PDA

View Full Version : 4e SRD out tomorrow?



xanaphia
2008-12-30, 10:11 PM
Back when 4e came out, I heard that the SRD would be released on Jan 1 2009. Is this true? Will it be free? I haven't read the rules yet.

It will be nice, if I am correct, to see the new rules. Will it be released like the 3.5 SRD?

If it is, I will be happy.

Zeful
2008-12-30, 10:38 PM
The 4e SRD will not be released like the 3.5 SRD. No 4e material is OGL.

Waspinator
2008-12-30, 10:41 PM
4E is never going to have a free set of the rules like 3.5 did. Probably at least partly because of the situation WotC is in right now, where 3.5 is proving very hard to kill.

Talkkno
2008-12-30, 11:43 PM
Its already out...

Stormgale
2008-12-30, 11:48 PM
Its already out...

But not in the form he assume's (if I understand the OP correctly)

xanaphia
2008-12-31, 03:56 AM
I mean like the 3.5 one.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-31, 08:13 AM
Link (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome) to 4E SRD and license.

It are not rules.

Talya
2008-12-31, 09:33 AM
4E is never going to have a free set of the rules like 3.5 did. Probably at least partly because of the situation WotC is in right now, where 3.5 is proving very hard to kill.

Seems to me that if they really wanted to give 4e a shot at "killing" 3.5, they'd release MORE of it free.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 09:37 AM
To be fair, one huge problem with giving things away is that it reduces the chances of people spending money on it. I think just releasing small previews is wise to be honest.

Talya
2008-12-31, 09:52 AM
To be fair, one huge problem with giving things away is that it reduces the chances of people spending money on it. I think just releasing small previews is wise to be honest.

Well, here's the thing: virtually nobody who would otherwise have bought 3.5 only used the SRD. If people got into it online because someone pointed out the SRD was available, they soon discovered other people had more material they weren't aware of. In the end, they either bought or downloaded everything they could.

Now with 4e, nobody's getting that initial free exposure, so the impetus to buy is less. However, if people really want to see it, they can still download it just as easily as they could the 3.5 material. (And pirate pdf copies were available on just about every usual source before the game was even for sale--and better quality copies than 3.5 ever had since they were original printing documents rather than scanned and OCRed books.)

The SRD made 3.5 into a monster. 4e doesn't have that advantage.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-31, 10:01 AM
The SRD made 3.5 into a monster. 4e doesn't have that advantage.

That makes me happy - maybe bad attempts to convert each and every setting to DND rules will die out now. There are few settings that work well with 4e rules and even less with 3.5 rules.

Talya
2008-12-31, 10:24 AM
There are few settings that work well with 4e rules and even less with 3.5 rules.

Unfortunately, Forgotten Realms is not one of the few settings that work well with 4e rules, yet here we are.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 10:28 AM
I guess you have a point. Why doesn;t FR work well with the 4th Edition? I think I remember hearing about a campaing-specific event which was used to somehow explain the 4th Edition changes.

Talya
2008-12-31, 10:34 AM
I guess you have a point. Why doesn;t FR work well with the 4th Edition? I think I remember hearing about a campaing-specific event which was used to somehow explain the 4th Edition changes.

They had to completely gut and reshape Faerun into something that doesn't resemble the previous world at all, fluffwise, just so that it matched the 4e crunch.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 10:39 AM
It sounds as though they would have been better off not bothering. I can see why some races would need to be altered, but how else did it need to be changed?

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-31, 10:41 AM
I'd love to see how they end up re-statting Dri**t (again) to be able to 'explain' all the Mary Sueing he does in the books, that some player can't just steal for their own use.

Either they're going to have to nerf the 'iconics', or you've got a plot hole the size of a mac truck players can use for the purposes of power creep.

zeruslord
2008-12-31, 10:44 AM
Of course, Faerun doesn't work at all under 3.5 rules, because Elminster could get into some infinite power loop and send angels to solve every problem as soon as it appears, unless he is a massive jerk. Faerun in 3.5 is basically assuming that none of the high-level wizards is going to break out the cheese and auto-win the setting, which would be the best course of action for any of them to take. The problem with the 4e conversion is that they had to make the setting match the 4e fluff, which goes much farther than the 3.5 fluff ever did and is built far deeper into the ruleset, particularly with the planes.

Talya
2008-12-31, 10:45 AM
I'd love to see how they end up re-statting Drizzt (again) to be able to 'explain' all the Mary Sueing he does in the books, that some player can't just steal for their own use.

Either they're going to have to nerf the 'iconics', or you've got a plot hole the size of a mac truck players can use for the purposes of power creep.

Drizzt isn't a particularly powerful iconic, nor a very good example of a "mary-sue." He's a decently written, nicely balanced, and interesting character. The complaints arise from the teeming masses of unoriginal copycats who use the same type of background for the emo-angst factor.


Of course, Faerun doesn't work at all under 3.5 rules, because Elminster could get into some infinite power loop and send angels to solve every problem as soon as it appears, unless he is a massive ****. Faerun in 3.5 is basically assuming that none of the high-level wizards is going to break out the cheese and auto-win the setting, which would be the best course of action for any of them to take. The problem with the 4e conversion is that they had to make the setting match the 4e fluff, which goes much farther than the 3.5 fluff ever did and is built far deeper into the ruleset, particularly with the planes.

None of the high level wizards in Faerun are that high level. I think even Elminster's caster level doesn't break 30, if I recall, and he's the highest level character in the entire setting. He's got a much higher ECL, but a lot of that is template level and other sub-optimal multiclass combinations (he has levels of fighter and cleric, for example.) He also spends much/most of his time planetravelling. I don't even remember that he has epic spellcasting, at all. (In fact, I don't believe Epic Spellcasting has ever, fluffwise or crunchwise, been included in Faerun.)

Anyway, what I said above about Drizzt not being much of a "mary-sue"? While true about Drizzt, it's not true about Elminster--the Avatar of Ed Greenwood and pretty much the classic example of a "mary-sue" character.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-31, 10:51 AM
Unfortunately, Forgotten Realms is not one of the few settings that work well with 4e rules, yet here we are.

Fortunately, the only setting I could care less about than Generic Realms is Generichawk - I got the FRPG book for swordmage, genasi and other crunch, and have yet to even start reading the parts about fluff at the end of the book.

And you don't need epic spellcasting to break the world. Ask Tippy.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 10:54 AM
What do you mean about asking Tippy about breaking a world, Tengu?

Morty
2008-12-31, 10:54 AM
This thread reinforces my belief that 4ed Realms are tailored for people who didn't like that setting in 3rd edition. It also amazes me how people are apparently expecting a setting to strictly follow the rules they complain about endlessly, i.e magic rules.
Also, I'll just note that many "iconics" are in fact massive wimps optimization-wise, including Drizzt.
And finally, I wonder how will Eberron fare in 4th edition. Not that I'd touch that setting with a ten feet pole in any case, but it doesn't really fit 4ed's "Points of Light" concept.

Talya
2008-12-31, 10:58 AM
It sounds as though they would have been better off not bothering. I can see why some races would need to be altered, but how else did it need to be changed?

The mechanics of spellcasting were part of the setting fluff. Of course, they're gone now.

They utterly destroyed magic in the realms, including the Weave and the Goddess who maintained it, and the Shadoweave. They decimated the rich pantheon that the realms had (one of the main things I loved about it.) And, as you said, they completely changed/retconned several races and monsters to "fit" with 4e.



And finally, I wonder how will Eberron fare in 4th edition. Not that I'd touch that setting with a ten feet pole in any case, but it doesn't really fit 4ed's "Points of Light" concept.


I'm expecting Eberron to fair better. For one, 4e has the complete buy-in of Eberron's creator. Secondly, Eberron doesn't already have as rich and detailed a level of history to need retconning. Lastly, I think Eberron's style never did fit 3.5 all that well. I actually look forward to seeing it's 4e adaption. I may take that opportunity to play both in my first 4e and first Eberron campaign.

Lappy9000
2008-12-31, 11:01 AM
Probably at least partly because of the situation WotC is in right now, where 3.5 is proving very hard to kill.
Granted, 3.5 has the almighty power of Pun-Pun at it's disposal, as well as a veritable horde of cheesy creations.

"As the newcomers from the land of Forthediction ready their powers, they are instantly cowed by the broken monsters that spew forth from the outlying hills. Older than the primordials themselves, these beings walked the earth even before the dragonborn, and sought to wipe out the existence of the Forthediction.

Martial and Arcane powers meet with formidable spiked chains and halfling-double-rapier blades as the the hordes of Three-Poinfive clash against the armies of Forthediction. The armies battle on in a conflict that promises to undo the world as we know it...."

Zeful
2008-12-31, 11:02 AM
Of course if they left it alone, you would have the FR fanboys demanding that their favorite setting be massively retconned and changed so that it would fit the 4e rules. Which any update would require.

So yeah, damned if you do damned if you don't

Morty
2008-12-31, 11:08 AM
I'm expecting Eberron to fair better. For one, 4e has the complete buy-in of Eberron's creator. Secondly, Eberron doesn't already have as rich and detailed a level of history to need retconning. Lastly, I think Eberron's style never did fit 3.5 all that well. I actually look forward to seeing it's 4e adaption. I may take that opportunity to play both in my first 4e and first Eberron campaign.

Well, on one hand, FR fits the "Good vs. Evil" theme that's so strong in 4ed much better. On the other hand, Eberron was tailored into resembling action movies just like 4ed. So yeah, it's not sure.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-31, 11:20 AM
What do you mean about asking Tippy about breaking a world, Tengu?

Tippy constantly proves with his ideas that even low level wizards can completely change the world around them. And a high level wizard who's not ruling at least a small country is either uninterested, or not trying hard enough.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-31, 11:23 AM
Well, on one hand, FR fits the "Good vs. Evil" theme that's so strong in 4ed much better. On the other hand, Eberron was tailored into resembling action movies just like 4ed. So yeah, it's not sure.

Think about what you just said... think very carefully...this is mentioning an ancient horror that makes even Cuthulu cringe in absolute abject horror

*curls up in a corner, rocking back and forth* There was no D&D movie... there was no D&D movie... there was no D&D movie...

Morty
2008-12-31, 11:28 AM
Think about what you just said... think very carefully...this is mentioning an ancient horror that makes even Cuthulu cringe in absolute abject horror

*curls up in a corner, rocking back and forth* There was no D&D movie... there was no D&D movie... there was no D&D movie...

Luckily, I haven't had the "pleasure" to watch that movie.

Talya
2008-12-31, 11:28 AM
Well, on one hand, FR fits the "Good vs. Evil" theme that's so strong in 4ed much better. On the other hand, Eberron was tailored into resembling action movies just like 4ed. So yeah, it's not sure.

I don't see that "Good vs. Evil" theme being stronger in 4ed. I think they toned it down from 3.x, making everything more relative, getting rid of the good vs. evil symetry from 3.x.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 11:31 AM
I never got the alignment changes (I can't see any reason why a character can't be Chaotic and Good or Lawful and Evil, for instance).

Morty
2008-12-31, 11:33 AM
I don't see that "Good vs. Evil" theme being stronger in 4ed. I think they toned it down from 3.x, making everything more relative, getting rid of the good vs. evil symetry from 3.x.

Really? I though that the "Points of Light" setting with "Good" races huddling together under the attack of ugly evil races, demons et cetera as well as lack of stats for evil deities makes 4ed more tailored towards Good vs. Evil division.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-31, 11:36 AM
Luckily, I haven't had the "pleasure" to watch that movie.

No, but you may have inadvertently said something far worse... speak not of the Thing Which Did Not Exist... or there may come a sequal... which has apparently grown easier to accomplish. Yet another thing to shun fourthed for...

Xefas
2008-12-31, 11:44 AM
I never got the alignment changes (I can't see any reason why a character can't be Chaotic and Good or Lawful and Evil, for instance).

You can, they just call you "Good" now if you're Chaotic Good or Neutral Good, and "Evil" if you're Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. They wrapped those alignments together.

Mostly because Chaotic Good is "Doing good acts without letting order get in the way." and Neutral Good is "Doing good acts without letting unnecessary order get in the way."

And Lawful Evil is "Doing evil acts but restraining yourself from devolving into chaos." and Neutral Evil is "Doing evil acts but restraining yourself from devolving completely into chaos".

Yes, those alignments are different from each other, but not a whole lot. I don't play with alignment in 4th edition, so it's not a problem for me. I mean, only 1 power in the Player's Handbook is effected by alignment, and nothing else in the whole book is. Why even keep alignment around?

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 11:46 AM
I still think they are different enough to justify being separate (using that logic, you could wrap LG and CE into NG and NE as well).

Xefas
2008-12-31, 11:51 AM
I still think they are different enough to justify being separate (using that logic, you could wrap LG and CE into NG and NE as well).

Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. If you take any logic all the way to its natural extreme, you get Solipsism, and then no one exists, and no one wants that.

Mercenary Pen
2008-12-31, 11:52 AM
No, but you may have inadvertently said something far worse... speak not of the Thing Which Did Not Exist... or there may come a sequal... which has apparently grown easier to accomplish. Yet another thing to shun fourthed for...

I hate to say it, but last I heard there was a Forgotten Realms movie already in production...

In fact, having just looked a trailer for it can be found here (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/new-forgotten-realms-trailer/908094734)

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

Talya
2008-12-31, 11:53 AM
Really? I though that the "Points of Light" setting with "Good" races huddling together under the attack of ugly evil races, demons et cetera


Which is, perhaps, a change in the balance of Good vs. Evil, but not a change in the focus. In fact, they've taken some of that focus away by removing the existence of the inherently "good" being. There are plenty of beings that are always evil, but you no longer have the symetry of opposed monster-manual creatures, for example that of Devils (LE)/Yugoloth (NE)/Demons (CE) vs. Eladrin (CG)/Guardinal(NG)/Archon (LG). Angels are now free-willed beings that match the alignment of whatever god they serve. What it seems they've done is removed much of the focus of good vs. evil, and instead moved the focus to "Player vs. Everything Else." They've just handwaved that by ensuring almost everything else is evil, while players must generally be good.


as well as lack of stats for evil deities makes 4ed more tailored towards Good vs. Evil division.

This also falls into the "make players be generally good" comment above.

Morty
2008-12-31, 11:58 AM
Which is, perhaps, a change in the balance of Good vs. Evil, but not a change in the focus. In fact, they've taken some of that focus away by removing the existence of the inherently "good" being. There are plenty of beings that are always evil, but you no longer have the symetry of opposed monster-manual creatures, for example that of Devils (LE)/Yugoloth (NE)/Demons (CE) vs. Eladrin (CG)/Guardinal(NG)/Archon (LG). Angels are now free-willed beings that match the alignment of whatever god they serve. What it seems they've done is removed much of the focus of good vs. evil, and instead moved the focus to "Player vs. Everything Else." They've just handwaved that by ensuring almost everything else is evil, while players must generally be good.

Yes, but by 4ed's deafault PCs are good-aligned, and players are repedately discouraged from playing evil characters. Removal of purely Good creatures only means that PCs are preety much the only ones who can counter high-tier evil. But it's still Good vs. Evil. Maybe not more so than in 3ed, but certainly not less.


This also falls into the "make players be generally good" comment above.

Which means that since 4ed is about Players vs. Everything Else" it's also "Good vs. Evil", since players are by default Good.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 12:00 PM
I'd have kept the basic alignments as they are while dropping some of the more ridiculous fluff (I tend to think that not doing things for the greater good is often more good then not doing lesser evil actions, but I know WotC would disagree with me there).

Talya
2008-12-31, 12:02 PM
(I tend to think that not doing things for the greater good is often more good then not doing lesser evil actions, but I know WotC would disagree with me there).

I tend to not think that what you are not saying is not what I don't disbelieve.

Maybe. I got lost in there somewhere.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 12:13 PM
So you're saying you don;t agree with doing things for the greater good if it would prevent more suffering then the solution?:smallconfused:

Mercenary Pen
2008-12-31, 12:13 PM
I reckon the main motivation for the removal of generically good creatures (and to a lesser extent organisations) was to prevent the inherent overshadowing of PC-characters.

For example: take a theoretical Forgotten Realms campaign. The generic PC's, a group of fifth level adventurers, have fought a motley assortment of Goblins and Kobolds in a small geographical region, saving a few towns. In the same geographical region, the Harpers have spent the same period of time preventing the destruction of entire planes of existence and coincidentally routed a war host from the underdark. Which set of events are the locals going to be gossiping about?

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-31, 12:15 PM
So you're saying you don;t agree with doing things for the greater good if it would prevent more suffering then the solution?:smallconfused:

Big Brother would approve of this message. It is doubleplusgood.

"The world would suffer so much less if I were just in control of everything. Then everything would be expertly and perfectly managed, for the betterment of all."

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-31, 12:16 PM
That's some serious OT there. Maybe y'all should start a new thread for it? (Or a mod could split it maybe.)

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 12:18 PM
Thanks (I'd class that as LE rather then good due to who actually benefits from that sort of thing. And I have Chaotic tendancies dispite most people on here classing me as Lawful Good:smalltongue:). I was thinking more about things like killing dangerous people rather then taking them prisoner and other smaller things.

Talya
2008-12-31, 12:21 PM
So you're saying you don;t agree with doing things for the greater good if it would prevent more suffering then the solution?:smallconfused:


Uh... Nyos?

I think I was saying I didn't understand what you said. :)

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 12:23 PM
Getting back OT, Do you think that other sourcebooks are really needed to play D&D? If you're a descent home-brewer, that would eliminate the need for other sourcebooks (also, some people may not be able to afford them anyway).

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-31, 12:28 PM
No sourcebooks beyond the core rules are ever necessary. The vast majority of my RPGs are a single book, and they're all very playable and very fun. D&D, especially, is so generic - D&D sourcebooks since 3.0 have offered practically nothing but new rules mechanics stuff, which just isn't critical unless you're a theoretical optimizer. If you're tabletopping (like the majority of players), everyone at the table only has access to the same stuff anyway.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-31, 12:33 PM
Thanks (I'd class that as LE rather then good due to who actually benefits from that sort of thing. And I have Chaotic tendancies dispite most people on here classing me as Lawful Good:smalltongue:). I was thinking more about things like killing dangerous people rather then taking them prisoner and other smaller things.

Depends on your definition of "The Greater Good". We all know how that phrase has been twisted and used over the centuries.

Getting back on topic: I'm of the opinion that 4e shot itself in the foot with it's current SRD rules. 3.5e is never going to be killed, just like 1/2e STILL hasn't died yet. The only thing they're doing with these silly decisions is telling people that they're moving more to the 'corporate a-hole' point of view, which at least makes me disinclined to continue to be a customer of theirs. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

In particular, I think the worst part of their decisions about 4e is trying to put 2nd hand bookstores (like Half-Priced Books) out of business with the whole "You can only use the code in the book ONCE EVAR". Not to mention shooting themselves in the foot in the process. If you're going to charge a monthly fee so they can have the privilege of using your character generator program (in other words, an MMO that isn't actually a game, just the character generator), then I'd think you would want to encourage people to get said accounts, not discourage them.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-31, 12:39 PM
The 4E SRD is a joke (i.e. it's not a rules reference, it's a reference about which rules you can repeat and how you can refer to them), but the GSL is far worse. It doesn't even cover fansites, one way or the other, leaving some sites unable to print anything 4E-related (mostly because they are stupid, have no idea how the law works, and partly because they are weenies; RQ fansites were even actively targeted at some point by Chaosium, and none of my faves ever went down, in some 10+ years now).

Read the GSL and see what it allows. Basically, third parties can produce adventures, and that's it.

This is good news in a way, though: it means no 4E D&D rules applied to every single god damn genre and world out there by an endless stream of third party RPG garage shops. So few d20 games were actually worth the paper they were printed on (CoC, Conan, and M&M; that's it). If you want to actually make a game, come up with your own rules.

Also, no more abortions like Fading Suns d20. Oh ghu, the pain.

Tempest Fennac
2008-12-31, 12:51 PM
(I just realised what went wrong earlier. I meant to say that I class not doing things for the greater good is more evil then avoiding doing minor evil things if it benefits more people in my opinion. Sorry about the typo earlier. My definition of the greater good is limited to causing the least amount of harm possible.)

What was Fading Suns like, and why was it so bad?

Tengu_temp
2008-12-31, 02:55 PM
What was Fading Suns like, and why was it so bad?

Fading Suns is an awesome game. The D20 conversion, on the other hand, I can imagine to be as horrible as Deadlands D20, which stripped all the elements that made Deadlands unique and fun, apart from the setting.

Sebastian
2008-12-31, 03:40 PM
I still think they are different enough to justify being separate (using that logic, you could wrap LG and CE into NG and NE as well).

It would make no real difference anyway, alignements in 4e are useless, anyway. They are a minor detail like height, or eyes and hair color. Important (maybe) for roleplaying purposes but with zero to nil mechanical effects (AFAIR) .

Tengu_temp
2008-12-31, 03:44 PM
It would make no real difference anyway, alignements in 4e are useless, anyway. They are a minor detail like height, or eyes and hair color. Important (maybe) for roleplaying purposes but with zero to nil mechanical effects (AFAIR) .

Except, of course, that eye and hair colour exist in the game world, while alignments do not.

Innis Cabal
2008-12-31, 03:45 PM
Of course, Faerun doesn't work at all under 3.5 rules, because Elminster could get into some infinite power loop and send angels to solve every problem as soon as it appears, unless he is a massive jerk. Faerun in 3.5 is basically assuming that none of the high-level wizards is going to break out the cheese and auto-win the setting, which would be the best course of action for any of them to take. The problem with the 4e conversion is that they had to make the setting match the 4e fluff, which goes much farther than the 3.5 fluff ever did and is built far deeper into the ruleset, particularly with the planes.

No they don't do that because well...thats not how you write a setting for one. Secondly, the world itself dosn't work on 3.5 mechanics, thirdly if the good guys do it, so do the bag guys. Then where are you? End of the world. Thats right

Tsotha-lanti
2008-12-31, 03:50 PM
What was Fading Suns like, and why was it so bad?

Fading Suns is the best space-opera setting ever, with rules somewhat similar to 7th Sea/L5R. It's a wonderful mix of Dune and WH40K, with a load of original junk and a huge focus on the medieval influences. (Your average peasant is identical to a medieval one in every way; candles, beasts of burden, wood-and-thatch house...) Essentially, it's the 15th century with spaceships. The game has a huge focus on intrigue, politics, and - most of all - stories, with grand themes.

The d20 version is the FS book, clipped, with d20 rules plastered all over it. The system is 95+ % D&D (the rule of thumb of d20 games is, the more they changed the mechanics, the better the game), and the overall effect is grotesque. You'd think they could've been at least assed to write their own book, but no. The book has nothing good in it at all.

Sebastian
2008-12-31, 03:59 PM
Except, of course, that eye and hair colour exist in the game world, while alignments do not.

Exactly what i mean, alignment is just another annotation in your character sheet "tall, pointy nose, a small scar on the left cheek, good" It is not a rule in 4e, they should have just dropped it rather than leave it in name only like they did.

BillyJimBoBob
2008-12-31, 04:25 PM
Tippy constantly proves with his ideas that even low level wizards can completely change the world around them. And a high level wizard who's not ruling at least a small country is either uninterested, or not trying hard enough.Tippy does this by making several basic assumptions which every campaign world I have played in did not follow. His ideas work by RAW, and that's all. In most or all settings his concepts, as interesting as they might be as explorations into what might be in a RAW D&D 3.5 world, just can not come to fruition.

Pirate_King
2008-12-31, 06:24 PM
So anyway, about the SRD...

I just don't think it would work. 3.5's srd is essentially a PH and a DMG with a bit of unearthed arcana. The original PH and DMG alone had loads of content, and the 4e versions of those books just don't quite hold up against them. Since I got over my initial excitement over a new game, I've been feeling more and more like the system wasn't actually finished, and the supplements are less like things to make the game more interesting and more to actually complete it. Look at the Adventurer's vault; it had things for mounts and companions, but it was released before martial power. But I'll put aside my complaints about 4e itself, there are enough vs threads dead and buried. I ask this question: what would actually go into the SRD? the two core's wouldn't be enough, maybe the two cores with some martial power, or adventurer's vault? or do they have to wait until divine and arcane supplements come out before they could actually have an srd that could be considered "complete?" The 3.5 core had something that felt like a whole game; you might not need anything but the 4e core to play 4e, but it feels like it's missing something, and it feels like it's designed to be missing something.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-12-31, 06:34 PM
So anyway, about the SRD...

I just don't think it would work. 3.5's srd is essentially a PH and a DMG with a bit of unearthed arcana. The original PH and DMG alone had loads of content, and the 4e versions of those books just don't quite hold up against them. Since I got over my initial excitement over a new game, I've been feeling more and more like the system wasn't actually finished, and the supplements are less like things to make the game more interesting and more to actually complete it. Look at the Adventurer's vault; it had things for mounts and companions, but it was released before martial power. But I'll put aside my complaints about 4e itself, there are enough vs threads dead and buried. I ask this question: what would actually go into the SRD? the two core's wouldn't be enough, maybe the two cores with some martial power, or adventurer's vault? or do they have to wait until divine and arcane supplements come out before they could actually have an srd that could be considered "complete?" The 3.5 core had something that felt like a whole game; you might not need anything but the 4e core to play 4e, but it feels like it's missing something, and it feels like it's designed to be missing something.

There is nothing that says they cannot update their SRD with new material as it comes out...

Pirate_King
2008-12-31, 06:44 PM
Technically possible, but unrealistic. What would you decide to add? More Powers? All the build options? That's the whole point of the supplements. Would you just have the powers and feats from the PH? What about pole-arms, that sort of get the shaft in the whole concept of making a unique build based on weapon groups? I don't know, maybe my whole objection is unfounded, but playing 4e has been less and less satisfying as I've gone.

And that trailer that Pen linked to, it's a total fake. Landscapes and speedily chopped together footage of LotR. music from Gladiator.

Mercenary Pen
2008-12-31, 06:52 PM
And that trailer that Pen linked to, it's a total fake. Landscapes and speedily chopped together footage of LotR. music from Gladiator.

Apologies, I have since read further and discovered this was no more than an elaborate hoax. My sincerest apologies to all.

zeruslord
2008-12-31, 07:19 PM
Tippy does this by making several basic assumptions which every campaign world I have played in did not follow. His ideas work by RAW, and that's all. In most or all settings his concepts, as interesting as they might be as explorations into what might be in a RAW D&D 3.5 world, just can not come to fruition.The reason they don't come to fruition is that most DMs and players don't want them to. It's not that Tippyverse isn't at least a possible outcome, it's that nobody, when they decide to play a D&D game, imagines that world. The reason wizards, clerics, and druids outpower everybody is that the 3.0 designers were terrible optimizers and played clerics as straight healbots, wizards as blasters, and did not try to break anything. Their testing was all done in the Sunless Citadel series, which are nearly all dungeon crawls, rather than creating their own campaigns with more complicated plots and allowing spellcasters to use all their spells to best effect and alter society. In the end, the fundamental issue is that WotC did not look for the most powerful in combat combinations, let alone ways to use spells outside the dungeon. Of course, a set of rules that allow the tippyverse will eventually lead to something vaguely like it if anybody tries to optimize, just like our universe led to atom bombs and stealth fighters. Assuming otherwise is assuming that people don't try to win wars and improve their standards of living.

Mando Knight
2008-12-31, 08:09 PM
as well as lack of stats for evil deities makes 4ed more tailored towards Good vs. Evil division.

Tiamat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98226). Oops. :smalltongue:

Tempest Fennac
2009-01-01, 03:33 AM
It sounds bad about that setting. :smallfrown: As far as the 4th Edition goes, I'd say that every class using the same mechanics is a problem as far as variety goes as well.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-01-01, 04:26 AM
It sounds bad about that setting. :smallfrown: As far as the 4th Edition goes, I'd say that every class using the same mechanics is a problem as far as variety goes as well.

The D&D 4E mechanics absolutely can't be adapted to any other game as-is. The best/closest you'd get would be Star Wars Saga Edition, but the GSL wouldn't allow third parties to develop what's essentially a 3.5/4E hybrid (or, indeed, to actually create their own rules; you can't reproduce anything from the PHB, only refer to pages; the GSL pretty much only allows you to create adventure modules as 3rd-party products).

Morty
2009-01-01, 09:12 AM
Tiamat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98226). Oops. :smalltongue:

:smallsigh: You do realize of course, that it only proves my point? What you have here is players fighting Tiamat, while I trust it was preety obvious from my post that I was talking about being able to serve those dieties, which is actively discouraged in 4ed.
Anyway, on topic: I don't see what's the big deal with people trying to shoehorn everything into d20 mechanics, be it 3rd or 4th edition. Sure, most of such attempts suck, but noone forces anyone to care about them.

Dacia Brabant
2009-01-01, 10:24 AM
I can understand how people don't like the creeping of D&D stats, skills, saves, feats and spells into another game system, but the standardization of Task = d20 + Modifiers vs. Difficulty is I think a very useful and easily portable method for resolving situations that have some sense of randomness to them.

And I completely agree with Tayla that WotC should release an equivalent "core 4e" if it wants to be competitive with its earlier 3.5 products (and all the derivatives of it). Releasing free, albeit flavorless, online rules that will give new 4e players and GMs what they need to run a basic game is good incentive for them to go out and buy supplements to their heart's content. Now I personally loved using core 3.5 and homebrewing off of it, but many if not most people who play are going to want splatbooks, alternate core books and campaign settings to give them even more options to choose from, and that's fine for them and good business for WotC.

I hope they will reverse their decision on this once they have more product out there, I personally like 4e (with some exceptions like multiclassing rules, which for some reason D&D never gets right) and want it to succeed, but if it's going to succeed it needs more face time with potential players. That's how tabletop RPGs have always been sold, through word of mouth and getting new players to the table--preferably without them having to shell out lots of cash up front--and a proper SRD would be a good way to go.

SSGW Priest
2009-01-01, 01:45 PM
I hate to say it, but last I heard there was a Forgotten Realms movie already in production...

In fact, having just looked a trailer for it can be found here (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/new-forgotten-realms-trailer/908094734)

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

It is really too late... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728/

:smalleek:

Jayabalard
2009-01-01, 11:54 PM
To be fair, one huge problem with giving things away is that it reduces the chances of people spending money on it. Not true. Its quite possible that giving away enough of the game to get people actually playing it would result in more overall sales. The Baen free library is a great example of how giving stuff away for free can result in more people spending money on what you're selling.

horseboy
2009-01-02, 02:04 AM
It is really too late... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728/

:smalleek:I had it on my DVR and it blew up before I watched it. :smallfrown:

herrhauptmann
2009-01-02, 02:03 PM
They've already done a sequel of sorts: "Wrath of the Dragon God." I could make better costumes from materials purchased at walmart. Acting was worse than a junior high drama class, and I only got 20 minutes in before turning it off, so I can't debate quality of plot.

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-02, 02:27 PM
They've already done a sequel of sorts: "Wrath of the Dragon God." I could make better costumes from materials purchased at walmart. Acting was worse than a junior high drama class, and I only got 20 minutes in before turning it off, so I can't debate quality of plot.

You didn't click on the link in the post right above you, did you.

herrhauptmann
2009-01-03, 02:54 AM
Nope, after my computer spent 15 minutes trying to start the preview to the 'D&D Movie' listed somewhere on page 1 or 2, I decided to not bother with more links.

Panda-s1
2009-01-03, 04:50 AM
The D&D 4E mechanics absolutely can't be adapted to any other game as-is. The best/closest you'd get would be Star Wars Saga Edition, but the GSL wouldn't allow third parties to develop what's essentially a 3.5/4E hybrid

You mean the GSL wouldn't allow someone to make some based off a property that doesn't belong to WotC.


(or, indeed, to actually create their own rules; you can't reproduce anything from the PHB, only refer to pages; the GSL pretty much only allows you to create adventure modules as 3rd-party products).
Uh, you mind explaining these (http://www.iguk.co.uk/products/advanced-players-guide-4e-gsl-supplement-7427.aspx) books (http://www.goodman-games.com/4400preview.html) here? (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/detail.php?qsID=1624&qsSeries=54)

Panda-s1
2009-01-03, 04:57 AM
In particular, I think the worst part of their decisions about 4e is trying to put 2nd hand bookstores (like Half-Priced Books) out of business with the whole "You can only use the code in the book ONCE EVAR". Not to mention shooting themselves in the foot in the process. If you're going to charge a monthly fee so they can have the privilege of using your character generator program (in other words, an MMO that isn't actually a game, just the character generator), then I'd think you would want to encourage people to get said accounts, not discourage them.

Uh, you know they got rid of the whole "using a code to read the content online" thing? Now just having a subscription means you have the entire compendium at your fingertips. Which means if I don't feel particularly inclined to get a certain book, then at least the crunch is available to me ('cause honestly, things like Draconomicon and Open Grave I'd only get for fluff reasons).

And that character generator is amazing. Better than any unofficial character creator I've run into online. Believe me, if there were a 3.X version of it you'd love it too (and no, the one that came with the 3.0 manual doesn't count, that's just for your character alone).