Locworks's page

How does a long list of spell names (and nothing else) make books unnecessary?

Compare Align fang by Lilith with Align Fang by Andrew.

Locworks wrote:

As far as I can tell, you are posting non-OGL content without permission.

If you are referring to my existing content, that's fair use much like making an index of books in a library and putting that online.

IMarv

I hope that the publishers will agree that indexing their books and reposting systematically their content in a way that makes the books unnecessary is fair use of their materials.

Is there any interest in duplicating my site at http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/index.php with the Pathfinder RPG version content?

Thanks,
IMarv

As far as I can tell, you are posting non-OGL content without permission.

As an attack roll, anything that modifies the attack roll also modifies the maneuver.

An attack roll is a straight, unmodified D20 roll. You don't get to add your BAB or your STR twice when performing a CM.

There is also no mention of any upcoming books in the IK line. The only new content will be provided through the No Quarter magazine.

Read the full newson the Privateer Press forums in the Status Of The Ik Rpg Line thread or read it in the spoilerized bit below.

Half-bloods?

Silly secondary classes. A rediculous amount of space just rewriting the D&D magic system. A complete lack of understanding on modern settings which weren't cheap Shadowrun clones.. horrible vehicle system, horrible HP 'kludges' for massive damage...

Actually if you open the book, start at page one and just go all the way to the index. :)

Cheers!

Maybe, but since the contract allows them to change the licence at any time, and retroactively declare you to be in breach, it amounts to 'anything WotC feels like suing over'.

You can be in breach only if you have agreed to the modified license, by continuing to sell the products after the modification. That's not retroactive.

I think the big problem with d20, particularly d20 Modern, was that the answer was 'no'. After all, no one reinvents the wheel if it's already round enough. d20 had many gaps, and d20M was... embarassing, in a lot of respects. Each BEGGED for third parties to flesh it out.

Apologies for hijacking the thread, but what do you see as the biggest holes in D20 Modern?

See the discussion and comments here.

"Crowd control"? That's cool. :)

Sorry, I could not resist: Move along, people... :-)

Locworks wrote:

I and probably a couple of friends from Warsaw will be coming to Essen as well. I hope to run a Beta game and get to play in another.

How many friends?

Currently two. :-)

I and probably a couple of friends from Warsaw will be coming to Essen as well. I hope to run a Beta game and get to play in another.

Großartig, if you don't mind me writing so!

Chapter 1: Introduction, page 2
Chapter 2: Generating a Character, page 4
Chapter 3: Races, page 8
Chapter 4: Classes, page 12
Chapter 5: Skills, page 52
Chapter 6: Feats, page 76
Chapter 7: Equipment, page 98
Chapter 8: Description, page 120
Chapter 9: Combat, page 130
Chapter 10: Magic, page 154
Chapter 11: Spells, page 170
Chapter 12: Running the Game, page 290
Chapter 13: Additional Rules, page 300
Chapter 14: Nonplayer Characters, page 332
Chapter 15: Magic Items, page 340
Chapter 16: Glossary, page 388
Chapter 17: Playtesting, page 402
Character Sheet, page 404

Drool...

Also on the greenronin.com website.

Read about it at Decision made.

Full post spoilerized below.

Also, the Powers are completely and utterly all over the place, and - get this - they're not listed in the Index!!!!. FFS people, what’s so wrong with putting all of the Powers in a chapter together in alphabetical order then using page references and lists when needed. That’s how Skills and Feats works, after all! The number of times my players have played Hunt The Power in the PHB already is beyond a joke. If you can’t even get this right, give us a f~~!ing index. It’s not too much to ask..

<tongue-in-cheek>Picture the 5th Edition commercial...:-) </tongue-in-cheek>

Grapple, grapple...

Good stuff. A great initiative. I hope publishers will open up more their OGC vaults, i.e. let anyone access the original files and let them do their own OGL mash-up. :-)

Similar questions discussed in this thread.

So is people publishing unlicensed for 4E really that much of a threat?

It's not a question of threat, but of keeping your partners/competitors close (OGL/D20) or causing them to run away and use your stuff without any framework.

However I believe that doesn't stop it from being discussed on the forums even though it wont be in the PRPG books.

The Alpha 3 forum is not quite the best place for that then.

SRD
You can make trip attacks only with the following weapons:
Bolas
Chain, Spiked
Flails
Guisarme
Halberd
Hammer, Gnome Hooked
Kama
Scythe
Sickle
Whip

If you don't have that weapon, you have the judo option, i.e. you use your natural attack to trip the opponent. That draws an AoO.

The Alpha 3 text looks like it could use some clarifications.

Another publisher seems to have made up his mind. Adamant Entertainment has announced adventures "usable with 4E" for release in July.

http://adamantenter.livejournal.com/

Quite astounding consequence of the GSL. Would it be that WotC, by releasing a much stricter license, opened up the gates for third party publishers producing 4th Ed.-compatible products without any overview or framework (such the one provided earlier under the OGL) and without the possibility for WotC to reuse the game mechanics created by these publishers?

Regarding the discussion of 'cascading ability score changes,' actually, if you look in the Pathfinder alpha 3 glossary, they already implemented this design. I only noticed it after posting my thread, though.

As another poster pointed out, we accept the simplified solution of negative levels granting flat penalties, not requiring actual recalculation. Why not do the same for stat penalties?

Because that breaks the basic link between an ability score and the attributes that depend on it.

I'm getting the impression that what you are trying to say is that this complications he's talking about are necessary to keep the game the same level of fun it was before?

Basically, these are needed complications to the game?

Fun? I can't find any reference to fun in my post.

These are not "complications". The cascading effect is a logical application of the rules. Your STR goes down, your STR modifier goes down, the secondary values powered by STR go down.

Suggesting that an effect (enfeeblement) doesn't affect STR or the STR modifier, but affects secondary abilities powered by STR introduces an illogical and counter-intuitive situation in the game. "I'm not weaker, but I don't hit hard."

Taking the suggestion to the extreme, should we rewrite all ability influencing spells, items and effects so that each of them lists the secondary values affected by the spell?

Retrieved from http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171129 (posted in 2006)

----
Ryan Dancey
[...]
With so much of the 30+ year legacy D&D game in the SRD, I believe it is impossible to ever make a game that would be accepted by the fans as "D&D" without it being possible to alter whatever is necessary to make the Open Game version of D&D compatible with whatever product is being currently sold as "D&D" by WotC. A game divergent enough to break that legacy with the SRD is simply not going to be tolerable to anyone vested in the D&D player network. Such a radical break would almost certainly result in a 3rd party version of the game, published under a new brand name, becoming the de-facto inheritor of the D&D player network externality, coming into direct competition with whatever faux "D&D" product is being marketed, and probably crushing it.[...]

----

So far, some of the predictions have a chance of becoming a reality:
1. 4th Ed. is seen as breaking the legacy.
2. We have a strong 3rd party version (Pathfinder RPG) in the works.

Questions:
1. Will the product currently sold as "D&D" by WotC be accepted by the fans as "D&D" over the coming two year periods (after the launch-induced excitement dies down)?
2. If not, will Pathfinder become the de-facto inheritor?
3. Is anyone creating an OGL version of the 4th Ed. game mechanics?

Note: Has anyone access to the Open Gaming Foundation listservers or to copies of the messages? I tried to subscribe but they seem to be MIA.

Superb easter egg on page 12!

You should add the SRD and your group's copyright notes under 15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE.

I'm not sure of the benefits of eliminating half of the bonus/penalty types and introducing subtypes based on duration. Their interplay can become more complicated at higher levels, but playing at lower levels is a great learning opportunity and prepares for the complexity of higher-level play.

For complex encounters, I and probably many GMs make notes and stat out the monsters depending on the monster's tactics and gear. Combat trackers and initiative cards let you write down or erase the various bonuses and penalties.

* Remove cascading ability score changes

In 3e, poison damage, ray of enfeeblement, or becoming fatigued lead to many fiddly calculations, and may deactivate certain abilities, which lead to more changes. For Pathfinder, ability scores should not change; rather, effects provide bonuses or penalties just to those numbers modified by the appropriate stat.
[...]
Detail - Remove cascading ability score changes
Say you get hit with ray of enfeeblement, granting a -10 penalty to Strength. You get a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, -5 to on-hand melee damage, -2 or -3 to off-hand melee damage, and a -7 or -8 to two-handed melee damage. Also your carrying capacity goes down, which can affect your movement and your armor check.
[...]
I suggest that for Pathfinder, ability score modifiers affect all rolls modified by that stat, and if it affects any static numbers (like AC or hit points), we just state a specific number, instead of requiring calculation. The stat itself, however, never changes.
[...]
In this system, a 10-point ray of enfeeblement just grants a -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects. This means you take a -5 penalty to melee attack rolls, a -5 penalty to melee damage rolls, and a -5 penalty on Str-based skills. (We'd also make some sort of rule that explains that when your Strength has a penalty of X, your lifting capacity is affected by Y, but that's a minor issue.)

Two notes on the ability scores:

1. The suggestion breaks the relation between an ability score and the derived values. Currently, if the ability score receives a penalty, that penalty propagates to the ability modifier and then on to the relevant skills and actions. The cascading effect is the normal application of the core rules and I find it easier to implement than listing the effects of a penalty on the ability-derived effects.

Your proposal, (granting a penalties to all ability-based effects without modifying the ability itself), leads to odd results:

Example 1
Joe the Fighter
Level 1
STR: 20 (+5)
Melee attack bonus: +6
Damage: 2d6 + 7 (greatsword)

a. Ray of enfeeblement affecting STR for 10 pips
STR: 10 (+0)
Melee attack bonus: +1
Damage: 2d6 +0 (greatsword)

b. Ray of enfeeblement giving -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects
STR: 20 (+5)
Melee attack bonus: 1 (6-5)
Damage: 2d6 + 2 (7-5) (greatsword)

Example 2
Bill the Commoner
Level 1
STR: 10 (+0)
Melee attack bonus: +0
Damage: 1d3 + 0 (fist)

Ray of enfeeblement affecting STR for 10 pips
STR: 1 (-5)
Melee attack bonus: -5
[b]Damage: 1d3 - 5

Ray of enfeeblement giving -5 penalty to all Strength-based effects
STR: 10 (+0)
Melee attack bonus: -5
Damage: 1d3 - 5

Now what happens when Joe and Bill are given a potion of Bull's Strength?
Should we rewrite the spell so that it gives a bonus to all Strength-based effects? I find it much easier to work at the level of the ability and let the changes affecting the ability cascade down to the derived values.

2. Recalculating the effects of the STR modifier going down by 5 points is a very simple calculations. I also don't see anyone calculating at the same time the -5 to one-hand melee damage, -2 or -3 to off-hand melee damage, and a -7 or -8 to two-handed melee damage. The characters use one weapon set and usually don't swap it out every round. If the player has problems applying modifiers to his character's powers, that may not be the system's fault.

...is apparently the first company to have mailed the Statement of Acceptance to WotC or at least the first to announce it on the interweb.

Spotted on the D&d Gsl (new Ogl) Is Live... thread on the Privateer Press forums.

The press release is also viewable on the Earth Dawn home page.

The company home page is http://www.redbrick.co.nz/

I've often wondered when the sea change happened at WotC. Was it when 3/5 came out or after?

Unless we get to probe (gently) the brains of those involved, I don't expect we'll find out anytime soon. Following on some remarks made above, I actually don't think that WotC abandoning the open content movement is a negative thing. It's a challenge and a unique opportunity for the companies who grew using the OGL/D20 licenses to do their own thing and tweak the SRD engine to suit their needs.

[...]Also, it really is a bit presumptive to be doing the whole "OGL in retrospective" shtick. We've just hit the start of a new chapter here, not the end of the book.

For the industry, it's just the beginning. For WotC, it's truly the end of the book.

I might remind people that there was stated 2 goals for the OGL.

1) To aid consumers and companies by allowing there to be a borderline system that everyone was reasonably familiar with, which made learning individual games easier since they were all drawn from the same foundation.

2) To make advances in the game system as a whole by seeing what variations were the most successful and adapting them.

Can you point to the source of these goals?

I might ask again. If six different companies make six different system for how to use magic, where is the justification that any of those are an improvement and should be included (possibly replacing the existing system) in the core rules resource?

The OGL and the SRD don't create "one" open content project to be improved. They set up the conditions for the creation of many different projects. These projects created alternative campaign settings and tweaked and completed the game mechanics to support these campaign settings.

I fail to see where it is specified that the tweaks and redesigns are meant to be reinserted back to the core.

This gives an insight in the requirements definition within WOTC. They are obviously using FGII as a template for their Virtual Tabletop. I mean the whole 3d dungeon thing is essentially a presentation layer and most likely wholy new whilst the rules/dice roller system is already well established in FGII and prime for lifting. Hasbro should have done the honest thing and bought Smiteworks or at least partnered with them.

I guess that some people will be looking very closely at the underlying code when/if that part of DDI is released. Interesting times ahead, I say.

Spotted on EnWorld.

Blog post: Has Open Gaming Been a Success?

The GSL has shown everyone that WotC is no longer friendly to the hobby. It has also shown that whoever controls the soul of the game is no longer considered friendly to WotC. My only wish for the future is to see this GSL destroyed and all who defend it (with a straight face).

No need to wish for the metaphorical destruction. There is a much worse fate for a licensing scheme: irrelevance.

As noted above in the thread, the provisions of the GSL make perfect sense in preparation for a sale of the D&D brand. I can easily imagine an investor looking at the OGL and going "wait a minute, do you mean that the core mechanics WotC developed can be used by anyone for free and for ever? Sorry, I think I left the oven on. Don't call me, I'll call you."

Now, when the dust settles (probably by the end of 2009, we'll need to ask Lore to update his Geek Hierarchy chart with the state of the RPG hobby and expand the "Roleplaying gamers" box on the chart.

The thing is that without being a GSL licensee, the publisher has no direct method to indicate compatibility with 4th Ed. When customers can't figure out the system which your product runs on, they'll go "meh" and keep on browsing.

Locworks, I just stumbled upon this thread. I like what I'm reading here. These new Combat Reflex feats look cool.

Glad you like the tweak. Yoink it freely. It's OGC and it's up for the taking. :-)

Additional tags:

[House rule]: a modification of an existing rule deemed too specific to be added to the core rules, but useful for some situations.

[Musing]: Exploration of "what ifs", leftfield ideas, possibly in preparation of a tweak, variant or redesign suggestion.

Yours is probably the most manageable. Moreover, each of these could be broken down into Race/Class/Skill/Feat/Combat/Equipment/Magic/Monsters/NPCs/etc.

The current one-level structure is not very usable as it is.

Great idea to start talking about this now. I appreciate your systematic approach but doubt that most folks will be that consistent. Your [tags] though are pretty straight forward and just those alone would help a lot I think.

Tags and explicit topic titles would make very happy already.

Another possibility would be to have separate forums for:

* Proofreading and Corrections
* Theoretical Discussions - the way folks feel things should work
* Playtest Feedback - I've engaged in a lot of 'what if' discussions with the Alphas, but once Beta hits I think actual at-the-table feedback is going to be a lot more important.

Where would you put tweaks (small changes) and redesign suggestions? These are not quite corrections of errors and often offer quite practical value. I'd rather discuss a rewritten rule and argue about the the author's stated objectives rather than simply throw ideas around.

On the subject of playtesting, I've read a lot of people say they've been playtesting with this house rule or that house rule. That's fine, but it's not really playtesting then. In this next phase, I think it's going to be really important for people to use the Beta rules as written, otherwise it will be hard for Paizo to evaluate their effectiveness. Maybe after six months or so you can say, "At first I ran the rules as written and didn't like X so the I tried Y for a few months and liked it better," but at least at first we all need to stick to the pure Beta rules as written (RAW I think it's nicknamed).

Excellent point.

Paizo's only option is to take 3P to the next level, make it backwards compatible with 3.5 (like 3.5 was with 3.0), and improve it while adding enough good stuff to it that we'll want it over our existing 3.5 core.

Perfect summary of the goals, if you don't mind me writing so.

I'm sure that the good folk at Paizo will ship playtest feedback forms and guidelines, but I'd like to submit for your consideration a couple of guidelines for the upcoming PF Beta feedback on these forums.

Apart from [Think tank], few other tags are currently used. I'd venture that a clear tagging of the threads would make the feedback easier to find for Jason and the team. I'd also love to see clearer descriptions of suggested rules' modifications. Finally, I wouldn't mind not reading again the words "nerf", "sucks", "lame" and "stupid" in the context of the playtest. :-)

So here goes nothing:

1. Reporting usability issues

1.1 Recommended tags for threads' subjects/titles

[Typo]: spelling/grammar mistake, incorrect page reference, missing words, sentences, paragraphs, tables, etc.

1.2 Other info to provide in the thread's subjects/titles
- affected rules
- clear reference to the location of the issue (page/table numbers)

1.3 Info to provide in the post
- brief explanation of the issue (if necessary)
- current wording of the issue (if applicable)
- suggested correction

1.4 Example
(Title)
[Typo] Sorcerer - Psychotic bloodline - p. 246

(Post)
Description
The description of the "Evil cackling" psychotic sorcerer's bloodline power is missing the ability type descriptor.

Text
Evil cackling: At 3rd level, you can emit a nasty laughter as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. You deal 1 point of Wisdom damage for every two caster levels you possess.

Correction
Evil cackling (Su): Starting at 1st level, you can emit a nasty laughter as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. You deal 1 point of Wisdom damage for every two caster levels you possess.

1.5 Template
[code]
Description

Text

Correction
[/code]

2. Logging change requests

2.1 Recommended tags for threads' subjects/titles

[Clarification]: The text is ambiguous or inconsistent. A rewording may be necessary to avoid divergent interpretations and eliminate contradictions.

[Tweak]: Limited modification of an existing rule.

[Redesign]: Extensive modification of an existing rule.

[Addition]: New rule which deals with an area not covered by existing rules.

[Variant]: Alternate rule for an area covered by existing rules.

2.2 Other info to provide in the thread's subject/title
- affected rules
- clear reference to the location of the affected rules (page/table numbers)

2.3 Info to provide in the post
Enhancement requests should contain:
- brief explanation of the issue addressed by the enhancement
- current wording of the affected rule(if applicable)
- suggested modification

2.4 Example
(Title)
[Tweak] Attack rolls - relevant ability score - p. 173

(Post)
Description
Smart characters should be able to use their Intelligence modifier when attacking stupid foes.

Current rule
Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

New rule
Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier* + size modifier

*You may choose to use your Intelligence modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls made against mindless creatures. If you carry a helmet or a big hat, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

2.5 Template
[code]
Description

Current rule

New rule
[/code]

With 3.x (and pathfinder) we officialy had critical damage, when you rolled a 20 you did double damage (and all the x3, x4, etc..., or maximum damage now in 4th); but if you hit the minimum it is still the same as getting one closer to the critical.

Another point to address is the whole "armor makes you harder to hit" eternal problem D&D has always faced.[...]

Not strange, as far as I am concerned. Armour doesn't make you harder to hit. It doesn't protect against touch attacks. Armour makes you harder to hit effectively (and injure).

Applying minimal/reduced damage on an attack that matches the AC (minimum to hit) on a high natural roll means that not only the high AC critters are hard to hit, but that they have some sort of damage reduction going on. Challenging fights become epic very quickly. :-)

What other core/OGL feats did you have in mind?

YULDM, can you contact me at <my alias> @ gmail.com? I'd like to repost the tweak as OGC.