Living 4th Edition Discussion Thread

Graf · Aug 26, 2008

Ata said:
I'd like to note that checking correct power update is going to be harder for judges if there's not a "utility powers" entry...IMO

There is a utility power section down at the bottom.

The point is that there are really TWO SHEETS.
1.Is for playing.
1 is for checking the math and powers.

For playing purposes it doesn't matter where your daily/encounter powers come from (item, power, race, whatever) you just need to know their frequency/bonus to-hit/effects.

For checking purposes? You need to know where it came from.

Squeezing those two into one sheet is a really bad idea. You wind up with something that does nothing well, and annoys everyone.

[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=3387" said:
Erekose13[/url]] think in general the Character Sheet on Wizards.com can serve as the basis on where to draw the line.

This is a classic example of a terribly designed sheet. WotC knows this. They made up a better sheet (the horizontal sheet) and are trying to sell it to you for 20$. Whatever we do I don't think we should use their sheet except to show what not to do.

During normal play do I need to see that I'm using my +2 int modifier for my AC along with my leather armor? No. No I don't.
What is MISC? How can I tell? If I can't tell what the damn bonus is for why are you telling me about it? "Well... he's got a +2 from something.... let me go search around on the sheet to see what it could be..."

[d]--[/d]

While
... we may need an "other" column
... we may (should?) have a template (help! I can't do templates...)

I don't think we should have feats and powers and classes shoved into "other" and then have each and every character sheet use its own notation and force judges to wade through a dozen different versions of the same info. I realize that Cov said he though I 'wasn't far' so this may not be suggested but...

the goal of the math section should NOT be "easy for players to fill in". It should be "EASY TO CHECK".

I agree that '--' is a PINA and should be dropped in favor of blank spaces. I think I was worried it'd freak out if there was a blank space.

Graf · Aug 26, 2008

Not to rant about something nobody cares about... but look at the WotC passive skills section... wtf is that? 10+skill and then there's another box on the left called score...

I suppose the "score" section is suppose to include your racial bonuses.... but you include that in the frikking role anyway....

That level of abject, incomprehensible ineptitude has to be deliberate...

Graf · Aug 26, 2008

covaithe said:
In Quagmire's sheet, there are more than 60 table cells dedicated to feats, and only two of them aren't empty.

I do see your point in that it seems "wasteful" but I think this is one of those times when you have to think about the setting in a year or two....

There are a lot of tichy little feat bonuses floating around and by level 3 every character has at least 3 feats...
You have people training skills with feats, you have people multiclassing, you have skill focus, you have feats that give weird bonuses (quickdraw? +2 init).

That's a lot for one column.

While your sample 1st level character doesn't have a lot of feat related bonuses I think that cramming those feats in to a big column along with class features and powers is not a hot idea.

The math for DnD is complex... I don't love that (though it's easier than 3.5) but I don't think the solution is to try to hide it way.

The human eye can scan through blank space extremely efficiently; if we write a template that lets you just fill in stuff you have and is otherwise blank I think it'd be the best of both worlds.

Like text that appears when you edit but not post...?

Graf · Aug 26, 2008

So the Transitive Isles setting is probably 95~98% done.

The writing is... poor.... but, honestly, I can't really keep going through and fixing grammar, poor word choice, etc. It's a hacked together version of virtually everybody's ideas so far (with some overriding guidelines to keep it somewhat concise and playable).

But if people don't like it now it's not like better spelling and grammar are going to somehow redeem it.

So I think the next stage is that the rest of the facilitators decide on it's "done-ness" and then we vote.

covaithe · Aug 26, 2008

I agree that Transitive Isles is done. I'd say if we get one or two more facilitators to say yes, go ahead and start the vote.

About feats. Eh. I looked through some of the 13th level characters in KK2, trying to figure out how their feats would affect our tables. I still think that relatively few feats provide flat bonuses that fit nicely in tables. The majority of them are situational, or give weird little bonuses that will be annoying to notate no matter how we organize the sheets. But I don't really feel strongly enough about it to push.

I agree that the main purpose of the math section is to make it easy to approve, but I also think we should avoid making it any more difficult to fill out than we have to. Remember, if a player submits an unreadable sheet, the judges can always just say "I'm sorry, this sheet is too disorganized for me to be able to approve it yet. Could you please reformat it along the lines of (link to better sheet) and resubmit?".

renau1g · Aug 26, 2008

Hey everyone sorry for not being active the last few days, things are pretty hectic with work... thanks for picking up my slack

Edit: I'm good with the transitive isles completeness

garyh · Aug 26, 2008

I also agree the Transitive Isles are essentially complete.

Graf · Aug 27, 2008

Cool. For the record somebody who isn't me should do the setting poll.

covaithe · Aug 27, 2008

Okay. I've created a poll on Transitive Isles. So all that's left to do before opening character submissions is nail down the character sheet a bit more, maybe, and decide on regional benefits.

Erekose13 · Aug 27, 2008

I'll try to provide more feedback on the character sheet, especially on the math sections that you two have been working on. Just making my way through the other threads first.