Yes these two mechanics were very good imho.
I still use the minion rule. I don't tally wounds for grunts. Prior to the game I decide if one or two hits, regardless of damage, will kill them. Lessens my burden as a DM.
Moderator: Blacky the Blackball
Yes these two mechanics were very good imho.
Out of curiosity, is there a particular place where you see 4e mentioned more, these days? I don't think I've seen much of an uptick, but I only have visibility into my own tiny corner of social media.
Well, Matt Coleville is one YouTuber who often speaks kindly of 4E even if he's running 5E these days. He was the one who convinced me (through watching a video of his) to try out Skill Challenges. I was also listening to a podcast a few days ago which started off very well with the guys talking about why they loved 4E, but later it turned out that they were edition warriors, talking only negatively about the other editions, just like I have seen many people do about 4E. I am tired of edition wars so I just stopped listening and closed the window. Too bad because it started out so well, I was thinking about sharing it here untill it turned so negative.
I don't see tieflings in 4e are a bad thing. I mean, the concept of Bael Turath (that is NOT an FR thing) and how tieflings were created in the Nentir Vale world (and how they impacted that world) is way interesting than just "they're the offspring of fiends". That is why FR had to adapt the Nentir Vale tieflings to their lore, as well.Coronoides wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:52 amTHere is at least one devoted 4e fan within the RPG Review Cooperative here in Australia who organises petitions for WOTC to make and SRD and OGL for 4e, why not since they abandoned it.
Also 4e may have been where tieflings made it into the PHB but they originated in PLanescape, which in my opinion is where they belong. I’m tired of FR stealing all the cool stuff from other settings.![]()
That's a good point. I haven't watched too many of his videos, but I've caught a handful, and I like how he's incorporated some 4e design into his DMing advice.
Even though 13th Age was co-designed by 4e's lead designer, it's sufficiently different that I don't think it's a 4e-based game. It incorporates some of the design philosophies, but it plays quite a bit different. A huge difference is the lack of grid-based combat. That's an element of 4e that permeates so much of its system design (monster design, power design, combat rules, etc.). You can see some of the 4e DNA in there for sure, but there's also some 3.x and narrative "indie" games, too.
I preferred the Planescape tiefling. My wife's first 4e character was a tiefling, but she insisted that it was a Planescape tiefling.Coronoides wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:52 amAlso 4e may have been where tieflings made it into the PHB but they originated in PLanescape, which in my opinion is where they belong. I’m tired of FR stealing all the cool stuff from other settings.![]()
I do like the origin of the tieflings in Nentir Vale. I probably even like it better than in Planescape. When I said I preferred Planescape's tieflings, I was thinking about the amazing amount of diversity they offered. There were as many varieties of tieflings as there were different fiends in the multiverse. I liked how no two tieflings were alike. In 4e, the overall look of tieflings became more standardized, and I wasn't a huge fan of the "Klingons with horns and a lizard tail" aesthetic.Zeromaru X wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:49 amI don't see tieflings in 4e are a bad thing. I mean, the concept of Bael Turath (that is NOT an FR thing) and how tieflings were created in the Nentir Vale world (and how they impacted that world) is way interesting than just "they're the offspring of fiends".
I'm interested to understand why they would want to do this. And why they aren't working together. If it's for their own use, what value is a clone? To me, the retroclones are valuable means of allowing publishers to write content for their favorite edition while referring to the retroclone and its 100% OGL content. It sounds like these designers/fans are doing something different -- but what and why?Zeromaru X wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:49 amI see people making clones just for their own use. For instance, in EnWorld there are people working on at least three different clones.
I might agree that 13th Age is 4e's spiritual successor. But it's not a substitute. While many 13th Age fans like 4e, they tend to agree that the two games feel significantly different. There are certainly some similarities in things like heroic play from the very beginning, with three tiers of play, culminating in epic fantasy. But there's a whole lot of things that 13A does that 4e did not (and vice versa).Zeromaru X wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:49 amThere is also people that considers 13th Age as 4e successor and went there.
I hadn't heard anyone make this connection before. I haven't followed the PF 2.0 blog very closely, but my initial impression was Pathfinder blended with 5e, not 4e. Do you happen to know what parts of PF 2.0 they believe harken back to 4e?Zeromaru X wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:49 amThere is even people that considers Pathfinder 2 as 4e successor as well (the irony).
They had to create a standard tiefling look for "commercial image" stuff. They needed tieflings that were reconigzable as a D&D character, not just as a "fantasy human with devil ancestry", that is the thing with Planescape tieflings. They can have a lot of forms, but they are no different from any other half-devil from other franchises.
Beats me.Tim Baker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:29 amI'm interested to understand why they would want to do this. And why they aren't working together. If it's for their own use, what value is a clone? To me, the retroclones are valuable means of allowing publishers to write content for their favorite edition while referring to the retroclone and its 100% OGL content. It sounds like these designers/fans are doing something different -- but what and why?
Some people in EnWorld believe PF2 is organically evolving to a blending of 3.x and 4e. I don't have read the whole thing (as I'm not interested in PF at all), but people seems to believe that the way modifiers depend on your character level, the way abilities communicate clearly what they do in combat among other stuff, is more 4e-ish than 5e-ish.
That's a fair point.Zeromaru X wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:55 amThey had to create a standard tiefling look for "commercial image" stuff. They needed tieflings that were reconigzable as a D&D character, not just as a "fantasy human with devil ancestry", that is the thing with Planescape tieflings. They can have a lot of forms, but they are no different from any other half-devil from other franchises.
While you look at a 4e tiefling and you can say: "that is a D&D character".
Thanks for passing along the link. I appreciate it.Zeromaru X wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:55 amSome people in EnWorld believe PF2 is organically evolving to a blending of 3.x and 4e. I don't have read the whole thing (as I'm not interested in PF at all), but people seems to believe that the way modifiers depend on your character level, the way abilities communicate clearly what they do in combat among other stuff, is more 4e-ish than 5e-ish.
You can read the whole thing here, if you're interested:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uzmh?Pathf ... -to-DD-4th
Actually, OGL only covers D&D 3e, yet there are clones for all editions. The reason why OGL helped in creating retro-clones for other editions beyond 3e is that it offers large swats of text that can be used as-is -- so you don't need to rewrite the text of most spells, abilities, etc, just to adjust the text from the 3e SRD to work with a different rules set. That is because, on one hand, game mechanics cannot be protected by copyright, while on the other, the specific text can be protected. Thus, you can easily change, e.g., the bonuses for ability scores from 12-13 -> +1, 14-15 -> +2 etc, to 13-15 -> +1, 16-17 -> +2 while preserving the textual description of the ability scores. This makes producing a clone for BECMI or AD&D much easier.DMSamuel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:13 pmThere is a 3rd reason for the rise of retroclones, and it is this:
3) To have a ruleset that allows for 3rd parties to create content without violating specific copyrights
For all other editions the OGL allows for #3, but in the case of 4e I'm not sure the GSL would allow a true clone to be produced anyway, so this is a moot issue.
Possibly - but I suspect the real reason there isn't an audience for a 4e clone is that a 4e clone is unnecessary - all of the books and materials are available legally in pdf form and purchasable in hardcover format on the secondary market.agathokles wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:11 pmOf course, I'm not sure there would be a sufficiently large public to make it worth the effort -- my perception is that 4e raised much less interest than either 3e or 5e, and most 4e players have migrated to 5e.
GP
Probably both true.DMSamuel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:15 pmPossibly - but I suspect the real reason there isn't an audience for a 4e clone is that a 4e clone is unnecessary - all of the books and materials are available legally in pdf form and purchasable in hardcover format on the secondary market.agathokles wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:11 pmOf course, I'm not sure there would be a sufficiently large public to make it worth the effort -- my perception is that 4e raised much less interest than either 3e or 5e, and most 4e players have migrated to 5e.
GP
I think this is where we may see a 4e retroclone someday, when the pendulum swings back, and people crave some of the things that 4e offered. This is totally just speculation, but I don't think WotC will release a 4e SRD for the OGL, and the GSL is too restrictive -- I'm not even sure WotC would accept new supplements written using the GSL, as I believe there was an approval process for GSL works. Maybe that will change if there's ever demand, but if not, some industrious fans could carefully reword things using the 3.x or 5e SRD to emulate 4e with some different verbiage. I keep in mind that someday 4e will be an "old" edition (some people consider it that already), and we seem culturally attracted to restore things we're nostalgic for, these days.DMSamuel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:13 pmThere is a 3rd reason for the rise of retroclones, and it is this:
3) To have a ruleset that allows for 3rd parties to create content without violating specific copyrights
For all other editions the OGL allows for #3, but in the case of 4e I'm not sure the GSL would allow a true clone to be produced anyway, so this is a moot issue.
I would really like to have seen WotC republish the 4e SRD under the OGL (instead of the GSL).Coronoides wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:52 amTHere is at least one devoted 4e fan within the RPG Review Cooperative here in Australia who organises petitions for WOTC to make and SRD and OGL for 4e, why not since they abandoned it.
I think you are the Michael Knight of 4th Edition D&D fandom Zeromaru X.Zeromaru X wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:49 amAs for the topic, I guess 4e will survive on its own as a niche game, and WotC knows it. That's why even if they didn't gave us 4e fans an OGL, they still released all products in pdf format (even if that wasn't a thing back in the day).
I see people making clones just for their own use. For instance, in EnWorld there are people working on at least three different clones. There is also people that considers 13th Age as 4e successor and went there. There is even people that considers Pathfinder 2 as 4e successor as well (the irony). And there is people like myself, that is happy playing old plain 4e (with or without adding Essentials' stuff).
So, I guess it will be just a small bunch of people, but we will still be here.
I believe that the 5th Edition designers have come up with some rules for tiefling variants. It wouldn't be too hard to retroconvert that idea to 4th Edition.Tim Baker wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:29 amI do like the origin of the tieflings in Nentir Vale. I probably even like it better than in Planescape. When I said I preferred Planescape's tieflings, I was thinking about the amazing amount of diversity they offered. There were as many varieties of tieflings as there were different fiends in the multiverse. I liked how no two tieflings were alike. In 4e, the overall look of tieflings became more standardized, and I wasn't a huge fan of the "Klingons with horns and a lizard tail" aesthetic.Zeromaru X wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:49 amI don't see tieflings in 4e are a bad thing. I mean, the concept of Bael Turath (that is NOT an FR thing) and how tieflings were created in the Nentir Vale world (and how they impacted that world) is way interesting than just "they're the offspring of fiends".
In Nentir Vale, there was a single civilization that decided to make pacts with devils to gain power against their enemies. I'm not sure if this was a single devil or multiple, but even if it was the latter, perhaps they were all under the same arch devil's hierarchy. So it makes a certain amount of sense that they would all look similar.
I believe there was a novel that explained the change to tieflings' appearances in the Realms. Asmodeus was able to exert influence over all tiefling bloodlines, which made the tieflings appear similar to him. In 5e, the explanation is that this is still the most common appearance, but Asmodeus wasn't successful in converting all tieflings, so those who look different are the small minority that escaped that fate.Big Mac wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 9:13 pmI'm not sure if the same would apply to Forgotten Realms. Forgotten Realms had connections with the Great Wheel back in the 1st and 2nd Edition Eras and they rebooted the cosmology for the 3rd and 4th Edition Eras. And I'm not sure if the 4e origin of Realms tieflings is supposed to be tied in with Toril or Abeir.
I'm really curious about your 5e statement. Can you expand on what you mean by problems revealed by long term play of 5e - and how 4e solves them.ScrivenerofDoom wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:26 pmJust as 4E was designed to solve most of the problems associated with running 3.xE, it does a really good job fixing some of the problems revealed by long term play of 5E.
You should add a link to those in your signatureScrivenerofDoom wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:26 pmI'm seeing small signs of life for 4E.
I've become the unofficial keeper of the links to the offline versions of the 4E tools and I'm getting more than ten requests a month for links from people wanting to play again.