| Author |
 Topic  |
|
mitchellboeck
Acolyte
23 Posts |
 Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 00:55:48
|
|
So I've heard a lot of bad things about the 4e realms but it seems like there is an equal number of people that like it. The people that hate 4e seem to state the reasons for their hates a lot more then the people that like it do. Sooo...what are some of the good things about it? My philosophy is usually if it isn't broke, don't fix it, and in my opinion 3.5 wasn't broke. If I like the things I hear, however, I might just try 4e.
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 01:11:54
|
I want to make the statement that if we're going to have this thread, we're going to stay positive. If you're inclined to come post "nothing" or something like that, just don't do it. Please watch for this mods.
I by and large agree with your opinion that 3.5 wasn't broke, and had I the choice, I wouldn't have made the sweeping changes that got made.
Then again, I don't think they broke the Realms, just changed up the rules.
More list later!
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
 |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 01:23:17
|
I'd just like to reinforce Erik's initial point.
We've since, as a community, long passed the point, I hope, where it's acceptable to simply bash 4e for little to no reason. Constructive criticism is fine, to a point, but I'd like this scroll to remain enjoyable enough for ALL of our scribes to potentially participate in.
And here's a worthwhile notion to keep in mind about posting any prospectively unproductive 4e commentary:- if you think it'll lead to the follow-up posting of warnings from myself or Wooly... then it's probably a good idea not to post it in the first place.
This is an official Moderator reminder. Keep it civil, keep it productive... but most of all, keep it friendly.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 30 Jun 2011 03:07:13 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36971 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 02:08:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
Sooo...what are some of the good things about it? My philosophy is usually if it isn't broke, don't fix it, and in my opinion 3.5 wasn't broke. If I like the things I hear, however, I might just try 4e.
To give you some idea of where I'm coming from, I've played the end-days of AD&D/2E, all of 3E/v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E (interspaced with Modern d20, Star Wars: Saga, and World of Warcraft: The RPG).
That being said, it's my personal opinion that v3.5 was broke and futher saturation would've made poorer supplements or broken the game further. Even though I'm still a major fan of it (and Pathfinder), there are built-in mechanical problems that I don't like. If you wish, I could list them to you in a PM. Couple that with the power-curve of non-magical and magical based classes and it becomes clear that Spellcasters are at a huge advantage at later levels of play.
In or Orignal Post, you say you want to try 4E and I think that's fantastic. So do you want Good Things in the 4E general way or 4E Forgotten Realms way? |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Hoondatha
Great Reader
USA
2450 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 02:59:46
|
I don't have any opinion of 4e as a game system. I don't think it's D&D, at least in the tradition we've had since it came out. It's more a revolution, not an evolution, to steal the old phrase, and I'm already steeped in too many other game systems to learn it (ie: Shadowrun, L5R, two editions of D&D, etc.). It may be really good; I don't know, but I bear it no ill will.
What I really, really don't like are the changes to the 4e Realms. However, I really, really don't want to rehash all of that (even without the polite requests from Erik and Sage). So instead I'll bring up the one thing in the 4e Realms that I do really like: the genasi redesign.
I don't know exactly what it is. I like strong primary colors, and I think the Tron lines look great (and this coming from a guy who still hasn't seen the original Tron, though not for lack of trying). I don't think they needed two air genasi; if they wanted five, they should have gone oriental and made the last one wood, or picked some interesting quasi-elemental plane.
So that's my two cents. I really, really like the way the genasi look in 4e. And it's something that can be ported over to earlier editions without any effort. Oh, and I also enjoyed the Races and Classes "preview" book. I thought it was a good thing to do, lay out some of the design concepts and speak to us directly about what they were thinking and why. And the concept art in there was pretty too. |
Doggedly converting 3e back to what D&D should be...
Sigh... And now 4e as well. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 03:13:56
|
I know I'm going against the tide, somewhat, but I like the concept of the Abolethic Sovereignty.
The changes made to the Dragon Coast, too, are among my favoured Realms playthings at the moment.
I find the Warlock Knights of Vaasa to be intriguing, and worthy of potential use in my campaign, eventually.
My paramount loves of the 4e Realms, however, remain the refocus on the scalyfolk kingdoms, the shattering of Thay, and the Returned Abeir aspect.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
Edited by - The Sage on 30 Jun 2011 03:15:38 |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 03:30:37
|
I like the transformation of Thay, the raising of Sakkors, the rise of the Abolethic Sovereignty, the annexing of Sembia to Shade, and the Zhent massacre. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3290 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 03:35:48
|
That Cormyr is still Cormyr!
I like the 4E Waterdeep. I find Mistshore & Downshadow intriguing. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Tyranthraxus
Senior Scribe
Netherlands
423 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 03:40:31
|
Returned Abeir is great, except the fact it replaced Maztica.
Spell scars are also cool. |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 03:46:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus
Spell scars are also cool.
Agreed. Well, at least Aoth and Raidon are. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
skychrome
Senior Scribe
713 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 03:52:55
|
I like Airspur and the huge Baldur's Gate.
Also I am starting to relax a little bit about the "lost" lore of 3e as it has some nice aspects too to have more "virgin" realms in this aspect. And I like using 3e lore to invent stories/backgrounds/ruins/ancient sites in 4e. |
"You make an intriguing offer, one that is very tempting. It would seem that I have little alternative than to answer thusly: DISINTEGRATE!" Vaarsuvius, Order of the Stick 625 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 04:22:29
|
With regards to 4E-FR, I find a lot of the changes to my liking.
- I wasn't a fan of Mulhorand or Unther. I didn't care for the Egyptian style or flavor and that was exchanged for Returned Abier parts, something that I'm more likely to explore.
- The down-play of the deities. With the transition between 2E and 3E and all of 3E, I felt the Gods were having far to much direct contact with the mortals of the world. It seemed to me as if they were almost actual NPCs with how much content was being devoted to them. In 4E, they've taken a backseat to the overall happenings of the Realms, giving the mortals more spotlight.
Some might point to the reduction of the over-all pantheon and there were quite a few changes to it, but I'm of the opinion that it was pretty bloated with them to begin with. And unless something Canon specifically stats Such-and-Such deity is dead or gone, they're still there. They might not have the same attention or even a mention, but they're still there.
- Like others have stated, Thay and it's transformation into a literally dead country. And while I'm not sure how much the undead control the population, I made it about 60/40 split between undead and living respectively.
- Returned Abier. While I haven't delved into the area very much I think it is far more interesting than Maztica and has a lot of good lore already implanted.
- One thing I really liked is the feel that things are new and unexplored yet has qualities that are ageless (ie. Waterdeep, Cormyr, Baldur's Gate, Sembia for the most part, the Western Heartlands, Amn, etc).
- The usage of older supplements. I'm a big fan of using whatever I can to fully map out an area or provide specific detials in the setting. And even though it's 104 years into the future, I still usa the FRCS, Races of Faerun, Champions of Valor/Ruin, and a host of other supplements. Even though the mechanics have changed, I can still use people's names, guilds, organizations, maps, etc. So I don't feel 4E-FR invalidates that information.
As for 4E in general....
- Balanced classes with an emphasis on flavor and style over raw power and optimization. 4E does have it's share of optimization, but it's no where near the sundering of rules in v3.5 (Planar Shepard PrC for example). Classes, even within their own "Role", don't feel the same while playing. A Fighter playes completly different than a Paladin, and both are completly different than a Warden. All of those are Defenders yet so far different in play style that it's very visable.
- There is enough mix/matching of the classes that you can get a unique character without sacrificing the character's effectiveness. For example, in v3.5 a Bard/Fighter/Paladin character might get lost in what his character is supposed to be doing in combat. His bard spells aren't as great because he's taken levels of paladin and fighter nor are his skills that high. He doesn't qualify for Figther-based feats because he has levels in bard and paladin. The Paladin's Smite damage is very sub-par because he's multiclassed with two other classes AND he can't multiclass out of it because of his Code.
In 4E, a hybrid Bard|Fighter who multiclasses into Paladin is a very viable character than can perfom his role in defending very well, cast pretty good ranged spells, AND have a good set of skills. On top of that, the class can base ALL it's attacks with ONE ability score (Charisma for the above example) due to 1 feat and the Paladin having Charisma-based attacks.
- Role-play is free form. What this means is that you don't necessarily need mechanics to back up things about your character's personalty, professionalism, backround, or interests. In v3.5, if you wanted your Fighter/Wizard to be a great dancer, you needed to cross-class your skills into Perform (Dance) to illustrate that you can do that. But why? Can't you just say "hey, my character loves to dance!" and role-play that aspect? Why do you need mechanics to back this claim up? Unless your attempting to gain gold or have some sort of non-combative (or combative) advantage to you being a good dancer, then I feel it was a waste of a finite resource.
- It's a team game. Meaning, every member of the group works together to accomplish a goal or defeat a monster. No more instant wins through spells or Greater Turning ending a large undead encounter. As a player, you have to rely more on your buddies and tactics plays a larger role in combat dynamics. BUT, this is more a strength than a necessity. So if a group is more focused on other things besides combat-synergy, they'll still work well in a battle. It just rewards those who focus on that more.
- Rituals. With one feat (Ritual Caster), any character with the appropriate skills can use Rituals to varying degrees. A fighter can use it to craft magical arms and armor, a paladin can use it to raise the dead back to life, a wizard can use it to teleport to other places. These are just exmaples, but you get the point. You don't have to belong to a specific class to gain this ability.
- Combat is dynamic and fun. Lets face it, 4E put it's heart and soul into the combat system of the game. It has the mind of..."Combat requires rules, more so than any other aspect of D&D. So lets do it right and do it well." It's a big reason probably that people feel it's miniatures combat game rather than a RPG. But moving on, combat can be fast and it's exciting. Character's aren't limited to doing the same thing over and over and over again. Wizard's don't have to rely on that silly crossbow due to lack of spells. Fighters usefulness goes from level 1 to 30. Clerics aren't Heal-Bots 24/7 and can do some amazing things. Rogues are just as sneaky and have very special ways of doing so.
Hope some of that helps spin some good light on 4E-FR and 4E as a whole. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4702 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 05:21:01
|
Positive, from what I understand. Folded BD&D and AD&D together.
Also the promise of never a new Edition because 4th is designed to be that flexible. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
mitchellboeck
Acolyte
23 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 06:30:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I want to make the statement that if we're going to have this thread, we're going to stay positive. If you're inclined to come post "nothing" or something like that, just don't do it. Please watch for this mods.
I by and large agree with your opinion that 3.5 wasn't broke, and had I the choice, I wouldn't have made the sweeping changes that got made.
Then again, I don't think they broke the Realms, just changed up the rules.
More list later!
Cheers
I totally agree with you and The Sage. I don't want to know what is wrong with it anyway. |
|
|
|
mitchellboeck
Acolyte
23 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 06:35:38
|
[/quote]
That being said, it's my personal opinion that v3.5 was broke and futher saturation would've made poorer supplements or broken the game further. Even though I'm still a major fan of it (and Pathfinder), there are built-in mechanical problems that I don't like. If you wish, I could list them to you in a PM. Couple that with the power-curve of non-magical and magical based classes and it becomes clear that Spellcasters are at a huge advantage at later levels of play.
In or Orignal Post, you say you want to try 4E and I think that's fantastic. So do you want Good Things in the 4E general way or 4E Forgotten Realms way?
[/quote]
If you're talking about the game being broken with all the additional books I agree that it can and it is up to the DM to either nerf or ban things that break the game, but if it is in the core rule books then I would love a list in PM. Also, I was more talking about 4e in a general way. FR way I'm not a huge fan of the spellplauge, but I can get around that easily. |
|
|
|
mitchellboeck
Acolyte
23 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 06:53:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
With regards to 4E-FR, I find a lot of the changes to my liking.
- I wasn't a fan of Mulhorand or Unther. I didn't care for the Egyptian style or flavor and that was exchanged for Returned Abier parts, something that I'm more likely to explore.
- The down-play of the deities. With the transition between 2E and 3E and all of 3E, I felt the Gods were having far to much direct contact with the mortals of the world. It seemed to me as if they were almost actual NPCs with how much content was being devoted to them. In 4E, they've taken a backseat to the overall happenings of the Realms, giving the mortals more spotlight.
Some might point to the reduction of the over-all pantheon and there were quite a few changes to it, but I'm of the opinion that it was pretty bloated with them to begin with. And unless something Canon specifically stats Such-and-Such deity is dead or gone, they're still there. They might not have the same attention or even a mention, but they're still there.
- Like others have stated, Thay and it's transformation into a literally dead country. And while I'm not sure how much the undead control the population, I made it about 60/40 split between undead and living respectively.
- Returned Abier. While I haven't delved into the area very much I think it is far more interesting than Maztica and has a lot of good lore already implanted.
- One thing I really liked is the feel that things are new and unexplored yet has qualities that are ageless (ie. Waterdeep, Cormyr, Baldur's Gate, Sembia for the most part, the Western Heartlands, Amn, etc).
- The usage of older supplements. I'm a big fan of using whatever I can to fully map out an area or provide specific detials in the setting. And even though it's 104 years into the future, I still usa the FRCS, Races of Faerun, Champions of Valor/Ruin, and a host of other supplements. Even though the mechanics have changed, I can still use people's names, guilds, organizations, maps, etc. So I don't feel 4E-FR invalidates that information.
As for 4E in general....
- Balanced classes with an emphasis on flavor and style over raw power and optimization. 4E does have it's share of optimization, but it's no where near the sundering of rules in v3.5 (Planar Shepard PrC for example). Classes, even within their own "Role", don't feel the same while playing. A Fighter playes completly different than a Paladin, and both are completly different than a Warden. All of those are Defenders yet so far different in play style that it's very visable.
- There is enough mix/matching of the classes that you can get a unique character without sacrificing the character's effectiveness. For example, in v3.5 a Bard/Fighter/Paladin character might get lost in what his character is supposed to be doing in combat. His bard spells aren't as great because he's taken levels of paladin and fighter nor are his skills that high. He doesn't qualify for Figther-based feats because he has levels in bard and paladin. The Paladin's Smite damage is very sub-par because he's multiclassed with two other classes AND he can't multiclass out of it because of his Code.
In 4E, a hybrid Bard|Fighter who multiclasses into Paladin is a very viable character than can perfom his role in defending very well, cast pretty good ranged spells, AND have a good set of skills. On top of that, the class can base ALL it's attacks with ONE ability score (Charisma for the above example) due to 1 feat and the Paladin having Charisma-based attacks.
- Role-play is free form. What this means is that you don't necessarily need mechanics to back up things about your character's personalty, professionalism, backround, or interests. In v3.5, if you wanted your Fighter/Wizard to be a great dancer, you needed to cross-class your skills into Perform (Dance) to illustrate that you can do that. But why? Can't you just say "hey, my character loves to dance!" and role-play that aspect? Why do you need mechanics to back this claim up? Unless your attempting to gain gold or have some sort of non-combative (or combative) advantage to you being a good dancer, then I feel it was a waste of a finite resource.
- It's a team game. Meaning, every member of the group works together to accomplish a goal or defeat a monster. No more instant wins through spells or Greater Turning ending a large undead encounter. As a player, you have to rely more on your buddies and tactics plays a larger role in combat dynamics. BUT, this is more a strength than a necessity. So if a group is more focused on other things besides combat-synergy, they'll still work well in a battle. It just rewards those who focus on that more.
- Rituals. With one feat (Ritual Caster), any character with the appropriate skills can use Rituals to varying degrees. A fighter can use it to craft magical arms and armor, a paladin can use it to raise the dead back to life, a wizard can use it to teleport to other places. These are just exmaples, but you get the point. You don't have to belong to a specific class to gain this ability.
- Combat is dynamic and fun. Lets face it, 4E put it's heart and soul into the combat system of the game. It has the mind of..."Combat requires rules, more so than any other aspect of D&D. So lets do it right and do it well." It's a big reason probably that people feel it's miniatures combat game rather than a RPG. But moving on, combat can be fast and it's exciting. Character's aren't limited to doing the same thing over and over and over again. Wizard's don't have to rely on that silly crossbow due to lack of spells. Fighters usefulness goes from level 1 to 30. Clerics aren't Heal-Bots 24/7 and can do some amazing things. Rogues are just as sneaky and have very special ways of doing so.
Hope some of that helps spin some good light on 4E-FR and 4E as a whole.
Thank you for all that Diffan that actually helps alot. Now I have some comments :)
Concerning dieties, I have not noticed that change yet, but I agree with what you said about them in 3.5
With the transformation of Thay...by undead do you mean 60% of the population are undead as in zombies and ghouls or vampires and lichs?
On your points on multi-classing though, I somewhat disagree. I like that fact that let's say a fighter/wizard will only be average at both rather than good at both. It makes it more "realistic". From a DM's perspective, players doing everything would not be a good thing for me. From a player's perspective, however, I would love this but mostly only because I wouldn't have to sacrifice anything to do what I want. Same thing for the rituals. Also he same thing goes for the role playing your skills, I love the mecanics of it but I can definitely see how some people would not like it.
The emphasis on teamwork sounds great though. My players and fellow players have a habit of going off on their own and doing their own thing. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 10:17:09
|
My views on 4E are bittersweet.
Perhaps, for me personally - and for others I know as well - the biggest thing that 4E provided was freedom. There were numerous things I wanted to change in prior editions, but I was always restrained by a daunting amount of lore and a worry that any significant change would "break" the Realms.
The entire design of 4E FR gave me - and everyone else - deliberate freedom. Every page of the FRCG screamed at me, "If you don't like it, change it!" And most importantly, I felt empowered to do so without worry or concern.
For the first time, perhaps ever, when it came to the Realms I felt that I could make the setting my own - in every way I desired.
If I wanted to throw out the 4E D&D ruleset and go with 2E WFRP rules then I could do it! The only thing I'd have to change with 2E WFRP is some fluff surrounding magic, and more-or-less, I'd be ready to go.
There were many new additions to the setting that I liked. The Warlocks of Vaasa is perhaps at the top of that list.
After that, I liked the concept of Cormyr just starting down the road of expansionism and Empire.
I liked the concept of the Abolethic Sovereignty, though personally I would have preferred Illithids over Aboleth. Even so, I like it as a concept.
I like the Genasi Kingdom of Akanûl, though I would have preferred it not replace areas of Chessenta.
Although I loathe it when Empires return from the dead, and it is the primary reason why I dislike returned Netheril... I do have a fondness for High Imaskar, and feel that their return was better handled.
There are numerous other things I liked, but most changes that I like are tinged with a bittersweetness.
For example, while I like the concept of Akanûl, I hate the concept of Abier being a sister planet to Toril and how they "replaced" sections of each other.
If I were able to establish a new group to game in the Realms with; I'd choose the 4E Realms. However, the caveat comes with the fact that it would be a Realms in which I make significant changes to - so while it may borrow and share ideas, it would also be changed radically in some important and fundamental ways. |
|
|
|
Fellfire
Master of Realmslore
1965 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 12:02:43
|
| In an effort to be positive, I will say that I think the artwork in the sourcebooks is the best it has ever been. |
Misanthorpe
Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.
"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises
Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out
|
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 12:08:17
|
| I have to say Mistshore is cool enough I've moved it back in time to 1350's Waterdeep. |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 12:12:11
|
| Actually, I would also like to say that I'm not a huge fan of the title of this thread. I don't care one whit about what edition or rulesystem is used, if someone wants to start a GURPS, 2nd edition D&D, HERO Pathfinder, or even Jenga FR-game I'm just as interested (okay, maybe not so much in the HERO-game, but that's because I don't have easy access to the rules). Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "What do you like about the post-Spellplague Realms?" |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Thieran
Learned Scribe
Germany
293 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 12:34:06
|
| Good point! |
|
|
|
mensch
Seeker
80 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 14:59:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I know I'm going against the tide, somewhat, but I like the concept of the Abolethic Sovereignty.
I concur, a whole alien empire under the Sea of Fallen Stars plotting against the surface world! The aboleth society is very intriguing as a whole, as I've always been fascinated by life deep underwater. |
Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate to know that for destruction ice is also great and would suffice. – Robert Frost (1874 - 1963) |
|
|
|
Cleric Generic
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
565 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 15:11:32
|
Off the top of my head, my favorite bits include (certain elements of, at least):
- Vaasa
- High Imaskar
- Akanul/Airspur
- The political situation in Cormyr and Sembia
- New Waterdeep bits
- Earthmotes!
- The Spellplague, Returned Abeir, and some of the new consmology, though I haven't really explored their possibilities yet.
Overall, I have a habit of liberally interpereting lore from a number of editions and mooshing together my favourite bits for my home game.
Also, agreed with Kajehase with the Realms not being tied to any particular game system. I think the title assumes that 4e Realms basically means post-plague realms, in that it was introduced with the rest of 4e but not necessarily tied to to beyond that. |
Cedric! The Cleric Generic and Master of Disguise!
ALL HAIL LORD KARSUS!!!
Vast Realmslore Archive: Get in here and download everything! http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/rl
2e Realms book PDFs; grab em! - http://poleandrope.blogspot.com/2010/07/working-around-purge.html |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 15:44:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
If you're talking about the game being broken with all the additional books I agree that it can and it is up to the DM to either nerf or ban things that break the game, but if it is in the core rule books then I would love a list in PM. Also, I was more talking about 4e in a general way. FR way I'm not a huge fan of the spellplauge, but I can get around that easily.
Sure, I can PM you a list . I'm a very liberal DM and I try to say "Yes" to my players as much as possible. And because of this, my players don't try to break the game with insane class combos or loop-holes in the mechanics, but they are there. As for the Spellplague, it's very versatile in it's usage for a person's campaign. Since it already happend and it's been a good period of time between then and now (1479 DR), it's presence can be as emphasised or diminished as a DM wishes. In my current Realms campaign, I've not mentioned the Spellplague but for a few times for references. It's something thats sorta in the backround and only comes up rarely.
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
Thank you for all that Diffan that actually helps alot. Now I have some comments :)
Concerning dieties, I have not noticed that change yet, but I agree with what you said about them in 3.5.
I think it's more to do with the Novel line than actual gaming supplements, but all is Canon so those novel events spill into the game setting. I'd also like to point that FR still has 3x the amount of deities (not including the non-listed ones such as Lurue) as any other 4E campaign setting.
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
With the transformation of Thay...by undead do you mean 60% of the population are undead as in zombies and ghouls or vampires and lichs?
Yep, though I'm sure Szass keeps the more intelligent undead in smaller quantity, least they grow too powerful. But there are thousands, if not tens of thousands (in my Realms anyways), of Skeletons and Zombies that shuffle about, doing beast of burden tasts and so forth.
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
On your points on multi-classing though, I somewhat disagree. I like that fact that let's say a fighter/wizard will only be average at both rather than good at both. It makes it more "realistic". From a DM's perspective, players doing everything would not be a good thing for me. From a player's perspective, however, I would love this but mostly only because I wouldn't have to sacrifice anything to do what I want.
Hmm, let me be more specific with Multiclassing and Hybrids rules of 4E. A charcter who wants to multiclasses in 4E must spend a feat to do so. This often gives the character training in a class-specific skill of the multiclass and often a power or class feature with a limited usage. For example, a Bard who takes the Warlock multiclass feat can use a Warlock's at-will power spell but only 1/encounter. A Warlock, however, can use the spell all the time.
The Bard can gain additional powers of the Warlock by spending additional feats. So the same Bard takes the Multiclass feat then the Novice Power feat. This allows him the selection of 1 Warlock encounter spell of his level or lower. Another feat, Acolyte Power, grants the Bard a Warlock utiliy spell. And the feat, Adept Power, grants access to a Warlock daily spell.
So you see, even though a character multiclasses with something else, it doesn't get the best of both worlds. A few powers/spells here and there and possible a class feautre with a very limited usage but nothing too powerful. Also take into account that a character can only take 1 multiclass feat for their career (except the Bard). You can also Hybrid but I'd rather not get into that with great detail because it's a lot to cover.
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
Same thing for the rituals. Also the same thing goes for the role playing your skills, I love the mecanics of it but I can definitely see how some people would not like it.
I feel this is the main difference between the two editions. v3.5 has been considered the simulationist game. Things a character can do is defined by the rules. Even down to the parts of Role-Playing. 4E, however, is narritive and puts all the rules on Combat yet is very very lax in the Role-Play department. They figure the role-play is up to the player, not the rules. I also love Rituals and think that is one of the greatest features of 4E. The fact that they're supposed to be used out-side of combat and requires components is fun and ANYONE can do it. Love the versatility.
quote:
Originally posted by mitchellboeck
The emphasis on teamwork sounds great though. My players and fellow players have a habit of going off on their own and doing their own thing.
They can still do that, though I feel that was one of my beefs with 3E. People made character that are self-sustaining and require little attention from their allies. Boosts from spells and abilities is great and all, but a 3E character is more likely to rely on it's own powers and abiilties to do the bulk of the work. In 4E, players are encouraged to create tactics that work in conjuntion with eachother.
For example in my campaign the eladrin mage (my wife's character) has a spell called Acid Mire and deals damage to creatures who remain within the Mire. They also take additional damage if they fall in the acid. So the assassin in the group LOVES this spell because he has powers and abilitis that knock targets prone and powers that keep the creature immobilized or slowed. When he slows or immobilized the target, my knight can then knock the target prone with a feat (World Serpent Grasp: Attacks against an immobilized or slowed opponent knock the target prone).
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
Edited by - Diffan on 30 Jun 2011 15:47:03 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 15:53:27
|
As promised, here's my list (and wow, like 20 posts in the intervening time!):
* Working there: My favorite thing about the 4e FR is perhaps a little self-indulgent: I find that it makes a great sandbox to play around in, as a writer and designer. I've always been big on the lore, so I include it heavily in my work, now with the additional twist that I get to develop it over time. The 3e FRCS might talk about one particular plot that's going on in 1372, but given 110ish more years, what happens?
My most recent FR novel Downshadow did this quite heavily with Undermountain, the Xanathar guild, the church of Helm, the Guard/Watch, and Waterdeep in general.
My next novel Shadowbane does it with all-things Luskan.
The next novel (working title: Eye of Justice) does it with Westgate.
And I'm able to do it all in such a way that is accessible to old guard (hardcore Realmslore/canon wonks or just long-established readers/gamers/fans) and new readers (to whom it's all new) alike.
* Genasi: I'm going to go ahead and echo the praise of the genasi and Akanul that's been touted earlier in the thread. I love the new look and flavor, such that in my home games, genasi look like that even in the pre-Spellplague Realms.
* Returned Netheril: Whether or not their return and the lore surrounding it really flies, I actually really like the shades as a subversive, shadowy enemy. They have the right mix of stealth and ancient magic to be really useful from a DM perspective, as well as have long-reaching plans in a way the Zhents and Thayans never really could. (Which is not to say I dislike the other evil organizations in the Realms--far from it.)
* Guerrilla Harpers: I like the organization being more mobile, scrappy, and less settled. They seem more effective and dangerous this way. (You'll also see more about this in the upcoming Neverwinter print products.)
* Diminished Chosen of Mystra: Basically the same thing I just said about the Harpers. I don't agree with the popular criticism of the Realms that the Chosen could sweep in and solve every problem, so it diminished the PCs, but I'm really intrigued by what Ed's doing in Elminster Must Die and its sequels. I like questioning whether Elminster is really a good guy or just crazy (well, I mean, he's obviously crazy, but crazy like a fox?).
* Inherent Intrigue: I think that previous iterations of the Realms were much more settled in terms of what the NPCs (particularly the rulers) were like. Many of them were out-and-out good guys struggling against evil empires that wanted to crush their piddling "goodly kingdom" into dust. And while that's fine and provides for great adventures, I rather prefer kingdoms where the king's motivations can indeed be called into question, where the Netherese could be infiltrating the highest levels of the government, and for the PCs, "saving the kingdom" might mean conquering it or at least manipulating who gets placed on the throne. I feel more free to do that stuff in 4e. (And again, see the Neverwinter Campaign Guide!)
* Spellscars: I'm not gonna lie, I like this mechanic. People were initially (and possibly still are) of spellscars as a reflavored Dragonmark mechanic, but I think there's something unique about spellscars that widely vary from that. It's less a magical blessing and more a curse that alters your very way of looking at the world. I see them as more similar to the ways Warlocks and Sorcerers gain their power, but they are (generally) involuntary--you are godsmacked by corruptive power and have to learn how to deal with it. I have seen them extremely effectively done, both in fiction and at the table (one of my 4e games includes a Dragonborn Paladin of Fallen Mystra, who wields Silverfire and uses his spellscar to fight off hostile magic).
* Built in quests: I really feel in 4e like there's just as much (if not more) quests just naturally built in for you to pursue. So your favorite god is dead, you say? Why not embark on an epic quest to revive said deity, or become said deity yourself? So the kingdom is infiltrated by the shades. So Szass Tam is working on powering the Dread Rings to become a god. These are massive, epic quests that lend themselves immediately to PC motivations and goals. It really makes PCs the focus of the setting, which is how I feel it should be.
* 4e Novels: I wanted to bring this up before I ended the (incomplete) list. Some of the novels coming off the line today are just amazing. If you haven't read Unbroken Chain (and its forthcoming sequel) or the Ed Greenwood Presents Waterdeep series, you are seriously missing out on some great, great fiction. And none of these that I've listed are RSEs--they're all small-scale stories, told in a very personal way.
Also, we're getting Godborn from Paul Kemp and The Serpent's Daughter from Elaine Cunningham? (Yes please!)
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3766 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 17:38:55
|
-Not too much, honestly. Though I don't like how Halruaa was destroyed, I like the concept of an 'unknown mist', as Halruaa is now, and have used that concept in my own setting. Xxiphu, it's intriguing. I do like that non-divine planar entities, such as Archfey, Archelementals, and so on, are getting more attention, but I don't like that a bunch of deities have been 'reclassified' as those various entities.
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I know I'm going against the tide, somewhat, but I like the concept of the Abolethic Sovereignty.
-I also like the concept of it, but I find that they dropped the ball with the execution of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Rituals. With one feat (Ritual Caster), any character with the appropriate skills can use Rituals to varying degrees. A fighter can use it to craft magical arms and armor, a paladin can use it to raise the dead back to life, a wizard can use it to teleport to other places. These are just exmaples, but you get the point. You don't have to belong to a specific class to gain this ability.[/*]
-This is something that I like from the 4e rules, that I'm in the process of modifying into my 3e-soon-to-be-Pathfinder game. I don't like the concept that a non-magical class can take the feat, and perform magical rituals, but I've never liked the idea that a magician needs to take a spell slot for a long and convoluted spell. I'm turning Rituals into a feat, that works similar to a spellbook. A magician can learn different tiered rituals and perform them ad nauseum once he learns them, without taking up a spell slot. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know) |
Edited by - Lord Karsus on 30 Jun 2011 17:48:04 |
|
|
|
mitchellboeck
Acolyte
23 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 18:53:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase
Actually, I would also like to say that I'm not a huge fan of the title of this thread. I don't care one whit about what edition or rulesystem is used, if someone wants to start a GURPS, 2nd edition D&D, HERO Pathfinder, or even Jenga FR-game I'm just as interested (okay, maybe not so much in the HERO-game, but that's because I don't have easy access to the rules). Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "What do you like about the post-Spellplague Realms?"
No because I want to know more about 4e in a general way than the FR 4e way. I'm debating weather to play it or not and I think I might because of the responses. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4491 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2011 : 23:18:18
|
I've thought of some addition things you might find useful when getting into 4E. [list]
I'd start things slow at first. By this, I mean sticking to the core books or using Essentials material (Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms and Heroes of the Fallen Lands). This is designed to be a sort of intro into the system and game and makes creating characters easier (not that it's really that hard). I'd also stay away from Dragon content until your comfortable with the rule-set and character creation. Not that it's bad, just that there is SOOO much of it that you might get lost in all the information.
Think of it as a brand new system, because it is. While there are components of previous editions (feats, skills, class features) they often work differently and assumptions might prove wrong. For example, Charging in 4E is just a +1 bonus to attack rolls (not +2), you only move you speed (not x2 speed), nor do you receive a penalty to AC. Opportuinity Attacks don't trigger against the intended target but might from any creature you pass.
So be sure to read the rules regarding everything, and we fine scribes will be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.
Compare and Contrast the rules of 4E with other rules of 4E, not other editions. The game is different than previous editions, and comparions between, say....the 3e Druid and the 4e Druid just don't work well. Instead, compare the druid (a controller) to another controller, like the Wizard or Invoker.
If your staring a new 4E game with others who've never played 4E or very little of it, don't be frustrated with combat at first. It takes a while, espically when you use Monster Manual 1 and 2 creatures. Combat has been known to take longer than an hour at my table when we first started playing.
|
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Seethyr
Master of Realmslore
USA
1253 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2011 : 00:56:59
|
| The abolethic sovereignty is one of the coolest things ever to happen to the realms. I sure do miss Maztica though. I wish they ran a little further with the scorpionfolk of Oaxaptupa. |
Follow the Maztica (Aztec/Maya) and Anchorome (Indigenous North America) Campaigns on DMsGuild!
The Maztica Campaign
The Anchorome Campaign |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2011 : 05:17:37
|
Myth Drannor
Waterdeep
Cormyr
Amn( its an AMNish paradise gag)
|
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What do yo like about the 4e realms?
