quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

One thing I found interesting in the Edition Wars, in regards to just the ruleset itself, and not to the changes in the setting (which have been discussed in plenty!), was the way reactions tended to be extreme in one direction or another.

The reactions I saw to the 4E ruleset were either "I want to have this edition's baby!" or "Kill it! Kill it with fire!"

My own reaction was negative, though I should like to think it wasn't quite to that extreme.

The reactions I've seen to the 5E ruleset have been much more measured, and they've been predominantly positive. I personally have not looked at the rules in any great detail, but what I've seen has not been objectionable to me.

And unlike the 3.x/4E transition, I've not seen anyone else suddenly outsell WotC with a repackaged version of the 4E rules. For me, the fact that -- at least briefly -- Pathfinder was outselling D&D is a very powerful statement on the success of the 4E ruleset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

However, bringing back some of the regions that went away is what they need to do. All these drowned or ruined cities that they just destroyed for no good reason (Cimbar, Soorenar, Laothkund, Akanax, Mordulkin) or even countries (Halruaa, Nimbral, Luiren, Lantan).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.

---

Bear in mind, no one has officially said Laerakond is gone. Many of us have stated, we have no problem with it staying and somehow getting "displaced". Same with Tymanther/Akanul... as far as I'm concerned, Chessenta and Unther and the Shaar had a lot of dead space.... so you can fit in both cultures and even use them to create new dynamics that satisfy both. Same with Vaasa and Telos/Warlock Knights. I have no problem with that staying that way. Previously it was nothing but a big swamp.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeromaru X

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeromaru X

If you have a link to that Q&A, I will appreciate it.

And I have an opinion similar to that of Irennan (and I do like 4e and 4e FR). Despite the good ideas they may have had in 4e, and they had many. It was the way they implemented those changes, so... heavy handed, that people got alienated. Heck, to this day, there is people who dislike dragonborn just because they debuted in 4e, not because they dislike the dragonborn concept.

It was sad, though. Because that led us to lose a lot of the stuff 4e had brought, and not all that stuff was bad (there is stuff that actually was really cool, like, for instance, Laerakond), and I'm sure in the end classic Realms and "nu-Realms" could have coexisted, instead of just losing it almost all and be rebooted.

I know is posible because I have done it in my home Realms, and that means a profesional author could have devised a better way to do that than mine.

---

Bear in mind, no one has officially said Laerakond is gone. Many of us have stated, we have no problem with it staying and somehow getting "displaced". Same with Tymanther/Akanul... as far as I'm concerned, Chessenta and Unther and the Shaar had a lot of dead space.... so you can fit in both cultures and even use them to create new dynamics that satisfy both. Same with Vaasa and Telos/Warlock Knights. I have no problem with that staying that way. Previously it was nothing but a big swamp.

---

I know, but odds are high that, if they release an official map or something, or a campaign setting, Laerakond isn't there anymore. And Laerakond isn't the only cool stuff that went away, anyways. And there is a lot of stuff from 3e that also got wiped out as well.

I know that I can just handwave the stuff I like, but in the official materials, that stuff won't be there. And somehow, all that is sad, because, it were a lot of years of development that now are... gone. Somehow, 5e did the same thing that 4e did to the Realms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

However, bringing back some of the regions that went away is what they need to do. All these drowned or ruined cities that they just destroyed for no good reason (Cimbar, Soorenar, Laothkund, Akanax, Mordulkin) or even countries (Halruaa, Nimbral, Luiren, Lantan).

---

A lot of those have already been brought back about 2 years ago, with the SCAG.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dazzlerdal

Very true, although most of the reactions ive seen about 5e are that its good from first time players (who seem to say that no matter what the rules or setting are like). Whereas from long time players the trend is predominantly positive on the basis that it could have been much worse, it could have been 4e all over again.

Doesnt give me much hope for its longevity if the main selling point for older players is that its not as bad as the very worst thing you have ever played. But then again i still hope it fails and 6e is elminster waking up from a bad dream and realising the last 2 editions didnt happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Sage

I'm bringing this up here, because it's one of the sections of Candlekeep that receives the most attention.

Earlier, scribe Brimstone brought up a point that I want to briefly discuss here:-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brimstone

Yes, keep on insulting the Authors, and Designers that are working on and in the Forgotten Realms.

---

I'm inclined to agree.

I've grown particularly weary of this increasingly apparent facet of Realms chatter here at Candlekeep. Constructive criticism is fine. And is in line with the established Code of Conduct for the site. But I'm starting to realise that perhaps we Mods have been a little too lax in our efforts to counteract some of the more disturbing trends that seem to make a mockery of the concept of positive and/or negative constructive criticism.

As such, I'm declaring that outright insulting for no other reason than to express one's distaste over the 4e Realms will no longer be tolerated.

We each have our opinions on the 4e Realms. And we each feel the need to express those opinions. That's great. Because that's what Candlekeep is all about. But, at the same time, it should be noted that expressing opinions about an official designer's work and/or efforts with the 4e Realms should receive just as much respect and care as do the opinions made about the works of designers from previous editions of the FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign.

I've no problem with scribes discussing why they may dislike a particular element of the post-Spellplague Realms. But it's becoming increasingly clear that there are those among us here who take that as an opportunity to add nothing to the discussion at hand and only rally against the concept of the 4e Realms.

This ends now!

For this point on, if a scribe wishes to express dislike over something about the 4e Realms, you must also make an effort to respect the opinions of others who may hold opinions counter to your own, and also respect the work of the individual/s and/or products you're referring to. Inane negative commentary that directly insults others -- whether they be fellow scribes or official FR designers -- and adds no new or constructive elements to a discussion, will receive heavy scrutiny each and every time, and discussed privately with the offending scribe.

I make this declaration because I'm concerned about the state of the community here at Candlekeep. And because I'm worried that some of our more dedicated scribes are feeling less inclined to visit and participate here. But, more importantly, I'm troubled over the possibility that some of our most cherished members, the FR designers and authors themselves, will slowly withdraw their presence as Candlekeep continues to collapse under weight of the problems its currently experiencing in terms of opinions and debate over the 4e Realms.

In closing, I'm noting here and now that NO scribe will be exempt from this declaration. That includes both myself and Wooly. If any scribe still feels that there are problems with this state of events, or even with this very declaration, I'm open to discussion and debate. Or if you prefer, please contact Alaundo himself and address your concerns with him directly.

I thank you all for listening, and I appreciate that you will all play your part to ensure Candlekeep remains the open and friendly place for Realms chatter that we've all come to love.



-- The Sage

[Note: I'm leaving this scroll open for the time being, in an effort to encourage both worthwhile discussion and debate on this declaration. Any and all comments that pertain to this, are welcome]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye

It's dead, as it should be. No insult intended but it was a crap. We all occasionally produce crap and we flush it. Woot for the power of the flush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye

<snip>

It's dead, as it should be. No insult intended but it was a crap. We all occasionally produce crap and we flush it. Woot for the power of the flush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrennonGoldeye

It's dead, as it should be. No insult intended but it was a crap. We all occasionally produce crap and we flush it. Woot for the power of the flush.

---

Pretty late to the game eh? Like, some 7 years late by my reckoning. Why not just let it go entirely?

EDIT: Also, what I find particularly hilarious here is under the premise that it's "crap" then why did 5E....

- Bring in at-will cantrips that scale with character level?
- Bring in non-Healing via Hit Die healing?
- Keep the concepts of both Dragonborn AND Tieflings, keeping them as options in the PHB?
- Keep the concepts of the Warlock Pacts that 4E Created?
- Keep the concept of Rituals?
- Keep Monster stats similar to 4E?
- Class Roles are still heavily prevalent?
- "Weapon" cantrips: Specifically Sword Burst, Green-Flame Blade, and Lightning Lure which were specifically 4E Powers? Oh, same with Sacred Flame too.
- Short Rest / Long Rest distinction?
- Channel Divinity (a 4e Mechanic).
- Advantage was specifically an ability of the Avenger class.

Yep, all of those are directly pulled from 4E as mechanics and thematic concepts. Must be kind of difficult to know that 5th Edition is build so heavily from 4E-isms AND is the most successful edition of the game of all time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

Not to start a fight, but some of those, I still question them (some I don't mind you). They may be more accepted in 5e, but doesn't mean they're a great choice. I mainly mention it since there's hints they may make a 5.5e.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

The hit die healing.... I turned into an entirely different way to use that mechanic (i.e. turn in hit die for feats).

Advantage.... overused and other options should be used more often, even if it makes the rules "harder" to read. The mechanic itself though isn't bad, just how much it gets thrown about rather than smaller bonuses.

At will Cantrips shouldn't outdo 1st and 2nd level spells that require you to expend a slot.

Channel Divinity having weird options was something that kind of started in 3.5 I thought (but it was more of a feat thing maybe? Too many rules).

That being said, rituals... props. Roles within classes... kind of started in video games, but still, yeah. Short/Long Rest distinction, not a bad addition too. The rest, I just consider "hey, the game changes with time".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeromaru X

Now that you guys mention this, the monster design in Monsters of the Multiverse is basically the 4e monster design: self-contained abilities so you don't need to look for spells and stuff in other books.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

Not to start a fight, but some of those, I still question them (some I don't mind you). They may be more accepted in 5e, but doesn't mean they're a great choice. I mainly mention it since there's hints they may make a 5.5e.

---

A new Edition or the re-vamping of an existing one is always going to happen, it's how they (WotC) makes their money. Honestly, not seeing a change or overhaul for the better part of 10 years (2014 to -presumably- 2024) is quite an indication that they've hit a home run in terms of their system. Despite my own personal feelings that it could use some up-grades (but that's what Kickstarter projects and Homebrewed elements are for) the vast majority of the masses seem to be happy with it as it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sleyvas

The hit die healing.... I turned into an entirely different way to use that mechanic (i.e. turn in hit die for feats).

Advantage.... overused and other options should be used more often, even if it makes the rules "harder" to read. The mechanic itself though isn't bad, just how much it gets thrown about rather than smaller bonuses.

At will Cantrips shouldn't outdo 1st and 2nd level spells that require you to expend a slot.

Channel Divinity having weird options was something that kind of started in 3.5 I thought (but it was more of a feat thing maybe? Too many rules).

That being said, rituals... props. Roles within classes... kind of started in video games, but still, yeah. Short/Long Rest distinction, not a bad addition too. The rest, I just consider "hey, the game changes with time".

---

I like that Hit Die healing relieves some of burden of HP replacement from the "healer". I also like that some classes - like the Paladin and Fighter - can gain access to limited amount of self-healing when they're in the thick of it (yet another 4E-ism with regards to the Fighter's Second Wind).

Advantage might be overused, but it's quick and easy vs. adding and subtracting a ton of piddly modifiers over the course of a battle. Certainly I would be fine with just adding more dice to the mix, like the spell Bless adds 1d4 to your check (a fun concept vs. continually using Advantage).

In the vast majority of cases, 1st level spells exceed the usefulness of Cantrips except maybe only when you're hitting the 17th level or so. The effects of a leveled spell are almost always better than the effects of a cantrip. Magic Missile cast using a 1st level slot deals 3d4+3 (avg. 10 damage) automatically. It's Force, so not easily resisted, and auto-hits. Compare this to Acid Splash, one or two creatures make a Dex save or suffer 4d6 acid damage (avg. 14 damage), and that's only at 17th level. So for the previous 16 levels, Magic Missile did as much damage on average as Acid Splash but also was automatically successful and isn't resisted by monsters.

I also found this to be on-par with the aspects that Casters want options for those round-to-round combats that don't necessarily require spell-slot investment but still want to feel marginally magical or useful. We saw this in its earliest development at the tail-end of 3.5 with Reserve Feats. With these, a Wizard can siphon off magic from a Delayed Blast Fireball to fuel the Fiery Burst feat, dealing 7d6 fire damage in a 5-ft burst at-will! This was carried over, of a sort, to 4E where they became the main staple points of At-Will magic spell for casters.

As for Channel Divinity, I guess it's kind of homogenized between the Focused ones we saw in 4th Edition and some of the Domain Powers we saw in 3.5. I think they've done a decent job of making them unique to the concepts they're designed for. I just wish there were more of them. Yet another time to use Homebrewed 4E options and retrofit them to 5e.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

A new Edition or the re-vamping of an existing one is always going to happen, it's how they (WotC) makes their money. Honestly, not seeing a change or overhaul for the better part of 10 years (2014 to -presumably- 2024) is quite an indication that they've hit a home run in terms of their system. Despite my own personal feelings that it could use some up-grades (but that's what Kickstarter projects and Homebrewed elements are for) the vast majority of the masses seem to be happy with it as it is.

---