Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

are we just add thing now that we wish i see the list of domain and the first i look up is healing domain https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Healing_domain

It's included in the new domains

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

It also should be noted that Fandom is typically based in 5e lore, not 2nd/3rd ed lore

but healing domaon have got a spell it not fit by the lore and iam sure others domain have got spell that not fit for the lore of FR

Honestly not sure what the complaint is, the domain gives you 1 lower spell level for each of the cures and adds empowered healing, as true resurrection is not an actual spell a replacement was chosen and accepted by the dms.

Anrilor wrote: ↑ It also should be noted that Fandom is typically based in 5e lore, not 2nd/3rd ed lore

A little out of topic but this is actually not true.
Best is look at the sources of each article. Some are even 100% based on 2e lore.

It's actually worse: usually a mix-mash of 2e through 5e lore! And you'll nee referencing actual manuals or sourcebooks in PDF to be able to parse what is appropriate, or not.

This is, unfortunately, a BIG problem for those new players to the Forgotten Realms, and often bring later 4e/5e ideas to BGTSCC role-play...and that is simply not-of-our-timeline. And can cause friction, as we see far too often.

Steve wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:39 am It's actually worse: usually a mix-mash of 2e through 5e lore! And you'll nee referencing actual manuals or sourcebooks in PDF to be able to parse what is appropriate, or not.

This is, unfortunately, a BIG problem for those new players to the Forgotten Realms, and often bring later 4e/5e ideas to BGTSCC role-play...and that is simply not-of-our-timeline. And can cause friction, as we see far too often.

This is why I only look at the wiki to check if something "Might" be a thing, then scour the relevant edition appropriate lorebooks. It's just such a jumble of information, it's too unreliable at this point for a setting not at the "Current time" for FR

Steve wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:39 am It's actually worse: usually a mix-mash of 2e through 5e lore! And you'll nee referencing actual manuals or sourcebooks in PDF to be able to parse what is appropriate, or not.

This is, unfortunately, a BIG problem for those new players to the Forgotten Realms, and often bring later 4e/5e ideas to BGTSCC role-play...and that is simply not-of-our-timeline. And can cause friction, as we see far too often.

Like this article? https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Noviere

Just saying that it's bad to see everything in absolutes, there's a couple of very good articles on the Faerun wiki and saying it's all garbage and wrong simply isn't the case. Just like saying all drow are evil.

Hydros wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:52 am

Steve wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:39 am It's actually worse: usually a mix-mash of 2e through 5e lore! And you'll nee referencing actual manuals or sourcebooks in PDF to be able to parse what is appropriate, or not.

This is, unfortunately, a BIG problem for those new players to the Forgotten Realms, and often bring later 4e/5e ideas to BGTSCC role-play...and that is simply not-of-our-timeline. And can cause friction, as we see far too often.

This is why I only look at the wiki to check if something "Might" be a thing, then scour the relevant edition appropriate lorebooks. It's just such a jumble of information, it's too unreliable at this point for a setting not at the "Current time" for FR

This.

fandom wiki is great as an encyclopedia.

"Hm, which sourcebooks talked about X?" -> Consult wiki, check references and go there directly.

It's pretty good for that. Although sometimes it links you references used to justify sections that have no such claims.

Steve wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:39 am It's actually worse: usually a mix-mash of 2e through 5e lore! And you'll nee referencing actual manuals or sourcebooks in PDF to be able to parse what is appropriate, or not.

This is, unfortunately, a BIG problem for those new players to the Forgotten Realms, and often bring later 4e/5e ideas to BGTSCC role-play...and that is simply not-of-our-timeline. And can cause friction, as we see far too often.

Not only 5E/4E, but from other settings too. Greyhawk/Dragonlance are a common culrpit.

Such a common culrpit that even Eric Boyd of "Faiths and Avatars" fame complained about it.

Lockonnow wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:47 am are we just add thing now that we wish i see the list of domain and the first i look up is healing domain https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Healing_domain

We are limited by the shitty way Bioware/Obsidian handled domain implementation and what spells we have available in-game.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

And let us not forget, from the very start; 3rd edition lore conflicted with the 2nd edition one. Then 4th edition came along, and fifth, and maybe even sixth before the 3rd edition lore is truly applicable to this server.

YYA wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:06 am And let us not forget, from the very start; 3rd edition lore conflicted with the 2nd edition one. Then 4th edition came along, and fifth, and maybe even sixth before the 3rd edition lore is truly applicable to this server.

That's just from bad writing when WoTC inherited TSR's material. Mostly that I can recall, and it's mostly bits of 3.5 (Not all of it) that may conflict with the prior. Then we start to see total re-writes from lore retcons in 4e.

Then we start to see acceptance of mechanics dictating as what is and what is not lore. Me and another talked about this a long while back when some 3rd party argued with us on a subject, and we had to present facts on other stuff prior as it was not limited to what they had suggested.

That said, BGtSCC has /some/ homebrew in it's own lore, hence medium RP server. As it atempts to try and blend with the current setting in ways it might fit, that is the attempt at least, for the most part. But for the most part, some is only slightly veering off from official cannon to try and not break the setting itself. Once more keywords used; attempt.

Just for clarity's sake, I figure I'd posted this.