I was wondering what Greyhawk fans want to see for the 4e game. For starters, I can think of the following:
Talent trees for clerics of Greyhawk Gods
Talent Trees linked to Greyhawk Regions / Human ethnicity
Paragon Paths for Greyhawk institutions (e.g. Silent Ones)
4e stats for key npcs
4e stats for legendary magic items
Honestly? I don't like my Greyhawk to have 'lotsa stats'. To me, the most perfect 'stats' are defined by the list of rulers in the old 1e boxed set, Glossography, page 17 "Rulers of Greyhawk". If you don't have that one, here is an example write up of one ruler:
"Tenh, Duchy of: Ehyeh, F 12"
That's it. To me, this is perfect. It gives every GH DM a likely base to use, but each DM can have that ruler be more or less totally different. This is what makes (made?) Greyhawk so damn DM friendly and popular. It gave the DM little seeds of inspiration at every turn, and let him/her determine what and how his/her Greyhawk was.
No, I don't want any of the things you listed. Personally, I want WotC to totally and completely ignore all things Greyhawk. But then again, I've been wishing for that since 2e came out... ;)
...yes, I'm an old Greyhawkian Grognard...and proud of it! :) _________________ ^_^<br /><br />Paul L. Ming<br />
Lol! But that doesn't really help my thread. I've been disappointed at how my Greyhawk shadow mage was neutered in 3e and I'm hoping 4e will let me build a viable character again. I'm also hoping to re-create approximations of our 1e-2e-3e group.
I agree with what you say about many of the npcs; we don't really need them fully statted out, especially as 4e is making it easier to approximate rough drafts based on level alone.
Even so, I'd quite like to see some of Greyhawk's iconic villains get a 4e make-over.
Unfortunately until I see the complete rules on how monsters and NPCs are being handled I have no idea how much or how little I would like to have statblocks for these things.
As for the paths, ditto, until I see the mechanics I will not know if I need to translate or reimagine PrCs and Kits. I believe it will be the later but one never knows.
As for WotC doing it, I wouldn't hold my breath nor do I really want them doing it. If I am going to adopt 4e as a game system I will use WotC examples from other game worlds ans inspiration and do the heavy lifting myself. That way I know the feel for my campaign is right for my campaign...
I'd also prefer a site with decent credentials like Canonfire to produce Greyhawk talent trees. I'd like like to see trees that reflect the 'extra' abilities the clerics could obtain by sacrificing xp in 1e.
So our cleric of Olidammara might be able to choose (from memory) weapon training in the longsword (or rapier in 3e), skill training in perform, stealth, and/or sleight of hand, musical charm (if trained in perform), alter self (or change self in 3e), and tasha's uncontrollable hideous laughter.
I was never a major fan of the domains in 3e. I can see why they were needed because individual lists for each campaign specific god were not viable but I don't see why individual talent trees for each god might be fun.
Of course we will have to wait for the rules for the clerics (some of whom worship our beloved greyhawk gods in any event) to see how they deal with the different deities.
Gosh so much negativitiy. Maybe I need to rephrase this:
What 4e Greyhawk things would people like to see posted on Canonfire? I'm talking game mechanics not tinkering with the timeline or conjuring some major cataclysm.
I think I might shove dragonborn in Cauldron. I've never used it and hated the way the official version was so cosmopolitan (with so many elves, halflings etc). I thought maybe I would adjust the racial divides to wipe out the elves and reduce the other races (except maybe dwarves since it is set in a mountain range) and feed in dragonborn and tieflings in their place.
Gosh so much negativitiy. Maybe I need to rephrase this:
What 4e Greyhawk things would people like to see posted on Canonfire? I'm talking game mechanics not tinkering with the timeline or conjuring some major cataclysm.
I think I might shove dragonborn in Cauldron. I've never used it and hated the way the official version was so cosmopolitan (with so many elves, halflings etc). I thought maybe I would adjust the racial divides to wipe out the elves and reduce the other races (except maybe dwarves since it is set in a mountain range) and feed in dragonborn and tieflings in their place.
I think rewording things helped a bit Paul. I'm not going to be able to offer much but you raise a valid question for a couple of reasons.
1. If Canonfire posters don't send in articles with 4th edition content as well as content for other editions it could limit the amount of visits received and therefore the effectiveness of the site. My understanding right now is that Canonfire has a reputation for being the top Greyhawk site out there and this is a good thing. As "meh" as I am about 4th edition, by Canonfire not offering information that reputation could change and hinder the sites purpose to the public. Some may see that as 'keeping Greyhawk....Greyhawk. Others may see it as a slow extinction. If I recall correctly, my contact with the Oerth Journal is that they will provide 4th edition content just like any other edition. Which I do believe is better for the site in general.
2. In writing articles for Canonfire (and Oerth Journal, as I see a strong correlation between the two), how does one go about offering 4th edition material for those interested in it without alienating those playing previous editions?
These are things I have been thinking about since last year ever since I offered an article series to Oerth Journal. I thought perhaps I should cancel the whole thing, then I changed my mind, then I thought "I guess I'll decide later what to do about 4th edition", then I thought maybe I can write the series campaign neutral, then I thought....."I don't know", and that is where I stayed. I don't know what to do.
So I think you raised a very worthwhile question and it needs to be addressed. The last thing we want or need is folks passing on good Greyhawk articles because of 4th edition content, and those interested in 4th edition content passing on good articles because it didn't include 4th edition content. Like it or not, the middle road must be found and walked down for the better of the Greyhawk community, regardless of what sites you visit, where we post, and whom we write for, and what we choose to write.
So I will start......
I have submitted an article on Dragon Kingdoms to the Oerth Journal (I realize it is not Canonfire but I addressed that above). Assuming that the article is accepted and worthwhile to print, it was written from a 3.5 viewpoint. Currently, it serves as an introduction to how the Dragon Kingdom's developed in Greyhawk along with a lesser section detailing an introduction to each kingdom. There are 10 kingdoms, one for each dragonkind. Now with 4th edition we have eliminated certain dragon colors and added new ones, something which hasn't been addressed in the article, so as you can see, the problems already begin.
Cebrion suggested that I break the Flanaess down into 5 regions, NW, SW, NE, SE, and central, each being an article unto itself, with a possible summary article at the end. Each subsequent article will get into the detail of the kingdoms which cross over into that region. The articles are intended on discussing dragon stats, lairs, relations with other dragon kingdoms, politics inside these kingdoms, relations with human, dwarven, elven kingdoms, relations with lesser races taken from 3.5, and so on. Other areas to be inlcuded are spawn of tiamat, half-dragons, and this brings me to the inevitible, dragonborn. How does one go about adding it while not alienating readers? I won't be using dragonborn in my game because I'll stick with 3.5, but I don't want to alienate 4th edition readers. So I'm asking for assistance on how one should go about this.
This situation could and most likely will become yours as you write articles for these sites. How will you deal with these issues on whatever topic your writing about? Perhaps those responsible for editing and publishing will solve this for us, I don't know. Either way, you and I are the one's doing the writing. I think we need to think about the future for these sites so that everyone gets the most out of them.
In regards to other aspects of what 4th edition material should or should not get tossed into Greyhawk, each person will decide on their own for their campaign. Regretfully, this doesn't do a lot for articles being posted. Coming to an unofficial concenses on various topics (say tieflings and dragonborn for example), will be difficult and may or may not be a good idea, I don't know. If strictly left up to the writer your going to get a lot of cherry picking with articles. 'Well, I don't use dragonborn so I will replace that race with "insert your own call here", or I'll just ignore that part of the article. This could become an issue and make articles less useful. Having some sort of informal decision on such topics could make writing articles easier for universal writing but again may grind against individuals. One could also attempt to write with previous editions in mind and write as a sidebar (4th edition content), and likewise, one could write from a 4th edition view and write a sidebar for (non-4th edition view) as various subject matter comes up in order to avoid alienation.
Excellent thread Paul, my apologies for 4th edition negativity from my end. My position hasn't changed but I recognize the need for people to come together on this for the sake of the sites overall usefullness to the community.
So let's get some feedback please.....Am I concerned about things I shouldn't be in regards to this post or do I raise worthwhile considerations? _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
I don't think that the dragon issue is too problematic, since Steel/Iron dragons or whatever are just Greyhawk Dragons by another name. I'm sure copper and brass will be along soon enough.
One option is always to forge ahead with a 3e article and put a 4e postscript I suppose. Like Age of Worms did in Dungeon when advising about different settings.
Personally I'm very old school on my dragons - gold dragons are draco orientalis from 1e MM1 for me i.e. wingless oriental type dragons. Ordinary shape changing dragons can just be silver.
Similarly, I won't changing my wandering monster tables just because 4e hasn't produced official stats yet.
Actually the Dragonborn aren't that hard to integrate. In effect the Dragonborn are a race of true-breeding half-dragons. 4E sets their progression over several levels, but the simple fact is dragonborn=half-dragon. So if you accept that half-dragons can breed true, you have to make mechanics for which draconic parent they take after (assuming they don't breed only with like kinds....not a safe assumption). Given that, you have to go with a few different options.
a) The character chooses based on preference.
b) One parent type (mother or father) is dominant over another
c) Random
The concept of a half-race breeding true is not new. The problem becomes when you have incompatable base races. This WOTC has effectively eliminated by saying its only with humans, period. The other possible option is to give each color/tribe/kingdom its own preferred race and say that because they are changed in type, (to become Dragons), they can then interbreed, regardless of the non-draconic parents original race (not an outrageous assumption, and likely the same one the WOTC used).
Using this eliminates all worries of 4E integration, and sets Dragons up (rightfully in my mind) as a super race that overwrites the DNA (to use the scientific term) of other races and makes them its own.
Just my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to disregard.
Gosh so much negativitiy. Maybe I need to rephrase this:
What 4e Greyhawk things would people like to see posted on Canonfire? I'm talking game mechanics not tinkering with the timeline or conjuring some major cataclysm.
Well, yeah. I'm all for greyhawk fans creating material, no matter what edition or system they use. Even if I don't like the mechanics (and in 4e's case, I honestly don't so far), it's the ideas that are the real value in the articles on a site like this.
From an admin point of view, in regard to Eileen's comments about 4e material on CF, well, that's up to the contributing authors (ie, you all ). CF will remain open to any and all editions and systems, though as happened as 3rd edition gained popularity, I'm sure we'll see more and more material written from a 4e perspective.
I prefer most of my canonfire articles to be edition neutral but it doesn't take much effort to tweak them if you want to use them.
Back to my 4e wishlist - Having read the rogue article over on WotC we can start to get an idea about how the game is going to work although combat vs utility talents and silos is still a bit of a mystery to me, I think the talent concept looks promising.
The rogue can choose to be a trickster or brawny and each archetype gives them slight bonuses on certain talents that fit in with that concept. Clerics will also be able to choose themed archetypes.
What you don't seem to have is exclusive talents - so you can choose any talent but will gain extra benefits if you choose talents that fit with your archetype.
I think a talent tree for e.g priest of Heironeous should be possible as an option for clerics. Some talents have pre-requisites so you could just require a particular religion. Alternatively set 'specialty priests' up as a separate archetype and grant extra bonuses to existing talents based on religion.
Game balance seems key though so we will definitely need to keep a careful eye on the nature of the talents/bonuses. Still, it does look as though there could be room to manoeuvre here. We have quite detailed information in the LG gazeteer on favoured weapons, some info on special abilities from 1e GH and the 2e hardback book, plus 3e domains for inspiration. I'm certainly interested in exploring the options.
It looks as though clerics can spend a feat to enhance their 'channel divinity' power to obtain religion-specific powers. Looks like a fairly simple mechanic to customise some clerics, particularly if weapon talents and skill talents will be purchasable in the same way. However, it looks like you will have to pay for your specialty priest with feats.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
). CF will remain open to any and all editions and systems, though as happened as 3rd edition gained popularity, I'm sure we'll see more and more material written from a 4e perspective.