Looking for...

[TimeOut]

Maybe there will be something more appropriate when/if they're released as a full PC race with racial feats and the like?

Or you could create this stuff all by yourself, or together with your players / DM.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As a player/DM with 30 years in the game, I very well could.

I'd also say that, in the light of 3.X, I shouldn't have to.

 

[TimeOut]

I'd also say that, in the light of 3.X, I shouldn't have to.

Why? It looks like you demand that every supplement availiable, all those thousand upon thousand pages of rules and text should be converted to a completely new game system instantly.

That is simply not possible, not if you want for your book prices to stay the same.

They have given us the basic rules and some guidelines what we can do with them. You can either wait until they (or some other publisher) convert the old stuff, or you can use your creativity and speed up that process.

 

[Nightson]

As a player/DM with 30 years in the game, I very well could.

I'd also say that, in the light of 3.X, I shouldn't have to.

Because Savage Species was out when 3rd edition released?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why? It looks like you demand that every supplement availiable, all those thousand upon thousand pages of rules and text should be converted to a completely new game system instantly.

No, I'm not.

First, I'm demanding a more flexible game that was based upon improving what worked and reworking what didn't.

And in that myriad of pages from both WotC and 3rd party publishers, there were a host of solutions that worked, most of which could have been integrated into the game at the cost of a few pages.

Second, barring that, I'm demanding a game that had good rules design transparency that gave an insight as to how the designers made things work in the first place, in order to make your houserules as compatible and balanced with the Core as possible.

Yes, it took thousands of pages for WotC and the 3rd party publishers to get around to that in 3.X.

But it seems as if in 4Ed we're going back to the beginning, the lessons learned thrown by the wayside.

Back on point, it was a supplement called Savage Species that did this for 3Ed Monster races (the 3Ed version of the 2Ed splatbook Complete Book of Humanoids). The rules were clunky, but they worked. Shortly thereafter, Monte Cook reworked those rules much more elegantly and intuitively in his AU/AE game, including no more worries about LA.

4Ed, OTOH, had an opportunity to do the same, but better and more streamlined still. Instead, they went back to the 2Ed version of monster PCs...a step back of 15 years of game design.

And this isn't the only place this happens. AFAIK, the rules are as yet silent on the process by which DMs can create and properly price magic items that are not in the core- rules that appeared in some form within the core of every previous edition.

 

[TimeOut]

First, I'm demanding a more flexible game that was based upon improving what worked and reworking what didn't.

Both are very subjective. For example, the pre-4e handling of magic users. I think it was just not fair and worked very poorly (except for the magic users of course). IMO that was changed to a better system for everyone in 4e, but you will still find enough people complaining about "what they did to our great magic system".

And in that myriad of pages from both WotC and 3rd party publishers, there were a host of solutions that worked, most of which could have been integrated into the game at the cost of a few pages.

If all those books could be condensed into a few pages, why has no one done so before? The splatbook to end all the splatbooks?

Second, barring that, I'm demanding a game that had good rules design transparency that gave an insight as to how the designers made things work in the first place, in order to make your houserules as compatible and balanced with the Core as possible.

There are the basic design principles of 4e. One of them is: If you want something to happen in a certain way, then do it that way. It is your game and it should be fun. Rules are only guidelines if they stand in the way of fun or creativity.

Yes, it took thousands of pages for WotC and the 3rd party publishers to get around to that in 3.X.

But it seems as if in 4Ed we're going back to the beginning, the lessons learned thrown by the wayside.

Or those lessons are just not compatible with the old ways. 3e was a simulationist game at heart, while 4e is truly gamist (again). You can't transfer learned lessons from one end of the design spectrum to the other. And more importantly, even if you understand the need for those changes: You can't transfer all lessons at once.

Back on point, it was a supplement called Savage Species that did this for 3Ed Monster races (the 3Ed version of the 2Ed splatbook Complete Book of Humanoids). The rules were clunky, but they worked. Shortly thereafter, Monte Cook reworked those rules much more elegantly and intuitively in his AU/AE game, including no more worries about LA.

Well, if you think that the presentation or rules in the AU/AE games are superior, why do you bother with a clunkier system?

4Ed, OTOH, had an opportunity to do the same, but better and more streamlined still. Instead, they went back to the 2Ed version of monster PCs...a step back of 15 years of game design.

Because the monster manual clearly states that these implementations of monster PCs are not final, nor that they are rules by which player characters can be created.

"This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, within reason.", MM (page 276).

Guidelines are not rules but guidelines upon which you can base and improve your own ideas; so that one day you might have the rules you desire.

And this isn't the only place this happens. AFAIK, the rules are as yet silent on the process by which DMs can create and properly price magic items that are not in the core- rules that appeared in some form within the core of every previous edition.

How to create a new magic item:
0. Think of your item, what do you want to accomplish? What powers should it have? At which tier and level is it availiable?
1. Take an existing magic item that resembles your imagined item.
2. Modify its stats according to your vision and change level and price if necessary, using the existing item or others like them as a guideline.
3. ???
4. Profit!

You can not create clear rule sets for creating new content of an exception based system. You can only give guidelines.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If all those books could be condensed into a few pages, why has no one done so before?

My apologies for imprecise language.

I mean "any of which." IOW, pick one and run with it.

Well, if you think that the presentation or rules in the AU/AE games are superior, why do you bother with a clunkier system?

I don't, which is why I use a modified version of the AU/AE system's take on things, and find the 4Ed's rendition to be horrid.

Because the monster manual clearly states that these implementations of monster PCs are not final, nor that they are rules by which player characters can be created.

"This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, within reason.", MM (page 276).

Guidelines are not rules but guidelines upon which you can base and improve your own ideas; so that one day you might have the rules you desire.

Again, this is no excuse, especially considering that a race was moved to the MM from the PHB that I and several others of my acquaintance would like to play right now...which people assert vehemently I can do under 4Ed rules...

Except the rules are not, as you yourself state, the final full rules for this.

Instead of taking a few pages to include a set of final, workable and elegant rules to cover those people who want to play minotaurs and GASP gnomes (and others besides), that is to be left to a later expansion.

Maybe.

0. Think of your item, what do you want to accomplish? What powers should it have? At which tier and level is it availiable?
1. Take an existing magic item that resembles your imagined item.
2. Modify its stats according to your vision and change level and price if necessary, using the existing item or others like them as a guideline.
3. ???
4. Profit!

I'd like to create a flaming frost lightning sword.

That resembles no single item in the PHB.

Do I add the costs of the 3 weapons? Is there some kind of price break?

What about a Wizard's Staff that also has the same 3 weapon enchantments on it?

What about a magic item that makes my Monk's unarmed strikes into flaming unarmed strikes?

You can not create clear rule sets for creating new content of an exception based system. You can only give guidelines.

Sure you can- the game designers obviously had some kind of guidelines when they created the items in the first place. Those rules could have been presented to the buying public.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My apologies for imprecise language.

I mean "any of which." IOW, pick one and run with it.



I don't, which is why I use a modified version of the AU/AE system's take on things, and find the 4Ed's rendition to be horrid.

I found the AU/AE system not bad, but it had all the 3E draw-backs of multi-classing. (I don't think that can be changed much.)

But just wait, I will eventually post the tidbits for a Diamond Throne conversion I already have...

I'd like to create a flaming frost lightning sword.

That resembles no single item in the PHB.

Do I add the costs of the 3 weapons? Is there some kind of price break?

Basically, this item grants you one at-will free action power, allowing you to turn all damage to fire, lightning or frost each round.
I don't know the daily powers off-hand, but I suspect you should just make it one daily power that allows you to choose between one of the 3 options.
The extra damage on critical hits is fire, lightning and frost damage at once.

You just need to find a level. My guess is it should be 2 levels higher then the highest level of the 3 "base" items".

What about a Wizard's Staff that also has the same 3 weapon enchantments on it?

What about a magic item that makes my Monk's unarmed strikes into flaming unarmed strikes?

That's the _real_ question! I don't know yet how to handle unarmed strikes. It is a problem that began in 3E - you need a enhanced weapon to compete with your comrades, but per definition, unarmed strikes don't use weapons. My current guess is to make an item (bracer, ring, headband, belt) that doesn't count as a regular item for that slot and can be enhanced like a weapon.

 

[TimeOut]

My apologies for imprecise language.

I mean "any of which." IOW, pick one and run with it.

No problem.
Perhaps the designers didn't like the presented choices, or other problems (copyright etc.) stopped them? Or they thought that it would not be necessary to include these options into the core of the game.

I don't, which is why I use a modified version of the AU/AE system's take on things, and find the 4Ed's rendition to be horrid.

As long as you have fun, it is fine. That's what this hobby is all about. But I can't understand why someone wants to have a discussion about a system they don't want to use anyway. I don't want to play DSA or Shadowrun again, but I surely don't run around and tell other people that the system is bad. It is just not the right thing for me.

Again, this is no excuse, especially considering that a race was moved to the MM from the PHB that I and several others of my acquaintance would like to play right now...which people assert vehemently I can do under 4Ed rules...

You can. But if you like to play non-core races at the moment you must live with that what you get, or do it yourself. And again, this is mostly based on the problem that there are only 3 books out right now and there is just not enough time and space to include detailed options on every possible race.

Just look at the Warforged entry in Dragon to see how a "real" monster race writeup will look in the future. There is no way that you can reliably recreate that stuff with "generic" monster-to-PC conversion rules.

Except the rules are not, as you yourself state, the final full rules for this.

Perhaps they had not enough time to create player compatible final rules for that? Perhaps they choose not to do so?

I'd like to create a flaming frost lightning sword.

I would assume that is a sword that can either use frost, lightning or fire?

As Mustrum_Ridcully said, just take the base template for such a weapon (Flaming Weapon for example), change the at-will in a way that you can choose the damage type and do the same for the daily power. To account for flexibility I would rate the item as 2 levels more powerful then the used template (which is L5+, so your weapon would be L7+)

What about a Wizard's Staff that also has the same 3 weapon enchantments on it?

See above.

What about a magic item that makes my Monk's unarmed strikes into flaming unarmed strikes?

Now that is easy.

Just say that the line "Weapon: Any" in the magic item templates can also apply to items that enhance unarmed strikes through magic powers. If it is implemented through knuckles, magical armbands or even tattoos, that has nothing to do with the rules.

Of course there are still problems with unarmed attacks in general, but these will be fixed in a further rules expansion. In the meantime you could add a new weapon (Trained Unarmed Attack) and use that for trained martial characters. This weapon could have a proficiency bonus and for example a attack dice conversion for increasing levels.

Sure you can- the game designers obviously had some kind of guidelines when they created the items in the first place. Those rules could have been presented to the buying public.

I don't want to sound nitpick-y, but guidelines are not rules. You can use them, but you are not bound by them.

Guidelines are things like: "To level up a monster, increase its hit points, attacks and defenses by an appropriate amount (for example 10 hit points, +1 attack and +1 to all defenses)."

A rule is something like: "To level up a monster, consult the monster level progression table at page x and increase its attributes accordingly. Recalculate the basic and derived monster statistics afterwards."

 

[Stogoe]

Not to mention, Goring Charge is a fairly decent attack, too.

I was comparing it recently to a normal charge, and I had myself convinced that it just didn't stack up, dealing less damage at a smaller attack bonus. And then I went back and read the racial power again. "And knocked prone" makes it worthwhile.