v4 D&D ruleset (v0.9)

[Moon Wizard]

With the launch of v4 D&D, I thought it would be good to have a ruleset to actually play with.

I developed this version based on the v3.5 D&D ruleset that I have been working on, so there are lots of extras above what the base d20 ruleset offered. The ZIP file contains a readme file, which has a list of the changes and installation instructions.

NOTE: I haven't actually run a game yet with the ruleset, so there are probably lots of fixes and changes to be made. That's why it is v0.9.

Download here (link removed until futher notice, sorry - see here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=58740&postcount=21)).

A quick summary of the major changes:
* v4 D&D rules support
* Game/campaign options and dialog window
* Tabbed resizable character mini sheets
* Client combat tracker
* Player-to-player whispers
* ...and more

Cheers,
JPG

[balth]

Cheers for this, now here's a question for you:

I already have 4e character sheets, so I don't want to overwrite them with your tabbed minisheets and whatnot.

So if I JUST want the ruleset, which files do I need to replace?

Or am I completely incorrect and it doesn't work like that?

Thanks in advance!

[Moon Wizard]

It doesn't work like that. The character sheets are a core part of the ruleset, and actually define a lot of information including database structure and functionality.

The main areas that have changed from the d20 ruleset are the characters, NPCs and combat tracker. All other aspects are the same (images, tokens, stories, items). This means that you could convert an existing campaign, but would need to rebuild characters and NPCs.

Cheers,
JPG

[balth]

one last question on this track then (and thanks for the response)...

The NPCs/personalities are governed by the new rulesets/character things then as well? Like I can add the AW powers to a Kobold Skirmisher that are listed in the adventure module (real one not virtual one) for instance?

[Moon Wizard]

Not sure what AW stands for, but I'll answer about powers in general.

Yes, the NPC/personality sheets are controlled by the ruleset. In the NPC sheet I build for this ruleset, you can list up to 8 powers per NPC.

Also, the ruleset will pre-fill the combat tracker when you drop the NPC link into the combat tracker; and you can drag-roll or double-click roll the attacks and damages in each power.

Cheers,
JPG

[Sorontar]

I'm guessing AW is At Will, looks great m_w much appreciated the work you have put in.

[Pheonix-IV]

I've played around with this by myself, and so far i can say it looks awesome. It'll take a real game to find any bugs, but at the moment, great work.

[XpressO]

I have a bug to report.
I created a personality called Kobold Skirmisher 'cause this ruleset doesn't have the 4e monsters in it (yet anyways). First of all I can't find any field called Attack or Damage for the personality, so I used the Power fields for them, like I think they are supposed to. Now the bug itself is here: When I take my Kobold Skirmisher and drag it to the Combat Tracker I get a LUA error. Here's what it says:

Script Error: [string "scripts/combattracker.lua"]:243: attempt to concatenate local 'dmg' (a nil value)

So I think it's pretty straight forward, the combat tracker tries to get the personalitys damage from a field but there is none. I don't know how to fix this, 'cause I don't know LUA scripting.

[Pheonix-IV]

I get the error:
Script Error [string "scripts/combattracker.lua"] 243: attempt to concatenate local 'dm' (a nil value)
When putting personalities into the combat tracker.

Also, the inability to write down an attack as say Heavy Flail +4 Melee (1d8+2) and then just drag it into the window to get the relevant dice is definitely a downside.

Actually, the combat tracker really doesn't work at all. It sets the space used to 7 and reach to 7 (these fields dont exist in the personalities table) In the tracker there's still a place for an attack, but no attack value in the personalities tab. And the auto-roll initiative thing doesn't work.

[balth]

Ack, this makes me a sad panda to see the bug reports.

Guess I'll just use Josh's Charsheet again and not go for a rulesset change per se.

[XpressO]

Actually you can play with that bug if you don't mind about it. You just have to change the space/reach values according to your monster/personality. And check the attack and damage from it's statistics.

[neobahamutdragon]

I am very new to this but i want to create 4th edition monsters. I need an example to sort what goes what.

[joshuha]

Ack, this makes me a sad panda to see the bug reports.

Guess I'll just use Josh's Charsheet again and not go for a rulesset change per se.

Mine while not as far along will be built up over time. I am working on the combat tracker next and then NPCs. I built mine from a base ruleset with no d20 stuff in it and am tailoring it to 4E. However, until I know more about the GSL I am avoiding any hardcore auto-rolling or auto-calculations as I don't want to run astray of Wizards legal department.

[Moon Wizard]

As I mentioned, this was a first stab.

On the combattracker error,
The combat tracker code is assuming that an attack on the NPC is of a particular format. (see readme notes) (Ex: Name; Action, Recharge, Keywords; Attack; Damage; Other) I just didn't set up the code to fail graciously when it didn't find the power in that format. Also, I had put the 7 reach / 7 space numbers in for testing. If you have a size specified in the beginning of the Type field, then the space/reach will be right. (Ex: Small, Medium, Large) Finally, the atk field will automatically be filled with the first power listed for each creature (see format below).

On the NPC/monster attacks,
All NPC/monster attacks are listed as powers in the 4E books, so I just assume that you will list each attack as a power. (Ex: Spear; standard, at-will, weapon; +6 vs. AC; 1d8 damage; see also mob attack)

Going forward,
I was not thrilled with the way that I implemented the powers for the NPCs, but it got the ruleset out the door. I'm actually working on revamping the NPC powers as a list on a separate tab, in a format more similar to the character sheet.

My group turned out to be so excited about 4E and having a ruleset for FG, that they agreed to start playing on it tomorrow night. More to come...

Cheers,
JPG

[dsaraujo]

Hi,

First of all, thanks for the effort, the ruleset look awesome. We're trying to use the ruleset, and we've encounter some bugs as well:

* The Will Defense is, sometimes, showing incorrectly. Apparently, the ability modifier is being added twice. The (half)level adjustment is working fine. The weird thing is that sometimes is right, sometimes is not. And some other times the DM and Client are seeing different things. The char have 18/14/11/10/10/16. The correct will is 14, but sometimes 17 appears.
* I can't drag a total basic attack from a sheet to the bar.

We'll be testing some more.

[Pheonix-IV]

Ah, that works much better. No errors this time and the initiative rolls work :D

[festivus]

Just saw this, and it looks great. One feature I didn't like, when you check off Second Wind it invrements your healing surges.. which is fine, but you should allow the players to change the value of the healing surges.

[neobahamutdragon]

Hi I start to change the rule book modules so Players can see 4th edition rules in library (Just for my personal games wont share it). In next update please allow the rulebooks to stay. Also a way for Spells to be added to your player character sheet would make things easy. That way i can change the spells to ability list.
THX

[Moon Wizard]

So, are you saying you don't want the second wind button to change anything? It is just subtracting the surge amount from the wounds, and incrementing the used surges by 1.

I can potentially add an option to enable/disable. I'm just curious why you don't like it.

Thanks,
JPG

[balth]

Jpg, I didn't mean to sound like a dousche before; I appreciate the long amount of time you put into this (because you obviously put in a lot).

I'm just not sure whether I should go with a map/die rolling setup or use your ruleset. I've looked at the NPCs, and that's going to be a LOT of data entry. Can I not do that, just assign a token to a name and do the rest offline? Or will that throw a kink into the ruleset.

My PC crashed this weekend, so I still haven't even gotten to use fG2 as a player yet, so I'm not sure how to initiate attacks etc.

If you think this is viable, ok, otherwise I'd be curious to know exactly how the attacks and whatnot of the pcs work.

Thanks in advance!

(btw, any slots open for your monday night game? :) )

[Ged]

This development sounds really cool, but evaluating if there is actual content in the ruleset, in excess to the rules and mechanics of the game, is a bit difficult. We have to be sure the ruleset is completely legitimate before we can accept linking to it from these forums directly to a downloadable. Sorry!

Removed the link for now.

[Davi]

Removed the link for now.

I found this very sad, because we can't report bugs, to make it better for now. Anyway, i hope there will be some kind of effort to evaluate this quick, so we all can benefit from this ruleset that is looking good!

[Ged]

I found this very sad Yes, I understand and typically character sheet rulesets are pretty "content free", but as I said, it has to be checked. And as a matter of fact, it would be most convenient if the original contributor explained the case, with respect to copyrights, in the first place.

(Please, please, everyone, do not turn this into a general copyright debate... :eek:)

[festivus]

So, are you saying you don't want the second wind button to change anything? It is just subtracting the surge amount from the wounds, and incrementing the used surges by 1.

I can potentially add an option to enable/disable. I'm just curious why you don't like it.

Thanks,
JPG
For me, I am not looking for anything automated. I just want plain sheets that equate to a paper equivilent. You stay out of trouble that way too as far as license goes. I can do math.

As for this one specifically, I checked it by mistake and wanted to uncheck it. I couldn't change the number of surges used once that happened.

[Pheonix-IV]

I don't think this would be a breach of copyright. There's no actual content, The only automated procedures are adding modifers to dice and working out initiative, melee bonuses, will saves ect, AC values and adding half the characters level to all the correct stats.

Certainly, it doesn't do anything that the default D20 ruleset doesn't do, it just works to the 4e ruleset instead of the D20 one.

[Moon Wizard]

I've sent a private message to Ged to discuss his concerns, and hopefully address them quickly.

I just had my first session with the ruleset last night. It worked well, but I definitely have ideas for streamlining. Also, having content will be great when the GSL tells us what we can do.

Cheers,
JPG

[Tantras]

I don't think this would be a breach of copyright. There's no actual content, The only automated procedures are adding modifers to dice and working out initiative, melee bonuses, will saves ect, AC values and adding half the characters level to all the correct stats.

Certainly, it doesn't do anything that the default D20 ruleset doesn't do, it just works to the 4e ruleset instead of the D20 one.

That's not the issue...

The issue is until WOTC release the GSL license then we do not know what is allowed!

The above character sheet may be fine (on paper), but if there is a clause to prevent electronic use, then all threads (with links for downloads) like this could do is bring the might of WOTC/Hasbro Legal team down on Smiteworks and then there's no more fantasygrounds.com

Now I freely admit that this may be all doom and gloom, but we do not know what is allowed under the GSL yet!

So play safe and wait a little longer and the GSL should be out....

Until then I think Ged did the right thing pulling the download links.....

[fooman]

I will be using it this coming week for my group. I played around with it the other night and it is vastly superior in several ways - so will be insitituting it starting next Monday's session. Here are some of the features that made the decision for me and a few items on my wish list.

1) Having a character sheet designed for the game in question is ofcourse a major benefit. Enough so that none of the players complained about re-entering their characters again the 2nd week in.

2) Built in calculations are great. The auto-roll initiative is a big time saver as is the double-click to roll option. The fact that the NPC abilities automatically adjust based on level and expresses when you "double-click roll" is a nice detail.

Wish list (some of these items may be already implemented and I simply do not know how to parse them). Also while these are "nice to have items" I can't see any of them being "need to have".

1) NPCs have only have one scripted attack nested in the combat tracker (need to open the creatures script for the others). In the basic d20 SRD you can have multiple functions separated by the OR and AND delimiters. This obviously only impacts NPCs that have multiple attacks/powers that they switch amonst frequently.

2) NPC Attack scripts wont roll multiple dice ie. no more Stone Rain +4/+4/+4 vs AC (1d6+4 dmg). In general i though these scripts in the d20 ruleset were one of the few "aint brokes" for 4e.

3) Seems that the character power page only allows you to add one die rolling mechanic so you can either have your Attack or your Hit but not both. Ideally each power would have the ability to right click and create multiple scripted and labeled "sub-entries". Example: Underneath my Explosive Orb power I insert an "Attack" line" (+6 vs Reflex), a "Hit line" 2d6+6 fire, a "Secondary Atk" line (+6 vs Reflex) with a note (area burst 5, enemies only) and a "Secondary Hit" line (1d6+6 fire). In addition it may be useful for me to have a place to track Effect, Miss, and Sustain notes (the ability to create an additional script line or an additional 3 field notes line like at the top of the page)

The 3rd one there may be pie in the sky -easy for me to say when I don't know any of the under the hood mechanics behind ruleset mods : ) In the mean time "hot buttons" are an easy work around.

But to conclude, an exceptional tool that obviously took alot of effort and thought to create. Converting to this was a no brainer and I hope the rest of the community has the positive experience that we had.

[Pheonix-IV]

Also, assuming you don't want to fill in all the spell details and monster details and all that, it would be great if you could give us a blank module with some empty templates we can copy the relevant data into.
Just because i have no clue how to do it myself :D


Also, if anyone wants, i do have the web based .pdf files for all 3 core books (the text is actually text, not scanned pages) if somone wants to make an automated process to get the base statistics out of the monsties and turn them into NPC personalities. (Dunno about the legality of that tho.)

[joeru]

Also, if anyone wants, i do have the ... (Dunno about the legality of that tho.)

Do NOT offer to distribute illegal files through this forum.

[Pheonix-IV]

The files are legal. I don't know about the legality of using an automated process to make monsters out of them.
Sorry, to clarify, the .pdf files are legal copies.

[balth]

However, transferring them to another party is NOT legal, regardless of whether they are legal because you purchased them or not.

[richvalle]

Any more word on the gsl?

[Xorn]

However, transferring them to another party is NOT legal, regardless of whether they are legal because you purchased them or not.

No kidding. I have a legal PDF of Keep on the Shadowfell (I made it myself) but the moment I give it to someone else that's piracy.

[Pheonix-IV]

However, transferring them to another party is NOT legal, regardless of whether they are legal because you purchased them or not.

Actually, what is the legality of that. Assuming the second party also owns the core books, would it still be illegal?
I'm not sure, i'd imagine not, but then again, intellectual property laws get quite obscufacated at times.

[Master]

You own the hard copy book but you only are granted the rights to use the PDF copies. Software laws stat that ownership of the material belongs to the holder and not the user. The holder grants the rights to use the software (PDF copies) for an undisclosed amount of time the the end user.

You can transfer ownership of the hard copy books because you own the books but you can not transfer your rights to use the PDF copies.

It only gets foggy in reference to the intellectual property contained inside the books but that only comes into play when you claim ownership of that property and sell them as your own creation.

[Pheonix-IV]

So in other words, even if person B owns the 4e Monster Manual, it's illegal for me to send him the MM .pdf file?
Well that sucks. Anyone want to make an automated process to go through the MM .pdf and turn them into xml plugins for FGII that they can give to me so i can use it? :P

[Master]

So in other words, even if person B owns the 4e Monster Manual, it's illegal for me to send him the MM .pdf file?
Well that sucks. Anyone want to make an automated process to go through the MM .pdf and turn them into xml plugins for FGII that they can give to me so i can use it? :P

Unless you have express permission from the owner to distribute the information contained in the PDF you are exactly right. I have not read the user agreement for the WoTC electronic distribution but odds are pretty good that if you download the PDF from their website using their electronic download service that copy is for your exclusive use and you have no rights associated with its distribution. If the other person in question wants a copy they have to download it directly from WoTC's electronic distribution software.

Odds are good though that you are talking about the torrent PDF files in which case no one has the legal right to own or use because they were not distributed by WoTC or by someone granted distribution permission by WoTC.

[Master]

So in other words, even if person B owns the 4e Monster Manual, it's illegal for me to send him the MM .pdf file?
Well that sucks. Anyone want to make an automated process to go through the MM .pdf and turn them into xml plugins for FGII that they can give to me so i can use it? :P

On top of that the second part of your statement refers to integrating WoTC proprietary information into the FGII software. It is not illegal to do that but it is illegal to distribute copies of the material you created based on WoTC's proprietary information. If you copied all of the monsters from the monster manual into a FGII module for your own personal use then you are not violating any rules because you own the right to use that information but as soon as you distribute it you are breaking the law. You do not have permission to distribute the information which makes it illegal.

That is one of the major problems people run into with FGII.

It was not that big of a problem for dnd 3 and 3.5 because of the open gaming license allowed any information contained in the SRD to be freely distributed as long as certain guidelines were followed. 4.0 does not use the same OGL so that information can not be distributed electronically.

It is still early. 4e just came out this week so the community is adjusting and waiting for the final say by WoTC.

[Engar]

With WotC having thier own web content and electronic TT planned it is unlikely they would show much generousity in licensing for a third party.

[Foen]

(Please, please, everyone, do not turn this into a general copyright debate... :eek:)

We wouldn't do that now, would we?

:D

Foen

[Pheonix-IV]

Hmm, here's a question.

Lets say i get a given amount of Monster data into FGII, either by putting it in by hand (aiee!) or some automated process.
I can't distribute that data to other people, but i'm fairly sure i can host FGII games with it, since the other people in the game cannot use or access that data.

Or did i just walk into another fuzzy area?
This one seems to be alright, as if i think about it, i can go to a friends house if i only own the PHB, yet i can still legally play DnD, so long as he owns the MM and thus can get the monster statistics.

Could be pretty gray, hmm.

[Master]

Could get pretty gray is an understatement :)

All of this is designed to cover WoTC's butt at the end of the day. As long as you are not going out and undermining WoTC's future sales you should be ok. For instance WoTC plans on distributing a free copy of the PDFs to anyone who purchased a copy of their book. The catch is that the service used to download that free copy will be a premium service. I believe that you still are allowed to download the books at least one time even if you are not a subscriber.

So you are really in the gray because while the PDF is free it is an incentive to subscribe. If you give the PDFs out to your friends you are undermining one of the main incentives for subscription to their pay service. (The others being free copies of their two magazines and the ability to use their DDI software.)

This could all be moot once the new GSL comes out and they put all of this into official writing.

At the end of the day though a lot of people break these rules. The main thing is that if you do break them you do it elsewhere so that SmiteWorks can not be held responsible for your actions. For instance you cant post about distributing PDF copies of rule systems unless those rule systems are covered under any OGL and are freely distributed by their creator. You also cant post about distributing modules for FGII that you have created with proprietary information you pulled from a game system. You also cant post about distributing a rule system for FGII if your rule system using proprietary information pulled from a game system.

It is very frustrating but it is designed to protect SmiteWorks from lawsuit so that we can continue to use such a great program.

[middlemonster]

Funny thing is that when the GSL comes out the OGL for d20 will be replaced. So anyone (including Smite Works) who wishes to produce/distribute 4e products will no longer be allowed to distribute 3.5 stuff anymore. They're having a 6 month "sell off" period so everyone can get rid of all their current copies of 3.x material.
That is if I remember correctly from some FAQs on the WotC site. I could be wrong. Can someone who knows more about it confirm?

Of course they could just keep 3.5 and some fans could make a 4e ruleset and FGII could direct us to the site that distributes it without being to straight forward about it.

For example they could direct us to a site that has multiple ruleset and just say that many editions of D&D rulesets have been in development their. And people will check to see if they have 4e.

[MrMerchant]

To quote the website...


The GSL will be live upon posting. First on-sale date for GSL compatible products is October 1, 2008.

Does that mean we won't see an official FGII update until October?

[arcath]

For example they could direct us to a site that has multiple ruleset and just say that many editions of D&D rulesets have been in development their. And people will check to see if they have 4e.
If only such a thing existed....

[Griogre]

Funny thing is that when the GSL comes out the OGL for d20 will be replaced. This isn't actually true right now anyway. The OGL has no expiration date. However it could be changed by WotC in the future though they have said they don't plan to.

So anyone (including Smite Works) who wishes to produce/distribute 4e products will no longer be allowed to distribute 3.5 stuff anymore. They're having a 6 month "sell off" period so everyone can get rid of all their current copies of 3.x material.
That is if I remember correctly from some FAQs on the WotC site. I could be wrong. Can someone who knows more about it confirm?

WotC clarified this was for "produce lines" not companies. Thus that means a company could have 3.5 products and 4.0 products. However you could not have a product, say a module, that was for *both* 3.5 and 4.0 except within the six month transition window. This means after the six month period you can only release a product as either a 3.x product or a 4 ed one.

Edited to respond to the first sentence.

[Griogre]

Does that mean we won't see an official FGII update until October?
Not exactly. ;) It means that FG could not *transistion* over to being a 4th ed product until October at the very earliest. They can continue to release bug and feature updates if they wish and the nature of many of these changes would mean they would improved either a 3.x version or a 4 ed version of FG.

[MrMerchant]

Not exactly. ;) It means that FG could not *transistion* over to being a 4th ed product until October at the very earliest. They can continue to release bug and feature updates if they wish and the nature of many of these changes would mean they would improved either a 3.x version or a 4 ed version of FG.

So until October, it would be "Hey, this is Fantasy Grounds, buy our 3.5ed VTT! You want to play 4ed? Download this!"

Then as of Oct they can say "Hey, this is Fantasy Grounds, buy our 4ed VTT! You want to play 3.5ed? Download this!"

That being said, lets say once the GSL comes out, and they get an official 4th ed update completed, could they release the ruleset prior to Oct as a d/l, as long as it doesn't come as a part of the "official purchase package"?

[Griogre]

No it doesn't work that way, legally. They couldn't do anything until October as far as different editions. Then if the GSL allows them to transition to 4th Ed they could release a 4th ed upgrade. During the six month period they could also offer a 3.5 version also.

I think you are confusing FG a little with DDI. DDI is supposed to be a simulation of D&D being played in a face to face game - usable online.

FG is a little different but it's an important difference. FG simulates the table top of a face to face game. It's the battle map and the tokens on the battle map as well as the pens. FG is the dice on the table and the ability to talk (it’s also indirectly a player and GM screen too). None of these features are affected by what game you play or what edition of the game you play.

What is affected by the OGL and GSL is what game references are also on the table top. With the OGL/SRD you could include the d20 reference material on the table top - and in FG that is represented by the library books containing the d20 lists of classes, feats, spells and monsters. It's important to realize you can use FG without any of the references - just the way you do in a face to face game - by just opening in your lap the rulebook for the RPG game you are playing.

The new GSL will control what references to their intellectual property, if any, that are allowed to be placed in a library book in FG.

However, what it will not control is whether Smiteworks can add better dice rolling features or a better way to show targeting on the battle map or a better way of organizing or modifying character sheets. All of the features like this are game and edition independent.

[MrMerchant]

I think you are confusing FG a little with DDI. DDI is supposed to be a simulation of D&D being played in a face to face game - usable online.

FG is a little different but it's an important difference. FG simulates the table top of a face to face game. It's the battle map and the tokens on the battle map as well as the pens. FG is the dice on the table and the ability to talk (it’s also indirectly a player and GM screen too). None of these features are affected by what game you play or what edition of the game you play.

What is affected by the OGL and GSL is what game references are also on the table top. With the OGL/SRD you could include the d20 reference material on the table top - and in FG that is represented by the library books containing the lists of classes, feats, spells and monsters. It's important to realize you can use FG without any of the references - just the way you do in a face to face game - by just opening in your lap the rulebook for the RPG game you are playing.

I think it's less my confusion and more my inability to be concise.

I generally regard FG as a VTT (virtual tabletop) because that's exactly what its replacing, the tabletop in a face to face game, it just also has other cool features that you can strap onto it.

For me, DDI feels like more of a VBG (virtual battlegrid) and lacks the charm FG has, (being able to throw the dice was what sold me on this application). It's a lot like Megamek, it's kinda robotic, but it's enough to get you rolling and a child could do it because it does most of the work for you.

Basically, from a DM standpoint, what I'm wanting from a 4th ed. update is a functioning character sheet and maybe some precalced monsters in case I need some in a pinch. FGII's got everything else I'd need.

[middlemonster]

I think it's less my confusion and more my inability to be concise.

I generally regard FG as a VTT (virtual tabletop) because that's exactly what its replacing, the tabletop in a face to face game, it just also has other cool features that you can strap onto it.

For me, DDI feels like more of a VBG (virtual battlegrid) and lacks the charm FG has, (being able to throw the dice was what sold me on this application). It's a lot like Megamek, it's kinda robotic, but it's enough to get you rolling and a child could do it because it does most of the work for you.

Basically, from a DM standpoint, what I'm wanting from a 4th ed. update is a functioning character sheet and maybe some precalced monsters in case I need some in a pinch. FGII's got everything else I'd need.

I'm pretty sure you can throw dice in D&Di, but what I see the main difference is D&Di is for 4e ONLY, and FGII is for EVERYTHING which is what I want. If the GSL doesn't allow references to be made for FGII than I'll make them myself and give them to my friends, that is if we even decide to switch to 4e which isn't looking to good atm.

My brother says he'd DM 4e but playing a character would suck cause of the lack of customization with classes. I'm sure this will change with future supplements but who knows. I like 4e and so do most of our group, but 2 people who don't wanna play it makes it difficult to wanna switch over. Cause even though most of us like 4e, we still like 3e just as much or better.

Its gonna be a rough transition.....

[MrMerchant]

I'm pretty sure you can throw dice in D&Di, but what I see the main difference is D&Di is for 4e ONLY, and FGII is for EVERYTHING which is what I want. If the GSL doesn't allow references to be made for FGII than I'll make them myself and give them to my friends, that is if we even decide to switch to 4e which isn't looking to good atm.

My brother says he'd DM 4e but playing a character would suck cause of the lack of customization with classes. I'm sure this will change with future supplements but who knows. I like 4e and so do most of our group, but 2 people who don't wanna play it makes it difficult to wanna switch over. Cause even though most of us like 4e, we still like 3e just as much or better.

Its gonna be a rough transition.....

We were always book-in-lap with 3.5 ed anyways, I don't mind more of the same. Three guys I used to play with refuse to even hold the books let alone look through them and maybe give it a shot, I find they're the people who suck the fun out of the game anyways. I was talking to a buddy of mine about customization, in the past he's played an agile duelist fighter and a ranged shortbow fighter, and those would be out of the question now, but I'm finding the lack of customization is leading to better RPing at least in my players. They're actually writing backstories without me prompting them to do so.

One of my players is actually making a Human Paladin who worships The Raven Queen, I thought it was a great concept. The Raven Queen's clerics help those at the end of their lives ease into the transition, much like a hospice. The Raven Queen's paladins hunt down those who cheat death and transition them with a hammer to the face. Now I've got a great reason to throw a lich in once the group gets high enough.

[middlemonster]

Its lolable, we all made characters for our game yesterday and all but 1 person made a character that followed the raven queen, including the paladin and cleric. I made a wizard who followed the raven queen. I actually prefer the wizards in 4e, I would never play a wizard in 3e cause they just seem so weak in the beginning. And they become useless after they cast 3 spells per day. I would never play a monk, barbarian, bard, druid, or ranger cause they aren't customizable as much as a wizard or fighter. In 4e everyone is the same. I don't understand why people have a hard time adding in or changing rules, powers, or anything to the game. They're like well why should I have to do any work?!
With Acrobat and the PDFs you can change everything about the games, you can make your own rulebook even. Add in powers and change feats. Like the 4e two weapon feat is total garbage it needs to be changed to match what it does in 3e, or it could make it so if you want to use 2 attacks you can only make 2 basic melee attacks without the weapon bonuses and all class powers are just reserved for using a weapon in 1 hand. Same with the multiclassing feat, it should be changed so you can exchange an at will power with another class and then you would switch to that class from the other class's 1st level. You could even add in the old alignments, which is by far the easiest thing to change. Adding in spells and powers would be pretty simple for all of the classes. I don't see the big deal with customizing the rules.

[Pheonix-IV]

Considering there's an entire section in the 4e DMG that tells you all about how to create your own feats, powers, classes ect in much better detail than 3.5 ever had, and the fact that there's already a Warforged suppliment available on the Wizards site, i'm trying to work out why people seem to think 4e is uncustomisable.

Oh, on the Wizards site there's also a document about how to convert your 3.5 chars to 4e, complete with a few customised rules for classes that don't convert (like the Monk.)

[richvalle]

Oh, on the Wizards site there's also a document about how to convert your 3.5 chars to 4e, complete with a few customised rules for classes that don't convert (like the Monk.)

Whats the name of that article? I don't see it.

Thanks!

rv

[Sorontar]

Whats the name of that article? I don't see it.

Thanks!

rv

This one (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080613a) I think

[Pheonix-IV]

Yeah, that's the one.

[arcath]

Any updates on the OP's ruleset?

[Griogre]

WotC's still dragging their feet on the GSL. They do appear to be getting close though. Until they release this no one knows what is allowed.
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080613a

[Honduras]

To get backon topic about the sheetset posted here previously. I really like how it looks, it just lacks one major thing in my book.

If it would be possible, on the spells tab to have a seperate section for racial and class special powers (like turning undead for example), I think it would be more or less complete. Maybe add the option to drop in dice like done on the combat tab (with modifiers) on each power would be nice too.

[Bumamgar]

Check out the updated JPG ruleset posted over at FUM last night :)

[Foen]

I can't seem to find it - did they take it back down again?

Foen

[Bumamgar]

It's there, but as a link in the thread called "The character sheet" in the D&D 4th edition FG development group.

Joshuha took down his sheet and has merged development with JPG instead of producing a "competing" sheet.

[Pheonix-IV]

what's FUM?

[Foen]

www.fouruglymonsters.com

It is a VTT-agnostic, rules-agnostic site which promotes RPG over VTTs.

Get ugly!

Stuart

[Pheonix-IV]

the 4e GSL is up at www.wizards.com/d20

[lokiare]

wow after reading the GSL and SRD (I plan on releasing modules commercially at some point). In 5.5 of the GSL it says that you pretty much can't make anything interactive with the rules. So there goes any automation that the rulesets could do for you. That kind of sucks.

[joshuha]

wow after reading the GSL and SRD (I plan on releasing modules commercially at some point). In 5.5 of the GSL it says that you pretty much can't make anything interactive with the rules. So there goes any automation that the rulesets could do for you. That kind of sucks.

Note the no automation part is only for those choosing to publish under the GSL. There are other routes available either through standard copyright law or other contracts with Wizards that could procure the ability to create 4th edition rulesets. I am sure that is what Smiteworks and Digital Adventures are pursuing (with the advice from their legal counsel).

[Ram Tyr]

joshuha is exactly right about the ability to proceed outside of the GSL framework.

However, even within the GSL framework it should also be noted that most people have a broader definition of an interactive game than the definition provided by WotC.


"Interactive Game": means a piece of software that is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users. Success and failure includes any determination wherein one outcome is preferable to another. This includes the random determination of hit points, ability scores, and the like.
This was the definition under 3.5. As far as I have seen, the 4.0 GSL has no definition, so this is a reasonable starting place for a definition. (Again, reasonable because using a WotC definition is at the most conservative end of the spectrum.) Note the prohibition requires that the software 'use rules to resolve the success or failure of' the inputs. So, no letting FG say that an attack hits based on the players attack roll, the targets stats, and the attackers stats.

Note that a character sheet that simply displays information is not inconsistent with that definition.

Later.

[Illrigger]

If you want to have the D20 logo on your product, all of those statements are true. If you want to make a character sheet that does those functions and does not fall under the d20 logo, things are a lot more fuzzy. WotC cannot copyright the game mechanics themselves, nor can they restrict the useof them by 3rd parties. Things like Hit Points, Armor Class, and the math behind basic RPGs them are beyond the scope of copyright. While there is a significant amount of legalese that must be deciphered to know where to draw the line, there's still lots of legal room for people to make rulesets for FG and the other VGTs that players can use to play 4e through them.

[grot]

I just wanted to say we used this ruleset for some games recently, and it absolutely ROCKs. Bravo.

[philth]

One of my players is actually making a Human Paladin who worships The Raven Queen, I thought it was a great concept. The Raven Queen's clerics help those at the end of their lives ease into the transition, much like a hospice. The Raven Queen's paladins hunt down those who cheat death and transition them with a hammer to the face. Now I've got a great reason to throw a lich in once the group gets high enough.

Thats practically the basis of the whole campaign I'm planning. Except the whole group would belong to a militant branch of the Raven Queens church. There goal , the destruction of all undead and orcus cults where ever they maybe. In the background will be a existing war between Orcus and the Raven Queen, which the hero's will be brought further and further in. If all went as planned it would culminate into a battle vs. Orcus himself.

I like this also because most adventures have plenty of undead and it's a perfect excuse to dungeon crawl, and if the adventure has humanoids in a dungeon as well....yep thats the death cult of Orcus. I also like it because it gives a players a good rp reason why they adventure together.... They have to, there church demands it, the raven queen demands it. I can also easily plug Keep on the Shadowfell into this, even the kobold hall in the back of the DMG...those darn Kobold's work for Irontooth!

Sry...needed to get that out....been swimming in my head for days....anybody wants to pilfer it, please do....ain't all that original anyway, they're practically shoving that Orcus guy down our throats, he's like the main attraction in the MM, so naturally he should be the main event....anyway screw that guy, go team Raven Queen....hmmm....group needs a better title....any suggestions?

[Naahz]

could someone post a link to where this project currently is and what its set up to do now? I looked at Four Ugly Monsters, used search engine, checked downloads, still can't find it.

[aaelon]

https://www.fouruglymonsters.com/

[Foen]

I think you have to join a Group called "4th Edition FG Development", on the FUM web site.

https://www.fouruglymonsters.com/index.php?option=com_groupjive&task=showgroup&groupid=20

Cheers

Foen

[Chandley]

I think you have to join a Group called "4th Edition FG Development", on the FUM web site.

https://www.fouruglymonsters.com/index.php?option=com_groupjive&task=showgroup&groupid=20

Cheers

Foen

To do that, someone would need to tell the FUM admins that their effing security code app is timing out on their registration page... and has been for a week or two (at least) now.

Theres no admin email anywhere on their site though, so who knows how you contact them.

Chandley

[Oberoten]

DevinNight and Kepli are reasonably active here, you can PM them on these boards.

[Judokas]

I opened a thread yesterday about this.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8695

They were pretty quick to respond with a contact and a workaround (I have emailed Devin and he indicated he would do it manually for now). It would be good to have a webadmin mail link or something.

My understanding from reading what I could on FUM is that this is a newish site so they are experiencing growing pains.