5Ed crunch not included/supported in FGG stuff?

Hi there!

I've made the transition fron PFRPG to 5Ed and kept buying FGG's stuff as it came out. I've noticed one thing.

One of the things that mervelled me when reading Rappan Athuk for PFRPG was the heavy use of PFRPG Archetypes, including APG/UC stuff. The Pirates are just one small example of it. 

After the first read through Bard's Gate's pages for 5E I found it rather odd that the Warlock class did not seem to be supported, eventhough there were some opotunities. There is also a very elloquent abscence of the Dragonborn race (which I can understand more). 

The general feeling is that 5E material by FGG is designed around more basic material than PFRPG, irrespective of the very different complexity accross systems.

Is there a reason for this? Licence? Design?


Thanks in advance 

I believe it is simply that the Warlock wasn't a core PFRPG class; I think, iirc, it's only a 3rd-party thing. Don't take my word for that, however, because it's been a while since I dealt with PFRPG in a playing way. However, you are correct that it can seem more supportive to PFRPG, but that's simply because a lot of the stuff was made prior to 5e's release, and it shows in certain places. In my opinion, though, it doesn't detract from the setting or the quality of the adventures, for the most part.

The reason is simple. The original Bard’s Gate is a 3e Necromancer product which held closely to “3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel”. This remains true for the 5e version. Of course, players with GM permission are able to use the rarer untraditional races and classes. 

Also, I wouldn’t expect Greg to write the Dragonborn into the Lost Lands Campaign Setting. It is going to more similar to Greyhawk than the Forgotten Realms,

While I get your points, there are two things that keep my dwarfish mind wondering:

  • In the Bard's Gate Book, 5E version there is a paragraph happily depicting "magi, witches and summoners" while addressing the Wizard's Guild. This was obviously written first for the PFRPG version of the book, but was it left there out of distraction or on purpose hoping that the reader would interpret it in a fluffy, rather than crunchy way? Magi, Summoners and Witches are in fact less core material for PFRPG than warlocks are for 5E, so my interpretation is that with this system maybe the designers have not delved as deeply as with PFRPG?
  • The Book of lost Spells, "5E rules, 1st E feel" sports a healthy set of Warlocks spells. Ok, this is a 99% crunch book but the class does get some attention here. 

I completely aggree aobut the Dragonborn and the setting. I just mentioned it for comparison. 

It's not that Warlocks are some kind of personal favourite for me. It's just that it seems a bit like a missed oportunity in some places, with so many weird NPCs and the magical bacvkground of the city...

Thanks again. 

zhern's picture

In The Blight you'll find new backgrounds, quirks, cleric domains with spells, and races (including the Street Dwarf from Bard's Gate) for 5e. In forthcoming FGG products, like Rappan Athuk 5e, you'll find some new crunch as it makes sense. Project ZAK (can't tell you what that is otherwise you'll end up as a sacrifice on the altar of Tsathogga), is going to have additional crunch that will likely include archetypes or subclasses, patrons, backgrounds, spells, and so forth. It won't be all crunch but there will be setting-specific crunch in Project ZAK and other future setting products.

Our focus going forward is going to be heavily on 5e, but our S&W and Pathfinder fans won't be left behind either.

As James mentioned with Dragonborn, those will have to be something that a GM inserts into the Lost Lands. I can guarantee Greg won't, nor will the rest of us. :)

Frog V
Frog God Games

Thanks for the reply!

Yeah, I've been getting my eyes "blighted" in the last couple of weeks. That thing is VAST! I merely stated that Bard's Gate did not feel as inmerse into 5E as Rappan Athuk felt into PFRPG at that time.

I'm not a very crunchy person but my players are. And I aggree most of us frog fans won't  be showing any dragonborn in our games, but warlocks is IMO, another matter. 

By the way, tomorrow is goig to bea HORRIBLE day at work, so the alternative of getting to know some juicy spoiler concerning project ZAK and ALSO getting to meet Tsathogga is way more compelling...

So, whenever you want, I'm reading ^-^

Thanks again,


Big Nerd in Small Archipielago       


Honestly, I could I have done better concerning elements like warlock in Bard's Gate. Of course, system immersion varies with the converter. In particular, I thought the RA Pathfinde conversionr was a little over top. In fact, the foundation of the 5e RA conversion will be the S&W version with likely small references to the Pathfinder version. My goal for the Bard's Gate product was to stick as closely as possible to the author's original intent. Plus, I was completely burnt out on the conversion process to the point I had no desire to ever look at it again. In contrast, since I had almost nothing to do with the Blight, I am greatly enjoying this product.

FGG 5e is in the fully capalbe hands of a team consisting of members such as Patrick Pilgrm and Edwin Nagy.