Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xethreau" data-source="post: 6003566" data-attributes="member: 57584">Might I again reiterate that this was written from a 3e -> 4e perspective, and not the revers? These entries are what are to be published as "OGL" as rule variants.The OGL says that one has to disclaim which parts of the published material are Product Identity, and which are open. As such, I there would be a footer at the beginning of the document that said "Chapters X, Y, and Z (Feats, blah, and the Appendix) are submitted under the OGL. Though these rules are incorporated in other parts of the book, they appear in those parts therein to represent a wholistic approach to explaining the rules system, and are not OGL." Or something like that. Which means that we need to explain the rules twice: Once for players playing our game, and once for people adopting the rules for their rulebooks.Yes, once these rules are OGL, other people will be able to create 4-esque suppelements as well.StatsYes, they are 3-18. Review the point-buy rules in the link: they are identical to the ones presented in the PHB.Flat FootedThat is just a notice for the OGL publication. The rules as they will read in the rulebook proper can ignore such conversions, as we will be teaching the "right" rules from the beginning.Prolonged RestGM fiat, fair enough. We then describe it as a tool for the GM to quickly get the action back on pace.Reserve SurgesI am fine with adjusting the name to Stamina Pool - in fact I think that is great. However, if we are trying to stay as 4e mechanics as we can (See "second wind" argument), at least for now, then we need to take that approach holistically. Same goes for Utility powers. Pick your poison.Robust SavesAgain, this is for 3.5 -> fourth. But isn't there somewhat of a demand for fluff? I say, so long as you can distinguish fluff from mechanics, then fluff is fine. Keep in mind that this indistinction is what made 3e bad, but the complete lack of fluff in 4e turned people away.SkillsNumber adjustments, whatever. I was just doing the normal 3.5 math, but using training instead of skill points. As you say, we can adjust it when we get to it. But let's do remember that flat DC's are part of our design goals.Weakness/ResistanceMy argument for this is that that while it does make sense for normal 4e resistances to go up as you level, it does not make sense for weaknesses to go up as you level. A lich takes more bonus radiant damage than a zombie. What is more, bonus 5 damage is not worth very much past heroic tier. It is an appropriate standard vulnerability at heroic tier. But at paragon tier, one hardly notices a 5 point difference. (I would argue that a fire artifact would grant resistance to cold anyway. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )I could see the opposite arguement being used against resistances: If an epic level creature attacks a level 1 creature with an attack by which the weak creature is resistant, it takes half damage; even though the creature would probably die one way or the other, the disparity in damage is eye-catching.In my GM experience, doubling and halfing damage are far more noticable and exciting, and are easier to keep track of than specific plus or minus values.</blockquote>

Verification