4th Ed and V5



  • @Mr.Moloch:

    @Broken:

    My question was purely about 4th Eds Lore changes. What I expect will effect Arabel more is the changes to certain Gods (Helm is dead, Azuth is dead and replaced by awesome Asmodeous, Gruumish is Talos, Mulhrondi Gods are all dead ect.) and the political climate around Cormyr (Sembia is a lose collection of city-states vassalised by the new Netheril Empire based out of the City of Shade, Cormyr threatened on all sides, upheaval across the lands. Arabel smack bang in the middle.) All this however, is due to the Spellplague. With the timeframe for V4 appearing to be Post-Spellplague, I personally think some changes are necessary and would make for a more cohesive experience for newer players.

    In my opinion, I think establishing where Arabel stands in relation to the Realms as a whole will benefit the server and its players. Many times players have had their characters come from such and such land and wonder why another person is saying that such-and-such land is destroyed or they make remarks that completely contradict another Characters statements. It's difficult at times to keep in character when people are all looking at different sources from different campaigns.

    As I said, that is probably a good topic to bring up, but perhaps in another thread all its own! Its not yet on the DM radar. Granted, it WILL be, but not likely until we are further along than we are now. I know it'd be great to hear the thoughts of players on it.

    So yeah, with Arabel moving ahead in timeline, is there any interest in adapting some lore changes from 4th Ed? I don't think the "4th Ed sucks" bandwagon reply will be productive for this topic, so lets try and keep it about what changes we can take and adapt to the setting. My own views on the matter is to adapt as much as possible because, to me, the 4th Ed. Forgotten Realms feels much more focused, apocolyptic and more open to some really interesting changes and tweaks politics wise, so a free-state Arabel fits right in and no longer feels quite as forced.

    A more simple Pantheon, boring Gods are dead or becoming consolidated into one. Helm is gone, thank fuck. Azuth too. No more Egyption Gods from far away lands no one cares about. And for all this to work, we'd need to fit the Spellplague in between the timeline between V4 and V5. I love the idea of the Spellplague.

    I also want to play a devout servant of the God of Sin. Rock me Asmodeous.

    Whatever the case I think, as players, we should establish the Realms in relation to our setting and no longer float in a mass bliss of conflicting campaign sources and confusing paradoxes. (IE: "I come from Chult." "What, the Island chult?" "Chult is not an island." Tell: Yes it is, it says on wiki. Tell: What? But in my 3rd edition handbook…)



  • Mmmmm, Asmodeus.

    I'm all for integrating 4e lore into the setting.



  • i have no thoughts on it at all really, i dont know any FR cannon stuff for any edition…



  • No, dear god no. For the love of the gods (haha) no.

    They didn't take out the "boring" gods, there are no boring gods. They completely ballsed up the pantheons. The only good move was the removal of the Mulhorandi gods. They never should have been forced into a setting that did not need them. I have yet to be informed of a single change otherwise in the spellplague that makes sense or makes for an improved setting.

    Most of the changes are desperate and futile attempts to shoehorn in new things from the 4th ed rulebook. That and designed to make the setting "dark and cool" removing most of the regions that could be considered bastions of safety or progress.

    I might note, nothing stops you serving Asmodeous even without his ascension to deityhood, as a sickeningly powerful outsider he can still grant you what you want.



  • I feel the Dms should feel free to steal ideas (there is some nice ones in there), but I do think they really messed up a lot in 4th edition…



  • I personally am on the "4th Ed sucks" bandwagon, so I will refrain from posting here… wait... oops...

    Ah well, since I already started, honestly, I think the DM's should write their own canon on the realms and deities, not based on the ballocked up 4th ed... IMO.



  • I don't hate 4th Ed as much as a lot of people here so I think implementing huge parts of it would be a largely unpopular choice. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing the spell plague being a part of v5 as it would be consistant with the low magic setting that we have traditionally had. I should point out though we are already in the year 1381 and according to FR wiki the spellplague ends around 1395 so 50 years from now the majority of the effects are gone except the various plaguelands scattered around Faerun. The political changes in the surrounding areas don't sound too bad and would make the city more united than ever espicially with the threat of the shade empire nearby.



  • Personally, Id love the god changes. Many people who play usually refer to the nwn.wikia when they need to find lore. One of the main things there are the gods. Id love to see the new Pantheon at least placed into the new setting. Whether it comes from a spellplague or not I do not care much about. But the god parts at least would be interesting, fresh and new.

    As long as the mechanical changes arent made I will be happy. Some of the 4th edition changes just… well seem odd. But the lore aspects would definately hold weight.



  • I refuse to dm in a setting without Helm, the most interesting god ever (literally half the characters I played were either clerics or followers of Helm).



  • I would be sad to miss Helm too… That said, several of the other changes -could- be used.

    What I figure is, its -our- world. FR is a sandbox, its up to us to build up the castles.



  • For those who do not know the changes. The below link tells some of them.
    http://www.shsforums.net/topic/30317-some-4th-edition-realms-changes/



  • @The:

    I refuse to dm in a setting without Helm, the most interesting god ever (literally half the characters I played were either clerics or followers of Helm).

    I'm sorry but Helm is the worst diety out there. The God makes absolutely no sense to me and his death was probably one of the biggest positives to come out of 4th Ed. I would be very disapointed if he is not removed from CoA V5.



  • I just want Lurue and Velsharoon to bite the dust. God i hate them.



  • In the past CoA has introduced a couple of custom dieties to the setting, I don't see why we couldn't do the same thing again for v5. Honestly I don't get what's so bad about Helm though removing Velsharoon wouldn't be such a bad idea, we could replace him with Clar Banda as the diety for all things undead.



  • 4ED sucks. Sorry BG, but I very much like how many gods there are, and how many options a player has when creating their characters. One of the reasons 3rd-3.5 FR lore interested me so much was because of how vast it was and how it had some complexity. Also, I hate the spell plague. Killing off my favorite deity, not cool. And lets not forget the whole entire reason the Spell Plague was even thought up was because WotC, in their unflinching and unrelenting desire to make a buck, was changing the spell system (Much how the Time of Troubles was used as a convenient excuse to explain the change in deities).



  • @ArchAngel_G:

    4ED sucks…
    I very much like how many gods there are...
    WotC, to make a buck...

    Amen. 4th Edition D&D was WotC's attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the ADD WoW crowd, IMO. To me, 4th ed is as apocryphal as Star Trek 5, and causes poor Gary Gygax to roll over in his grave.



  • @The:

    I refuse to dm in a setting without Helm, the most interesting god ever (literally half the characters I played were either clerics or followers of Helm).

    I vote we remove HELM NOW THEN!



  • @Gorga469:

    @ArchAngel_G:

    4ED sucks…
    I very much like how many gods there are...
    WotC, to make a buck...

    Amen. 4th Edition D&D was WotC's attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the ADD WoW crowd, IMO. To me, 4th ed is as apocryphal as Star Trek 5, and causes poor Gary Gygax to roll over in his grave.

    I don't appreciate being called the lowest common denominator.

    I still don't understand the hate towards some of these changes. FR had become so bloated and conflicting, it hardly made any sense at all. I really think some core 4th Ed changes spruced up the setting which, inheritantly, is the worst DnD setting available.



  • @Broken:

    @Gorga469:

    @ArchAngel_G:

    4ED sucks…
    I very much like how many gods there are...
    WotC, to make a buck...

    Amen. 4th Edition D&D was WotC's attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the ADD WoW crowd, IMO. To me, 4th ed is as apocryphal as Star Trek 5, and causes poor Gary Gygax to roll over in his grave.

    I don't appreciate being called the lowest common denominator.

    I still don't understand the hate towards some of these changes. FR had become so bloated and conflicting, it hardly made any sense at all. I really think some core 4th Ed changes spruced up the setting which, inheritantly, is the worst DnD setting available.

    From a pure design point, he is right.

    I know many people LOVE the setting they are comfortable with. However, from every design stand-point it is horrible.

    The setting is bloated with different gods, most that are terribly similar. Some may call it variety, designers would say it has unnecessary ornamentation. How many gods of duty, loyalty, and protection do you need between Tyr, Torm, and Helm? Not adding in the several amongst the non-human deities.

    Add in, the setting says that gods should not share or over lap portfolios, but that happens all the time. A dozen gods are gods of magic, when there is suppose to be only one god of magic per Ao's decree and a main focus of the setting is on that.

    The setting also is pretty offensive to many neo-pagans. 4th Edition is just as bad, but I know I can not stomach seeing a god that I pray to used as a game devise. Its worse that roughly a quarter of these gods are part of my actual faith. I could just imagine the hollering if they added in Jesus of Sembia as a new god of martyrs and rebirth. No one really bats an eye over Ilmater, Tyr, Tyche and others.



  • You're right, I'm not a fan of the use of real world gods as a source of names for the world. Probably a major reason why the Mulhorandi and Unteric stuff always jarred so much. If they had simply worshipped aspects of other gods who's names were created for the setting their settings might well have been looked upon more favourably.

    As for helm, I am a big fan, although I've not yet played a follower of his (its on my list) I really like him. Don't forget that the forgotten realms is populated. Helm is a god that I can see being worshipped by many people out there, commoners who want to be protected, guards, militia, even soldiers. He does not appeal so much to the adventurers, but that is part of what I like about the Pantheons of the Forgotten Realms. They feel real. There are gods that fit the setting, and that I can see people in that setting worshipping. Unlike, for example, the Greyhawk gods, where the creators just said "Ok, we have a bunch of alignments, lets create a god for each one so clerics have a god to follow no matter their alignment. Oh, and pick out a list of nine stereotypical adventurer gods so that there is a god to suit."

    Most settings have a small list of barely defined gods, who fit the story but leave the average joes largely unrepresented. They also often leave you with little to no choice on how you make a char. That is the beauty of the Forgotten Realms setting. You have choice. Virtually any char you care to create has a variety of gods they can chose from that fit them.

    Just because you, as a player, dislike one or two, does not make them crap. You will find support amongst the player base for just about any one of them. The only god I would like to see removed is Torm. Sure many gods over lap, but each has a different purpose, and focus. Torm lacks both. However I recognise that he is popular amongst other players so, I see no reason to remove him.


Log in to reply