4E clone?


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

what would it take to legally make a 4E clone?

I think it could be done pretty easily. Most 4E powers are some combination of damage, push, pull, slide, prone, immobilize, short range teleport, daze, stun, helpless, petrify, etc...etc...

To make a 4E clone you would have the players choose to create their powers from a list of features they can add.

Maybe a Fighter gets to add +2 to attack, +4 to damage, or push/pull 1 square at 1st level for at-will powers, prone, grab, or push/pull 2 on encounter powers, and immobilize, multiple targets, or +2 to attack or damage for the rest of the encounter to dailies to create power templates. Then at 2nd they might get more powerful stuff.

They would have a list to choose from at each level and then they could build their powers to use for that level.

Give them the ability to rebuild one power at each level. Then people can recreate their favorite class easily and legally in this new 4E clone.

Fighter features that might be added at 1st would include choices from:

At-Will
Secondary effect on adjacent enemy
Effect on a miss
Target takes Str Mod damage
+2 to one attack roll
Push target 1 square

Encounter
Secondary effect on ally
Shift 2 squares
Shift 1 square and At-will secondary effect
+1[w] damage
Prone target
Slowed and cannot shift until end of next turn

Daily
+2[w] damage
Spend a healing Surge
+2 to attack and +4 to damage against a target until end of encounter.
Half effect on miss

The idea would be that each of those would have a point value associated with it and then you would pick and choose your features by spending the points. Each level you would get X powers of each type (at-will, encounter, and Daily) that you can spend points on based on the level. So at 2nd level you would get to points for a second level power that you could spend on any utility type features to make an at-will, encounter, or daily power with. At 3rd level you would be able to make an encounter power with 3rd level features by spending 3rd level points.

Then no copyright would be violated as long as different wordings are used and the pre-built powers don't mimic any existing 4E powers. This would also cut down on power bloat as the same features could be added to later powers.

What do you think, should someone do this?


You would have to make it a 4.5 and probably not use some 4th ed terminology. You might want to tie powers to feats or talents (and not even use the word power) and rather than have a 5th level power have a requirement of 5th level on it.

Just to play it safe you may want to use terms from a previous edition which are covered by the OGL such as BAB.

One could drop the half level thing and Just have +10/+15/+20 BAB or whatever numbers you wanted to use and scale it accordingly and give everyone triple hit points at level 1. Use d8, d10s etc for hit dice and in brackets have 4,5,6 etc. Eg fighters gain 1d10 (6) hit points per level. Might want to steer clear of NADs as well and use fort/ref will or the old 5 TSR saves.

Apart from that have a lawyer handy as well. Make it look at least superficially similar to BECMI/AD&D/3rd ed which are covered by the OGL. And use the phrase "inspired by the 4th edition of the worlds most popular RPG" or however it is worded.

4th ed is not covered by the OGL, one can more or less add 4th ed elements whole sale to BECMI-3rd AFAIK.


There'd be no problem using terms like "powers" and so forth unless WotC have trademarked them. Similarly, the rules arent copyrighted, merely the expression of them. Consequently, you could build a clone very easily using the OGL (though yes, a consultation with a lawyer would be a useful thing). There isnt really a concept of a game being "covered by the OGL".

I dont really see the point though. The reason Pathfinder and the OSRIC movement worked was because of demand, not legal nuance. I dont think there's a huge pool of disenfranchised 4E players ready to throw their money behind it.


Legally? Nobody can seem to agree, but I'm currently writing my second 4e clone, Points of Light. My first clone was more of a compilation of classic 4e character options, while PoL is a deeper system revamp to iron out all of 4e's wrinkles. It's still true to 4e's strengths and philosophies though.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I dont really see the point though. The reason Pathfinder and the OSRIC movement worked was because of demand, not legal nuance. I dont think there's a huge pool of disenfranchised 4E players ready to throw their money behind it.

Just wait until WotC drops 4e from DDI.


Zardnaar wrote:


Apart from that have a lawyer handy as well. Make it look at least superficially similar to BECMI/AD&D/3rd ed which are covered by the OGL.

Your mistaken here. There is absolutely no wording in the OGL that says anything one way or another about 1st edition, 2nd edition, BECMI etc. There might be wording about 3rd. The OGL was never meant to facilitate cloning BECMI, it just so happens that it allows pretty much anything - want to make a super hero game well go ahead and people did and in the same way as you can use the OGL to make a superhero game you can use it to make a BECMI clone or a 4E clone.

Just make sure you don't include intellectual property like Mind Flayers or Waterdeep. All that said best to have a lawyer look things over.


I know that but 4th ed does have a specific GSL while BECMI-2nd ed do not. It depends on how close he wants to clone 4th ed =as 13th age for example is not a 4th ed clone but if you are using NADs and carbon copy or WoTC powers you may be in trouble.


C4 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I dont really see the point though. The reason Pathfinder and the OSRIC movement worked was because of demand, not legal nuance. I dont think there's a huge pool of disenfranchised 4E players ready to throw their money behind it.
Just wait until WotC drops 4e from DDI.

Well, best of luck. Certainly, if that happens it will definitely change things, to some arguable degree. However, I dont think it's likely to happen. And, to be frank, I dont think there'll be the same backlash there was when 3.5 was abandoned, since it's a much more gradual and transparent thing this time around.

.
Once D&D:Next launches, keeping 4E supported via the DDI (even without any new material) is a low-cost revenue stream for WotC. I suspect they've learnt something from the changeover from 3.5 to 4E and that they'll be less likely to adopt an "It's my way or the highway" approach.


Monster Manual 3 on a business card.
Assign rough value to conditions.
Use average damage to derive dice rolled.
Voila.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is no equivalent of the SRD for 4th edition as there was for 3.0 and 3.5. You could not make anything that would be legally recognizable as a derivative work of the 4th Edition system.

The answer then is... you can't get there from here.

Shadow Lodge

Eh, the same argument could have been made for 0E, 1E, 2E, Holmes Basic, BX, and BECMI/RC. Yet there are retro-clones for all of the above. (OK, maybe not a decently faithful one for 2E, but it always was the red-headed bastard stepchild anyway). I have little doubt that there eventually will be a 4E clone.


LazarX wrote:

There is no equivalent of the SRD for 4th edition as there was for 3.0 and 3.5. You could not make anything that would be legally recognizable as a derivative work of the 4th Edition system.

The answer then is... you can't get there from here.

A 4E SRD-equivalent isnt necessary. You can reproduce the rules (just not any trademarked terms or any IP) as long as you dont breach copyright.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah. Some terminology will necessarily change, but it's should be perfectly doable.


Tacticslion wrote:

Monster Manual 3 on a business card.

Assign rough value to conditions.
Use average damage to derive dice rolled.
Voila.

To be clear, if you follow this idea but want a more robust system, use that as the base, and modify it.

You should probably apply limits to the number of creatures that can be hit with individual attacks based on role (higher damage but few damages for brutes, highly defensive abilities for soldiers, extra damage on surprise for lukers, etc), otherwise you get lots of soldiers with area of effect powers (for the +2 AC bonus and good hp) and never have any artillery (for the -2 AC penalty and low hp).

Also, you should probably reduce the hp per level by about -3 to -4.

Lantern Lodge

If you make a 4e clone, I would like to see it be classless (perhaps use skill ranks to determine selectable powers) and perhaps have encounter powers cost points that could be spent on one power or across several. I always hated having longer combats yet could only usea power once.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
If you make a 4e clone, I would like to see it be classless (perhaps use skill ranks to determine selectable powers) and perhaps have encounter powers cost points that could be spent on one power or across several. I always hated having longer combats yet could only usea power once.

That sounds very similar to psionics from Player's Handbook 3.


Legally if I used the OGL, I could use any term that was in the OGL's SRD regardless of whether they were used in 4E or not. The problem comes in with not whether its legal, but whether WotC will sick their lawyers on me and litigate me out of existence through court ordered 'suspensions' and Cease and Desist orders while they push the trial further and further back until I have to wait 10 years before I can release it. Its not a legal issue, its a 'how much money is WotC willing to throw at the problem' issue, unless of course I were to get a really really lucky break and get an anti-corporation judge that won't allow a change of venue or something.

I'm more concerned with how I would go about it and if people would be willing to switch over from WotC 4E to a system designed to mimic it, but that would continue to be improved and supported.
I'd even release it for free and simply subsist off of website advertising and supplement sales of PDFs...


You would probably be safer with a 4.5 Lokiare. Do you want the 4th ed play style or an outright clone of 4th ed? I would perhaps look at some retroclones, even go to one of the OSR websites and ask for advice depending on how serious you are being. I'm not sure what the GSL says but I'm sure WoTC designed it to try and minimize any chance of a 4E clone.

I thought Labyrinth Lord for example was an outright clone of BECMI and it looks that way but they added 50xp to each level and changed the spell pattern tables slightly. Myth and Magic flipped the 2nd ed Thaco tables into BAB, ACKs uses various 3rd ed terms and added a basic proficiency system. DCC and Castles and Crusades AFAIK are both d20 based as well.

Lantern Lodge

What is it you actually want to achieve with this game? When you answer that, then I can actual advice. Depending on the answer, a 4e clone may not be the best idea, or it might be better to make a 4e mod rather then all out clone, or maybe something else.

Lantern Lodge

Tacticslion wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
If you make a 4e clone, I would like to see it be classless (perhaps use skill ranks to determine selectable powers) and perhaps have encounter powers cost points that could be spent on one power or across several. I always hated having longer combats yet could only usea power once.
That sounds very similar to psionics from Player's Handbook 3.

Yep, though the short little bit I played, if I recall correctly, psionics only enhances at will powers rather then having mid level powers in their own right that cant be used without power expenditure. Otherwise it is a good base.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
If you make a 4e clone, I would like to see it be classless (perhaps use skill ranks to determine selectable powers) and perhaps have encounter powers cost points that could be spent on one power or across several. I always hated having longer combats yet could only usea power once.
That sounds very similar to psionics from Player's Handbook 3.
Yep, though the short little bit I played, if I recall correctly, psionics only enhances at will powers rather then having mid level powers in their own right that cant be used without power expenditure. Otherwise it is a good base.

Sort of. The difference is a bit more complex than that*, but that's relatively (and technically) correct. :)

* The augments don't always translate directly, as an example.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
What is it you actually want to achieve with this game? When you answer that, then I can actual advice. Depending on the answer, a 4e clone may not be the best idea, or it might be better to make a 4e mod rather then all out clone, or maybe something else.

When 5E flops for the 4E crowd. I want to have a game that plays very similar to 4E, but is legally not 4E for when WotC inevitably pulls the plug (because of their corporate background and lust for money)...

Lantern Lodge

I see. That is understandable, but you will probably have greater success if you find something that you want to provide, some goal for which you can ask "Does this feature help or hinder?" It is easier that way to make a base, then you can expand upon it.

For example, if I were making this clone, I would set the initial goal as "I want this game to be set in a moderate fantasy setting, and have the flexability of classless systems, with the tactics and ease of play of 4e."

Then I can constantly check ideas against whether they help support that goal, or hinder it.

I could then later supplement with additional rules for other things and fit them to the base I already solidly built.


It is not a clone per se, but 13th age takes most of the good stuff from 4e and 3e and packages it into a nicely done storytelling game.


lokiare wrote:
When 5E flops for the 4E crowd. I want to have a game that plays very similar to 4E, but is legally not 4E for when WotC inevitably pulls the plug (because of their corporate background and lust for money)...

I agree with this sentiment. I have a strong dislike for D&D 3.x, and so never played nor will play Pathfinder (although one of my friends bought me the Pathfinder Starter Set as a gag gift). But I have played all other versions of D&D since the late 70's. I love 4E. I will be one of those in the 4E crowd watching 5E struggle.

Although I admitted that I don't like Pathfinder, I do like how Paizo understands and treats their customers. So I would like to have a company like Paizo pick up the dropped 4E as they did 3.5. Too bad that is a pipe dream.


Who said it's a pipe dream? If wotc drop 4e I just might be picking it up. Depends on how well my other ventures go. Of course you're welcome to join in if you like.


I'm game pm me about it and we can talk

Shadow Lodge

lokiare wrote:
When 5E flops for the 4E crowd. I want to have a game that plays very similar to 4E, but is legally not 4E for when WotC inevitably pulls the plug (because of their corporate background and lust for money)...

I really doubt that WotC will order reclamation squads to destroy all copies of 4E books when Next is published. And if they close the 4E DDI...very few retro-clone publishers would have the resources to create a new DDI-type software.


doing something like DDi is not as hard as people make out. there are java script 4e character builders on the internet if you know where to look. I personally created my own compendium for a non DDi project in just a few hours. it isn't half as hard as it looks.


lokiare wrote:
doing something like DDi is not as hard as people make out. there are java script 4e character builders on the internet if you know where to look. I personally created my own compendium for a non DDi project in just a few hours. it isn't half as hard as it looks.

I dunno...just the data entry alone for all of 4E would probably be many hundreds of hours worth of work and that is without any programming at all.

Of course if one went with a much simpler system in their clone then it'd nopt be as much work but it'd probably not draw as many fans either.

Personally I just bought a copy of hero lab and downloaded from my current subscription to that. I don't even use hero lab at the moment - its merely a backup in case the 4E tools are ever taken down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been designing my own version of D&D and I was kind of aiming it as kind of a Pathfinder Saga. It was going to have bits of PF, 3.5, 4th and SWSE in it.

It is a lot of work though. You look at the PHB from 1995+ onwards and they are each 300 pages. I used to play a lot of3.5 and I wrewrote the fighter and designed a templar class for use in dark sun and each took around 4-5 ours to design at a basic level. I tried making a Psion when 4th ed 1st came out as we were running Darksun and it was just to much work. In the 80's a TSR employee was expected to do about 32 pages of work in a month.

For my 2nd attempt I think I will tone the number down, grab BECMI and d20ize it with ascending ACs, add the AD&D classes and add a skill/talent/feat system to the game.

If you're doing a 4th ed game or anything alone start of small. 4-5 classes, focus on level 1-5 anf convert a few monsters. I was getting around 5 monsters done per hour but they were to weak vs d20 type characters. My players like it and wanted more but its just to much work by yourself IMHO.

If you want a d20 version of 1st and 2nd ed someone else has already done the work for you along with some of the BECMI clones. Keep it small or get a group together and break the workload up.


Why do classes? What purpose do they actually fill?


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Why do classes? What purpose do they actually fill?

They simplify and speed up character generation. They also, in theory, conform to classic fantasy archetypes, so players can play Conan or Gandalf without having to do the work themselves.


Lol, I always found classes to complicate char gen, though I never try to make archtypes, I always try to make unique things, thus classes make it hard to be unique. I guess I can see the use if trying to make classic archtypes though, they dont always fit in the same world.

Of course in the case you present, would it not be better to make a classless system and provide optional quick build kits? That would grant complete customization, while allowing things to be easier for those who want to follow such classic archtypes.

Shadow Lodge

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Why do classes? What purpose do they actually fill?

Because a 4E clone that eliminated such a fundamental portion of the game isn't a clone, it's just yet another fantasy roleplaying game.


True, but I asked because I honestly dont see the point. Besides you could still follow my suggestion as you build the system then present the class kits as classes and dont include the classless rules in the book.

What the players see is only the end result. There is much that is done that is not seen, behind the curtain stuff, that the visible aspects are built on.


Zardnaar wrote:

I have been designing my own version of D&D and I was kind of aiming it as kind of a Pathfinder Saga. It was going to have bits of PF, 3.5, 4th and SWSE in it.

It is a lot of work though. You look at the PHB from 1995+ onwards and they are each 300 pages. I used to play a lot of3.5 and I wrewrote the fighter and designed a templar class for use in dark sun and each took around 4-5 ours to design at a basic level. I tried making a Psion when 4th ed 1st came out as we were running Darksun and it was just to much work. In the 80's a TSR employee was expected to do about 32 pages of work in a month.

For my 2nd attempt I think I will tone the number down, grab BECMI and d20ize it with ascending ACs, add the AD&D classes and add a skill/talent/feat system to the game.

If you're doing a 4th ed game or anything alone start of small. 4-5 classes, focus on level 1-5 anf convert a few monsters. I was getting around 5 monsters done per hour but they were to weak vs d20 type characters. My players like it and wanted more but its just to much work by yourself IMHO.

If you want a d20 version of 1st and 2nd ed someone else has already done the work for you along with some of the BECMI clones. Keep it small or get a group together and break the workload up.

Well ideally, my new idea is to strip down all editions of D&D to what they all have in common: HP, AC, saving throws (non-specific), Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, etc...etc... and then have that as the 'core' of the game. Then create modules that they can layer on top to recreate the game they want. With a more simplified "create your own powers from these options, when you level up." for 4E players. Simple classes for 1E/2E players. Throw in a feat module. Throw in a spell module. That kind of thing. So you can grab the 1E like spells if you want severe drawbacks to powerful spells, and if you want balanced spells with no draw backs you create your spells using the 'power' system. The cool thing is you could mix and match at the same table. Balance not guaranteed unless you use the modules with the {balance} tag...


If you are going to do the whole modular rules set thing, why not make the system classless with a classes module? Wider audience and you are already making it modular so the idea fits with what you are doing, and it would go a long way to helping keep balance across the modules, at least as long everyone at the same table uses the same modules.

Liberty's Edge

Why use a clone when you can use 4e itself? Likely WotC will release as a PDF at some stage. Simply as time goes on unless there is a draw card point of difference clones for all previous editions of D&D won't really be needed. OSRIC is a good example, the clarifications/modifications to 1e are rather good and don't change the experience but do speed up play. Then again 2e does a good job of doing that also. Another example of Pathfinder, a clone of 3.5e that has enough material to make it a good option instead of playing actual 3.5e.

So I predict that the clone market will die unless the clones are different enough to not be true clones. Hope that makes sense?

S.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:


So I predict that the clone market will die unless the clones are different enough to not be true clones. Hope that makes sense?

S.

It makes sense to me. The market for OSR / clones was created by WotC eliminating the source of older editions core material. What might save the market for clones is adventures / supplemental material. I say might because the OSR crowd is, imo, more likely to do their own material than the PF / 4E fans who are wedded to the commercial AP, and they might as well do a homebrew adventure / campaign for 1E (etc.) if it's available again as opposed to a clone.


Stefan Hill wrote:

Why use a clone when you can use 4e itself? Likely WotC will release as a PDF at some stage. Simply as time goes on unless there is a draw card point of difference clones for all previous editions of D&D won't really be needed. OSRIC is a good example, the clarifications/modifications to 1e are rather good and don't change the experience but do speed up play. Then again 2e does a good job of doing that also. Another example of Pathfinder, a clone of 3.5e that has enough material to make it a good option instead of playing actual 3.5e.

So I predict that the clone market will die unless the clones are different enough to not be true clones. Hope that makes sense?

S.

Mainly because I want to be able to sell it at some point. Market it or whatever. 4E is not under the same open license as the OGL and SRD. Its under a very restrictive license that doesn't allow reprinting of its rules.

So since game rules can't be copyrighted, only their expressions and specific terms, I was wanting to replicate a 4E game. Now that I see how 5E is not going to be modular. I'm going to open my design up to make an OGL clone that is modular and can be used to recreate any edition of D&D, plus some things that are not in D&D. Like you can forgo the classes module and use the hybrid module to build a character piece by piece from parts of other classes or whatever...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


So I predict that the clone market will die unless the clones are different enough to not be true clones. Hope that makes sense?

S.

It makes sense to me. The market for OSR / clones was created by WotC eliminating the source of older editions core material. What might save the market for clones is adventures / supplemental material. I say might because the OSR crowd is, imo, more likely to do their own material than the PF / 4E fans who are wedded to the commercial AP, and they might as well do a homebrew adventure / campaign for 1E (etc.) if it's available again as opposed to a clone.

Just to correct you. 4E fans mostly feel WotC adventures are horrible and don't show off the games features. In fact most people feel WotC does really bad adventures.

I'd say the 1e and 4E people are in the same boat. Also unless WotC starts making adventures that can be easily converted to 1E or 4E and are of high quality. I don't see OSR fans turning to WotC for anything other than a PDF purchase of their favorite edition...


lokiare wrote:


Just to correct you. 4E fans mostly feel WotC adventures are horrible and don't show off the games features. In fact most people feel WotC does really bad adventures.

I'd say the 1e and 4E people are in the same boat. Also unless WotC starts making adventures that can be easily converted to 1E or 4E and are of high quality. I don't see OSR fans turning to WotC for anything other than a PDF purchase of their favorite edition...

I have no clue about 4e quality really (I bought it, read it and gave it away - an OK game, just not my cup of tea) and I don't disagree really. I've always preferred my own work on adventures beginning with the original game down to the present (and so have my players). By the time you adapt / edit / change a published adventure to suit your game / players you might as well write your own. I also don't see people being reliant on canned adventure material for a clone game when they can do their own. That's a problem for any indie / clone system. Paizo, and presumably WotC if they get off their rear, can make a go of the AP / module model. Paizo seems to have it down pat. Others options in that regard are limited. Depends on the size / expenses of the game company and it's ability to churn out good content...


Don't mean this in any disrespectful way but why clone 4e?

Seems to be the general feeling that it wasn't very popular. I don't think we would all be in the pathfinder forums if it had been (I might be wrong on this thinking). Just personal experience and opinion but everyone I know who has played it has ditched it for pathfinder or glad that 5e is a depature from it. I have several books that are just collecting dust and for whatever reason i have several essential books right next to them. Combat took forever and I never really liked the whole powers concept, it just felt juvenile. I really hope gridless combat works well with 5e. Minis, though they are cool and all, annoyed me. I just hate random boosters This is just my opinion and I know it stinks just like the rest of them so please take no offense.

Saying that why not just continue to support 4e with modules and source material? Or does the license not allow this? Any way I wish you great success with your clone.


Slivan "Sli" Simmeran wrote:

Don't mean this in any disrespectful way but why clone 4e?

Seems to be the general feeling that it wasn't very popular. I don't think we would all be in the pathfinder forums if it had been (I might be wrong on this thinking). Just personal experience and opinion but everyone I know who has played it has ditched it for pathfinder or glad that 5e is a depature from it. I have several books that are just collecting dust and for whatever reason i have several essential books right next to them. Combat took forever and I never really liked the whole powers concept, it just felt juvenile. I really hope gridless combat works well with 5e. Minis, though they are cool and all, annoyed me. I just hate random boosters This is just my opinion and I know it stinks just like the rest of them so please take no offense.

Saying that why not just continue to support 4e with modules and source material? Or does the license not allow this? Any way I wish you great success with your clone.

Well even if we concede that it was the least popular edition of D&D, and its possible that is true, it was still a hugely popular RPG with likely more fans then any non-D&D fantasy RPG ever created with the exception of Pathfinder.

One suspects that any given individual who hopes to clone it is in reality talking about creating a system that deals with whatever their personal pet peeves are...though one suspects that there is a lot of overlap in that department between one individual and another.

In my mind the best reason to clone it actually have to do with what made it less popular then the other editions of D&D. Its a particularly unique take on the D&D genre and yet includes pretty much everything one associates with D&D, all the monsters, all the lore is there but in a system that is a little different. 4E is a very modern game clearly being influenced by indy games like Spirit of the Century and their ilk and that makes it a very narrativist game in terms of its look and feel. In a lot of ways 4E was like some indy game that received huge support in terms of supplements and such that no indy game would normally receive. Now it seems likely that this was a mistep on the part of WotC. Indy style narrativist games maybe don't break out into the mainstream for good reason and trying to convince the D&D base to use a system that was more narrativist and less simulationist was possibly a mistake, especially since WotC never seemed to grasp what Rob Heinsoo and Andy Collins had created and where never very good at supporting it in terms of crafting adventures. Still if you do like this sort of game 4E is unique in offering it. Every other version of D&D is essentially trying to capture some kind of essence of older style D&D. 4E is the only version that was not predicated on that principle (well not initially - once Rob Heinsoo and Andy Collins exited stage left WotC seemed to do nothing but try and recapture that old flame...often with less then stellar results).

All that said I think your right that one can make adventures and such using 4E if one wants too. The problem is likely that increasingly everyone is playing some version of 4E with house rules of one kind or another. If there was some recognized clone that cleared up most of the agreed upon quirks it'd be easier to support the system with adventures.


I think that's why I got duped into buying the essential stuff. I saw the red box and got excited and I was under the impression it would be a bit simpler than the first 4e (I was also trying to convince my gf at the time to give it a shot). Now I could be wrong in thinking this but essentials seem to restrict the player even more with character creation. I get that it was geared for first time players though. I see your point none the less. Youre right it was different than any past edition and that maybe is why I didn't like it as much.

I may be the odd man out but I hope 5e is simple. Where im from its hard to find players and I think the rule books scare some folks away. I always end up rolling characters for people. I just hope Next opens the door to these people who are casual gamers so to speak. Sorry if I got off topic.

Back on 4e, I will admit I do like how you build encounters and how easy it is to build an adventure. I just didn't like the powers, it just congested my gameplay or no one would use them in combat. That just goes back to my casual players who didn't want to record or look up their powers. I never tried to play a game where we just did away with them and im not sure if this would break the game or not.


Slivan "Sli" Simmeran wrote:

I think that's why I got duped into buying the essential stuff. I saw the red box and got excited and I was under the impression it would be a bit simpler than the first 4e (I was also trying to convince my gf at the time to give it a shot). Now I could be wrong in thinking this but essentials seem to restrict the player even more with character creation. I get that it was geared for first time players though. I see your point none the less. Youre right it was different than any past edition and that maybe is why I didn't like it as much.

I may be the odd man out but I hope 5e is simple. Where im from its hard to find players and I think the rule books scare some folks away. I always end up rolling characters for people. I just hope Next opens the door to these people who are casual gamers so to speak. Sorry if I got off topic.

Back on 4e, I will admit I do like how you build encounters and how easy it is to build an adventure. I just didn't like the powers, it just congested my gameplay or no one would use them in combat. That just goes back to my casual players who didn't want to record or look up their powers. I never tried to play a game where we just did away with them and im not sure if this would break the game or not.

In terms of new players powers are great if your using the DDI because it prints them out and you can make them into cards. I've found that new players understand playing cards to do things very readily (and at low levels you don't have to many powers). If you don't have a way of turning players powers into cards then I think it may well be more complicated. Then they need to keep track of the powers somehow and they can't hand you a card to help explain to them what it does.

I've only got very limited experience with essentials characters. They are legal at my table but only one player ever created one and when that character died he never made another stating that they where not very interesting to play since you pretty much did the same thing every round. He was much more into various kinds of Warlord builds since they do a lot of interrupts and have a wider variety of powers that allow ones allies to make out of sequence moves and such - sort of a unique take on battlefield control with the warlord treating his allies as kind of like chess pieces. Ones allies enjoy it because the Warlord spends a lot of time saying - hey buddy I just moved you beside the Mind Flayer and now you get to make a free attack on it.

All that said its not so much the powers that are why I like 4E. I'm usually the DM so character creation is not a huge part of my love for the system. As a DM I like how the skill system works and especially the conceit that all players are good both in and out of combat. Its an excellent system for city adventuring. Very much if I where to run 4E for those who where in doubt about the system I'd almost certainly put them in a city adventure since I think that this is where it is going to most starkly show why it is a strong version of D&D. I'd especially do this if they where experienced enough that I could show off some somewhat higher level city adventuring. Throw them into a political intrigue at 12th level for example. Its here that the system really shines, especially if one can compare and contrast it with other editions of D&D past and, I suspect, future.


I actually have a ripoff/clone of 4e, but no place to host it and no webspace to put it up.

I also need help with some of the organization, as I based it off the OGL with Pathfinder instead of the OGL off of 3e/3.5, so I'm not certain on the requirements in that regards.


I'm sure someone may correct me or tell me I'm wrong but essentials pretty much limited your choice of powers. I think there were like two paths to a class and each one was pretty much set in stone. This is okay for someone learning I guess but it just felt like it restricted some creativity.

The people I played with (close friends who I talked into playing) wasn't very invested so they had no motivation to write down their powers. I ended up having to constantly flip through the PHB to see what it did. Even then they ended up spamming one power over and over. I did get the chance to play with a more experienced group and even then combat seem to last forever (we played tomb of horrors). I ran the very first module 4e came out with, the name escapes me at the moment, but I enjoyed dming it. Once I got a chance to play PF I pretty much put my 4e books into retirement. PF just felt more like dnd.

I am about to start up a group and run Murder in Baldurs Gate using PF. This adventure is very different than any I have ever ran and I'm pretty excited about it. I also have council of thieves ap but haven't ran it yet. I was planning to then I found the Baldurs Gate adventure.


I like 4e for a tactical combat game, but I find it unsatisfying and restrictive far too much for true role-playing, though I certainly see the value for introducing new players and the potential for better things if properly homebrewed.

That is why I support a clone idea as then perhaps some things can be fixed, then again, not sure if 4e supporters would agree with me on what needs fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Its an excellent system for city adventuring. Very much if I where to run 4E for those who where in doubt about the system I'd almost certainly put them in a city adventure since I think that this is where it is going to most starkly show why it is a strong version of D&D. I'd especially do this if they where experienced enough that I could show off some somewhat higher level city adventuring. Throw them into a political intrigue at 12th level for example. Its here that the system really shines, especially if one can compare and contrast it with other editions of D&D past and, I suspect, future.

That is the one reason I really wanted to like 4E. It's combat is thoroughly average (like every D&D combat system, it has it's strengths, it has it's weaknesses), but the potential it had for non-combat scenarios was promising; for me at least, though, it never lived up to it's potential. The reason it's that this is also 4E's biggest weakness in that everything outside of the powers is entirely dependent on the DM. If the DM can craft a good political intrigue and set appropriate DCs on the fly, the story is going to be awesome; if they can't, it's going to be worse than anything you'll ever see in 3.x/PF, where there are default options to fall back on before things get really sour. The problem here is that most D&D DMs have not really studied how to craft a good political intrigue or improv using both roleplay and available mechanics really well, they've tried to figure out how to craft the most awesome boss fight ever seen, and this was true even before 3.x made it even more prevalent. It didn't help that every chance that WotC had to showcase skill challenges turned them into something akin to very dry combat.

A clone that built in a few more basic protections and guidelines while avoiding hard and fast rules would probably do really well, as it would provide a functional guide to the rp aspect to match the solid combat rules, provided that the DMs and players didn't turn those guidelines into hard, immutable rules the same way the majority of the community did with 3rd edition, which I think was one of the bigger differences between 3rd edition and the earlier editions. In the earlier editions, all the charts and rules were there, but no one insisted on using all of them all the time. If a clone could provide the foundation that 3rd edition does while trashing the idea that anything in print must be the only way to do something, I would definitely try it out.

1 to 50 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4E clone? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.