| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Brian R. James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
1098 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 14:13:16
|
| The Blood War hasn't been erased. The lore still exists. It simply ended. |
Brian R. James - Freelance Game Designer
Follow me on Twitter @brianrjames |
 |
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 14:20:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
The Blood War hasn't been erased. The lore still exists. It simply ended.
Oh! THAT explanation astonishes me even more so! 
Do WotC give a reason - like 'another hundert years of war would be too long' or 'souls are just too hard to get these days' or 'they negosiated a truth' or maybe even 'because of Mystra's death all the planes went wacko'? |
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
Edited by - Ergdusch on 03 Jun 2008 14:23:02 |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 14:37:13
|
The demons and devils can see in this material plane and saw the deletion of the current alignment system and decided to go with it. Seeing that, they decided to call a truce and end the war and become allies of evil  |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Ardashir
Senior Scribe
USA
544 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 15:27:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Hmmm, I'm surprised it didn't mention that most bears are omnivorous.
That's because every animal bigger than a mouse in AD&D is, and always has been, carnivorous. Yep, in the D&D verse, even deer, rabbits, and unowned horses will try to rend you limb from limb to devour your flesh.
Sorry - it's a joke I heard once from an old (the three paperback books) D&D player. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 15:36:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
The demons and devils can see in this material plane and saw the deletion of the current alignment system and decided to go with it. Seeing that, they decided to call a truce and end the war and become allies of evil
LOL now that actually makes sense  |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4213 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 16:20:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
The Blood War hasn't been erased. The lore still exists. It simply ended.
Hey Brian,
Are you allowed to elaborate on the end of the Bloodwar? |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 17:29:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ardashir
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Hmmm, I'm surprised it didn't mention that most bears are omnivorous.
That's because every animal bigger than a mouse in AD&D is, and always has been, carnivorous. Yep, in the D&D verse, even deer, rabbits, and unowned horses will try to rend you limb from limb to devour your flesh.
Sorry - it's a joke I heard once from an old (the three paperback books) D&D player.
Don't be sorry, I think that's funny.
In general, I think using wild animals as enemies can be a bit dubious--most animals would rather run away than fight (unless they're cornered). |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 18:33:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Don't be sorry, I think that's funny.
In general, I think using wild animals as enemies can be a bit dubious--most animals would rather run away than fight (unless they're cornered).
Not to mention that even the most ferocious of wild animals is only a CR 9 (Elephant or Roc). That means that unless they are in a large group, they are not even worth blinking at for higher level parties. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 18:39:52
|
| On a different note, I keep wondering, since they have stated that a Lvl X 4e character should be about the same power as a Lvl X 3.5 character, does that mean that the monsters from the 4e Monster Manual are backwards compatible? I have considered picking up just the 4e MM if this is true, and then ignore all of the the 4e fluff (what little there is from what I hear). That is one of my biggest problems with 3.5, is monster creation/balance. The CR system is so damn confusing to me (not as in what size monsters to throw at a party; but as in adding levels or hit dice, spell-like abilities, various extraordinary abilities, various forms of AC, et cetera). |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4213 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 18:45:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
quote:
Originally posted by Ardashir
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Hmmm, I'm surprised it didn't mention that most bears are omnivorous.
That's because every animal bigger than a mouse in AD&D is, and always has been, carnivorous. Yep, in the D&D verse, even deer, rabbits, and unowned horses will try to rend you limb from limb to devour your flesh.
Sorry - it's a joke I heard once from an old (the three paperback books) D&D player.
Don't be sorry, I think that's funny.
In general, I think using wild animals as enemies can be a bit dubious--most animals would rather run away than fight (unless they're cornered).
This wasn't always so...and doesn't have to be true in a fantasy setting. Animals have come to instinctively "fear" humans and shy away from us; but this isn't absolutely the case. I have personally seen a white tailed buck beat the snot out of a hunter before...and I personally have even had a racoon make a run on me...not to eat me of course, but I wanted no part of those teeth and didn't even have so much as a stick to defend myself (that was the last time I ever walked in the mountains of Virginia without at least a "walking" stick).
I imagine in a fantasy setting that animals haven't come to fear humanity in many places. Herd animals perhaps, they are the hunted stock after all...but other animals may be very territorial toward humans, dwarves and such; and have no compunction against charging them. Indeed, in lands like Thar where humans and such are rarely the hunter, the scent of such might not even cause a fear instinct to occur in the animals there beyond their normal precaution. With the stink of ogres and orcs as their usual hunters, a human might be a curious smell that would cause the dominant buck in a herd to stomp the ground, snort and maybe even charge...
Now when that buck gets fried by a fireball and devoured, the rest of the herd might think it is best to run the next time...
So for me, animals are still "equals" to humanity in the wild; and a hunter can just as easily become the prey of a hungry bear or at least severely wounded by other animals if he isn't extremely cautious. Mankind didn't truly come to dominate the "hunting grounds" against larger animals until the day of the musket; so bow and spear wielding hunters beware...  |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Cyria
Acolyte
20 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 19:17:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ardashir
That's because every animal bigger than a mouse in AD&D is, and always has been, carnivorous. Yep, in the D&D verse, even deer, rabbits, and unowned horses will try to rend you limb from limb to devour your flesh.
Made me think of this: Bambi's revenge.
I think I'd rather have the Blood War completely ignored in 4E than see it end with a whimper; not fond of the idea of a sentence (or perhaps even a whole paragraph!) used to finish off one of the major pre-4E planar conflicts before the text moves on to describing the new 4E cosmology. |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2008 : 22:17:00
|
Well I just finished playing my first 4E game. Now mind you, this was as a player and using the "Quick Play Rules", but I can give my perspective on that experience and a bit on the DM job from watching.
First of all, I used the supplied Cleric and Wizard. The other two people used the Rogue and Dragonborn Paladin respectively. We only playtested the first encounter, being a combat one, so I can only talk about that.
Also of note, one person was completely new to D&D (the one using the rogue).
So anyways, other than us looking up certain rules and our abilities, combat went rather smoothly and quickly.
I enjoyed being a 1st level wizard more than ever before. Sure, Magic Missile wasn't an automatic hit, but more damage and being able to use it every round was fun (my other spells were fun to use also). The cleric was being manhandled but with the healing surges, he managed to stay up. The Dragonborn Paladin was a nice fit in the party, a definite tank.
For the DM, it looked easier to keep track of the monsters as the minions had only 1 hp each (a lot less paper work) so only two monsters with HP to keep track of.
Now the healing came easily enough, but that is all fine and dandy with those minions doing so much damage. All in all, it felt well balanced.
The Rogue had some nice abilities and I like the idea of "Daily" abilities and "per encounter" abilities. The Acid Arrow (daily ability) did the boss in quite nicely. The Cleric was on fire a couple of times, but managed easy saving throws to snuff it out.
I like it. I don't see why I can't play both 3.5E and 4E (treating them as two different games) so my home campaign will remain 3.5E and I will mostly play 4E at work.
Oh yeah, the wizard's Wand of Accuracy came in handy, being the difference between a hit and a miss with my Ray of Frost spell that one time. (per encounter use item). We didn't get to use any action points (we almost did), but I could already get the sense that it would have made it more "cinematic" if you will.
Stamp of Approval for 4E rules (so far) - BOO spellplague |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
ShadezofDis
Senior Scribe
402 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2008 : 06:53:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
The Blood War hasn't been erased. The lore still exists. It simply ended.
I'm not really sure what to make of this, do you know when we might be able to learn more about it? |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36906 Posts |
|
|
arry
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
317 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2008 : 15:29:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
The Blood War hasn't been erased. The lore still exists. It simply ended.
Not in my universe it hasn't! |
|
|
|
Uzzy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
618 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 14:46:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
The Blood War hasn't been erased. The lore still exists. It simply ended.
Well, that makes about as much sense as anything else in the 4th Edition Realms. |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 17:17:56
|
Leafed throught the 4E books yesterday at my FLGSk and it looks like... absolute crap! :)
So glad I stuck with 3.5!!!
I then went on to ask the owner if they had sold well since their Friday release, and he shook his head, looking depressed... he said: "sold 2 core rules pack (PHB,DMG&MM bundle) and 1 PHB."
They're so worried about the low sales that they put a giant sign in their windows: "4E is here!! the more you buy, the more we can give you!!"
Not sure what that actually meant but it sounded pretty lame to me at the time. |
|
|
|
Malarick
Seeker
United Kingdom
86 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 18:43:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
Leafed throught the 4E books yesterday at my FLGSk and it looks like... absolute crap! :)
Just want to add my opinion (not that it counts for much around here), being someone who OWNS the books and has spent the best part of my weekend READING them (as opposed to someone who has just "leafed" and made a generalised comment).
The 4e version of D&D is far from "absolute crap". In MANY ways it is FAR superior.
A couple of years back and friend and I went through a bit of an RPG revival and spent several WEEKS going over the 3.5 rulebooks to make ourselves really familiar so we could play a game. Even after many sessions we were still struggling with many concepts and rules (okay this might be because we are getting old), and found ourselves making many notes which was almost a secondary book of rules.
After ONE reading through the new PHB and DMG I have a great grasp of all the rules, and feel quite confident in running a game.
I am not going to go into lengthy detail on all the items that I like, as there are too many to mention, but I know that my group WILL have a lot of fun playing it - and at the same time they won't get a headache trying to remember complex rules!
I really hope the negativity towards the system, on these forums, is not just because of a bitter taste left in your mouths because of the changes to the Realms. I have said many times to my mate that running a current version of the realms (pre Spellplague) with 4e will be a cracking game to sit in!
I have also purchased H1 (Keep on the Shadowfell), and even though I am running my campaign in Eberron, I downloaded the FR conversion. Both that one (and the Eberron one) adds a LOT of flavour to the module and would be a great way to kick off a campaign in the Realms.
I think that if people actually got over their pre(mis)conception and took the time to read the books thoroughly, they would probably agree that it is going to be a MUCH better way of playing D&D!
I am currently seeing this kind of negativity towards another game system I play (Warhammer 40k), as that is due to recieve a new version of the rules - and even my best friend used to say things like "I can't see it being any good" and generally poo poo it, but now having played it he is MORE excited about that than anything else!!
Anyway...just my 2 pennys worth! |
Malarick
|
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 19:13:37
|
I have no problem with the rules changes, though I haven't read the rules. I won't buy the books either, for the same reason I should have never bought the StarWars revised d20 edition: I am perfectly happy with the "old" system, d6 in StarWars' case and 3.5 with D&D. When I look at my "D&D museum", as a buddy of mine called it, I realize how much money I invested into (A)D&D in general, and 3.5 in particular since I bought much of the older stuff via ebay. I have gaming material to last me a lifetime, and I like 3.5, it isn't my beloved d6 StarWars (which I haven't GMed in almost a decade!!!) but it was a vast improvement over 2nd edition, when I finally got down to reading the rules, which was only 3 or so years back.
I'm not against 4e as much as of the "I don't care" attitude. They changed too much of what D&D is, IMO. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Malarick
Seeker
United Kingdom
86 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 19:51:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I have gaming material to last me a lifetime, and I like 3.5, it isn't my beloved d6 StarWars..but it was a vast improvement over 2nd edition
I totally see what people say about wanting to stay with 3.5, if like yourself you have endless books for the system, and are happy with the rules. But people might also see that 4e is a "vast improvement" over 3.5 eventually |
Malarick
|
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 20:27:54
|
I agree... but if you saw my "D&D museum" you'd also you that I'd be a fool to switch  |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
initiate
Learned Scribe
Canada
102 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 20:40:32
|
Based on what I've seen, neither 4 E or 3.5 E is inherently superior. I do, of course, have a preference, and that is for 3 E, warts and all. Whether people prefer one system or the other will depend partially, I imagine, on the style of play you dig. If you are a fan of stripped-down, fluid gaming, you will probably grok 4 E, as fluidity seems to be one of its watchwords just based on the excerpts I've read].
My beefs based on what I've seen:
Rituals: I actually really like these in theory. They are a redressed version of something that was not only there before, but also easier, but I like the theory: that there are some arcane enchantments you just cannot cast on the fly. I think this would work really well for categorizing things that players don't/shouldn't/can't be bothered to do mid-session when they've got other fish to fry, such as powerful scryings, construct creations, etc. They are also, again in theory, a great way to add idiosyncracies to spellcasting, as each ritual has its own requirements. But what did they do with them? They used them as a dumping ground for virtually all non-combat powers. Why would I want to take an hour to essentially cast Silent Image, a spell I usually need or want ... right now? What a way to leech all non-combat flavour out of ...
The Wizard: Based on what I've seen I hate, hate, hate 4 E's wizard. He/sshe is a flavourless blaster like unto something one might find in a bad action RPG. I would have appreciated more spells per day, perhaps even this new at will system, at least for some spells. But why make the wizard so combat centric? If I want a 3 E warlock, I shall go and get one.
The Serialization: I ain't buyin' all them there books, dude. It is just not happening. I expect all my core races and base classes to appear in a single supplement, called The Player's Handbook, with no numbers attached to the title. Key classes are missing. Races are not there. And they will be added later? In books that will cost more? Whilst the regional sourcebooks I crave languish in the land of things that might have been? Nope. Don't like that system.
Stat Card-Heavy System:
Bob: "But you must have a reason, Initiate! Stat cards and other easy-to-use systems are the way of the future! Why? Have you a reason for your hatred?!
Initiate: "Nope. Just ... don't like 'em." When I play D & D, I want a nice, big character sheet, with lots of info about my fictional creation, not just statistics re: his nastiness with a longsword and shield. That they are not forcing us to play this way is, in one sense, a potent argument, but is in another sense immaterial: It is the mindset they are fostering with their products.
The Alignment thing: Just ... Silly.
The Realms: All the problems have already been stated by others. WotC has not yet convinced me that this new Realms will be great. Not even close. They keep axing the stuff I love. Its hard to even get into 4 E in this atmosphere.
It was not broken, imo: And here is the kicker, and something that is in no way WotC's fault: I, personally, did not need a new edition, because I like 3.5 fine. It is, so far as I'm concerned, a fine system on which WotC did a good job. It is not broken and I don't need a new one.
The 4 E GSL will go live early next week. At the bottom of the news announcement stating this, there's a one-liner that reads as follows:
"We are also working on a new fan site policy, to be made public at a later date."
Oh, ... boy. |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 21:12:10
|
Damn, I forgot about the fansite policy... that will really be a kick in the proverbials if you consider everything else.
Worst case scenario: fan-created stuff must conform to the GSL in some way, and 3.5 material cannot be shown on the same page... methinks this has not so much to do with Candlekeep per se, but more with fan-conversions of Pathfinder stuff to 4e. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 22:57:37
|
Yeah, what initiate said... (in better words than me, but in words that still resound like "4E is absolute crap!")
 |
|
|
|
Rhone Ethenkhar
Acolyte
Canada
31 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jun 2008 : 23:57:59
|
Having read the 4e PHB & DMG, these are my opinions:
The layout for the books imo are very well done and easy to read and understand.
The DMG is a great read for one who does not know how to run a game, as it should be.
The PHB: more or less the same things can be said for this book. But some of the new systems like powers, and adding half your level to each roll and things like .......meh. I still hate the warlock class. It is poo.
Personally, I do not think it is a bad game per se. I actually think it will be a fun one, when I get to play it. :)
It just does not "feel" like how I like or expect D&D to feel. Hard for me to articulate precisely what I mean, but there you go.
Overall, it seems fun but hardly an improvement imho. I think the main word will be "different". Different, not necessarily better. |
" Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages...I intend to discover who are the prisoners and who are the warders." -the Prisoner |
Edited by - Rhone Ethenkhar on 08 Jun 2008 23:59:04 |
|
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 00:05:07
|
The gameplay mechanic rules. Some think now make more sense. Other's don't. But generally it's more black and white and less grey. They took the opportunity to improve some things but messed up others.
But what they did with the lore and stuff, that's horrific. No more celestials. Archons became elementals. And eladrin are just some special kind of elves. The old deva and aasimons, they are gone and angels are just soldiers in direct service to deities.
All dragons are evil. No more good and neutral dragons. Just deleted. And that dragonlike humanoid reptile race, that one doesn't make much sense.
Yugoloths are gone. What about the other fiends? Is it now only tanar'ri and baatezu? Wait, that doesn't exist anymore either. Just demon and devil. And no blood war? WTF What about Planescape? Where is that? How does that work with the alignments and stuff? I mean, who used 'standard' or forgotten reals cosmology anyway? That sucked. Where are all the creatures of the planes? Modrons, slaadi, formians, guardinals? Where did manes and lemures go?
I expected more streamlined and elegant rules. But this makes no sense to me. |
Edited by - Denoples on 09 Jun 2008 00:53:35 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36906 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 01:04:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
All dragons are evil. No more good and neutral dragons. Just deleted. And that dragonlike humanoid reptile race, that one doesn't make much sense.
WHAT?!?
No more good dragons? What the...? I... I don't have words for this.
Did they nix the metallic and gemstone dragons, or just slap an evil alignment on all of them? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Denoples
Acolyte
39 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 01:21:18
|
Wait. They are just not part of the core rules. Apparently there will be metallic dragons. But no gem dragons.
I just saw the dragon index and only saw chromatic dragons. Strange. How can they leave out dragons from the core rules... |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 01:46:09
|
The same way they leave out Frost giants and Iron Golems and various and sundry other "core" monsters, because they want several "essential" monsters for the Monster Manual II, because they want to reinforce the idea that all of the books are "core."
So the metallic dragons will likely be in MM II, and from what was said in the preview material, they will be unaligned rather than good. And there will be no more copper, brass, and bronze dragons, because according to the designers no one could tell them apart and remember which one was which. So they are replaced by three other metals, which escape me right now.
There are however three dracoliches in the Monster Manual . . . the "standard" dracolich, the blackfire dracolich, and the runescibed dracolich. They all breathe "necrotic" damage now. |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31799 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2008 : 02:06:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Denoples
The gameplay mechanic rules. Some think now make more sense. Other's don't. But generally it's more black and white and less grey. They took the opportunity to improve some things but messed up others.
But what they did with the lore and stuff, that's horrific. No more celestials. Archons became elementals. And eladrin are just some special kind of elves. The old deva and aasimons, they are gone and angels are just soldiers in direct service to deities.
All dragons are evil. No more good and neutral dragons. Just deleted. And that dragonlike humanoid reptile race, that one doesn't make much sense.
Yugoloths are gone. What about the other fiends? Is it now only tanar'ri and baatezu? Wait, that doesn't exist anymore either. Just demon and devil. And no blood war? WTF What about Planescape? Where is that? How does that work with the alignments and stuff? I mean, who used 'standard' or forgotten reals cosmology anyway? That sucked. Where are all the creatures of the planes? Modrons, slaadi, formians, guardinals? Where did manes and lemures go?
I expected more streamlined and elegant rules. But this makes no sense to me.
I must say, as a PLANESCAPE fan, I'm disappointed to hear this.  Granted, we may learn a little more about the various exemplar races of the outer planes later. But with some of the planar alterations I've seen already, I'm beginning to doubt just what, of the older planar material, will be useful in terms of the 4e cosmology. |
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 09 Jun 2008 02:07:45 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
