Living 4th Edition Discussion Thread

Graf · Aug 27, 2008

I think that if we do the template properly we can cut down on the input work. So someone puts in their dex mod and it pops out in the initiative math section and skills and so forth...

One entry lots of outputs. I can't probably look at it this week through...

covaithe · Aug 27, 2008

Graf said:
I think that if we do the template properly we can cut down on the input work. So someone puts in their dex mod and it pops out in the initiative math section and skills and so forth...

One entry lots of outputs. I can't probably look at it this week through...

I took a pretty good look at templates the other day, and I'm afraid they don't quite work that way. It doesn't insert a bunch of code into your page that you can then edit and customize (e.g. to fill in misc. bonuses or explanations), like page templates on some other wikis do. The output of a template is immutable from within the page except by changing the parameters. In other words, if we want to have the dex mod filled in in the skills table based on template input, we have to have every other modifier as a template parameter too, and calculate the total within the template. And if there's a modifier that we don't have a slot for -- say a DM awards a permanent unnamed +1 modifier to Intimidate for some particularly gruesome exploit -- there's no way for the player to get that mod included in the added-up total.

Frankly, if I'm going to write software that complex to hold character sheet information, I'd much rather do it as an honest web app in Ruby on Rails or something. Now that would be a fun weekend project, in my copious free time...

Graf · Aug 27, 2008

I'm not a coder but isn't dex immunatbly tied to skills?
and initiative?
or is it strict one-to-one (one field can only link to a single other field)

obciously there are sections like the totals and the feats that would be hand input... But if there isnt a one-to-one limit ans we do it correctly you'd only have to hand input information once.
a super high tech solution is sorta good but its a lot of time and you might find yourself overlapping with the character builder...
(wizards having designated a space for themselves always gives me pause...)

Graf · Aug 29, 2008

So here are the current poll results

Economics - Easy -- only for equipment

Gold given out during adventures is only used to buy magic items magic items and adventuring equipment. All other expenses are part of roleplaying.
You buy someone a beer? You just rp it.
One character has a nice house? You can go there to visit, but they "can't sell it for magic items".
So if a DM says "your total gp for the adventure is 4000 gp" that's what you have to spend on equipment, items, etc for your next adventure. Your characters probably got some extra amount of gold that they spent on expenses during and after the adventure but that's just hand-waved.
edit: A player can of course "~~waste~~/spend money" on things if they like (tithing to a church, spending 100 gp for wine, etc) but that would be a player choice and the player would explicitly state that they were doing so OOC

[d]--[/d]
Magic items (1 normal is sorta winning) however the "write in suggestion #5" from Ere13 has garnered an impressive "4 write-ins".

There will be a poll launched in the next 48 hours (when I get some time) between

Magic Items - Normal Every magic item you get is dealt with just like in the core books (someone keeps it, or it's turned into ressidium or what have you)

and

Method 5 - Post Adventuring plus balancing.
In this method the only balancing done is the bring characters up to the math required for the system to work. We use the system in the DMG* to advance the items already in the player's possession if they are behind the curve. So a character with a +1 wand at the end of an adventure who by the system should have at least a +2 weapon/implement at that level automatically has the wand increase in power. All other magic items are handed out at DM whim based on the treasure packet system, including plus based items. This system has less impact on verisimilitude and metagaming, but it is still present; especially in the case of players metagaming treasure splits and taking non-plus items because they know that their measly lower level plus item will automatically be increased afterwards.

*= Since the DMG says that you get 3 items of level +1, level, level-1 and gp = level -1 I assume that's the system we're referring too right?

Question: What do we do if someone has more items than the DMG, but wants to "junk" them and pick new items...?

If you have another option you want considered post here or in the original thread with your suggestion.

[d]--[/d]
XP for time (collective advancement)

Characters who adventure get enough xp to level every 12 levels, provided your character is in an adventure. I'd wanted to use ooc points cause it seemed simpler but that's been voted against so instead we will use the following formula.

On the last day of each month any character who was in an adventure during said month will receive xp equal to [amount required to advance to next level from current level]/12.

Anybody have any opinions about what happens when characters level? Do we have insta-leveling (complete with ding sound), or what?

[d]--[/d]

DM Credits

It looks like a DM will receive

enough "credits" to level a character every six months
every additional adventure that they run grants equal credits, so if you run 3 adventures in a month you get three times the credits
these credits will be recived and usable upon the completion of the adventure
with Ere13's compromise proposal on equality the equality question is split 50/50

Please note: Since the original OOC points poll chose: no limits... there are... no limits on spending xp.

It doesn't seem unlikely to me that we'll have a character or two run by DMs who are 2nd level within 6 months of launch, and we'll probably have two tiers of chracters within a year or so (once the first round of adventures have ended) with a clump multiple-adventure-running-DMs with characters at 3rd level or so.

[d]--[/d]

Covaithe will ulitmately interpret the transitive isles poll, but right now there are 6 votes for 1 vote against (halford) and 1 vote I'm not sure about (renau1g, since he seems to be supporting halford, but I'm not sure, really...)

[d]--[/d]

We're fairly close to launch we need to address the following issues

major issues (stuff that prevents launch)

getting the character template completed
balancing regional bonuses (I'm still maintaining they should be weak)
decision on kickers, hooks and attainments
(setting up an explanation of how to submit adventures) - how necessary?
anything else?

minor issues (should be done but we probably won't die)

proofreading the wiki
getting Binder Fred and Dunamin's contributions onto the wiki
languages (I've sorta redone it... I think the best solution is just to say "everyone speaks Allarian" period)
naming proximate isles/near lands something more flavorful (once we launch I think we're a bit stuck... but I can't think of better names)

[d]--[/d]
Personally for adventures I'd like to see the following process

A one paragraph summary sent to the judges address [l4w.judges at g m @ i l]
Judges feed back with either "go ahead" or "needs adjustment to match setting" or "conflicts with another adventure" or "have you thought about this issue" or whatever
Adventure submission including attainments (if we have them), projected encounter breakdowns, etc

For the judges I think we should aim to provide a responce within 72 hours that includes thoughts of all the judges.

[d]--[/d]

I -can't- do anything else until monday.
So I'll start taking this stuff on then.

Dunamin · Aug 29, 2008

Graf said:
[*]languages (I've sorta redone it... I think the best solution is just to say "everyone speaks Allarian" period)

I’m terribly sorry to say this, but I must admit I very much dislike the garbled versions of classic names. Basing the pantheon on ancient Greece is swell, but calling them Hadeys and Poseeydus just seem… immature. Why not just use Hades and Poseidon? That way you also avoid mistyping since the original names are probably well-ingrained in the minds of many players.

If not, I’d recommend using the Daunton versions as universal base instead, but I think that may just be a personal preference based on less familiarity with Roman versions of the gods.

covaithe · Aug 29, 2008

Dunamin said:
I’m terribly sorry to say this, but I must admit I very much dislike the garbled versions of classic names. Basing the pantheon on ancient Greece is swell, but calling them Hadeys and Poseeydus just seem… immature.

I pretty much feel the same way, but... I feel like I've been making a lot of objections recently, without making much in the way of positive contributions. So I'm trying to limit my negativity to things that are essential. "Hadeys" isn't my favorite name ever, but I can live with it, particularly if there are alternatives for other regions.

garyh · Aug 29, 2008

I wouldn't worry overmuch about the Imperium names. Unless you're planning an Imperium character, you'll probably be using the names the gods are known by in your culture. The Imperium names are currently used a baseline pretty much just because they were the first version proposed. I frankly see the Dauntonian versions getting more actual use.

Erekose13 · Aug 29, 2008

Graf said:
*= Since the DMG says that you get 3 items of level +1, level, level-1 and gp = level -1 I assume that's the system we're referring too right?

Not quite, I'm referring to the table on pg. 225 of the PHB (reproduced below) that says all items are +x for specific ranges. I don't remember where (an article on Wizards.com I'd bet) Mike Mearls (or one of the other developers) said that you could just use that table to assign mechanical bonuses at the appropriate level and never hand out a single magic item and the math would work.

Code:

Item Level	Enhancement Bonus
1–5 			+1
6–10 			+2
11–15 			+3
16–20 			+4
21–25 			+5
26–30 			+6

Graf · Aug 30, 2008

The names on the wiki need to be changed to the Dauntonian names...
It wasn't possible for me to do that until recently because there were -only- the imperium names.
I worked with what I had and I haven't had time to go change them once Gary deployed the Dauntonian verisions (on which I think he's done an excellent job).

Please go ahead and switch any Imperium god names you see in the TI proposal to the Dauntonian ones. I don't have time to do that right now but think it should be done (and it was always the intent).

We can also rearrange the "gods position on the table" if people like.

[d]--[/d]

As to actually dumping the Imperium names.... honestly?
I think the names strike a perfect balance between "reflecting the fact that they're inspired by the names" but not just being "so I worship Zeus".

No matter what someone will like a given name, or whatever, and someone else will hate it. I'm loath to re-write a perfectly good section that a lot of thought went into (and which I confess to personally liking).

[d]--[/d]

Ere,
I remember that too. Your chart will be a lot easier to manage; clear, simple, easy.

Dunamin · Aug 30, 2008

Graf said:
As to actually dumping the Imperium names.... honestly?
I think the names strike a perfect balance between "reflecting the fact that they're inspired by the names" but not just being "so I worship Zeus".

I guess we’d have to agree to disagree there.
I find serving Persephone having a strong impact on me, while serving Proserphones makes me giggle. Both the Greek and Nordic pantheon are used with their original names to fine effect in the Order of the Stick, Planescape, and many other settings – familiar faces used in a fantasy context makes for a very interesting style, in my opinion.

Still, using Daunton as the common base and Imperial as alternative works for me.