| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Arioch |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 09:29:24
Hi!
After a little playtesting with the 4ed, I found that:
- it wasn't necessary at all, aside for commercial reasons. The 3.5 works fine enough, so no REAL need for it from player' side.
- the 4ed is a "DEMO VERSION". Not all the classes are yet published, the "powers" are too few to allow a true choice... etc.
Since I played the Forgotten Realms for 15y now, following the OFFICIAL realmslore, I still wont to follow it.
Here's my proposal:
Is someone interested in starting a project about converting the Realms back to the 3.5?
I mean: to keep the new realmslore (ok, I know this is the most controversial issue) and adapt it to the 3.5 rules.
I think this could help those not wishing to convert their campaign to the new 4Ed, but are enough open minded to accept the changes in the Realms.
It is just a proposal... maybe a good one, maybe not.
Sorry if someone else already said something similar and I miss it!
(...and maybe is better to wait for the release of the 4ED Campaign Guide)
Mod Edit: Shifted to a more appropriate shelf. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 11 Sep 2008 : 03:38:20
quote:
Originally posted by Jakk "Hrm, all of these new adventurers need something to do; let's pack it in." That's like... well, I can't think of a real-world example that isn't mind-blowingly ludicrous.
Any other thoughts?
Like cops saying, 'Hey, there's all these kids with guns! Let's let them patrol.'? |
| Jakk |
Posted - 10 Sep 2008 : 23:15:46
It looks like I'm in agreement here... and I think Markustay said it best. It's a lot easier to reverse-engineer the few new things worth keeping than to try to undo the Spellplague and keep $E, largely because $E *is* the Spellplague... Wizards in $E are shackled and straitjacketed, because to do otherwise would make the game computer-unfriendly. I like a lot of the non-Spellplague story elements in 4E, particularly the crushing of the Zhentarim citadels by Netheril, but it makes no sense that the Harpers would just disband; yes, it creates a void for new adventurers to fill, but that's not a reason that's justified from the Harpers' point of view. "Hrm, all of these new adventurers need something to do; let's pack it in." That's like... well, I can't think of a real-world example that isn't mind-blowingly ludicrous.
Any other thoughts? |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 15:27:36
The consensus from the WotC board is that creating items will be under the Adventurer's Vault sourcebook coming out. |
| Arioch |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 13:12:11
quote:
You might want to check out pages 171-189 of Chapter 10, "The DM's Toolbox," in the Dungeon Master's Guide. The topics covered in those pages are: Customizing Monsters, Creating Monsters, Creating NPCs, Creating House Rules.
Cheers,
Christopher
Thanks Chistopher! I completely missed pages 184-185! For the monsters part I'm safe!
Aside from my mistake I still think the 4ed a "Demo version"... |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 12:39:11
quote:
Originally posted by Arioch
And it is the same for monsters (and classes alike)... It seemed to me that you are actually unable to create your own...
Unce upon a time you can start playing just buying the 3 core books but now...
You might want to check out pages 171-189 of Chapter 10, "The DM's Toolbox," in the Dungeon Master's Guide. The topics covered in those pages are: Customizing Monsters, Creating Monsters, Creating NPCs, Creating House Rules.
Cheers,
Christopher |
| Arioch |
Posted - 31 Aug 2008 : 01:26:14
quote:
It comes from the fact that in all previous editions, they gave you some idea on what goes into creating a spell and magic items. But there is nothing in the core books with any way of how to create new stuff. Guess that means we're all restricted to items/spells that Wasbro makes.
And it is the same for monsters (and classes alike)... It seemed to me that you are actually unable to create your own...
Unce upon a time you can start playing just buying the 3 core books but now...
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 30 Aug 2008 : 18:14:11
As I'm readying Blackstaff Tower (which is a VERY fine read, I must say), I had an idea pop in my head. And I couldn't resist posting it over on the WotC boards (here)
quote:
Posted by MattDroz on WotC board
Something from a young wizard I met in my travels across the 'new' Realms.
quote:
Hi, I'm a young wizard that is studying spellcraft and I have an idea for a new spell. How do I go about creating this spell for use by everyone?
Also, I work with a young smith in Waterdeep and we were wondering how to create new items based on some ideas we had.
Thank you,
Azan Leshere
It comes from the fact that in all previous editions, they gave you some idea on what goes into creating a spell and magic items. But there is nothing in the core books with any way of how to create new stuff. Guess that means we're all restricted to items/spells that Wasbro makes. |
| Dewaint |
Posted - 30 Aug 2008 : 17:00:57
well, fluff and crunch as well can be added to an "Original Realms" campaign. Guess some stuff can be integrated quite fast and other have to wait (from a timeline point of view).
Well said Markustay, IMO everything published as FR $E should be looked at as options and suggestions.
It could also be an option to intergrate crunchy stuff somewhere within the 20 millennia of Realms history left untoched from the FR designer. Like the Arcane Age Netheril Box introduced some different and interesting aspects, this could also be true for a ... let us say ... Imaskari centered Ancient Realms campaign.
(It feels like a post-nuked-world where no old laws exist anymore(canon) and anarchy rules  ) |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 30 Aug 2008 : 11:54:42
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
I like the idea of keeping the Lore and simply using the 3.5 rules. Add in the good stuff from Paizo and have at it, I say.
Agreed. We have 3.5 warlocks, dragonborn (half-dragons), tieflings and whatnot. We should be able to play the Post-Spellplague setting with the 3.5 ruleset without much hassle. |
| Arioch |
Posted - 30 Aug 2008 : 11:05:45
Markustay I completely agree with you.
Maybe with my previous post I was going a little too far from my original proposal, even if I think it could be useful for some player to know which parts of the new lore are the most liked by other players. [good for a new thread?]
My original proposal was something about converting the new "technical" material (as for example: new classes, powers, spells etc) to the old 3.5 system, but I think that we have to wait for the Player's Guide...
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 29 Aug 2008 : 19:33:54
Personally, I think it would be far easier to add-in the few things I like from 4e into the Original Realms, rather then try to work the other way (which many are doing, because 4e lore is so sparse).
For instance, my circa 1400 DR campaign WILL have the Warlock Knights of Vassa. I do not need a whole new setting to use them - I think if most people just treated the 4e FRCG as a book of 'options' and 'suggestions', both groups would get along a lot better.
The FRCG is a great book to Cherrypick from, IMHO; just ignore it as canon.  |
| Zanan |
Posted - 29 Aug 2008 : 00:39:01
So far, I simply know too little of the "New Realms" to judge it all. Some stuff was not as worse as first feared, e.g. what happened to the drow (deities apart).
Yet ... essentially, if you think of your campaigns, most of them will most likely have happened sometime inbetween 1355 and 1375 D.R.. Some gamers might have played with the Netheril box, or some other Arcane Age material, but not that many. That essentially leaves you with some 20,000odd years of Realms untouched by any adventurer's foot - at the table. As in: there is absolutely no reason to use the New Realms that hardly anyone I know likes, if there are 20 millenia of Realms history out there to explore. So let the Wizards flesh out their new stuff, while we take up the no-less monumental task and start creating the Ancient Realms instead?! |
| Dewaint |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 22:49:12
lucky one  . I'am still thinking about.
But anyway, I could immagine that most lore that is not directly connected to the spell plague or gods that were slain can be used (or slightly altered) in such a campaign.
I like the idea of an expanding Cormyr, or how most likely the political structure in the Heartlands can evolve in the next 100 years. I guess this can be also true for other regions as well. |
| Arioch |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 11:51:45
OK... I just received my new 4ed Campaing Setting, I quickly went through it... and well, I must admit, there are a LOT of things I do not agree with!
But, there are also good things it could be possible to keep.
Maybe we can start listing them. What do you think about it?
I think we can also elaborate more about Cormyr expansion and powergroups reaction to the "II Time of Trouble" (aka Spellplague), because of the suggestions from Dewaint, Leon_Stryfe and Artemel.
|
| Leon_Stryfe |
Posted - 28 Aug 2008 : 01:36:21
While I will not be adhearing to 99% of the 4e changes in my games (I do like the idea of Cormyr expanding), I do have similar plans for one of my games. I plan on taking some established PC's around 100 years into the future, just to test my mettle against that of FR4e's constructors. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 23 Aug 2008 : 05:07:21
I like the idea of keeping the Lore and simply using the 3.5 rules. Add in the good stuff from Paizo and have at it, I say. |
| monknwildcat |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 23:15:21
Agreed, Dewaint and Arion!  |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 23:02:36
I think most DMs are already planning on doing this. The best part of the game is that we can pick and choose from the lore salad bar. |
| Dewaint |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 21:56:41
In my opinion most of the changes done to the Realms are really annoying. (I don't bother if they were done to better reflect the $E or 'cause WotC try to simplify anything to something like "diablo")
So my campign will evolve differently as for my point of view there is nothing that is canon from 1380 onward, just loads of different options . Not the Realms I know and love anymore 
But I think that it is worth considering how powergroups are pictured. To my own surprise I found it appealing how they react to the turn of events happening between 1370 and 1380.
I have to look further in it, but so far I can imagine to implement somes in a no-spellplague-ever-happened timeline for my FR campaign that remain 3.5E, of course
In the past I said that I would never buy the new campaignbook, but I have to admit that actualy I'm considering this option   |
| Markustay |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 18:04:43
There are a couple of things I will backwards-engineer for my game, like the Warlock Knights of Vassa, but for the most part, 3e is superior to 4e on every level. |
| monknwildcat |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 16:05:19
There will be material in 4E core and FR lore that I'd like to have in my 3.X campaign (e.g. fey stuff, potential future storylines for iconic NPCs). My gaming group won't convert to 4E, whether I wanted to or not, so I'd like to have any positives from 4E lore back in my gaming edition.
If this thread doesn't flush out other interest, feel free to PM me. I don't know the Compendium's parameters or copyright law, but perhaps it's a venue to share any conversions. |
| Wenin |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 12:56:16
While I dislike the 4.0 ruleset, I absolutely detest what has happened to the Forgotten Realms setting.
What you're needing to find is someone that likes the changes to the setting, but doesn't like the 4e ruleset. Are there many people that fall into that group? |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 22 Aug 2008 : 10:05:35
quote:
Originally posted by Arioch
Here's my proposal:
Is someone interested in starting a project about converting the Realms back to the 3.5?
I mean: to keep the new realmslore (ok, I know this is the most controversial issue) and adapt it to the 3.5 rules.
I think keeping the new Realms Lore is the sticking point. Many don't like the changes to the setting. As for the mechanics, in essence all you do is roll a die, or some dice, and either consult a table or compare rolls.
Maybe we should identify a point where the majority express satisfaction then take that as the start. We can call the $E version the Shadow Realms or Counter Faerun. Our version we can call Faerun. |
| Artemel |
Posted - 14 Aug 2008 : 17:19:06
I might end up using some of the changes.
For instance, in my longest running FR campaign, the adventurers have built up Battlerise, in eastern Cormyr, back to a nice castle. They have also put at least 3 towers up along the Sembian/Cormyr border... all this has happened before the events in Death of the Dragon. They didn't know about the possibility of war between Cormyr and Sembia... they had just had some Sembian adventurers piss them off one too many times.
Now, looking at 4e lore... Cormyr has expanded eastwards. Suits me fine. Actually works with what was already happening. On the other hand, I don't think I'll have King Azoun V be as radical a reformer as the notes I've read so far paint him as. If anything, his upbringing should motivate him to more firmly establish his family's authoritarian rule over Cormyr, not lessen it, especially if they end up in war with Sembia/Shades/whatever.
Just my 2 coppers. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 20:20:16
quote:
Originally posted by Arioch
My opinion about the 3.5e is that, far from being perfect, there was no need to change it ... (aside from economical interest)
That's the thing--economical interest is a company's number one priority. |
| Arioch |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 19:36:15
My opinion about the 3.5e is that, far from being perfect, there was no need to change it ... (aside from economical interest)
But the rules change is connected with the creation of the new realms...
And I think that the new realmslore is an "abomination" mainly because it was a way to introduce "by force" the 4E, without caring too much for old fans... (and this is indeed very sad!)
Now... let's try to keep the changes (parts of them, if you prefer)! If we don't think about them as a (bad) excuse for introducing a more commercial game system, I think it will be possible to use them for the best.
My idea for lessening part of the "shock" caused by the new realms, is to remove the "excuse" part of the changes.
This is not intended to be a way to completely resolve the issue, just to save what can be saved without a complete refusal of the new.
This was the rationale behind my proposal. Maybe too oversimplified, or maybe I'm simply wrong!
Again, it was just a suggestion about a possible way to run a campaign in the new realms... not another controversy about how "they" destroyed "our" realms.
And, of course, I think that aside for the previews we all read nothing can be said for sure until the release of the Campaign Setting.
|
| Sian |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 18:32:30
as others said ... its mainly the lorepart of $e that pisses people off ... the rules aren't that bad again (though i'll proberly keep myself in 3.5e so all my fluff books don't die) ... if anything i'll proberly change into using Paizos 3.75e |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 18:23:53
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Yes, I have to say that they changes to lore are what upset me, not the new rules set.
Seconded. And the assertion that 3.5E was perfectly fine is definitely arguable.
That said, that doesn't mean I don't think this is a good idea for those who like it. |
| Tyranthraxus |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 17:34:59
I know what you mean Arioch, 4e is too simple and balanced. It doesn't matter if you're a fighter of wizard because, for example the attack bonus is the same and it reminds me of diablo  .
But why bother? They messed up the Realms as we know it because of the new rules. How else could they incorperate a world full of dragonborn warlocks? |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 13 Aug 2008 : 17:15:18
Yes, I have to say that they changes to lore are what upset me, not the new rules set. In fact, my outrage at what they have done to the 4e Realmslore is specifically why I will not but the 4e rules books. |
