D&D 4E 4e and the creature catalog

freyar · Aug 16, 2007

Well, maybe this is a bit premature since we don't even know about ogl status for 4e. But I'll ask anyway: do we keep going with the 3.5 conversions? And why not?

Shade · Aug 16, 2007

I have no idea where this leaves us.

For now, I'm taking a "wait and see approach".

If 4E is what I'm expecting, this may be the end.

Knight Otu · Aug 16, 2007

Newest news appears to be that there will be an OGL and a new SRD, so that hurdle appears to be out of the way. Deeper licensing (apparently the equivalent of using the d20STL in addition to the OGL), which appears to allow greater access to WotC IP, seems to be available for a cost.

freyar · Aug 16, 2007

Well, my question was not so much about doing 4e conversions but whether we think it's worth it to continue with 3.5e ones. My vote is yes, but we should probably resolve this issue.

Knight Otu · Aug 16, 2007

I wouldn't mind, but I haven't done actual conversions in quite some time, and instead made new stuff. Really, the question is whether enough people will remain interested in 3.5 conversions when 4E hits. If yes, then by all means the CC should carry on. Wizards cannot declare the OGL and the SRD of 3.X null and void, those cats are out of the proverbial bag. They only can cancel the d20STL. And if it is true that the mechanics will not change all that much, then a 3.5 CC will remain of value for 4E players as well.

Shade · Aug 16, 2007

Here's my frame of mind at the moment.

Until 4E is released, keep on keepin' on with 3.5 conversions.

If we like 4E, we'll probably want to devote all our time to 4E conversions (think of all the monsters ripe for converting again), and the 3.5 will stick around as legacy on the CC (much like the 3E versions still are present post 3.5).

If we dislike 4E, we might keep plugging away with the CC 3.5 conversions until all is done or we burn out.

Based on the current trend of design philosophy, the words "faster play" and "less prep time", I'm guessing I'm more likely to fall in with the latter option.

BOZ · Aug 16, 2007

i'm less likely to think that the idea of "faster play" and "less prep time" means i'll give up on converting monsters to the new edition, unless these concepts mean limiting monsters. such as, "oh, the beholder can only have two eye rays now because eight is too many" and "a creature can't have more than 5 SLAs, because who can remember more than that anyway?"

simplifying things without limiting your options, hopefully, will be more liberating than stifling.

of course, if i'm wrong, then i'm agreeing that we won't be converting monsters to 4E.

Knight Otu · Aug 16, 2007

One is a design philosophy. Those can be ignored if they become too limiting. The other is a design rule. Those may be written in stone, but even stone can be chipped and broken.

Grazzt · Aug 16, 2007

Shade said:
Here's my frame of mind at the moment.

Until 4E is released, keep on keepin' on with 3.5 conversions.

If we like 4E, we'll probably want to devote all our time to 4E conversions (think of all the monsters ripe for converting again), and the 3.5 will stick around as legacy on the CC (much like the 3E versions still are present post 3.5).

If we dislike 4E, we might keep plugging away with the CC 3.5 conversions until all is done or we burn out.

Based on the current trend of design philosophy, the words "faster play" and "less prep time", I'm guessing I'm more likely to fall in with the latter option.