Immortals Handbook - Godsend

[Upper_Krust]

Dagnabbit - have my reply 75% ready and now I have to get ready quickly to go out. Grrr. I'll not be back until Sunday afternoon either.

 

[Alzrius]

An interesting post from Mark Plemmons of Kenzer Co. regarding them not using the GSL:

I don't believe it puts WotC in any position whatsoever, personally. It certainly shouldn't surprise anyone who's been at WotC for a while. We've been publishing D&D-compatible material for nearly 15 years now, and were even doing so (Goods and Gear, for example) at the same time we were publishing official material with the D&D logo.

We never used the OGL, and don't see any more reason to use the GSL, either. We'd like to keep supporting both v3.5 and 4E.

EDIT: Heck, I just added a brand new 101-page v3.5-compatible PDF (Zoa: Citadel of the Bay to our web store.

(links from his post not kept)

It's interesting to note that they've been doing this for years (come to think of it, I own some of their old 2E-compatible stuff) and that they went this route even when they had a license to produce second-party official material.

This seems to be a fairly good indication of just how much action WotC will take against companies that go that route (i.e. none at all), so that seems to be a very encouraging sign for others who want to go that route as well.

 

[paradox42]

It's interesting to note that they've been doing this for years (come to think of it, I own some of their old 2E-compatible stuff) and that they went this route even when they had a license to produce second-party official material.

This seems to be a fairly good indication of just how much action WotC will take against companies that go that route (i.e. none at all), so that seems to be a very encouraging sign for others who want to go that route as well.

Isn't it true, though, that most of the period during which Kenzer released such products was during the time when Adkinson was still at WotC's helm, before they were bought by Hasbro? It may be that after the buyout, the legal department would have sued, except that the fact that the company hadn't previously done so for several years (despite potential opportunity) would look bad in court. The license didn't change much during that time if my memory serves, though I admit I never studied the legal language of any of the licenses in great detail so I may just be blowing smoke.

My point is, the WotC that included the "Though Shalt Not Support Previous Editions Of The Game" clause in the GSL is not the same WotC that released the original OGL. There may yet be problems.

That said, the idea of getting around the restriction against supporting 3.X by simply not including the Dungeons & Dragons logo is a tantalizing one, and one I definitely advocate looking into further. If UK can be supported by two lines of product instead of just one, even if he just concentrates on putting out 4E stuff and lets others do the backwards-conversion work with him as editor-in-chief or something, he should still get something for the converted material. We all know he's had financial difficulties, and any avenue that can help him get past them is something I'm 100% behind!

 

[Alzrius]

Isn't it true, though, that most of the period during which Kenzer released such products was during the time when Adkinson was still at WotC's helm, before they were bought by Hasbro?
It may be that after the buyout, the legal department would have sued, except that the fact that the company hadn't previously done so for several years (despite potential opportunity) would look bad in court. The license didn't change much during that time if my memory serves, though I admit I never studied the legal language of any of the licenses in great detail so I may just be blowing smoke.

Actually, Paradox, that's not true.

Kenzer Co. started publishing Kingdoms of Kalamar products that were compatible with AD&D 2E back in the mid-1990's or so (I have some of those old products in my attic) with no repercussions, despite the fact that TSR was very active with threats of legal actions against people who were using their products (e.g. Mayfair Games, who successfully put out AD&D compatible material for years before TSR tried to sue them to stop. FYI, that case ended in a settlement, not a judgment, because TSR didn't want a ruling that'd set precedent that anyone could copy their game mechanics. The second lawsuit TSR brought against Mayfair years later was due to Mayfair being in violation of a specific contract they signed with TSR after the first lawsuit).

Further, the period when Wizards of the Coast owned TSR while Peter Adkison was CEO was during 1997-2001, after which he sold the company. However, Kenzer Co. has been publishing many D&D-compatible products during and after that time (such as Goods & Gear, mentioned above), even when they also had a license to produce second-party official materials. Despite that, no such lawsuit has emerged in the last seven years.

Finally, if WotC were inclined to sue, I doubt they'd back down from doing so because they were afraid of "looking bad." It didn't, for example, stop them from suing Daron Rutter, administrator of the MTGSalvation website, for copyright infringement. This seems to indicate that WotC is willing to go to court over the things it feels are infringements of its copyright - it just doesn't seem to think that 4E-compatible products are (which, to my layman's knowledge, seems to be correct).

My point is, the WotC that included the "Though Shalt Not Support Previous Editions Of The Game" clause in the GSL is not the same WotC that released the original OGL. There may yet be problems.

The company that released the original OGL seems to have largely left with Peter in 2001, with the remaining group having left slowly over the intervening years. While there may be problems since there seems to be a large number of companies making compatible products without a license, the early signs are very encouraging for those inclined to do so.

That said, the idea of getting around the restriction against supporting 3.X by simply not including the Dungeons & Dragons logo is a tantalizing one, and one I definitely advocate looking into further. If UK can be supported by two lines of product instead of just one, even if he just concentrates on putting out 4E stuff and lets others do the backwards-conversion work with him as editor-in-chief or something, he should still get something for the converted material. We all know he's had financial difficulties, and any avenue that can help him get past them is something I'm 100% behind!

From what I can tell, you can say "Dungeons & Dragons" in terms of indicating compatibility, you just can't use the stylized logo of the name. But having said that, I agree that it'd be great if U_K could release official 3.5 d20 versions of future IH supplements, provided that someone else did the conversions and he had final approval over how the conversions went. That'd be a scenario where everybody wins.

 

[paradox42]

Actually, Paradox, that's not true.

I sit corrected! And it does appear to favor the argument of trying the "D&D Compatible" route and still publishing 3.X stuff, which is obviously a Good Thing. Out of curiosity, has dannyalcatraz weighed in on the threads discussing this option of getting around the GSL's anti-3.X restriction? He's a lawyer himself, and has weighed in on such matters in the past, if I'm not confusing handles with another forum member.

Finally, if WotC were inclined to sue, I doubt they'd back down from doing so because they were afraid of "looking bad."

It's a cost-benefit analysis thing there. If the judge in the suit feels that they had a case for years but didn't pursue it, that calls into question why they're suddenly changing their minds on that, and just how enforceable their position is. It makes the lawsuit seem frivolous, and some might dismiss it for that reason. That's all I meant.

It didn't, for example, stop them from suing Daron Rutter, administrator of the MTGSalvation website, for copyright infringement. This seems to indicate that WotC is willing to go to court over the things it feels are infringements of its copyright - it just doesn't seem to think that 4E-compatible products are (which, to my layman's knowledge, seems to be correct).

Well, technically there aren't 4E-compatibles on the market yet, or at least not enough to make generalized statements, but the point of 3.X-compatibles not being actionable in their view certainly seems valid. Which is, again, a good sign.

From what I can tell, you can say "Dungeons & Dragons" in terms of indicating compatibility, you just can't use the stylized logo of the name. But having said that, I agree that it'd be great if U_K could release official 3.5 d20 versions of future IH supplements, provided that someone else did the conversions and he had final approval over how the conversions went. That'd be a scenario where everybody wins.

Definitely. And I'd be happy to contribute to such efforts personally, if that helps at all. I mean, technically I'm about to have some work published in an IH book soon anyway, so why not leave the door open for more later?

 

[Pssthpok]

nm...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy paradox42 mate!

Unbalanced, debatable;

Its not debateable at all, its a cast iron fact. You only have to glance at the likes of the Book of Nine Swords classes (Warblade etc.) and my own Revised Classes on the website - in both cases martial classes needed significant boosts to bring them into even parity with spellcaster classes.

boring, definitely not.

The martial classes (in particular) were boring. They were basically one trick ponies - full attack.

Variety is the spice of life, and the variety is now gone. Therefore, 4E is bland and unappetizing.

On the contrary, 4E has far more variety (amongst the classes) than 3E. You can't say that because ALL the classes now have dozens of different options both in and out of combat that the 3E 'variety' of only having some interesting classes with options and just as many without is superior - its completely illogical.

Incorrect. Disease now works nothing like CON damage, in fact it works more like real diseases do- which is a good thing. I like the way 4E handles disease, and I think combined with 3.X's version could make for some really interesting times. The disease track idea is one I applaud, and plan to use in my own game if an opportunity ever comes up (difficult now that the PCs are all gods, but hey- maybe new game someday).

Glad you like how 4E handles disease.

I could swear I saw some power that is like a defacto Con drain in 4E (I threw in disease because I couldn't offhand remember the other powers name) - though it could just be one of the new conditions I'll be introducing into the game, so I'll refrain from mentioning it herein.

DEX damage properly encompasses much more than mere speed reduction. Incorrect assessment.

...and therein lies the obvious problem with ability damage - it affects way too many things, which means it ridiculously slows down combat. Another indictment against ability damage - well spotted.

Slower thinking and inability to learn != being under another entity's control. Incorrect assessment.

Clouded thinking.

I have no idea how you came up with this association, but admittedly CHA damage is the toughest to equate to anything except maybe damage to one's appearance.

Marking is a direct challenge, avoiding the mark is akin to 'losing face'. Hence the ties to charisma.

Yes. But I'm not here to argue with you; there is no argument you can make which will make me "see the light" and switch.

I'm not trying to make anyone switch. Simply pointing out the irrationality of some of your claims.

Some people are going to prefer 3E regardless...I get that. However, I just want to understand why that is, since as far as I can see 4E is clearly superior.

So far up to now I can understand:

1) It doesn't have unlimited progression. Worth pointing out neither did 3E until the ELH. Also I think unlimited progression ultimately proved a false dawn.

2) 4E doesn't do as good a job at representing a 'real' fantasy world. I think that is correct, but the reasons for that are inherantly logical.

3) 4E 'epic' is not as 'epic' as 3E 'epic'. This brings up the question what is 'epic'. You could argue that 3E 'epic' was really no more 'epic' than 3E levels 16-20. Between 21-30 (in 3E) chances are you weren't going to have any epic items - because the wealth rules suggested you couldn't have any. So really you are talking about 3E 31+ epic.

You asked me to list the Bad Ideas, and I did so in my previous post- the fact that you apparently don't consider most of them to be Bad ideas is irrelevant to me. My opinions were based on careful consideration of what I like in a role-playing game, and why 4E doesn't have it.

Its probably worth pointing out at this juncture how far detached your own 3E game is from the 3E rules.

Irrelevant. Artifacts carry extra baggage and are not "magic items" in the sense of other magic items. Artifacts are special, that's why they're classified with different rules and a different term.

You hit the nail on the head. Artifacts are special. Making it so that every Tom, Richard and Harry can have a +7 flaming, frost, ghost touch, thundering, vorpal longsword means those things become de rigeur and thus commonplace and less than special.

With the 3E Immortals Handbook I tried to get people to use fewer more iconic items, but I just see 4E as taking that a step further.

Granted, though it's absurdly difficult to do now. This means it's essentially the same as teleportation in the new edition. I was wrong to list it as missing- it's just greatly reduced.

As it should be.

We have to wait for that book, so for now and the next 8-9 months it's missing. It's not currently part of the core rules.

So what though? Just because it doesn't have every single option ever from day one doesn't invalidate the system. Unless you are saying the first two years of 3E were pointless since they didn't introduce Epic gaming until that far in?

Not quite. He reduces the victim to 0 hit points on a hit. 0 hit points != death, nor even unconsciousness for that matter- there are ways to stay active at 0.

How is that any different from 3E where raising and resurrection were so commonplace that death was next to meaningless anyway. Except of course that they railroaded parties into having a cleric in 3E.

Neither of which properly constitutes instant death, though I suppose it could be seen as similar to the cute little "countdown" attacks certain Final Fantasy monsters use. I always was amused by those, even when they got to be annoying.

Its death but with the caveat that they hardwired healing, raising and resurrection into the system from the beginning. Making it much more approachable and playable and not necessarily the providence of simply one class.

No, this wasn't about you, it was about WotC butchering the term "epic" and trying to make it something it isn't.

The implication is that it means something greater than before. I think 4E epic has that, even if it doesn't mean the same things as 3E.

However, if your new IH rules will bring true Epic back to the game, then I say more power to you and good luck!

Thanks. I'll try.

OOOH no it can't! It merely showcases the characters' lack of growth and lack of new ability. It is properly construed as "pathetic." I say this in comparison to prior editions of the game, wherein even a 10th-level party could bypass things that 28th-level characters in 4E cannot.

What can't they bypass? Or do you mean bypass as easily?

Rejected wholeheartedly! LotR had no high-level characters in it at all, except perhaps Gandalf. Nobody else in the whole trilogy even approached the power level of a 9th-level character in 3rd Edition D&D. LotR might constitute a long campaign, but it does not in any valid way illustrate what the word "Epic" means in every edition of D&D prior to 4th Edition.

The term 'Epic' originated with 3rd Edition (Unless my 2E HLCS memory is foggy).

But again you highlight the question "What is epic?". Most people would proffer the opinion that Lord of the Rings was indeed epic.

It is perfectly fair for you to think so. However, as stated above, your arguments are irrelevant.

They are relevant for the purpose of showing irrationality.

My opinion is made and given. 4th Edition is not my game and not something I plan to use except to mine the occasional good ideas for use with earlier editions.

I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with your reasoning (or lack thereof) in some cases.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Alzrius mate!

From what I can tell, you can say "Dungeons & Dragons" in terms of indicating compatibility, you just can't use the stylized logo of the name. But having said that, I agree that it'd be great if U_K could release official 3.5 d20 versions of future IH supplements, provided that someone else did the conversions and he had final approval over how the conversions went. That'd be a scenario where everybody wins.

As was of course my original intention.

I'll wait to see what happens over the next few months regarding third party 4E material before jumping one way or the other.

 

[dante58701]

*twitches from epic withdrawal* "Need...more...epic...need...more...Krustian...GOODNESS...losing grip on reality...seeing non-epic everywhere...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
*twitches...jerks...spasms...and twitches from epic withdrawal*
*madness abates...*

"Heya Krusty, are ye putting out any more previews? Anything?...A glimmer?...A sneak peak?"

*twitches*

 

[paradox42]

This will be my final word on this subject, since (as previously stated) I am not interested in debate. You asked what I consider to be 4th Edition's bad ideas; I listed them. Even that was more effort than I really cared to spend on the subject. I have no desire to become an "edition warrior" and will not do so. I will, however, take some small time to respond to the insults in this last post.

I'm not trying to make anyone switch. Simply pointing out the irrationality of some of your claims.

My claims are irrational because I have not bothered to cover my opinions with reason or logic, as you have. Your support for aspects of 4th Edition is in many cases just as irrational as my dislike for those same aspects, but you went to the trouble of rationalizing those opinions (i.e. "I like this. Now why is that?") whereas I did not bother to rationalize my dislike. Opinions are, by definition, fundamentally emotional reactions to a thing or event, and therefore are all irrational in their own right. People cover the opinions they want to defend with chains of reasoning that sound logical to them (even if they don't necessarily sound logical to anyone else). In my case, my opinion is negative, and I'm not interested in spending the effort to defend it with logic or math- I would consider such effort to be a waste. I'm much more interested in offering constructive criticism where I can come up with some.

Some people are going to prefer 3E regardless...I get that. However, I just want to understand why that is, since as far as I can see 4E is clearly superior.

A worthy goal, since understanding is the foundation of civilized discourse. However, it is clear from our posts that many (if not most) of the aspects of 4th Edition that you consider to be positives, I consider to be negatives. As long as we acknowledge that we all live in a diverse world where different people have differing opinions regarding the same objects, ideas, or events, and that's okay, we can get along. Many of the things that appeal to you about 4th Edition are precisely the things which turn me off about it. Accept it and move on, because I don't feel like going to the trouble of explaining myself. I frankly have better things to do.

Its probably worth pointing out at this juncture how far detached your own 3E game is from the 3E rules.

A fair point in any argument about the merits of 3.X, but irrelevant to a discussion of what I dislike in 4th Edition. I have never claimed that 3.X is perfect, nor would I ever make such a claim. It has plenty of warts, and plenty of things which while still gold are perhaps tarnished a bit with some mold or other detritus of past years. That's what house rules are for. Rest assured that if I ever do, someday, run a 4th Edition game, I will put many house rules into place in that game as well.

You hit the nail on the head. Artifacts are special. Making it so that every Tom, Richard and Harry can have a +7 flaming, frost, ghost touch, thundering, vorpal longsword means those things become de rigeur and thus commonplace and less than special.

Here, in a reverse of me stating opinions that are not understood by you, we have an argument that I've seen more times than I can even remember- and that has never washed with me. It just makes no sense in my book. "Special" is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. Just because Tom and his buddies can all have such a weapon, does not mean that they all want to or will. It does not mean that when the characters find one in a treasure pile, that it isn't the only one of its kind in the cosmos at that time.

With the 3E Immortals Handbook I tried to get people to use fewer more iconic items, but I just see 4E as taking that a step further.

Yes you did, and I ignored that rule immediately since (as stated above) the argument it's based on has never been sensible to me. What I did do is declare a new category of Major Artifact in my game, after the PCs hit divinity, which is directly linked to the soul of a deity and thus grows as the deity does- it is up to the individual deity whether or not to have one or more. Most of my players, after learning that these items could give them access to divine abilities beyond those granted to them purely by divine ranks alone, opted to take four- but a few did not, and were accordingly granted extra divine slots per the rules hammered out in this very forum (though obviously not this very thread). So the "rule of 4" is still sort of in there, just not as absolute as you had it.

They are relevant for the purpose of showing irrationality.

I think, if you can turn a harsh spotlight on your own thinking, that you'll see that most of your own thinking about 4th Edition is just as irrational at the base- you've just gone to some trouble to shore it up and explain it to make it look rational. You fundamentally like many (if not most) of the things that I fundamentally dislike. The difference is, I'm not interested in explaining myself- I recognize my opinions as opinions and accept that not everybody will share them. Moving on.

I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree with your reasoning (or lack thereof) in some cases.

It is accepted as psychological fact that reasoning is something typically used to defend an irrational opinion, rather than something that opinions are themselves based on. I'm of the opinion that I've wallowed in too much negativity in my life, and accordingly am not interested in bothering to shore up my negative opinions with reason.