| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 23 May 2014 : 05:59:59
So things like the world serphant and the earthmother, were classified as primal spirits. How do you think they will survive the new incarnation of 5e? |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 25 May 2014 : 20:35:58
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
I for one hope they keep the terms, though I doubt they will.
I see these different terms for the various types of powerful beings as being more expressive. Why lump these beings under one umbrella when you can have archdevils, demon lords, immortals, primordials, archfey, and primal spirits. Sure, any of these beings could be worshiped as gods by primitive mortals, but that doesn't change their underlying physiology or cosmic outlook.
To me Asmodeus is far more interesting as "just" an archdevil. Why does he need to be a god? Same with Lolth. In 1st-Edition AD&D she was just a powerful demon queen. And so on and so forth... The Earthmother makes far more sense as a primal spirit, just as Kossuth is clearly a primordial.
I don't mind them keeping the term, as long as there is something of a clear definition of the difference. For instance, a demon lord versus an archdevil, I get the difference. However, primal spirit and primordial and Archfey are less clear (other than I would say an Archfey is tied to the feywild). |
| Tarlyn |
Posted - 25 May 2014 : 19:24:02
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
It and various other 4e core terms should probably vanish for coherency of lore. You don't maintain continuity by insisting on keeping that which broke continuity.
+1. Did anyone else find it really annoying that instead of silver and gold elves the Sunderings series just refers to eladrin? It isn't even more descriptive. It is just confusing/annoying.
As a side note, archdevils and demon lords are definitely not exclusively 4e terms. I think the archfey or fey lord concept existed in D&D outside of 4e as well. However, I am not 100% confident on that.
|
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 25 May 2014 : 17:27:37
I for one hope they keep the terms, though I doubt they will.
I see these different terms for the various types of powerful beings as being more expressive. Why lump these beings under one umbrella when you can have archdevils, demon lords, immortals, primordials, archfey, and primal spirits. Sure, any of these beings could be worshiped as gods by primitive mortals, but that doesn't change their underlying physiology or cosmic outlook.
To me Asmodeus is far more interesting as "just" an archdevil. Why does he need to be a god? Same with Lolth. In 1st-Edition AD&D she was just a powerful demon queen. And so on and so forth... The Earthmother makes far more sense as a primal spirit, just as Kossuth is clearly a primordial. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 24 May 2014 : 19:46:37
It and various other 4e core terms should probably vanish for coherency of lore. You don't maintain continuity by insisting on keeping that which broke continuity. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 24 May 2014 : 13:45:10
Yes, some Barbarian builds use primal magic. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 24 May 2014 : 13:40:52
Yes, some Barbarian builds use primal magic. |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 24 May 2014 : 04:20:03
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Yeah, but gods like Eldath were bumped down to primal spirit in 4e and they had temples and clerics, etc.
That makes the difference even more esoteric a and obscure.
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Perhaps some primal spirits will become gods once more?
My point was If primal spirits can grant spells to clerics, what's the difference between primal spirits and gods? I expect 5th edition won't explore that distinction as it seems to have no meaningful and doesn't seem to effect their followers or even their clergy. If you're asking will Eldath survive then almost definitely yes. If you're asking will the term primal spirits survive, my thinking is there MIGHT be the term thrown in somewhere in the books, but unless there's a meaningful distinction then I expect it won't be used much more than once (if that). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 May 2014 : 00:45:02
I kind of have to agree. The latest thing seems to be to spin up terms and not give a basis for their differences.... Archfey, Primordials, Primal Spirits.... It would be interesting if they'd put some more of a definition to these. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 23 May 2014 : 20:07:34
I for one hope they get rid of that term. All it did ti some degree was confuse more people with conflicting lore... |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 23 May 2014 : 17:29:04
Yeah, but gods like Eldath were bumped down to primal spirit in 4e and they had temples and clerics, etc.
Perhaps some primal spirits will become gods once more? |
| JohnLynch |
Posted - 23 May 2014 : 11:32:48
They'll be worshipped and have shamans as their servants. I don't see a need to go into any further distinction between primal spirit vs god. |
