As most of us know, and emphasised with the advent of using D&D Next to run Encounters, 4E as we know it will probably be over pretty soon. About the same time, or maybe some time after that, the 4E Online Tools like Compendium and Character Builder will likely be taken offline. (Moderators, Admins, if you have any news about WotC's concrete plans for this, feel free to post here and let the playerbase know)
Assuming that you like 4E and you would like to continue Running / Playing it, which of the following are you likely to do in Response? 1) Download the Well-Supported 3rd Party Character Builders and carry on as if Nothing Happened. 2) Stick to Books that you Have, and if any Updates are missed, so be it. 3) Save Information off Compendium, especially certainly Strong Feats, Items, PPs, EDs, etc. 4) Mix of Above 2 and 3, for all the Classes 5) Mix of Above 2 and 3, but limited to a few Classes / Sources that you like 6) Same as 4, but do a combined effort with all your Usual Group to see who really wants to carry on. 7) Stick to Books you Have, and Houserule everything else for convenience 8) Similar to what happened to 3.5E Player-base, try to find a "Replacement" 4E*. Ideally a Replacement that is very close to the original 4E, with shortcomings and all, and the full Class Selection. 9) Similar to the improvements that Pathfinder made over 3.5E, seek a Replacement that addresses the shortcomings of 4E*. This would be good even if the Class Selection is smaller and do not exactly mirror 4E. 10) You are too busy to consider Any of the Above, so abandon 4E and turn to other Pursuits, Games etc.
* - I'm not sure but I think that a fair bit of 3.5E became Open Source. However, we do not know whether this will happen with 4E.
So, which are you likely to go with? You may opt for more than 1 choice, BTW, just wondering what are the inclinations of 4E Fans as a whole.
PS : If you don't like 4E and don't want to continue playing it, feel free to ignore this Thread ^^;;
As most of us know, and emphasised with the advent of using D&D Next to run Encounters, 4E as we know it will probably be over pretty soon. About the same time, or maybe some time after that, the 4E Online Tools like Compendium and Character Builder
I plan on contiuing to play 4E at this point, but that could change depending on how D&D Next pans out. Right now...I'm not too optimistic. Anyway, I generally plan the following:
- Continuing to play using the offline character builder and adventure tools (both of which I had the foresight to keep). Fortunately the offline CB is still being updated by the fan community.
- Looking for a "Replacement 4E" or retro-clone that updates, fixes, and clarifies some of the game's issues.
I am not too worried about the whole "feat tax" issue per se, though correcting some of the base math (basically +1 to attacks and defenses per tier) would be fine. I would really like to see a streamlined feat selection though. In this case, anything that gets rid of the 100 or so pre-Essentials feats that simply aren't worth taking. Post-MM3 math for monsters is right, so updating critters to that attack/defense/damage scheme would be good. Generally, I would also like to see some of the class builds refined and new (or "missing" builds, such as the Fall and Winter Sentinel, the Transmuter Mage, and so on) added.
And that's about it, really. So I guess...1 and 9, respectively. But 9 isn't a priority. Given time and some editing of the offline builder, I could come up with the builds and so forth that I want. I guess we will see what pans out!
I plan on contiuing to play 4E at this point, but that could change depending on how D&D Next pans out. Right now...I'm not too optimistic. Anyway, I generally plan the following:- Continuing to play using the offline character builder and adventure
Would you consider Monster Vault sufficient? Or all the cool other monsters in Adventure Tools. I know I keep thinking about this Warlock-spell-casting, Eyebite-using Green Dragon lol...
@clansmansix what would you consider are the game's current issues? Apart from the obvious, its creators don't want it around no more.
Would you consider Monster Vault sufficient? Or all the cool other monsters in Adventure Tools.I know I keep thinking about this Warlock-spell-casting, Eyebite-using Green Dragon lol...@clansmansixwhat would you consider are the game's current issues
I think the biggest issue is the plethora of sub-par feats and powers in the game. This is a matter of simple bloat more than anything else, and some judicious trimming would solve it easily.
The next biggest would be the lack of a few "iconic" builds, followed closely by the holes in some sub-classes build format. Namely, there are no viable archer-type fighters, transmuter mages, or Fall and Winter Sentinels. I know that the "archer" archetype is best served in 4E by the ranger, but it would be interesting to see how a defender minoring in striker could use ranged attacks to serve their role's funciton. Closely related to that, there are some classes that need "shoring up" with some new content or revised mechanics. The Seeker and the Runepriest come immediately to mind.
The final big issue (according to many) is the base math on the PCs' end. Specifically, there is the idea that the expertise and defense-boost feats are "feat taxes" to correct an imbalance in attack and defense progression. Adding a +1 per tier to PCs' attacks and defenses automatically would serve to correct this. Now I personally have never had a problem with PCs' accuracy or defenses during gameplay as either a DM or player, so YMMV. To me, it's not really a huge issue, and the post-Essentials expertise and superior defense feats are pure gold.
The other big complaints I hear on a regular basis are twofold. First, many state that skill challenges turn the "interaction and exploration" portion of the game into another form of combat, limit roleplaying, etc. I find that's an issue that can be fixed on the DM's side of the screen - most of the time my players don't realize they are in a skill challenge situation until it is nearly done. The other is that rituals are a great idea that just doesn't work. I find that is best fixed on the players' side of the screen. As long as the players remember to use these resources, they can be a great help. I think that if the DM gives out a few "free" rituals (i.e. handwaves the component cost a few times) the players will get more mileage out of them.
Personally, I think that some attacks (petrification, death gazes, certain poison attacks) should be much more dangerous than they are currently but not to the point of 3E and before's "instant win" buttons. I find the best way to handle that is to reduce the number of failed saves needed to trigger the end effect (petrification, death, etc) while making the saves to shrug the effect off a continuum rather than an instant out. In other words, say a medusa hits you with her gaze. You are immobilized and take ongoing damage. Fail the first save and you are petrified, save ends. Fail that save twice more, and it's permanent. Save and you are immobilized and taking ongoing damage again, with the possibility of being petrified. Or, if you save the first time, you are slowed and taking less ongoing damage, save ends. Fail and you are back to immobilized.
Anyway, that's about how I see it. To me, 4E is still a great system that corrected tons of issues I had with the last edition, and made me want to play D&D again.
I think the biggest issue is the plethora of sub-par feats and powers in the game. This is a matter of simple bloat more than anything else, and some judicious trimming would solve it easily. The next biggest would be the lack of a few "iconic" build
I think the biggest issue is the plethora of sub-par feats and powers in the game. This is a matter of simple bloat more than anything else, and some judicious trimming would solve it easily.
I feel like trimming would only be good for those that are strictly worse than newer alternatives (like the expertise feats).
The final big issue (according to many) is the base math on the PCs' end. Specifically, there is the idea that the expertise and defense-boost feats are "feat taxes" to correct an imbalance in attack and defense progression. Adding a +1 per tier to PCs' attacks and defenses automatically would serve to correct this. Now I personally have never had a problem with PCs' accuracy or defenses during gameplay as either a DM or player, so YMMV. To me, it's not really a huge issue, and the post-Essentials expertise and superior defense feats are pure gold.
Sadly this is a quick and easy fix that someone going through and working from the ground up would be able to fix on the player side quickly and easily. Although some of the Superiors would remain extremely good (like Superior Will).
Personally, I think that some attacks (petrification, death gazes, certain poison attacks) should be much more dangerous than they are currently but not to the point of 3E and before's "instant win" buttons. I find the best way to handle that is to reduce the number of failed saves needed to trigger the end effect (petrification, death, etc) while making the saves to shrug the effect off a continuum rather than an instant out. In other words, say a medusa hits you with her gaze. You are immobilized and take ongoing damage. Fail the first save and you are petrified, save ends. Fail that save twice more, and it's permanent. Save and you are immobilized and taking ongoing damage again, with the possibility of being petrified. Or, if you save the first time, you are slowed and taking less ongoing damage, save ends. Fail and you are back to immobilized.
I dont agree that it should be a kill effect personally. I think these "worsening" save ends effects are great and should have more of a base role in the game. Rather than just "you are dead" it should ramp up so fast after a couple saves that you are effectively dead. I do it with stacking penalties to saves and high ongoing in my games.
I feel like trimming would only be good for those that are strictly worse than newer alternatives (like the expertise feats).Sadly this is a quick and easy fix that someone going through and working from the ground up would be able to fix on the play
I'll Probably play 4e, but for the time being I have Savage worlds to play with.
What I will probably do though is slowly finish off my 4e collection, just need some powers books and the plane above.
I'll Probably play 4e, but for the time being I have Savage worlds to play with.What I will probably do though is slowly finish off my 4e collection, just need some powers books and the plane above.
It's probably a stupid question , but the offline CB can be updated?
The offline CB has some updated stuff, but WotC gave them a cease and desist order a while back and so some stuff is awkward. The old CB was decently easy to change and edit if you know a small amount about programming but we were all supposed to stop using that when they stopped supporting it.
The offline CB has some updated stuff, but WotC gave them a cease and desist order a while back and so some stuff is awkward. The old CB was decently easy to change and edit if you know a small amount about programming but we were all supposed to st
I plan on quitting 4E when the online tools are no longer available, and if it's done before my 4E campaigns are complete, I will quit supporting WotC in any way whatsoever.
I plan on quitting 4E when the online tools are no longer available, and if it's done before my 4E campaigns are complete, I will quit supporting WotC in any way whatsoever.
I plan on quitting 4E when the online tools are no longer available, and if it's done before my 4E campaigns are complete, I will quit supporting WotC in any way whatsoever.
Pretty close to this. If it's done without any previous warnings, we'll wrap up any ongoing campaigns in a couple of sessions and be done with the edition (it'd be pretty silly/annoying if this happens before the LFR Epic campaign is finished btw).
Whether I continue with D&D at all depends on the quality of DDN and the number of people in my area who'll want to play it.
I will however continue to support WotC because of my addiction to cardboard crack
Pretty close to this. If it's done without any previous warnings, we'll wrap up any ongoing campaigns in a couple of sessions and be done with the edition (it'd be pretty silly/annoying if this happens before the LFR Epic campaign is finished btw). W
I plan on quitting 4E when the online tools are no longer available, and if it's done before my 4E campaigns are complete, I will quit supporting WotC in any way whatsoever.
Pretty close to this. If it's done without any previous warnings, we'll wrap up any ongoing campaigns in a couple of sessions and be done with the edition (it'd be pretty silly/annoying if this happens before the LFR Epic campaign is finished btw).
Whether I continue with D&D at all depends on the quality of DDN and the number of people in my area who'll want to play it.
I will however continue to support WotC because of my addiction to cardboard crack
Yep, my sentiments exactly. I too play M:tG and as long as that game continues to be as fun as it is now, they'll have my money in that regard. As far as D&D goes, they'll have my $71.99 a year subscription so long as the online Character Builder and Adventure Tools are suppored for 4E. I know that, at some point, Dungeon and Dragon articles will no longer be created to support my style, but I can convert them will little problems. If they DO decide to end 4E support for those programs, then I'd be really appreciative if they put out an off-line CB/MB progam for download with all the content available for 4E. That would show me that at least they care and it would be a nice parting gift for you years of contributions.
Pretty close to this. If it's done without any previous warnings, we'll wrap up any ongoing campaigns in a couple of sessions and be done with the edition (it'd be pretty silly/annoying if this happens before the LFR Epic campaign is finished btw). W
i think a lot of people will keep playing, about as many as do now. i think by now most everyone has offline tools, or otherwise doesnt need/want them. of course im pretty set with all of the books, campaign managers like masterplan, updated offline tools, as well as the online gaming site i use (you can import your cb pcs from your cpu onto the table, even from the offline builder; you can also buy all 4e monsters; all sans ddi-see my sig).
i still like the mags though and no offline compendium is fully updated, so ddi is still technically worth it to me for now.
like i have said before, if you run it they will come. if you are willing to dm, it doesnt matter what game you run. so if you are a 4e dm, you can always play. also, contrary to some reports, the books are still plentiful and cheap; many such as MM1 for example are actually still losing value, so it really isnt expensive to fill in gaps and just cut yourself off the cpu
as far as future support, i am working on a 4e fanzine and will post it here for free when im done. i have also seen rumors of other people working on other 4e fan material and houseruled material. there is also some ongoing 4thcore blog support. this guy made a couple of cool free 4thcore adventures you might have missed
i think a lot of people will keep playing, about as many as do now. i think by now most everyone has offline tools, or otherwise doesnt need/want them. of course im pretty set with all of the books, campaign managers like masterplan, updated offline
Threat title is erroneous. The edition doesn't 'end' simply because WotC no longer supports it. My pile of 2e books proves that.
When WotC moves on, I will keep doing exactly what I've been doing the last few years: Play 4e D&D.
I always used third party tools for monster creation, always homebrewed settings and adventures and, for the most part, I always seemed to have fun. That won't change just because Wizards isn't churning out new content. Heck, after looking through Heroes of Shadow, I haven't bothered with new content, since it didn't interest me. I kept an ear to the ground, sure, but the fact remains.
If I get bored with 4e as is, I might make some homebrew content or get a different gaming group together. Or see about running a 3.5/Pathfinder campaign. Or see about using one of a dozen different gaming systems I haven't got around to using yet.
And, who knows? If Next turns out to be good, I might take a crack at it. I might like it, I might not, but that won't change how I feel about 4e.
Threat title is erroneous. The edition doesn't 'end' simply because WotC no longer supports it. My pile of 2e books proves that.When WotC moves on, I will keep doing exactly what I've been doing the last few years: Play 4e D&D.I always used third par
It's only the end if you allow it to be. I just started running my group through 4e by way of converting previous editon adventures, all the way back to 1e, and I don't plan to stop. I'll hunt down everything I need book-wise and online. As long we show support, they will get the message.
It's only the end if you allow it to be. I just started running my group through 4e by way of converting previous editon adventures, all the way back to 1e, and I don't plan to stop. I'll hunt down everything I need book-wise and online. As long we s
Can't wait for 4E to bite the bullet. Will wait to see how 5th pans out but I may switch to Pathfinder once the current campaign I'm running ends late in 2013.
Can't wait for 4E to bite the bullet. Will wait to see how 5th pans out but I may switch to Pathfinder once the current campaign I'm running ends late in 2013.
We've got no plans to stop playing 4E (actually, I'm now in two more 4E campaigns then when D&DNext was announced). Now that the edition is effectively done and we don't have to worry about any new content popping up to mess with game balance we've begun serious house-ruling.
We've removed item dependence (including the need for masterwork armor) and fixed the feat-tax issues with our own custom advancement tables for attack/damage/defenses (essentially adding all the half-level, feat and expected enhancement and item bonuses into a single value added to the relevant base ability modifiers for attacks, damage, and defenses respectively) and replaced AEDU with a 'spell-points'-like system for encounter/daily powers (we're still tweaking this a bit as we still have seperate pools for attack and utility powers and would like to combine them into a singular resource pool if possible, but we're going slowly so that we can easily identify what is causing the problem and either move forward or revert to our previous iteration as necessary).
We've got no plans to stop playing 4E (actually, I'm now in two more 4E campaigns then when D&DNext was announced). Now that the edition is effectively done and we don't have to worry about any new content popping up to mess with game balance we've b
s far as D&D goes, they'll have my $71.99 a year subscription so long as the online Character Builder and Adventure Tools are suppored for 4E.
Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscribing. Given what I'm seeing in the D&DN Playtest, I'm probably not going to bother switching (I'd call myself a grodnard, but I did switch from 3 to 4...), so the way for Wizards to get money out of me, at very little cost to itself, is just to keep the tools up.
I mean, its a no-brainer from where I'm sitting, but I know how foolish the corporate mindset can be.
Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscrib
s far as D&D goes, they'll have my $71.99 a year subscription so long as the online Character Builder and Adventure Tools are suppored for 4E.
Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscribing. Given what I'm seeing in the D&DN Playtest, I'm probably not going to bother switching (I'd call myself a grodnard, but I did switch from 3 to 4...), so the way for Wizards to get money out of me, at very little cost to itself, is just to keep the tools up.
I mean, its a no-brainer from where I'm sitting, but I know how foolish the corporate mindset can be.
This, pretty much word for word. I do, however, enjoy D&D Next (playtest sessions have been fun), but I see it as just another game to play and it won't replace 4e as my preferred version of D&D.
Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscrib
1) Download the Well-Supported 3rd Party Character Builders and carry on as if Nothing Happened.
Could you name some well-supported 3rd part CBs? The only one I'm aware of is fan support for the old CB. Herolab looks pretty good, but it was never updated. While it downloads data from DDI, it never updated the framework of the builder itself to handle Essentials classes and Themes.
2) Stick to Books that you Have, and if any Updates are missed, so be it.
Actually you don't need to worry about missing updates because all the errata can be downloaded for free from the website. I find it convenient to print it out and stick it inside the cover of the book it applies to.
8) Similar to what happened to 3.5E Player-base, try to find a "Replacement" 4E*. Ideally a Replacement that is very close to the original 4E, with shortcomings and all, and the full Class Selection.
9) Similar to the improvements that Pathfinder made over 3.5E, seek a Replacement that addresses the shortcomings of 4E*. This would be good even if the Class Selection is smaller and do not exactly mirror 4E.
I don't believe any such replacement exists. But that doesn't mean there couldn't be one.
However, I wouldn't want something that had the same shortcomings and all. I would want something that uses the same basic framework but improves upon what 4e had to offer. So put me down for #9.
And if a third party publisher does not release such a game, I'll do it myself (ok so I already started on it but if someone else does it better I'll use theirs instead).
10) You are too busy to consider Any of the Above, so abandon 4E and turn to other Pursuits, Games etc.
I can't imagine abandoning 4e for being too busy. Even if I was lazy and didn't feel like doing any additional work or buying any new material, I could just continue on with what I've got.
* - I'm not sure but I think that a fair bit of 3.5E became Open Source. However, we do not know whether this will happen with 4E.
3e didn't "become" open source, most of it was open from the start. It is extremely unlikely that WotC would make any of 4e open content.
Fortunately, that doesn't really matter. You don't need it to be open content in order to create 4e-compatible products. You don't need the GSL or any license at all. You don't need it to create your own game that uses the general 4e framework.
You do need it to be open content if you intend to do a mass copy-paste like so many 3e 3pp clones did, but if that's what you are doing, then what is your game really offering anyway?
At one point I do believe there was a wiki page where 4e material was being published via OGL, but that was on my old computer and I no longer have the link.
Could you name some well-supported 3rd part CBs? The only one I'm aware of is fan support for the old CB. Herolab looks pretty good, but it was never updated. While it downloads data from DDI, it never updated the framework of the builder itself to h
Nice to see all the great folks firmly keen on D&D 4E That's really heartwarming for a die-hard 4E fan like me who thinks that... but ok, no point mentioning them to you guys, it'll be like the new choirboy preaching to the choir.
I think the biggest issue is the plethora of sub-par feats and powers in the game. This is a matter of simple bloat more than anything else, and some judicious trimming would solve it easily.
I'm in the midst of doing this with some Classes in 4E, and with an aim to extend to more Classes. Apart from using it as a reference when the Tools are taken offline, my motivation is twofold - also to make it somewhat easier for new Players to see a full range of Powers in a single PDF, instead of having to download CBLoader or refer to multiple Books. I hope this facilitates bringing new Players into the game. However I can't do this for all the Classes...
The next biggest would be the lack of a few "iconic" builds, followed closely by the holes in some sub-classes build format. Namely, there are no viable archer-type fighters.
I've been come up with comparable defending mechanisms, but only playtesting will help to establish if it is viable. While I personally like the Seeker and I have a friend crazy about Runepriest, I've been focusing my efforts on the more "iconic" Classes first. And I don't know if it is just me looking at the DEX associated with Ranged Attacks, but somehow Slayer has always screamed "Archer Fighter!" to me.
The final big issue (according to many) is the base math on the PCs' end. Specifically, there is the idea that the expertise and defense-boost feats are "feat taxes" to correct an imbalance in attack and defense progression. Adding a +1 per tier to PCs' attacks and defenses automatically would serve to correct this. Now I personally have never had a problem with PCs' accuracy or defenses during gameplay as either a DM or player, so YMMV. To me, it's not really a huge issue, and the post-Essentials expertise and superior defense feats are pure gold.
I'll touch more on the Math shortly, think there might be a relatively simple way to fix the problem.
I don't think Skill Challenges and Rituals are big issues. Much like XP, they are codified for new DM's convenience, but I've found that keeping Players from knowing they are in a challenge (like yourself) can make things more natural, and calling for rolls that can be an immediate pass/fail in interaction can keep things more real at times. Rituals are also fairly flexible as well, you can simply alter them on the fly or b
Personally, I think that some attacks (petrification, death gazes, certain poison attacks) should be much more dangerous than they are currently but not to the point of 3E and before's "instant win" buttons. I find the best way to handle that is to reduce the number of failed saves needed to trigger the end effect (petrification, death, etc) while making the saves to shrug the effect off a continuum rather than an instant out. In other words, say a medusa hits you with her gaze. You are immobilized and take ongoing damage. Fail the first save and you are petrified, save ends. Fail that save twice more, and it's permanent. Save and you are immobilized and taking ongoing damage again, with the possibility of being petrified. Or, if you save the first time, you are slowed and taking less ongoing damage, save ends. Fail and you are back to immobilized.
I vaguely recall there are monsters that kill you (one Basilisk being an example) with 2 consecutive failed Saves. That said, a single Save and you're off-the-hook. There were mechanics for Diseases that could disable/kill Players outside of combat, which are more similar to what you say, in that a passed Save does not mean you're off the hook, it simply goes back up to the previous level of threat. There's also ways to make "Saving" take a more costly action other than "Free, at the end of every Turn." ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Now that the edition is effectively done and we don't have to worry about any new content popping up to mess with game balance we've begun serious house-ruling.
Oh yes, that is a fairly delightful occurence. One of the long-standing issues with 4E is power-creep, where the old Feats and arguably Class Features have become less competitive with the release of new Classes. With the halting of the releases the community has some time to go back and "reverse" the Power-creep, as Matyr nicely put it to me.
There's different approaches, and one that I've adopted for playtesting / house-ruling is a role-based custom feat access that gives everyone the chance to excel at a certain role. These house-rules however are purely optional, which is good since there is opportunity to see how these house-ruled characters perform alongside "normal" 4E characters. That said it does ruin some degree of "uniqueness", making the game, as some friends put it, "cookie-cutter".
Well, actually I was having the old CB Loader in mind. Been considering whether to download it again. Bugged out twice on me before I became a DDI subscriber, but it might just have been my old computer acting up back then.
MATH & FEAT TAX
Most people probably have their own take on the Math, so this is just my understanding. It is put up here for critique though. +1 at Levels 4,8,11,14,18,21,24,28 effectively halves the Stat progression. That is where Expertise, Focus, and Improved Defenses come in. If we were to assume that all Stats were even numbers, and the +1 is replaced with a +2, we get... +2 at Levels 4,8,11,14,18,21,24,28 For easy comparison, assumng you start at 16, 18,20 in your Primary Stat, you would get +1 attack at at levels 8, 14, 21, 28. So its roughly equivalent to learning the Expertise feat at Lv 4, followed by getting it at Level 11 (right on time), then 18 (about 3 levels early). This cancels out Feat Taxes like Expertise, Focus, Improved Defenses.
However, there are some notable side-effects : - Levels 1-3 would probably be weaker than a Feat system where you can immediately learn XX Expertise, which lets you to frontload your +1 Expertise before the Level 4 you'd normally get the bonus. If you assume that you start with a 17,19, you'd effectively get an extra +1 at Lv 4. - You gain an extra +2 to 2 Stats. Given that most Epic Destinies give +2 to 2 Stats, this seems fine and in order - There's no use for odd scores like my favourite 17 or 19 in the Primary Stat at Level 1. Which may be a good or bad thing, depending how you see it. Effectively, this can replace the 10+2X Stats, turning it to simply Dex +4, which is equivalent to 18. I can't imagine everyone loving this though. - It is much easier to get Stats that have Minimimum Stat Requirements, eg. Superior Will - Extra Bonuses that are based on Stats benefit doubly from this. This ranges from Striker damage that is based on a Stat (Sorcerer, Slayer, Monk, Hexblade, etc) outstripping the Dice damage (PHB1 Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, etc), to the Healer's Bonus heals, to just about every aspect of Gameplay where a Stat benefits the game. However, most such bonuses originally increase with Tiers anyway, so this might just reduce the incremental number (instead of +2/4/6, it becomes +1/2/3 for example) or render it unnecessary (to go the way of say, Expertise and Focus etc) - Note that Improved Defenses automatically works for 2 of your NADs IF you are boosting (and keep boosting) 2 Stats that contribute to 2 separate NADs. This makes sense to some extent, but that's really the best case. 1 of your NADS (or 2 of them, if you are boosting say STR and CON) will almost certainly fall behind, and significantly. - Light Armor AC would increase significantly faster than what it already is. This outstrips "Masterwork" Heavy Armor (I'm no fan of Masterwork as well, it seems a contrivance to balance off the advantage of Light Armor, and then further adjusted so Light Armor also gets it, but at slower rate).
Note that AC and NADs are tricky, because in default 4E, assuming all else stays constant, Defenses tend to diminish with respect to Player Level over time (Feats & Rhythm Blade etc aside). While a Player can typically take feats to increase Defense in the early part of the game, by Paragon and Epic there are only a few such feats which are not accessible at earlier levels. It doesn't help also that the X in EL + X goes up to make it a challenge for Players, further slanting high-level game towards a "Let's have everyone hit each other all the time", which in turn grants power to those that have generally more "X Effect on a Hit" or "Lots of Damage" attacks. Or it could be that Players are expected to rely less on their gear and more on their Powers, like Powers that increase Defenses, generate lots of THP, absorb a lot of damage, etc.
OPTIONS I think there's people who like 4E the way it is, but from Trimming Bloat, there's other issues that I have in mind, mostly Optional Guidelines, like : - Making Magic Items more interesting, even Evolving - Addressing Huge Jumps in Damage, especially from Heroic to Paragon - Streamlining Paragon Paths & Epic Destinies - Vancian Magic Rules & Classes : This will be tricky, but could be interesting. - Save or Die Options : There are people who feel D&D is too "lite", or others who are facing heavily opped parties and want to inject more danger back into the game. - Separating Roles & Classes. This can be used to ensure older Classes are comparable with new Classes to counter Power Creep, and it provides a handy "Source Document" (similar to the topic mentioned under community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...) to ensure existing Classes are comparable (or incomparable, as the case might be) to other Classes within the same role. - Class Framework : for building Classes from scratch, and a comparison of Powers, separated by Tier. - Monster Power Collection : collection of notable / interesting Monster Powers to be used, separated by Tier.
This just my view though, did I miss anything? Overthinking?
Nice to see all the great folks firmly keen on D&D 4E :) That's really heartwarming for a die-hard 4E fan like me who thinks that... but ok, no point mentioning them to you guys, it'll be like the new choirboy preaching to the choir.I'm in the midst
When is 4e ending (aka When is D&D Next coming out)?
If the WotC product catalog and contents of the last month's Dragon are any indication, then 4E is as good as done. There are no 4E products slated to come out in 2013, and the last Dragon had almost no 4E crunch.
5E is not supposed to launch until Spring / Summer 2014, until then, rather than milking us 4E players for as much as we are worth, WotC is reprinting old edition books with new covers and trying to get money from people whose favorite editions are long past.
If the WotC product catalog and contents of the last month's Dragon are any indication, then 4E is as good as done. There are no 4E products slated to come out in 2013, and the last Dragon had almost no 4E crunch.5E is not supposed to launch until Sp
When is 4e ending (aka When is D&D Next coming out)?
If the WotC product catalog and contents of the last month's Dragon are any indication, then 4E is as good as done. There are no 4E products slated to come out in 2013, and the last Dragon had almost no 4E crunch.
5E is not supposed to launch until Spring / Summer 2014, until then, rather than milking us 4E players for as much as we are worth, WotC is reprinting old edition books with new covers and trying to get money from people whose favorite editions are long past.
I'll buy those old editions. Whatever I can't find for free anyways. I'll just enjoy converting it all to 4e and then downgrading anything I like from 5e to go along with 4e. Anything is possible in order to keep 4e alive and kicking. We're the only ones who actually kill off 4e by not keeping it going, not WotC. Maybe everyone get together and post a petition to WotC for more 4e before 2014?
If the WotC product catalog and contents of the last month's Dragon are any indication, then 4E is as good as done. There are no 4E products slated to come out in 2013, and the last Dragon had almost no 4E crunch.5E is not supposed to launch until Sp
There isn't any real preparing for me to do. I'm already not using ddi, and I have the books I want. In that sense, nothing is slated to change for me if I just keep playing 4e. The only thing I'm even mildly worried about is losing 4e players after Next is out, but I really don't think it'll be an issue, more of a "smaller pond" situation than a "barren wasteland" one.
Now that 4e is mostly done having new content created for it(WotC content, anyway), I've been considering going through it and doing some revamping, making my own sort of homebrew 4.5. But whether I actually go do that or not depends more on whether I think I can get people to use it.
There isn't any real preparing for me to do. I'm already not using ddi, and I have the books I want. In that sense, nothing is slated to change for me if I just keep playing 4e. The only thing I'm even mildly worried about is losing 4e players aft
s far as D&D goes, they'll have my $71.99 a year subscription so long as the online Character Builder and Adventure Tools are suppored for 4E.
Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscribing. Given what I'm seeing in the D&DN Playtest, I'm probably not going to bother switching (I'd call myself a grodnard, but I did switch from 3 to 4...), so the way for Wizards to get money out of me, at very little cost to itself, is just to keep the tools up.
I mean, its a no-brainer from where I'm sitting, but I know how foolish the corporate mindset can be.
This. I've not seen anything in the 5e playtest to suggest I'm going to like it. To me, it seems a step back to a lesser style. I certainly won't fault people for playing it, but I don't think I'll personally like it.
My preference right now, would be to continue to play 4e. I presently pay for DDI char builder, and won't pay for it for 5e stuff, and will move to less legit ways.
The only reason to discontinue 4e CB support is to try and force people to 5e. If they think they will make more money off people who feel they have no choice to go to 5e, then they have good reason to end 4e CB support.
Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscrib
I've not seen anything in the 5e playtest to suggest I'm going to like it. To me, it seems a step back to a lesser style. I certainly won't fault people for playing it, but I don't think I'll personally like it.
This is pretty much entire opinion. I don't want to be one of those "Rah, the new edition is HORRIBLE!" people. I genuinely want to like 5e, the same as how I genuinely wanted to like Essentials, but both set me up for disappointment.
I don't mind if other people like Essentials or 5e. In fact, if they like it, more power to them. But it just doesn't seem like its for me.
Of course, I'll wait until 5e is actually released, in a finalized form, before making my final judgment. But as it stands, I'm not expecting much, so I'll just keep enjoying 4e. There are a lot of characters and a lot of campaign ideas I haven't explored yet, after all.
This is pretty much entire opinion. I don't want to be one of those "Rah, the new edition is HORRIBLE!" people. I genuinely want to like 5e, the same as how I genuinely wanted to like Essentials, but both set me up for disappointment.I don't mind if
4e is good enough that I see no point in tinkering with it. I just let my players do that if they really want to. I mean they've got a crapton of material to use. If they've got a wild hair about something, they can fix it.
As for 'preparation'... Assuming DDI does go away, which is of course definitely possible, I think I'll just continue to build on my xwiki based templates. I can basically document as much of the game as I need to online and make it pretty searchable without that much trouble. Old CB still exists, and despite anything anyone says my license to it says I can keep running it forever. If I hack on it who's to know or care? Same with MB, though I suspect we'll eventually make a better HTML based one with xwiki.
4e is good enough that I see no point in tinkering with it. I just let my players do that if they really want to. I mean they've got a crapton of material to use. If they've got a wild hair about something, they can fix it.As for 'preparation'... Ass
Assuming that you like 4E and you would like to continue Running / Playing it, which of the following are you likely to do in Response?
For me:
2) Stick to Books that you Have, and if any Updates are missed, so be it. 7) Stick to Books you Have, and Houserule everything else for convenience 10) You are too busy to consider Any of the Above, so abandon 4E and turn to other Pursuits, Games etc.
* - I'm not sure but I think that a fair bit of 3.5E became Open Source. However, we do not know whether this will happen with 4E.
3e was open-source from the beginning, 4e was not. There will be no Pathfinder-equivalent for 4e.
For me:2) Stick to Books that you Have, and if any Updates are missed, so be it.7) Stick to Books you Have, and Houserule everything else for convenience10) You are too busy to consider Any of the Above, so abandon 4E and turn to other Pursuits, Game
Similar to the improvements that Pathfinder made over 3.5E, seek a Replacement that addresses the shortcomings of 4E*. This would be good even if the Class Selection is smaller and do not exactly mirror 4E.
I've already written my group's 4e replacement. No feat taxes and no retro classes, among other improvements.
I've already written my group's 4e replacement. No feat taxes and no retro classes, among other improvements. :)
Still would be nice if 4th edition material was being released while D&D Next is being created. That's the salt in the wound- D&D Next killed 4th releases. At least with 3rd they finished it off nicely (Elder Evils- Exemplar Evil One- Rules Compendium- etc...)
Still would be nice if 4th edition material was being released while D&D Next is being created. That's the salt in the wound- D&D Next killed 4th releases. At least with 3rd they finished it off nicely (Elder Evils- Exemplar Evil One- Rules Compendiu
One could make an OGL clone of 4th? Labyrinth Lord is a clone of BECM which was not open content.
This is a good question. I know that Lab. Lord did change quite a few things from the original so it wasn't a total clone, but it was close enough to be recognizable.
How much of 4e would have to be changed for a clone to escape the restrictions of OGL and other copyright rules?
This is a good question. I know that Lab. Lord did change quite a few things from the original so it wasn't a total clone, but it was close enough to be recognizable.How much of 4e would have to be changed for a clone to escape the restrictions of OG
well, for starters, lab lord is a clone of b/x from 81, not becmi. secondly, it was published under the ogl. it is almost an exact clone; there are like a couple of saving throws changed and a couple of names that werent in the srd, otherwise it was exact. the d20 srd is sufficient to clone the classic editions; for example, od&d was successfully cloned by swords and wizardry using the d20 srd and ogl. see the last pages here for reference.
for 4e, you would have to change so much that it probably wouldnt resemble 4e; basically, you couldnt use anything that isnt covered by the old d20 srd. if you want to make new 4e content, you are better off using the 4e srd and gsl, lame as it is. thats what i am doing at least.
im not an expert on the subject, but i have researched it a bit in order to put out my magazine. in the end, it was simpler to use the gsl rather than hire a lawyer.
well, for starters, lab lord is a clone of b/x from 81, not becmi. secondly, it was published under the ogl. it is almost an exact clone; there are like a couple of saving throws changed and a couple of names that werent in the srd, otherwise it was
for 4e, you would have to change so much that it probably wouldnt resemble 4e; basically, you couldnt use anything that isnt covered by the old d20 srd. if you want to make new 4e content, you are better off using the 4e srd and gsl, lame as it is. thats what i am doing at least.
Alternately you could abandon the srd angle entirely. Sure that might mean you have to rename some of the more specific elements (call the attributes Might, Stamina, Agility, Intellect, Perception, and Presence) and adjust a few mechanics (use point buy to purchase the ability modifiers instead of ability scores), but it could be done.
Actually, I'd take it as an opportunity to fix some of the things with the system that have been problematic (i.e. a math fix, magic item enhancement bonuses) and kill some of the sacred cows even 4E was unwilling to kill. For example, drop AC entirely for weapon attacks vs. Reflex and then add basic bull rush, grab, and knockdown maneuvers which target Fort and a basic feinting maneuver that targets Will (with actual class powers providing improved versions of these).
You could build in the idea of themes (and hybrid classes) from the start and integrate them more cleanly. For example, perhaps you only choose one at-will attack power from your class, while the other is determined by your choice of theme? Or perhaps your choice of theme improves your basic attack in some fashion (ex. a guardian theme might let you grant an ally a bonus to their defense when you hit with a basic attack).
You could remove the whole class-skills issue (every class instead just gets 4 trained skills of choice) and run with the idea of power source specific powers available to every class with that power source (perhaps with modifiers based on class role).
The point is... I think there could be a real opportunity to create something akin to a 4.5E and have its rules mechanics and presentation be distinct enough that you wouldn't even NEED the GSL to make it work.
Alternately you could abandon the srd angle entirely. Sure that might mean you have to rename some of the more specific elements (call the attributes Might, Stamina, Agility, Intellect, Perception, and Presence) and adjust a few mechanics (use point
eh, personally i think i would just make my own game if i was going to do all of that. which for some might be a more attractive option.
Well, that is kinda the point... to make it your own game (Something I've already done/am doing... its an ongoing process... once already with my own version of Mage: The Ascension that, apart from the basic task resolution mechanics, has been completely reworked from the ground up).
The fact is that 4E did a LOT of things right when it comes to simulating heroic fantasy stories and those are things I'd gladly crib from in designing a system for a fantasy setting. But there are also...
-Some sacred cows that probably should have been slain, but were retained for tradition's sake (AC, magic item enhancement bonuses)
-Elements that were implemented poorly and patched messily (ex. math fix via feat taxes)
-Excellent elements that were added well after launch (ex. themes, hybrid multiclassing) that could have been worked in a LOT better had they been planned for in advance.
There's enough of those three things that are WORTH doing and other concepts I've had that I feel are worth trying out that making such a system would be worth the effort in my opinion. Really, its something I've already begun via my extensive house rules. The hardest part wouldn't be the math and basic structure, it'd be writing all the fluff and devising appropriate powers for the classes that would likely keep it from ever reaching a publishable point on my end.
Well, that is kinda the point... to make it your own game (Something I've already done/am doing... its an ongoing process... once already with my own version of Mage: The Ascension that, apart from the basic task resolution mechanics, has been comple
...or we would also homebrew over 13th Age that is under OGL to make it resemble more like 4th edition (thought a13th age have some awesome mechanical ideas, like how ability score bonus from race and class come into place)
...or we would also homebrew over 13th Age that is under OGL to make it resemble more like 4th edition (thought a13th age have some awesome mechanical ideas, like how ability score bonus from race and class come into place)
One could make an OGL clone of 4th? Labyrinth Lord is a clone of BECM which was not open content.
This is a good question. I know that Lab. Lord did change quite a few things from the original so it wasn't a total clone, but it was close enough to be recognizable.
How much of 4e would have to be changed for a clone to escape the restrictions of OGL and other copyright rules?
That needs a lawyer, which means Wotc can use its own lawyers to shut us down if we get larger than a table. We can have the better case, but if we can't pay the legal fees, we lose. If we do anything close enough to 4e to appeal, we exist at Wotc mercy.
This is a good question. I know that Lab. Lord did change quite a few things from the original so it wasn't a total clone, but it was close enough to be recognizable.How much of 4e would have to be changed for a clone to escape the restrictions of OG
I gave up on WOTC when it took them months to get Dark Sun etc into the online builder. I still have all the old offline tools IE the original Character and Monster Builders. This, combined with CBloader means my players and I will be able to completely ignore the horror that is 5e and homebrew our own stuff whenever we wish. I've done a bit of math fixing but other than that I am happy with 4e as is.
Now what Chris24601 is proposing actually sounds pretty good and I would most certainly be interested in seeing what happens with something like that. 13th Age has some pretty cool ideas as well. Probably what will happen is I will integrate such things into my home games, fill in some of the gaps with my own homebrew if my players want it (or it gets made for the CBloader) and continue on with that.
The biggest thing about 4e's death that will really make me sad is well...losing you guys/the forums. Once Next hits I will have NO reason to come here anymore. I may not be very vocal here BUT I love the 4e community and will be sad to see both Charop, The Edition Wars, and well...just general 4e memes die.
Course we can always restart the edition wars.
I gave up on WOTC when it took them months to get Dark Sun etc into the online builder. I still have all the old offline tools IE the original Character and Monster Builders. This, combined with CBloader means my players and I will be able to complet
One could make an OGL clone of 4th? Labyrinth Lord is a clone of BECM which was not open content.
Ehhhhhhh, opinions are divided. Nobody has really determined the legal status of OSR clones like LL or OSRIC, etc. Mostly they claim to be OGL games based on modified SRD stuff, though IIRC OSRIC makes no claims at all. Anyway, it is all somewhat dubious, if WotC really wanted to they could drag you back and forth through court for years probably. They obviously see no point in going after OSR type games that are cloning pre-3e D&D, and obviously can't go after OGL 3e/3.5 based stuff. There's a MUCH bigger question about whether they would go after 4e clones. Nobody has tested that, and it never will be tested because nobody is going to sink a dime into such an enterprise when they can be dragged to hell and back. It just isn't worth it. Maybe someday 4e will get cloned like 1e has been cloned, long after the fact when few people care, by a few fans, and then perhaps someone will get bold and make a commercial clone. 1e has been out of print since what, 1989? It took a good 15 years, so expect it around what, 2030, maybe 2025?
I ain't holding my breath.
Ehhhhhhh, opinions are divided. Nobody has really determined the legal status of OSR clones like LL or OSRIC, etc. Mostly they claim to be OGL games based on modified SRD stuff, though IIRC OSRIC makes no claims at all. Anyway, it is all somewhat dub
for 4e, you would have to change so much that it probably wouldnt resemble 4e; basically, you couldnt use anything that isnt covered by the old d20 srd. if you want to make new 4e content, you are better off using the 4e srd and gsl, lame as it is. thats what i am doing at least.
Alternately you could abandon the srd angle entirely. Sure that might mean you have to rename some of the more specific elements (call the attributes Might, Stamina, Agility, Intellect, Perception, and Presence) and adjust a few mechanics (use point buy to purchase the ability modifiers instead of ability scores), but it could be done.
Actually, I'd take it as an opportunity to fix some of the things with the system that have been problematic (i.e. a math fix, magic item enhancement bonuses) and kill some of the sacred cows even 4E was unwilling to kill. For example, drop AC entirely for weapon attacks vs. Reflex and then add basic bull rush, grab, and knockdown maneuvers which target Fort and a basic feinting maneuver that targets Will (with actual class powers providing improved versions of these).
You could build in the idea of themes (and hybrid classes) from the start and integrate them more cleanly. For example, perhaps you only choose one at-will attack power from your class, while the other is determined by your choice of theme? Or perhaps your choice of theme improves your basic attack in some fashion (ex. a guardian theme might let you grant an ally a bonus to their defense when you hit with a basic attack).
You could remove the whole class-skills issue (every class instead just gets 4 trained skills of choice) and run with the idea of power source specific powers available to every class with that power source (perhaps with modifiers based on class role).
The point is... I think there could be a real opportunity to create something akin to a 4.5E and have its rules mechanics and presentation be distinct enough that you wouldn't even NEED the GSL to make it work.
Well, that's what convinced me not to go down that road. I know what I would do, and the result would be a fairly deep rewrite that was still a lot like 4e. In other words now I'd be playing a whole different game, so what's the point? If I'm going to make up my own entire game with all its content then I might as well just start from zero and REALLY make my own game. At that point whatever I say next is OT. If OTOH I actually want to play something with my friends that they can buy, then why bother? 4e's flaws are really kinda fairly trivial and 99.9% of it works fine if you play to its strengths. It is just TME to go down the cloning path.
Maybe in 10 years when I'm tired of 4e's foibles and WotC isn't likely to care what I do, then I can make a nice clone, if I feel like it.
Alternately you could abandon the srd angle entirely. Sure that might mean you have to rename some of the more specific elements (call the attributes Might, Stamina, Agility, Intellect, Perception, and Presence) and adjust a few mechanics (use point
After I saw the 1st comments about clones, I started thinking about my own novel/comic book/etc., etc. ideas I had planned since I was a kid. If I really had full knowledge of the whole game creation and free time, I'm sure I could create something slightly amazing and mostly original.
Everyone in the world gets inspiration from somewhere and so WotC should take those clones that have been made as a compliment. If they feel like they'll lose business, then maybe they should improve their products and make better business decisions. Suing people just shows their weakness to run a company properly and effectively. Customer complaints in the forums are obviously evidence of that. Most businesses that want to succeed take notes of the competition and strive to do better. Does MTD sue every other company that makes yard products cause they are similar? No, they just make a better product and listen to reviews, complaints, and advice from their customers. If all else fails, there is the buyout option. That's if the person is willing to sell his genius out of greed, but then again he could make a deal to remain in control of his product while all this (whatever) company has to do is advertise, publish, sell, and distribute.
After I saw the 1st comments about clones, I started thinking about my own novel/comic book/etc., etc. ideas I had planned since I was a kid. If I really had full knowledge of the whole game creation and free time, I'm sure I could create something s
In my opinion, 4th Edition failed for four major reasons:
1) The online components were broken or took too long to be implemented decently. This really damaged the longterm potential of 4th edition because if there was a well-executed virtual tabletop, the edition could have reached many more newcomers. I personally didn't invest much in 4th Edition because there is no one to play with, and the virtual tabletops available either require too much money or too much work.
2) Brand. The biggest problem with D&D and roleplaying games is that major overhauls are necessary to develop a better game. Unfortunately, there will be people who are fond of a particular edition and stick by it. This is bad in the long run because the fanbase becomes increasingly fragmented with each iteration. I think that if 4th Edition was called a different game, it would have succeeded.
3) Videogames. I am serious, in this age of computer games, there is no better way to introduce people to roleplaying games than by making a good CRPG out of the rules and settings. I became aware of D&D when playing Baldur's Gate II, and Vampire Bloodlines made me interested in other RPGs as well. 4th Edition would have been just about perfect for the DS and PSP, considering how many tactical strategy games are available for those platforms.
4) WOTC. Simply put, the company is terrible at managing D&D, and often shoots itself in the foot. There are too many case studies to explain in detail, but WOTC created Pathfinder by forcing Paizo into an untenable position with the 'Poison Pill' clause.
I am of the opinion that the push for 5th Edition is less about making a quality game and more about trying to appease every generation of D&D fan...which is going to fail terribly, because you can't please everybody.
In my opinion, 4th Edition failed for four major reasons:1) The online components were broken or took too long to be implemented decently. This really damaged the longterm potential of 4th edition because if there was a well-executed virtual tablet
and you can't attract new comers with a badly designed game with the excuse of nostalgia/tradition, because those potential new players don't care for those.
and you can't attract new comers with a badly designed game with the excuse of nostalgia/tradition, because those potential new players don't care for those.
3) Videogames. I am serious, in this age of computer games, there is no better way to introduce people to roleplaying games than by making a good CRPG out of the rules and settings. I became aware of D&D when playing Baldur's Gate II, and Vampire Bloodlines made me interested in other RPGs as well. 4th Edition would have been just about perfect for the DS and PSP, considering how many tactical strategy games are available for those platforms.
After reading this I thought, for the first time, about a DnD 4e Final Fantasy Tactics. I would buy the **** out of that game.
After reading this I thought, for the first time, about a DnD 4e Final Fantasy Tactics. I would buy the **** out of that game.
Well, that's what convinced me not to go down that road. I know what I would do, and the result would be a fairly deep rewrite that was still a lot like 4e. In other words now I'd be playing a whole different game, so what's the point? If I'm going to make up my own entire game with all its content then I might as well just start from zero and REALLY make my own game. At that point whatever I say next is OT. If OTOH I actually want to play something with my friends that they can buy, then why bother? 4e's flaws are really kinda fairly trivial and 99.9% of it works fine if you play to its strengths. It is just TME to go down the cloning path.
Maybe in 10 years when I'm tired of 4e's foibles and WotC isn't likely to care what I do, then I can make a nice clone, if I feel like it.
I can definitely see your point, but I'm a perrenial tinkerer who's already done this before (my version of Mage: The Ascension is sitting at around 55,000 words of raw mechanics, lacking only the volumes of fluff and using the opponent creation rules to create a Monster Manual section to make it a complete RPG game system... well, and actually pulling all the seperate sections; task resolution, character creation, abilities/skills, merits/flaws, magic, gear, opponents; into a single file and making sure that some peripheral rules I haven't touched in 4 years are still compatible with the latest core re-write... ex. prices will be fine, but I still need to go through the equipment list to change the damage/armor values because of the recent rewrite of the combat rules).
I'm rambling again... Short version; I actually LIKE to dig around in the mechanical guts of game systems. I may actually enjoy doing that MORE than I enjoy playing the games themselves (I actually run more than I play, but I tinker even more than I run). So the idea of ripping the guts out of 4E, keeping what works, throwing out what doesn't, and generally building an improved game engine is actually my idea of FUN.
I'm weird... I admit it.
I can definitely see your point, but I'm a perrenial tinkerer who's already done this before (my version of Mage: The Ascension is sitting at around 55,000 words of raw mechanics, lacking only the volumes of fluff and using the opponent creation rule
3) Videogames. I am serious, in this age of computer games, there is no better way to introduce people to roleplaying games than by making a good CRPG out of the rules and settings. I became aware of D&D when playing Baldur's Gate II, and Vampire Bloodlines made me interested in other RPGs as well. 4th Edition would have been just about perfect for the DS and PSP, considering how many tactical strategy games are available for those platforms.
After reading this I thought, for the first time, about a DnD 4e Final Fantasy Tactics. I would buy the **** out of that game.
Also, I have practically the same experience with videogame versions drawing me to the original RPG.
After reading this I thought, for the first time, about a DnD 4e Final Fantasy Tactics. I would buy the **** out of that game.[/quote]:drool:Also, I have practically the same experience with videogame versions drawing me to the original RPG.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />2) Brand. The biggest problem with D&D and roleplaying games is that major overhauls are necessary to develop a better game. Unfortunately, there will be people who are fond of a particular edition and stick by it. This is bad in the long run because the fanbase becomes increasingly fragmented with each iteration. I think that if 4th Edition was called a different game, it would have succeeded.
Despite the popularity of the idea I see little evidence of fragmentation before 4e. 2e replaced 1e, and was replaced by 3e, which pretty much vanished with 3.5. 4e and Pathfinder have been the exception, not the norm. And that was the result of 4e being so different.
4) WOTC. Simply put, the company is terrible at managing D&D, and often shoots itself in the foot. There are too many case studies to explain in detail, but WOTC created Pathfinder by forcing Paizo into an untenable position with the 'Poison Pill' clause.
D&D survived TSR. Not much that WOTC did/does will be worse. Ultimately of course, all is its fault, but selling D&D to somebody else won'T save 4e.
I will argue that 4e was just not D&D. In some way, it was a different game and over time the D&D players have left for Pathfinder. I deem 4e a better game, but maybe it is too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever.
I am of the opinion that the push for 5th Edition is less about making a quality game and more about trying to appease every generation of D&D fan...which is going to fail terribly, because you can't please everybody.
I fear you are right on that.
In some degree I disagree on all points. These are frills. We should have done them and/or better, but the game grew & thrived without them. 4e was not doomed by any flaws in these areas. Despite the popularity of the idea I see little evide
In my eyes the best thing that WOTC could do is keep all 4th Edition content online, therefore preserving the content that they've paid out thousands for their employees to create and keep subscriptions going from people only interested in 4E. Whilst doing this, they should add 5E Content to the same subsciption, I imagine quite a few people will out of sheer curiosity use the character builder to create a DNDNext character and fall in love with their character, and therefore gain interest in DND Next.
What they'll actually do is anyone's guess and may defy all logic.
In my eyes the best thing that WOTC could do is keep all 4th Edition content online, therefore preserving the content that they've paid out thousands for their employees to create and keep subscriptions going from people only interested in 4E.Whilst
The lack of a good video game surprises me. You would think that DDO should have been a great opportunity. Sadly, it was badly flawed from the get-go. Lazy writing and poor mechanics. Oh well. In a way, just like most of the classic games--at least, the ones I ran into, which relied on the brand name but generally sucked.
Let's not start the "Is 4e D&D or not" argument.The lack of a good video game surprises me. You would think that DDO should have been a great opportunity. Sadly, it was badly flawed from the get-go. Lazy writing and poor mechanics.Oh well.In a way, j
Despite the popularity of the idea I see little evidence of fragmentation before 4e. 2e replaced 1e, and was replaced by 3e, which pretty much vanished with 3.5. 4e and Pathfinder have been the exception, not the norm. And that was the result of 4e being so different.
There was some very substantial rejection of 3e. 0e-BX-1e-2e, all stayed very similar, virtually cross-compatible (at least as compatible with eachother as one DM's game tended to be with the next). 3e had some very real changes, and some significant changes in 'attitude,' that shifted the focus from selling to DMs (tons of settings, for instance) to selling to players (tons of splatbooks full of broken feats, items, spells, and PrCs), and from wide acceptance of variants to the enshrinement of RAW.
I wasted a lot of my time on the old boards defending 3.x from old-school reactionaries, and I ran into no small number of them in person, too. There were 2e games at ever con I went to.
It was nothing like the Pathfinder phenomenon, but there was no open-source option to go head-to-head vs WotC with TSR's old product, as there is now.
I will argue that 4e was just not D&D. In some way, it was a different game and over time the D&D players have left for Pathfinder. I deem 4e a better game, but maybe it is too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever.
Nod. Looked at as a version of D&D, 4e is phenomenal, revolutionary, and a failure. Looked at as just another of the endless stream of games better than D&D it's neither phenomenal nor revolutionary - but was remarkably successful.
The D&D nameplate changes everything. If Pathfinder were an official version of D&D it would be deemed a dismal failure with its current sales, as a competitor, even though a clone, Paizo is riding high with that revenue.
There was some very substantial rejection of 3e. 0e-BX-1e-2e, all stayed very similar, virtually cross-compatible (at least as compatible with eachother as one DM's game tended to be with the next). 3e had some very real changes, and some significa
I was skeptical at starting my 1st time as DM with 4e from the things I have read and it's my group's 1st time too, but so far I'm enjoying it. I don't consider it a failure and I will ignore some things I don't agree with using in order to allow the game to be a smooth fun experience. I am also using adventures from previous editions and yes, I am conveting that stuff to 4e. So I don't see 4e as a failure, but a failed attempt by a company that is treating D&D as if it is MTG. It's obvious WotC were/are in over their head. Next thing you know they will be implementing "Limited, Standard, and Extended" to our beloved game.
I was skeptical at starting my 1st time as DM with 4e from the things I have read and it's my group's 1st time too, but so far I'm enjoying it. I don't consider it a failure and I will ignore some things I don't agree with using in order to allow the
Despite the popularity of the idea I see little evidence of fragmentation before 4e. 2e replaced 1e, and was replaced by 3e, which pretty much vanished with 3.5. 4e and Pathfinder have been the exception, not the norm. And that was the result of 4e being so different.
There was some very substantial rejection of 3e. 0e-BX-1e-2e, all stayed very similar, virtually cross-compatible (at least as compatible with eachother as one DM's game tended to be with the next). 3e had some very real changes, and some significant changes in 'attitude,' that shifted the focus from selling to DMs (tons of settings, for instance) to selling to players (tons of splatbooks full of broken feats, items, spells, and PrCs), and from wide acceptance of variants to the enshrinement of RAW.
I wasted a lot of my time on the old boards defending 3.x from old-school reactionaries, and I ran into no small number of them in person, too. There were 2e games at ever con I went to.
It was nothing like the Pathfinder phenomenon, but there was no open-source option to go head-to-head vs WotC with TSR's old product, as there is now.
I will argue that 4e was just not D&D. In some way, it was a different game and over time the D&D players have left for Pathfinder. I deem 4e a better game, but maybe it is too much a game and not enough roleplaying. Whatever.
Nod. Looked at as a version of D&D, 4e is phenomenal, revolutionary, and a failure. Looked at as just another of the endless stream of games better than D&D it's neither phenomenal nor revolutionary - but was remarkably successful.
The D&D nameplate changes everything. If Pathfinder were an official version of D&D it would be deemed a dismal failure with its current sales, as a competitor, even though a clone, Paizo is riding high with that revenue.
Its quite clear actually that there was fragmentation and it was a problem. D&D itself has always been the most popular RPG. Nothing has consistently threatened that. OTOH D&D sales reached their peak with 1e AD&D plus red box Basic by around 1983. TSR clearly was always cognizant of the issue. They avoided major fragmentation by simply not tinkering with the rules much. Every D&D product TSR released was close enough to compatible with the others to not matter much. Even so 2e fell FAR short of 1e in core book sales, so something was happening.
When WotC bought D&D they explicitly acknowledged fragmentation by releasing the OGL, who's avowed purpose was to make it less likely and to at least create a way to build a common platform. Obviously this would not have been addressed if there wasn't a realization that fragmentation was bad.
Indeed the D&D brand name changes things. I strongly doubt 4e would have attracted much attention at all as a small publisher game. It would have its fans like FC or SW have perhaps. It wouldn't be on the radar compared with D&D (and right now today if I went to one of my D&D groups and mentioned FC or SW or HQ they'd not know what I was talking about). 4e HAD to be an edition of D&D. It makes no sense otherwise.
IMHO 4e IS D&D. It is far more D&D than any other currently available game is and we play "D&D" with it and it works for that. D&D is more than rules.
There was some very substantial rejection of 3e. 0e-BX-1e-2e, all stayed very similar, virtually cross-compatible (at least as compatible with eachother as one DM's game tended to be with the next). 3e had some very real changes, and some significa
1) You don't have to change a lot of names. WotC doesn't own terms like d20, strength, dexterity, fighter, feat, etc.
2) By US IP law, once you publish a set of game rules, you essentially lose control over them. The rules aren't copyrighted so nothing prevents someone from developing a similar game.
3) This does not mean you get to do a direct copy and paste of everything in the rulebook. But if you are willing to take the time to rewrite it, or if you find relevant text blocks that are OGL, you could use the same rules framework.
4) Definitely don't copy flavor text, artwork, etc. Basically if it's not mechanical stuff, leave it alone.
5) The OGL and GSL are licenses. You can choose to use them or not. Obviously if you use them it eliminates a lot of question as to whether or not your product is legal, but particularly in the case of the GSL you will find that you are more limited than what you could legally produce without a license.
6) The OGL and GSL are not rules structures, they are licenses. If you use the OGL, nothing prevents you from using terms or structure outside the d20 system. So there is no reason you could not introduce powers into an OGL game.
*I'm not a lawyer, but these are my impressions after doing a lot of reading through US law as well as some well-written articles by someone who is an IP lawyer.
On the subject of clones:1) You don't have to change a lot of names. WotC doesn't own terms like d20, strength, dexterity, fighter, feat, etc.2) By US IP law, once you publish a set of game rules, you essentially lose control over them. The rules are
1) You don't have to change a lot of names. WotC doesn't own terms like d20, strength, dexterity, fighter, feat, etc.
2) By US IP law, once you publish a set of game rules, you essentially lose control over them. The rules aren't copyrighted so nothing prevents someone from developing a similar game.
3) This does not mean you get to do a direct copy and paste of everything in the rulebook. But if you are willing to take the time to rewrite it, or if you find relevant text blocks that are OGL, you could use the same rules framework.
4) Definitely don't copy flavor text, artwork, etc. Basically if it's not mechanical stuff, leave it alone.
5) The OGL and GSL are licenses. You can choose to use them or not. Obviously if you use them it eliminates a lot of question as to whether or not your product is legal, but particularly in the case of the GSL you will find that you are more limited than what you could legally produce without a license.
6) The OGL and GSL are not rules structures, they are licenses. If you use the OGL, nothing prevents you from using terms or structure outside the d20 system. So there is no reason you could not introduce powers into an OGL game.
*I'm not a lawyer, but these are my impressions after doing a lot of reading through US law as well as some well-written articles by someone who is an IP lawyer.
It is FAR from clear where the boundaries are. I mean you're correct AFAIK. The problem is there's no clean breakpoint between rules and presentation. Is a monster stat block format something that can be copywrited, or perhaps have a design patent on it? How about a power? How about the IDEA of using powers in an RPG? Where exactly is the boundary? Can you really MEANINGFULLY clone 4e? Are you willing to spend the $100's of K to find out? Obviously you can make any totally non-commercial thing you want and being sued probably means little if you just slide it out there on the net and let people circulate it, but hardly anyone will ever see it. What if you go further? What if you give it away on one of the gaming sites, what happens then? At a certain point someone can, and may, toss a C&D at you. You wouldn't be the first. Cost you a good chunk of change, more than you'd EVER make off it, just to show your face in court and say you want to argue about it. You'll just loose by default, and the court enforces orders. You don't want to mess with that.
This is why 4e clones are a non-starter. Sure, there WILL be some one-man toss it out there jobs. A few might even be half decent, but there'll never be a real supported alternative 4e clone system. I don't even really see why there should be, 4e doesn't need new books, it needs better adventures and settings. Put your energy into that, you can CLEARLY put that stuff out under GSL (IE with a 4e compatible logo) or with OGL without one. Don't waste your times on rehashing the rules...
It is FAR from clear where the boundaries are. I mean you're correct AFAIK. The problem is there's no clean breakpoint between rules and presentation. Is a monster stat block format something that can be copywrited, or perhaps have a design patent on
That's really heartwarming for a die-hard 4E fan like me who thinks that... but ok, no point mentioning them to you guys, it'll be like the new choirboy preaching to the choir.
