Lichdom? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 12:42:36
There are retcons and there are RETCONS...
Saying "Dwarves and Halflings can 'do magic', and its always been that way" is a retcon. (A BAD ONE, IMHO)
Saying that "mortals never truly understood how the universe works' isn't a retcon at all, and any changes they make within those parameters becomes 'new information learned' (which may also prove to be false at some point in the future).
So it boils down to this - if they break the continuity, but they explain why it happened (in a plausible manner), then we accept is as part of the ongoing story that is the Realms. If they just make massive changes willy-nilly (4e), without much of an explanation other then, "Spellplague!!!", then thats just poor design; it deteriorates the immersion factor.
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
The cross-breed "dworcs" are only part of the problem with Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, IMO. The whole book has a slap-dash cobbled together at the last minute feel to it, and the humor is extremely juvenile. It has Chris Perkins' stink all over it. "Mama Booga" and her sons... a Red Wizard nicknamed "Boo Boo Doll"? It's all just way too stupid, and feels highly derivative of earlier stupid modules of the 1970s and 1980s.
Makes you wonder if he is (still?) trying to sabotage FR (because he admitted he prefers Eberron), or is he truly that untalented?
If they gave him Eric Boyd's amazing labor-of-love and he 'Perkinized it', then thats just a damn shame. Everything he has ever produced is absolute drivel (IMO) - I can't understand how he is still working in the industry.
Rant over. |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 10 Dec 2013 : 12:20:25
quote:
Originally posted by Mirtek
That would damage the IP even more. How would I ever be able to again buy an FR novel in good faith of it telling me some canon happenings in the Realms if all of that could be ret-coned out any time?
I agree completely with this sentiment , novels are canon and should be treated so.
Plus even though the sundering is happening now we cannot expect everything to be revealed in a few books. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 21:37:29
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Without an actual retcon of 4e and its forced inclusion of core 4e PoL material, the cosmology is irrevocably broken.
To be fair, 3.x already did this by changing the wheel to the tree.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I have ideas of how it could be done retaining some semblance of continuity,
What? You silly mortals thought our planes lool like a three or a sandwhich? You can't be serious, they always looked like a wheel, you have no clue where each place was in relation to each other.
Done ;)
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
'this didn't happen and we are sorry' sort of rollback didn't happen given the damage the IP took in the past few years.
That would damage the IP even more. How would I ever be able to again buy an FR novel in good faith of it telling me some canon happenings in the Realms if all of that could be ret-coned out any time? |
| Therise |
Posted - 09 Dec 2013 : 18:36:14
The cross-breed "dworcs" are only part of the problem with Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, IMO. The whole book has a slap-dash cobbled together at the last minute feel to it, and the humor is extremely juvenile. It has Chris Perkins' stink all over it. "Mama Booga" and her sons... a Red Wizard nicknamed "Boo Boo Doll"? It's all just way too stupid, and feels highly derivative of earlier stupid modules of the 1970s and 1980s.
They just didn't have enough Realmsian creativity with this. Even the original Delfen Yellowknife of N5 is still here as a fixture because they couldn't think of (or be bothered with) creating another wizard. I do get the feeling that they probably imported some ideas from Eric Boyd's unpublished updating of the Illefarn region, but very little of this book has an Eric Boyd feel to it... which is really unfortunate.
Honestly, I hope it's all apocryphal and never considered canon.
|
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 08 Dec 2013 : 23:13:13
Same here. The adventure doesn't explain how that is possible, but these particular dwarves are cursed and cannot breed among themselves. The only way they have found to breed is with orcs and to be fair the dwarves aren't necessarily willing participants. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 08 Dec 2013 : 22:55:16
I was always under the impression that orcs could not produce offspring with Dwarves or Elves. |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 08 Dec 2013 : 22:42:22
I have gotten a lot of mileage out of Dragonspear so far. It does have a lot of tongue a cheek moments, but even those can be turned into pretty serious situations. For instance, the "Dworcs" concept comes off as a silly gag, but the dwarves in my party that are from the Ironeater clan are really struggling with how to deal with that situation. Also, the detail on Daggerford in the back of the adventure is decent. It is no City of Splendors box set, but it is pretty good.
I have only read a little bit of the campaign guide from Murder in Baldur's Gate. However, the map on the DM screen is sweet and the city info isn't bad. It is a shame that most of the NPCs that are mentioned are killed during the adventure itself. I plan on setting the majority of dragonspear castle's interlude in Baldur's gate. I think with a little effort and access to some of the old material the city itself is usable. Also, four of my players played/ran the adventure and all seemed to like it. It is apparently a lot more complex than the standard stuff ran at D&D encounters(The official WotC org play activities).
|
| Therise |
Posted - 05 Dec 2013 : 16:06:12
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
So far, I have seen a couple minor deities make stealth returns in novels, and the Weave is supposedly re-woven. But no real "fixes" or any background explanation has happened at all for repairing the damage to the Realms.
And I'm sorry, but Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle was absolutely awful and Murder in Baldur's Gate was incredibly mediocre. The lore and new detail in both is almost negligible and what is there is way below par. New maps? Nope. Updated NPCs with history? Nope. Ghosts is chock full of "yukyuk" and "harhar" jokey nonsense, and MiBG has a few nostalgic nods to the old videogame but is totally uninspired and boring on-the-rails design.
And nothing so far has been "edition neutral" in terms of utility. It's all tacked-on 4th edition.
What's the deal, seriously? FIX THE REALMS.
Personally I liked Murder in Baldur's Gate, though I agree that Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle was a bit weak and felt somewhat disconnected.
Overall, though, I understand your sentiment. I just finished the third book of the Sundering series and I'm sorry to say that it was a little disappointing. It didn't have enough of the metastory that is the overall main point of having this series.
By the conclusion of The Adversary we still have almost no information or reveals about why the Sundering is happening or how it's affecting the gods and the world. The Weave is back, earth-motes are slowly falling, spellscars and plague-touched lands are fading. But why? It's all just a little too distant.
I realize that they wanted to keep things more on a personal, individual level by focusing on stories of specific people while changes are happening in the background. But I think it was a mistake to show so very little of the metastory, especially by the middle of the series.
So I get why you're feeling this way. My enthusiasm is also cooling a little now.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 04 Dec 2013 : 13:08:10
If thats true, then their egos may have gotten in the way of the future success of FR.
Since the only real lives effected by all of this are the writers, I guess this is one of those "reap what you sow" situations. The rest of us get to sit back and watch what happens, without any worries. I suppose, even if Tarlyn's statement weren't true, what I just said still would be. The only people truly affected by all of this are the people making these decisions.
We have choices, they do not. 4e was all about them forgetting that - D&D is no longer "the 800 lb gorilla in the room." We don't love everything they do, we just move on. I hope with all that kick-boxing they've been doing they've also been practicing their ninja-skills, because its not so easy walking on eggs.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Dec 2013 : 11:17:24
quote:
Originally posted by Tarlyn
WotC did put a reboot on the table and the authors turned it down. So that was offered and the authors pushed for keeping the 4e lore and trying to connect it with the rest of FR's past.
Where does this info come from? I've not heard this before. |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 04 Dec 2013 : 08:19:34
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I could be proven wrong and I hope I might, but I'm shocked that a simple 'this didn't happen and we are sorry' sort of rollback didn't happen given the damage the IP took in the past few years.
WotC did put a reboot on the table and the authors turned it down. So that was offered and the authors pushed for keeping the 4e lore and trying to connect it with the rest of FR's past.
I apparently was incorrect on that. I am misremembering the one cannon, one story, one realms scroll as an official source. The scroll spends a lot of time shooting down reboot suggestions, but it is just freelancers opinions not a reflection of an official conversation.
I think it will be a tough sell to all fans regardless of their favorite edition, but the team knew that going into this. If your a pre-spell plague hold out and want all of the 4e transition events to make perfect sense with old realms lore. I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I think that the new team is leaving the explanation for those events vague(in some cases adding vagueness) enough that you can re skin them, or gloss over them in your own game.
I really think the key to enjoying 5e for old fans is a willingness to work with what the authors give us and come up with your own explanation for the 4E transitions that works at your table. The impression I get is that those events aren't going to be frequently referenced in the new era. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 04 Dec 2013 : 07:36:33
If 5E does well in terms of sales of the Core Rulebooks, then the Realms will do, at the minimum, reasonably well.
If 5E does well in terms of sales of the Core Rulebooks and if WotC are smart enough to include 5E rules in whatever initial book or books or boxed set that the post-Sundering Realms are to be introduced with, then the Realms will do extremely well.
*************
There are people--many of them--who play the D&D game in the Realms and also care about and enjoy the story too.
It's not as though game players are automatically disconnected from the lore and the story by some as yet undisclosed magical power wielded by WotC.
You can do both, and people have been doing so for over 25 years.
***************
I think the main reason there was no reboot is that it would mean un-writing Realmslore. And not just 4E/Spellplague Realmslore but information that can prior to that. Resetting to, say, 1357 DR means everything that came after that no longer counts.
The Realms progresses by moving forward. Once fantasy novel writers with experience writing in the Realms were given the task of fixing things, WotC--unwittingly or not--closed the door on the idea of a reboot.
I sure would've liked to have been a fly on the wall during the initial discussions out of which the Sundering concept was hatched. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 04 Dec 2013 : 06:26:32
Because retcon is a dirty word AND because you can ignore any thing you want in your own campaign. I honestly don't ever understand why the game players get upset over the story or even the lore. You can always change it. It's those of us who only follow the story who should really be miffed about the 4E changes because we have no say in what happens.
I for one don't care. I enjoyed the 4E novels after the shock of the change. As long as the writing is good I'll read it. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 04 Dec 2013 : 01:46:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
There's no reason to gt rid of Spellscars, or nearly anything else 4e brought with it. Why "throw the baby out with the bath-water"?
You don't like something, just ignore it. No need to to apply 'subtractive design' to the setting - let people have choices.
Except for the cosmology... we need a miracle worker to fix everything that got broken there. 
Without an actual retcon of 4e and its forced inclusion of core 4e PoL material, the cosmology is irrevocably broken. It ignored pre-existing continuity and unless we can either ignore that material as ever having happened, or collectively gloss over it while moving back towards the Great Wheel or the might-as-well-be-the-Great-Wheel from 3e, it's horrid mess.
I have ideas of how it could be done retaining some semblance of continuity, but the best and easiest way to do so would be to completely retcon the entirety of 4e material or treat it as a separate timeline. However that doesn't appear to be going to happen, and sadly with the dissonance between 4e and the Realms prior to that point, and how 5e thus far seems to be heading with regards to FR, I suspect that the setting is going to both make fans of the 4e material unhappy and fail to regain the massive number of fans it lost because of 4e.
I could be proven wrong and I hope I might, but I'm shocked that a simple 'this didn't happen and we are sorry' sort of rollback didn't happen given the damage the IP took in the past few years. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 20:56:47
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/0786964588/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=1
More info on the Sundering, the above is the Amazon summary of the next book in the Sundering line, The Reaver by Richard Lee Byers.
Sounds really cool and I'm really looking forward to it. |
| SirUrza |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 20:50:00
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
And nothing so far has been "edition neutral" in terms of utility. It's all tacked-on 4th edition.
"Edition neutral" refers to the rules being used, not the "era of play."
"Edition neutral" means they're going to release products that are void of actual rules and release the rules in PDFs on wizards.com You can play Murder in Builder's Gate using 3e rule if you want.
However, product for people that don't want to play in post-spellplague Realms, we'll see.
Some point to Menzoberrazan as the example of supporting all eras of play, I however find it laughable since the book doesn't do specifics very well and all around era-lite. I don't expect any D&D Next supplement for the Realms that will be at my table when I'm playing 1360/1370s era games. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 03 Dec 2013 : 20:29:20
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/0786964588/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=1
More info on the Sundering, the above is the Amazon summary of the next book in the Sundering line, The Reaver by Richard Lee Byers.
Sounds really cool and I'm really looking forward to it. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 02 Dec 2013 : 04:23:06
quote:
And personally, I never thought that the Realms were broken and needed fixing. The biggest problem with the 4E transition was never the spellplague and everything associated with it, but the 100 year time jump. Still need to see how everything turns out, but I admit that I don't like some of the changes they're doing.
I disagree with part of this. The timejump was a bad move, but so was nuking so many of the setting's unique cultures. Killing off the pantheon was also a mistake.
quote:
There's no reason to gt rid of Spellscars, or nearly anything else 4e brought with it. Why "throw the baby out with the bath-water"?
You don't like something, just ignore it. No need to to apply 'subtractive design' to the setting - let people have choices.
Except for the cosmology... we need a miracle worker to fix everything that got broken there.
+11111 here. Spellscars are interesting and there's no need to retroactively 'cure' them. But those who have an interest in them can always keep them.
I'm still a bit doubtful about how Wizbro is going to provide support for all eras of play. Thing is, each 'era' is defined by each edition of the game...one can't support a given era without taking the ruleset used at the time. Will Wizbro publish massive rule books to cover each edition of the game? Will they publish multiple rulebooks to cover each edition? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 02 Dec 2013 : 04:07:20
There's no reason to gt rid of Spellscars, or nearly anything else 4e brought with it. Why "throw the baby out with the bath-water"?
You don't like something, just ignore it. No need to to apply 'subtractive design' to the setting - let people have choices.
Except for the cosmology... we need a miracle worker to fix everything that got broken there. |
| Tanthalas |
Posted - 02 Dec 2013 : 02:09:19
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
I don't remember it being said anywhere that all spellscares being healed with Mystra's return. I certainly don't remember it from Elminster Enraged. Can someone provide a source?
It was not with Mystra's return, but with the return of the Weave.
Cattie-Brie (spoiler) loses her spellscars when the Weave randomly returns in The Companions and all of the Harpell-associated wizards who had spellscars lost theirs as well. There was no explanation given for either.
I'm assuming you are referring to the Companions? I don't remember anyone being "cured" of their spellscars when the Weave returns. I know Cattie-Brie never had one in the novel. She was resurrected into a new body in the beginning.
I'll have to double check that book though. One of the things that I love about eBooks is that they're easily searchable.
They were "cured" of their spellscars.
Remember that Catti-Brie's new body had a scar with the symbol of Mystra on one arm and a scar with the symbol of Mielikki on the other (or at least I think it was on her arms). Her spellscars allowed her to use some "druid-like" abilities such as shapechanging into animals. When the weave was restored, her scars became more like tattoos I think, and she lost the ability to use those "druid-like" abilities.
And yeah, when that happened the Harpells with spellscars all got cured too.
I really really hope that this didn't "cure" everyone. It was a needless change that just messes up a lot of characters.
And personally, I never thought that the Realms were broken and needed fixing. The biggest problem with the 4E transition was never the spellplague and everything associated with it, but the 100 year time jump. Still need to see how everything turns out, but I admit that I don't like some of the changes they're doing. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 02 Dec 2013 : 00:37:21
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
I don't remember it being said anywhere that all spellscares being healed with Mystra's return. I certainly don't remember it from Elminster Enraged. Can someone provide a source?
It was not with Mystra's return, but with the return of the Weave.
Cattie-Brie (spoiler) loses her spellscars when the Weave randomly returns in The Companions and all of the Harpell-associated wizards who had spellscars lost theirs as well. There was no explanation given for either.
I'm assuming you are referring to the Companions? I don't remember anyone being "cured" of their spellscars when the Weave returns. I know Cattie-Brie never had one in the novel. She was resurrected into a new body in the beginning.
I'll have to double check that book though. One of the things that I love about eBooks is that they're easily searchable. |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 01 Dec 2013 : 22:38:00
Agreed, Kris. From my perspective, what they said they are going to do - and it's been supported by everything I've seen this last year - is what you described, and part of my post was trying to get at that. If they're going to succeed, and if they're not changing course in the middle of the way is still to be seen, but the least that can be said is that WotC has a plan and the plan makes sense.
And there is no way this whole thing can be done without some unpalatable stuff in the middle. The 4e transition was terrible, and any method of undoing its mistakes would cause some amount of justified backlash. |
| Mirtek |
Posted - 01 Dec 2013 : 22:03:38
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
That's not what most people meant by edition-neutral, though. Rules don't really generate the "vibe" for the world itself.
The "vibe" is supposed to be restored once the Sundering has run it's course and all it's effects are into place.
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
The book made it quite clear that the original Mask was dead, gone forever, and that Riven took his place. Riven has access to some old memories, like clippings from a book, nothing more. This Mask is a replacement. (spoiler end)
No, that was while he held only a third of the divinity formerly stored in Kesson Rel. Now that he has all parts united no one knows what that will do to him.
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
no, the spellscars need to go, all they are were a form of spellfire without restraints.....
The vast majority were only minor powers (if at all). |
|
|
