Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
DiasExMachina 4ED Update
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dias Ex Machina" data-source="post: 5202509" data-attributes="member: 58907"><p>There has been some talk about philosophy. Not the philosophical points mentioned in Amethyst but the design philosophy of 4th Edition D&D. There have been comments which have criticized Amethyst for not following the design philosophy of 4th Ed. What's interesting was that I had no idea we were obligated to do so.</p><p></p><p> Back when the 3.0 OGL was making rounds, companies were very quickly finding ways to break the system and alter it to their own needs. With 4th Edition, the limitations of the GSL prevents some of the extreme tinkering seen with some of the earlier games. Still, we wanted to see if we could alter some people perspectives in regards to 4th Edition. This didn't always work out as planned. </p><p></p><p> The first problem was that Amethyst was billed in many circles as the promised 4th Edition Modern WOTC never produced. As a result, there were many expectations going into the product. The first issue came with races. Our races actually have minor penalties to add color and role playing. This is against the approach in D&D, which only applies bonuses. A counter argument was offered that since we included human, we needed to have our races balanced to other fantasy races, even those not canon in Amethyst. I understand that some people want to include non-canon races…so this is something we may address.</p><p></p><p> The next issue came with classes. We designed our four techan classes to enmesh with each other, not with the fantasy classes of D&D. The first rule we broke came in their creation, where we intentionally didn't assign their roles to define what they could and could not do. The Grounder was the heavy hitter. He would have the capacity to prevent enemies from getting too close and to protect his allies as well as lay down area affects from a distance. We knew he would be a controller but we also felt he had elements of a defender. But at no point did we ever say to ourselves "He's a controller" or "He's a defender". We just made him. We gave the Marshall the marking ability with the capacity of making an ally the source of the mark. In the Stalker, he was a dual build with controller-like sniping powers and controller-like area-effects. </p><p></p><p> It should be noted that all of these classes were created in the fall of 2008. This was before similar worded abilities emerged with other classes (like Bard) in later Player's Handbooks. People assumed we were inspired by hybrid classes. Hybrids didn't exist when we started. It was also well before a lot of the later errata emerged. As a result, in the fall of 2009, we went back before the finished layout stage and made 44 pages of changes to the rules. Yeah…44 pages of rule changes. Let me just say, our layout artist Joshua Raynack is an absolute angel. Alas, we didn't catch all of these required changes. A few slipped by (like the sustain limitations with Sustain Barrage…sigh). </p><p></p><p> The classes were designed to work with each other, so we didn't think the specific roles needed to be ironclad. Yes, this could result in a class which may not work as well with a fantasy group. People could complain that the Grounder is a poor defender or that the Marshal is a poor leader. These classes could be when compared individually, but a group of four techans will work very well together. </p><p></p><p> What we discovered upon playing was that at a distance, the techans don't move but are forced to move constantly when in close combat. People noted this. Some considered it against the design intent of D&D that the techans don't move in a combat encounter. We neither considered it an issue nor did we ever think of it as being a mandatory requirement that our classes move. Techan strengths are dependent on the combat theatre. In the tight confines of many dungeons, techan groups have to be careful to plan out their movement. There is no isolated combat tactics. It is all about a team effort. In my fantasy game, I see my players doing their own thing. Each character is independent with the healer moving around to help people. Even the Warlord basically just offers a heal or an attack and doesn't shift the combat area like a Marshal does. With a techan group, I noticed my very same players talking more with each other, planning out their actions with each other. They observed later that very same distinction. We felt it worked. That and the fact that ranged damage was more severe than close combat damage since ranged fire didn't put you in harm's way. In a large combat area, the techans would have a full round if not more of free fire before being placed in danger. Add in the Grounder's area denial and the Marshal's moving ability and you have several moments where the techans are able to offload their weapons without the fear of a counter attack. This resulted in our damage values for techan powers being slightly lower than melee combat powers in traditional D&D. </p><p></p><p> If you think Amethyst breaks the design philosophy of D&D, heaven forbid what the critics will say about NeuroSpasta. We have at least two classes that cannot inflict damage at all. We did away with enhancement and even removed the need to acquire money at every level.</p><p></p><p> Next week, out group is going to be recording a second TECHAN PODCAST. I know. I know. Our last was not very informative. I understand my group is slightly insane (slightly). They have promised to behave this time and present a combat example you can actually glean information from. We'll be taking the revised character builds from Hearts of Chaos and running it through a Hearts of Chaos module adventure. I'll keep you all updated on the progress of that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dias Ex Machina, post: 5202509, member: 58907"] There has been some talk about philosophy. Not the philosophical points mentioned in Amethyst but the design philosophy of 4th Edition D&D. There have been comments which have criticized Amethyst for not following the design philosophy of 4th Ed. What's interesting was that I had no idea we were obligated to do so. Back when the 3.0 OGL was making rounds, companies were very quickly finding ways to break the system and alter it to their own needs. With 4th Edition, the limitations of the GSL prevents some of the extreme tinkering seen with some of the earlier games. Still, we wanted to see if we could alter some people perspectives in regards to 4th Edition. This didn't always work out as planned. The first problem was that Amethyst was billed in many circles as the promised 4th Edition Modern WOTC never produced. As a result, there were many expectations going into the product. The first issue came with races. Our races actually have minor penalties to add color and role playing. This is against the approach in D&D, which only applies bonuses. A counter argument was offered that since we included human, we needed to have our races balanced to other fantasy races, even those not canon in Amethyst. I understand that some people want to include non-canon races…so this is something we may address. The next issue came with classes. We designed our four techan classes to enmesh with each other, not with the fantasy classes of D&D. The first rule we broke came in their creation, where we intentionally didn't assign their roles to define what they could and could not do. The Grounder was the heavy hitter. He would have the capacity to prevent enemies from getting too close and to protect his allies as well as lay down area affects from a distance. We knew he would be a controller but we also felt he had elements of a defender. But at no point did we ever say to ourselves "He's a controller" or "He's a defender". We just made him. We gave the Marshall the marking ability with the capacity of making an ally the source of the mark. In the Stalker, he was a dual build with controller-like sniping powers and controller-like area-effects. It should be noted that all of these classes were created in the fall of 2008. This was before similar worded abilities emerged with other classes (like Bard) in later Player's Handbooks. People assumed we were inspired by hybrid classes. Hybrids didn't exist when we started. It was also well before a lot of the later errata emerged. As a result, in the fall of 2009, we went back before the finished layout stage and made 44 pages of changes to the rules. Yeah…44 pages of rule changes. Let me just say, our layout artist Joshua Raynack is an absolute angel. Alas, we didn't catch all of these required changes. A few slipped by (like the sustain limitations with Sustain Barrage…sigh). The classes were designed to work with each other, so we didn't think the specific roles needed to be ironclad. Yes, this could result in a class which may not work as well with a fantasy group. People could complain that the Grounder is a poor defender or that the Marshal is a poor leader. These classes could be when compared individually, but a group of four techans will work very well together. What we discovered upon playing was that at a distance, the techans don't move but are forced to move constantly when in close combat. People noted this. Some considered it against the design intent of D&D that the techans don't move in a combat encounter. We neither considered it an issue nor did we ever think of it as being a mandatory requirement that our classes move. Techan strengths are dependent on the combat theatre. In the tight confines of many dungeons, techan groups have to be careful to plan out their movement. There is no isolated combat tactics. It is all about a team effort. In my fantasy game, I see my players doing their own thing. Each character is independent with the healer moving around to help people. Even the Warlord basically just offers a heal or an attack and doesn't shift the combat area like a Marshal does. With a techan group, I noticed my very same players talking more with each other, planning out their actions with each other. They observed later that very same distinction. We felt it worked. That and the fact that ranged damage was more severe than close combat damage since ranged fire didn't put you in harm's way. In a large combat area, the techans would have a full round if not more of free fire before being placed in danger. Add in the Grounder's area denial and the Marshal's moving ability and you have several moments where the techans are able to offload their weapons without the fear of a counter attack. This resulted in our damage values for techan powers being slightly lower than melee combat powers in traditional D&D. If you think Amethyst breaks the design philosophy of D&D, heaven forbid what the critics will say about NeuroSpasta. We have at least two classes that cannot inflict damage at all. We did away with enhancement and even removed the need to acquire money at every level. Next week, out group is going to be recording a second TECHAN PODCAST. I know. I know. Our last was not very informative. I understand my group is slightly insane (slightly). They have promised to behave this time and present a combat example you can actually glean information from. We'll be taking the revised character builds from Hearts of Chaos and running it through a Hearts of Chaos module adventure. I'll keep you all updated on the progress of that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
DiasExMachina 4ED Update
Top