From D&D Wiki
Could someone revise the Knight class and create a 4e version please?
Can someone help me? I've just made a new monster (the dreaded Hecatoncheires) but it cannot be accessed by the homebrew monster page! Hecatoncheires
Will there be any material of the kind put up on this wiki? Noname 11:08, 1 June 2008 (MDT)
- I think so, but then I can't really say. However, I will note that the 4e SRD will be quite different from the 3.5e one. The 4e SRD will essentially give out page numbers and nothing else. — OptimizationFanatic (talk|contrib) 14:27, 1 June 2008 (MDT)
- I believe that the 4e SRD will give you information to construct 4e items. That is, it will be a design guide. For example, what does a striker look like, or how powerful should a 5th level power be. That is, the rules behind the rules. However, we don't know that yet. I may be wrong. --Dmilewski 06:58, 2 June 2008 (MDT)
- If there is no SRD then we don't need to have SRD links in the classes/races. --Sabre070 05:48, 30 November 2008 (MST)
Monsters and NPCs
- Agree. --Green Dragon 23:20, 3 July 2008 (MDT)
I feel that much of the material currently being added to the 4e section of D&D Wiki is less than desirable. What are everyone else's thoughts on this? It feels like the start of the revised third edition section again — a lot of garbage being added which is barely formatted. Does anyone else even think this is an issue? If so, anyone have some good ideas as to how we can correct this problem? Don't get me wrong though, some great things are being added. One I have seen is the Aasimar (4e Race). Also, if anyone is interested, here is the RC for 4e. --Green Dragon 23:19, 3 July 2008 (MDT)
- I agree, though I am still getting a handle on 4e formatting. The fact I'm not "upgrading" to D&D Vista aside, the formatting drives me up the wall. Once I have a better handle on what everything means, I can chip in my part. Until then I'll try and just focus on removing obvious dead trash entries. -- Eiji 23:28, 3 July 2008 (MDT)
- What is really getting me is things that are becoming standard in the revised third edition section, such as templates for the breadcrumb, forms for adding new information, SMW information present with spells, races, etc, dpl2's instead of dpl's, and things like that, have yet to be implemented into the "new" 4e section. I feel that not only do we need to work on the actual content of this section, we also need to work on the structure of this section. Even things like categories, which should have been discussed and decided on earlier, are a complete mess. --Green Dragon 23:40, 3 July 2008 (MDT)
- Here is what I think we need to work on (not necessarily in this order): Navigation, categories, individual page layouts, adding new information (Forms or preloads? Where can we use which?), creating templates, and content control (I feel that things with little information, or information that is very unbalanced should be discussed for deletion — via Template:Delete). Thoughts? --Green Dragon 00:03, 4 July 2008 (MDT)
- I aggree, although I think we need to add templates and set up a standard format for everything before we can inprove individual pages. Also, could we add the 4e homebrew section to the sidebar thing (with the links to the various sections). --Sam Kay 04:34, 4 July 2008 (MDT)
- We really need good templates. The hand formatting is already driving me nuts.--Dmilewski 08:09, 4 July 2008 (MDT)
- I completely agree. Dmilewski, do you think you would have time to help a bit? Maybe, if you would not mind, you could work on the breadcrumbs... Also, Sledged, do you think you would have some time to start working on templates (your damn good at them :)). I think I'll start on trying to work out some forms for adding things (I want to learn them better), and would anyone else like to help? If so I can try to help you find a job, or if you know what you want to do please post it here so everyone knows what everyones going to try to do. Thanks! --Green Dragon 15:05, 6 July 2008 (MDT)
- Already workin' on them. The monster stat blocks and power stat blocks are going to be the problem ones, but I just have to modify the CSS a bit for the class and racial traits templates. Time is a bit limited for me right now, otherwise I would have had them done within first week 4e was released. —Sledged (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2008 (MDT)
- I agree that the quality of articles needs work. I go to the homebrew page and half the stuff there isn't unusable. Aboleth11 08:36, 25 May 2009 (MDT)
Game Mechanics Questions
- It's the weapon's damage. So 1[W] is 1d8 for a longsword, 2d6 for a maul, and 1d4 for an unarmed strike. 2[W] is 2d8, 4d6, and 2d4 for those same weapons respectively. —Sledged (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2008 (MDT)
- ok. another question. after reading, i am not certain what is the deal with disrupting powers (mostly spells but powers in general). i gathered if someone uses an area or range spell, he is vulnerable to an opportunity attack. however, i did not c it written explicitly whether a hit disrupts the power or spell and whether it is even possible to disrupt a power or spell (as was specifically addressed in 3.5 with the concentration check and all that). help anyone? if u dont wish to write the answer, just refer me to the relevant page in which book. tnx in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No problem (talk • contribs) 12:03, 23 August 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
- where have u seen anything like that? i have seen immediate interrupts or reactions which help u move away from range or something similar but not something that actually disrupts the use of the power (and i mean direct interruption. by direct i mean something that prevents the power. by indirect, i mean something that takes u out of power's range thus foiling the power but not actually disrupting it as in 3.5). even for ranged attacks by bow, it would seem an attack could be made against the bow string or something to that effect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No problem (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 August 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
"disintegrate" spell. if i hit, i do 5d10 plus 10 ongoing (save ends) and 5 ongoing if save is made (save ends). what does that mean? ok. 5d10 +int and ongoing 10. so at the start of target's turn, he takes 10 damage. at the end of his turn, he saves. say he succeeded. he should now take 5 ongoing. does this mean the save to end the 5 ongoing is taken at the end of his next turn thus ensuring at least another 5 damage or does he take them consecutively? i would guess the former rather than the latter but would like a "formal" ruling. also, how does ongoing damage work for objects?
- If you hit you do 5d10+int. At the start of their next turn they take ten damage and at the end they attempt to save. If they save they take 5 damage at the start of their next turn and get another save at the end. If you hit you do, assuming you have 18 int for argument sake, 5d10+4+10+5 at a minimum. If you miss you do 3d10+4+5 at a minimum assuming they aren't a minion (who take no damage if you miss). --YQM 00:46, 11 January 2009 (MST)
another rules question: "sacred flame" at will cleric power lets u grant temporary hit points on a hit. now, why would i require a hit to grant these temporary hit points? i mean, assume i know i am going into battle in a few minutes or so. i "attack" a grasshopper using this power, hitting him and granting my allies and myself temporary hp which last until we rest meaning it will last until the battle. during the battle, i will clearly use this power to damage as well, but would u, as a GM allow it to be used to buff up ppl before a battle? even not before a battle. just in general since temp hp lasts until u take a rest which u wouldnt need until u battle someone.
- The answer would be no. I never allow Players to use powers against non-combatants outside of an encounter. If for no other reason except for the obvious fact that this is not the intent of the Power. Using Sacred Flame against a non-combatant in order to keep the effect as a semi-permanent buff is just an abuse of the rules, and should be ruled against. -- Sepsis 06:56, 11 January 2009 (MST)
- I agree with the above but consider this. In 4e there is no difference between a "trap encounter" and a "monster encounter." As far as the system is concerned they are both Encounters and thus powers can be used during either. There are also "Challenge Encounters" such as talking to NPCs and getting over that pesky wall. This is where almost all your utility powers will be used. This is why quite a few utility powers seem useless in combat. My point is these are all treated the same. As such if find a trap and figure out that cutting a string or striking a plate would cause the trap to trigger harmlessly (seemingly or not) you could use Sacred Flame to cut the string, or strike the plate and give your teammate the before mentioned "Buff." While this is completely within the rules I doubt it will be of much use to you and I don't know how your DM would feel about it. I would view it as creative and allow it. --YQM 19:32, 12 January 2009 (MST)
Will there be a section added for 4e NPCs? Noname 17:41, 10 September 2008 (MDT)
- They go under creatures. The distinction between the two is very blurry in 4e. —Sledged (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2008 (MDT)
4e Categories and Properties
First, I'm fairly certain it's possible to replace all categories with properties (not 100% sure yet).
Second, I think all 4e category/property names should be prefixed with "4e" to maintain a distinction from previous and potential subsequent editions. Terms like "power" have a different meaning between 3.x and 4e (it actually has different meanings just within 3.x alone).
Third, we suffix, prefix, or otherwise tag category/property names to identify the context (e.g. in 3.x, Dmilewski created the categories "Cold Subtype" for creatures and "Cold Effect" for spells, spell-like abilities, psionic powers, and the like).
Applying the above guidelines to 4th edition powers, we get the categories/properties:
|Type (Attack or Utility)|
|Owner and Level|
Note the lack of a reference to feature powers in these properties. In the case of class, path, and destiny powers, the power is a feature power when a level is not given.
This list is not complete for powers. Damage type, effect type, accessory type, and action types were left out because I thought the above was enough to demonstrate the idea. —Sledged (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2008 (MDT)
Is it just me or are we lacking an alchemy section? This was introduced in the Adventurer's Vault, and I for one have a few ideas for new formulae---Redgaia 23:36, 9 May 2009 (GMT)
How can I make a template? Their's some homebrew that isn't templated (i.e.: artifacts, race trait variants). --chihuahua0 16:43, 22 May 2009 (MDT)
Do we need an environments section?
I was just thinking that maybe we should delete the environments section cuz its empty. --Aboleth11 08:33, 25 May 2009 (MDT)
I think that the uncompleted articles should be in a different location. Upon completion the creator could move them to the regular location. --Aboleth11 08:39, 25 May 2009 (MDT)
- We shouldn't need a seperate section. Authors should know their creations already (not be building them from scratch on the Wiki), and be able to place the whole article up at once or within a day or two. Longer then that means you have an idea...not an article, so it should not go up till you know its completed and you are just transcribing it. Once up it can be tweaked, But a "under construction" area would just cause more folks to start articles that never get finished because they are in semi-storage. -- Sepsis 10:06, 25 May 2009 (MDT)
- Also some people have an idea of exactly how they want it then mid way realise it wont work (like I did with my Dragonborn Variant, and so they go back to the drawing board leaving an imcomplete article. A "under Construction" is jsut unnescessarry. ShadowyFigure 10:34, 25 May 2009 (MDT)
- OK I guess you're right. Aboleth11 08:28, 26 May 2009 (MDT)
Revised 4e GSL
Just placing this here so it is easy for us to find. Here is the WotC link to the revised GSL - which is basically the 4e version of the OGL. I'm not the best in the world at understanding it, but it looks like we may not really be able to include it on the site. If we are able to include any of it, we (a bureaucrat/owner) apparently would first have to snail mail a filled out Statement to them (found at that link) first for approval. 12:25, 4 October 2009 (MDT)
Since the Campaign settings are Version neutral or mixed right now can we fix the broken 4e Campaigns link and reattach it to the 3.5 link? -- Kildairem 20:51, 9 December 2009 (MST)
Race Building Tool
Would anyone be interested in a tool to build races(I have already made it)? If so, what category does it belong to?
Wouldit be a good Idee if there was a page were builds could be created for already existing classes. (for example, a new build for Shaman)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pepogorath (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC). Please sign your posts!
- Do you mean 4e Class Feature Variants or something else? --Green Dragon 08:37, 27 January 2011 (MST)
- No, class features are features that only counts for that class(es). For example: a fighter has Combat challenge: which means that every time you attack your enemy that you can choose to mark that enemy (so it takes a -2 to attack rolls that doesn't include you).
- What I meant was a build. When creating a character you can optionally choose to build you class based upon an build. For example: one of the Fighter's build is Great weapon fighter:
- What i mean with this is: instead of making a new class, you could make a new build that alters the possibilities of classes. A build uses the same powers of an class, and you could make an new Class feature for your build so it might create a tactic for its own.
- Is this a good idee? --Pepogorath 05:55, 28 January 2011 (MST)
- Yes, this was exactly were I was looking for. Thank you Green Dragon, Many thanks for your help. (I will test it tomorrow because here it is 10:23 in the evening and im tired). --Pepogorath 14:25, 28 January 2011 (MST)
- Do you think it would make sense to include the possibility of class feature additions in the preload? --Green Dragon 17:53, 15 February 2011 (MST)
Humm theams that you have no where for GENERIC PLANTS it may help for the fact that some plants cant go under creachers so where do i put them? mabey you can add some whare for plants, poisonis but wont do any things against you, heals this or that, generaly you just need a page for plants.--Crazyabe (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2014 (MST)
- It it makes any kind of attack roll against the players, it can be a Hazard (see Traps and Hazards). Otherwise it can be a Terrain Feature. At the moment TFs are described in their specific encounter (either under Quests or Creatures) but a separate index might be nice. Marasmusine (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2014 (MST)
Ya knowing what that plant will do to you, and what its yoused for whould help I can't think what id yews for a healing herb...--Crazyabe (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2014 (MST) well at any rate i dont whant to go threw a botanics book for potion ingredients.