4e is gone?
Soon, it will no longer be supported, and it is currently full of holes. Also, I want to create an open version that is friendly to third party publishers.
Its cool that you love 4e as much as you do. Personally it's my favorite edition (most tactical combat), but this post is bit early I think. Yes 5e has a lot of throwback stuff, but whats in the playtest is in no way the finished product and we are getting such a small slice of what is to come that I think its best to wait until 5e is actually released before you try to kick this off.
The thing is, I want this to be FINISHED soon after 4e stops being supported. That way, the game can continue on and fans don't have to wait.
4e is gone?
Soon, it will no longer be supported, and it is currently full of holes. Also, I want to create an open version that is friendly to third party publishers.
If you have any actual source for this claim, I'd like to know about it.
4e is gone?
Soon, it will no longer be supported, and it is currently full of holes. Also, I want to create an open version that is friendly to third party publishers.
If you have any actual source for this claim, I'd like to know about it.
When 5e comes out, which the Wizards say will be the best of all editions, I see no reason why the Wizards would continue supporting 4e. As for the "full of holes" part, we are missing all kinds of content, like two seasons for the Sentinel, many schools of magic for the Mage, a crapload of monster, a book on Lovecraftian horror, and other things.
So, speculation without basis. K.
Unless, of course, you take history as a basis.
So, speculation without basis. K.
Unless, of course, you take history as a basis.
So, WotC has had officially supported online tools that have been discontinued at the start of a new edition....when, exactly?
So, speculation without basis. K.
Unless, of course, you take history as a basis.
So, WotC has had officially supported online tools that have been discontinued at the start of a new edition....when, exactly?
You're acting rather agressive. I would appriciate it if you could either say something productive, or leave.
I added a lot of content to the google doc, and updated it as well. The changes are worth checking out.
Although I think you are biting off a bit too much on this (at least with regard to wanting it to fly after WotC's lawyers get wind), I think you're doing a pretty darned good job of it.
So, speculation without basis. K.
Unless, of course, you take history as a basis.
So, WotC has had officially supported online tools that have been discontinued at the start of a new edition....when, exactly?
WotC has never had officially supported tools that have lasted past the publication of a new edition.
Wizards announced that they would continue to support and provide the on-line tools to DDI subscribers almost concurrently with the announcement of Next. Within a week, they backpedalled and said that they MIGHT continue to provide the 4E CB to DDI subscribers, unless doing so got in the way of supporting the new edition.
This would be business speak for "If continuing to host the 4E CB begins to cut into the profits of Next, we will kill it without a second thought."
I expect the 4E CB to be dead within two months of Next's release.
So, speculation without basis. K.
Unless, of course, you take history as a basis.
So, WotC has had officially supported online tools that have been discontinued at the start of a new edition....when, exactly?
You're acting rather agressive. I would appriciate it if you could either say something productive, or leave.
Well, you're the one who asserted that the game I play and enjoy is "gone" without any apparent basis or justification.
You're acting rather agressive. I would appriciate it if you could either say something productive, or leave.
Advice: Stop quoting or referencing his posts and his replies will decrease if not cease entirely.
Here's a few I can list off the top of my head:
Separation of combat and non-combat choices and resources.
Feats for combat and for non-combat compete for the same space
Same goes for Utility powers
Analysys paralysis due to the thousands of available feats and dozens of powers.
While at the core they don't start off as too many, eventually as more and more splat books and expansions are released, they begin to overwhelm.
Any tool, online or offline, used to aid in character creation needs to be able to limit or filter the ever increasing amount of options available especially in getting rid of those options irrelevant to the class/build.
Feat taxes/broken math.
No changes to the PCs need be done if the monsters are reworked.
Christmas tree effect magic items
The game should be playable and still balanced with a bare minimum of items or as many as the group wants to handle.
One rule that I started(insipired by the essentials Mage) is that all players get a choice of two encounter powers at each Tier. In addition you can trade down encounter powers (level 7 for a level 3 for instance) to use them again.
I am also kicking around an Arcane or Psionic INT based Melee striker. His mechanic? Impose vulnerability on a target which is something we have not yet seen in a striker.
Just remember to stay on topic and keep everyone constructive!
Thanks and happy gaming.
I will be sad to see Fourth Edition gone. It was a truly innovative and powerful rules set, despite its flaws. Based on the Fifth Edition playtest, it looks like the Wizards will be ignoring most of it in favour of older iterations of the game. This makes me sad.
I agree and I like your idea. I've been wanting to do the same thing but I just don't have a lot of time to dedicate to creating a polished, finished product rather than a list of notes and houserules.
squarefireballs.blogspot.com/2009/02/d-c...
Wait a minute? Who did my list of goals and google docs link get taken down? I wasn't trying to sell anything, posting copyrighted content, or being inappropriate.
Are you honestly confused as to why that content was removed? Advocating cloning a company's game on their own site? You're confused?
4eternity
or
FERPS (Fourth Edition Role Playing System)
I am also kicking around an Arcane or Psionic INT based Melee striker. His mechanic? Impose vulnerability on a target which is something we have not yet seen in a striker.
Elemental Pact Hexblade does this. Not that it isn't a valid idea, and there is design space for a Psionic Striker that uses the Power Point mechanic.
It should be noted, however, that giving something vulnerability at-will can lead to an unexpected minor in leader should all your allies try to do the same damage type.
That's a pretty petty distinction. That's like saying the Warden is a bad defender because his class features aren't as good as a Fighter's.
There's nothing petty about it, and it's not really like saying that at all.
What Janx_14 said identifies a potential concern supported by an example.
Your analogy is a value judgment supported by a personal opinion.
(Unless your jab about a petty distinction is in relation to a completely different unreferenced post, in which case I tentatively withdraw my comment.)
You have to be careful about handing out vulnerability, I'm pretty sure only 1 or 2 of the elemental hexblade powers apply vulnerabiltiy.
Thats not to say you couldnt make an int-based psionic striker ith power points with some other striker feature who also applies vulnerability with certain attacks when he hits (just to combine ideas in this thread). You could perhaps make the vulnerability relative to the number of power points used in the attack.
In essence, I'm just saying your striker should be a striker, not the Ranger's lackey because he grabbed swords that deal the same damage type of the vulnerability you are applying.
I will be sad to see Fourth Edition gone. It was a truly innovative and powerful rules set, despite its flaws. Based on the Fifth Edition playtest, it looks like the Wizards will be ignoring most of it in favour of older iterations of the game. This makes me sad.
NOTE: If someone comes around to your house collecting your old edition books claiming that they are no longer valid when a new edition comes out, you need to kick them to the curb and remind them that "A new edition coming out will not invalidate your current books. Ever."
It was the same way when 4e came out: people continue to play 3.x even after 4e came out. People continue to play older versions of D&D even after 3.x came out.
Amazing, isn't it?
What i mean is you can't have a striker feature that goes "You make the target your X, while subject to X the target has vulnerability 5/10/15 to Y" because if you do everyone who picks up a weapon that can deal that damage type just borrowed your class feature.
You have to be careful about handing out vulnerability, I'm pretty sure only 1 or 2 of the elemental hexblade powers apply vulnerabiltiy.
Thats not to say you couldnt make an int-based psionic striker ith power points with some other striker feature who also applies vulnerability with certain attacks when he hits (just to combine ideas in this thread). You could perhaps make the vulnerability relative to the number of power points used in the attack.
In essence, I'm just saying your striker should be a striker, not the Ranger's lackey because he grabbed swords that deal the same damage type of the vulnerability you are applying.
The idea would be that only the Caster gets the benefit of this Vulnerability. Some of his powers may allow other players to benefit from the Vulnerability, but this would be limited. The idea would be that the class starts with +X imposed Vulnerability, this then scales, can apply to allies from powers, and depending on Feats or Paragon Paths might be able to deal different damage types.
I like the idea of spending Power Points to make the Vulnerablity increase. Hit enemy with power-extra damage scales for a turn/spreads to more enemies/more allies.
That's a pretty petty distinction. That's like saying the Warden is a bad defender because his class features aren't as good as a Fighter's.
There's nothing petty about it, and it's not really like saying that at all.
What Janx_14 said identifies a potential concern supported by an example.
Your analogy is a value judgment supported by a personal opinion.
(Unless your jab about a petty distinction is in relation to a completely different unreferenced post, in which case I tentatively withdraw my comment.)
No, I mean the distinction between it being part of the powers or part of the class feature, not the warning about the damage-boosting properties. I could have been more clear that I was responding more to the first statement than the second.
Edit: Found it on ENworld