Discussion - LEW 4th Edition

Yes, I'm hoping that a fair number of people will come out of the woodwork when L4W starts to look like it's actually happening instead of just being suggested. But time will tell.

Ok, here's a question that will very soon need an answer: What do we want to call the sub-forum for this living world?

Living 4e EN World?
Living 4e Enworld?
Living 4th Edition Enworld?
Living 4e?
Living 4nworld?
Living Enworld (4e)?
Something else?


For reference, the existing living worlds sub-forum names are: Living EN World, Living Eberron, and Living Superheroes.

I lean towards the first option, myself...

I vote for
LivingEnWorld: The Fourth Age

SUP DAWG. WE HEARD YOU LIKE CHARACTER SHEETS SO WE PUT A TEMPLATE IN YOUR WIKI (SO YOU CAN EDIT WHILE YOU CHARGEN)

here: http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/Template:L4W:Character
sample: http://www.enworld.org/wiki/index.php/L4W:Character:Random

using categories it should be easy to see which characters need to be approved.

I agree that it's too early to appoint judges. Personally I won't really know what I'm signing up for.
(Ex: If there's a map and it's defined IC as "the one true map" I have no interest in running herd over harried DMs who haven't been counting inches).

My value add is usually on the creative end; so if I'm creating a lot of content (not that I'm saying I will or won't, it depends on how things go, etc)
Would I be creating things that, as a judge, I'm then supposed to approve?

However I think there is an easy way to skin the cat.
Lets start off by electing L4W facilitators.

L4W Facilitator said:

Will be a pointman person on the creation of the L4W setting. They will strive to help drive forward the communities effort to create an inclusive, vibrant setting.
Please be sure to review Desirable characteristics of Judges (as they are largely the same as they would be for facilitators) before nominating someone.

Responsibilities

• trying to be neutral and serve the common will of the community (and/or help forge a common will)
• writing and interpreting the polls that will be used to create L4W in an unbiased and inclusive manner
• Be attentive to the needs of the entire community, including trying to figure out ways to make minorities on certain issues (available character creation options, etc) happy and exited about playing in L4W.
• Writing and maintaining the Wikis that define the setting.
• L4W facilitators will act as "judges" when necessary however they will not necessarily be judges when the campaign gets started.
• pushing forward the roadmap; including particularly #8

Click to expand...

I think six people is waaaay too many at this stage. With six people we'd get almost everyone who's active on this thread. It's enough people to create it's own little echo chamber.

Three sounds good to me.
I wouldn't want there to be multiple levels of discussion. With three people you have opinions but no more. (Plus... tie breaking if it comes up).

I'll put that in the poll.

So here's my interpretation of the poll results. (you can follow the link for my tortured rationalizations)

[d]---[/d]

My interpretation

• Any PhB-only combination will be approved (provided the character has a functional backstory); character may be submitted and approved prior to setting creation (as discussed in the roadmap)
• PhB + MM races will be permitted with some scrutiny*
• other materials will not be available at game start**

*= Yeah, ok, so its a bit weasily. But what am I going to do? You have to find a middle ground, right? I don't think anyone minds having their character looked at a bit. The best thing to do would be for the onus to be upon the "objector". The objector must raise substantive, real concerns that can be classified and addressed.

Three possible areas

• Balance: Is your character too far off the "power curve". (Can a PhB character be created with the same combat profile - roughly the same AC/hit points/damage output/role effectiveness (defender, striker, etc)?
• Appropriateness: Does your character fit within the setting? Are there a lot of similar characters already out there? If your character is "rare" (good drow) do you have a convincing rational for your character's existence.
• Good RP: Is the character interesting to RP with? To read about? (A hostile psychotic who throws their weight around isn't tremendously interesting to play with)

Personally I think that only Balance problems should be a reason to reject a character. If the player can demonstrate that their character's combat profile is not out of sync with the PhB (demonstrate a PhB character with similar combat stats) then the character judges should work together with the player to overcome the other two points.

For a name how about Living 4th World? I really like 4th Age but I think there already is a Dragonlance game with that name.

I'd like to clear this up: introducing mm races does not, at the moment, unbalance anything. There are some very powerful options_for some roles. For example, a Bugbear is mechanically stronger than any other race in the phb for a brute scoundrel rogue... but it doesn't get racial feats, that are often the best available, and furthermore, a halfling, say, is exactly as good a choice for an artful dodger rogue.
I don't know when splatbooks will be released, but,at the moment, issues with balance are being addressed in pretty good erratas available at wizards.com. So for now there's no danger if we stick to core books (DDI seems mostly balanced too...)

Atanatotatos said:

I'd like to clear this up: introducing mm races does not, at the moment, unbalance anything. There are some very powerful options_for some roles. For example, a Bugbear is mechanically stronger than any other race in the phb for a brute scoundrel rogue... but it doesn't get racial feats, that are often the best available, and furthermore, a halfling, say, is exactly as good a choice for an artful dodger rogue.
I don't know when splatbooks will be released, but,at the moment, issues with balance are being addressed in pretty good erratas available at wizards.com. So for now there's no danger if we stick to core books (DDI seems mostly balanced too...)

Click to expand...

Personally I tend to agree with you... but I think it's important to consider people's concerns. That's why I've proposed the "phb build" thing.

If someone really absolutely has to play a bugbear rogue they can spend a few minutes making another striker that's got around the same combat stats (say the halfling artful dodger, or a dragonborn ranger).
If they want to play a bugbear wizard? It's mostly a discussion about how the character can be fit into the setting.

Nobody's a 100% happy, but that's why it's a compromise.

Oh and I'm nominating you for the judge facilitator role now.

Your solution is not always doable, Graf, because sometimes you will gain benefits that are not easily quantiable. For example, there's probably no way you'll build a higher-damage dealer rogue with a phb race than a bugbear one. What this consideration leaves out is that average damage is not all. In general, phb races have far more benefits than mm races. In combat, how much is worth the reroll and +1 speed an elf gets? possibly more than the bugbear's higher dmg, because you'll surely use your reroll (with a +2 bonus, because if you're looking for optimization elf accuracy is mandatory) on a critical daily. Builds with vastly different number will have a similar efficency. Other classes are very difficult to judge mechanically. For example, wizards benefit from FIVE different stats (everybody will want CHA 13 for the spell focus paragon feat), but it's really hard to say which way is the best, because they will improve different mechanics (as in, con is beneficial to defense, dex to to-hit, wis makes saves harder: which is best?)...
Furthermore, balance of races is sometimes subtle. Let's make an example. I read about minotaurs being the race everybody will build meleers in... meh. I wouldn't. Str an Con bonus look so great 'cause you still have 3e in mind, but the two stats apply to the same defense, and Constitution is not so mandatory anymore. Their encounter power is clearly bad. So why would you deem a minotaur fighter better than a dwarf fighter? It may be better for some things (virtually only better on multy-weapon-damage powers) but lose on options, and more options is -always- good.