A 4E Retro Clone

[Stormonu]

Obviously the more oddball, D&D-specific races wouldn't be reproduced, but I could see the racial array looking something like human, half-elf, elf, eladrin, dwarf, gnome, halfling, goliath, dragonborn, goblin, hobgoblin, half-orc, and kobold.

Any particular reason tiefling is not on this list?

 

[TerraDave]

I'd keep the basic framework, but enhance skills a bit. Then I'd diminish powers some, in favor of rituals--and probably expand the flavor space of rituals to cover more than "magic rituals" conceptually. Feats would get a pruning ...

And then, who am I kidding? No matter how much I tried to work under those restrictions, I just couldn't. I'd be using the core ideas, but making major overhauls left and right on the details. The only thing I can say for sure is that the whole thing would be a lot shorter when I got done with it.

This, and Estlors post highlight the problem...4E has gotten pretty broad. So instead of clone, there might be many clones, as with the OSR.

 

[C4]

Let's pretend it's 5-10 years down the road and WotC is ready to retire the 4E game and move on. Yet, for whatever reason, you and your group aren't ready to go. Instead, you decide to build a 4E retro clone based on the best elements of 4E (and a few improvements here and there)

In my case, this is not a hypothetical scenario. Check it out.

Based on what's out for 4E from 2008 to now, what elements would you draw from? What portions would you avoid? What tweaks (but NOT overhauls) would you make? What would you not want to see changed?

In short, what do think has been the best (and worst) of 4E so far?

My Complete 4th Edition is basically classic 4e with a few tweaks. I've left the vast majority of material alone, but here are the three biggest tweaks:

1. Regular saves are rolled on the attacker's turn, and bonus saves can end UENT effects. This was a tough decision to make, and if I were overhauling I would have made a different one. But I think this tweak preserves the balance that the devs intended, and it doesn't obsolete a large swath of powers.

2. I replaced the anemic MC feats and the problematic hybrid rules with beefed up MC feats of my own.

3. There are no racial stat boosts. I mention this not because it's a huge mechanical change -- because those +2s don't make or break anyone -- but because of the psychological effect of those +2s. I don't like players discarding character ideas out of hand just because the stats don't match, so I gave everyone floating 'training' bonuses instead.

 

[Estlor]

[emphasis added by me]
So, what, exactly would constitute "the more oddball" races for you...if this is what you are including as a set of "core" races...seems at least a half-dozen too many to me.

Rationally, I consider a "core" race to be something strongly linked-to or rooted-in traditional myth or folklore. Half-elves and half-orcs get the nod because of their long-time association with the FRPG setting (though in my own personal game, I'd drop them both and lose the whole what race can breed with what discussion entirely). Dragonborn get included to fill the "scalyfolk" niche and goliaths to fill the "bigfolk" niche.

"Oddball" races would be things that don't mesh well with traditional, mythology/folklore-rooted fantasy or are too strongly connected to D&D IP to safely include. So that's basically tieflings, devas, wildren, giths, shardminds, warforged, drow, shifters - that sort of stuff.

I mean, yeah, you can totally get by with human, dwarf, elf, halfling, and gnome. But if you're going to go through the trouble of designing GMTFRPG (Generic Modern Tactical Fantasy Role Playing Game), you may as well include the goblins so you have your bases covered.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

In short, what do think has been the best (and worst) of 4E so far?

Best -- everything before essentials.
Worst -- feat taxes.

My clone would essentially be C4, with hexes instead of squares.

"Elfier elves" are one of the dumbest things ever to come into the D&D universe...among other things, but they're neither here nor there.

"Elfier elves"? That made me chuckle.

Personally I think of 4e elves like this: There are snobby convservative elves, hippie treehugger elves, nazi (ironically dark-skinned) elves, and red-headed stepchild elves. With the exception of the red-headed step children, I don't think any of them are inherently elfier than the others.

YMMV, of course.

 

[drothgery]

Best -- everything before essentials.
Worst -- feat taxes.

My clone would essentially be C4, with hexes instead of squares.


"Elfier elves"? That made me chuckle.

Personally I think of 4e elves like this: There are snobby convservative elves, hippie treehugger elves, nazi (ironically dark-skinned) elves, and red-headed stepchild elves. With the exception of the red-headed step children, I don't think any of them are inherently elfier than the others.

YMMV, of course.

Before WotC decided to give all races a flex stat bonus, there wasn't a good way to make 'good sneaky/archer elves' and good magic elves with the same race; D&D had this problem for a long time. The elf/eladrin split was one way to fix it; flex stat int/dex elves is another.

 

[pawsplay]

To an extent, 4e is designed to be unclonable. To play, you need a lot of explicit text explaining exceptional abilities. Some of its best value is in its online system, which you can't clone except by writing a DB yourself. All those Hellacute Donkyhorse names are at least, in theory, trademarkable and copyrightable, or at least, some of them are, and you don't want to play the guessing game as to which will be. The popular new races are all relatively unique creations: dragonborn, tiefling, warforged. The amount of textual support to create 4e probably exceeds the capacity of a small press operation. Through the GSL, they have bound the hands of at least a number of publishers who have put ink in the game at this point; walking away from the restrictive licensure would be costly. The books are designed with art, color, and whitespace at a ratio many smaller presses would find uneconomical.

I think it's more likely 4e will spawn three to five alter-games, games built around the 4e core innovations but outside the 4e commercial and popular spaces. The words "paragon" and "epic" both appear in OGC sources; there is is very little about 4e that is bound up in their IP apart from reams and reams of power descriptions, creatures, and general RPG instruction.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Before WotC decided to give all races a flex stat bonus, there wasn't a good way to make 'good sneaky/archer elves' and good magic elves with the same race; D&D had this problem for a long time. The elf/eladrin split was one way to fix it; flex stat int/dex elves is another.

True, though I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point, agreeing, or simply commenting.

 

[steeldragons]

Before WotC decided to give all races a flex stat bonus, there wasn't a good way to make 'good sneaky/archer elves' and good magic elves with the same race; D&D had this problem for a long time. The elf/eladrin split was one way to fix it; flex stat int/dex elves is another.

I call shenanigans! Before WotC decided to give a flex stat bonus? Really?!

Sneaky archer elves were a staple of the genre...put your good stats into Dexterity (if you were playing basic/B/X/BECMI) and/or make them a thief/whatever (if you were playing 1e AD&D or further)...they'll be plenty stealthy...and with the racial +1 with bows plus whatever their Dex. bonus was for ranged weapons...um, yeah, you'd have a perfectly "sneaky archer" as you wanna be.

And "good magic elves"...Elves were designed, from Basic on to be good with magic. B/X and BECMI had elves automatically get spells..."Magic-Users" and "Elves" were the only ones who COULD use what would come to be classified as "arcane" spells. And in 1e or 2e AD&D, elves could multiclass Magic-user with anything (I really can't speak to 3e or later).

The elf/eladrin split was one way to fix it; flex stat int/dex elves is another.

There was nothing to fix!!! Play a 'high elf", which orignally was the ONLY elf PC allowed...then after UA, play a "wood elf" if you want the sneaky archer guy.

Elf/Eladrin split was NOTHING but a redefining of something that needed NO redefining....categorizing for the sake of categorizing...or, put another way, making something "different" for the sake of being "different"...which DOES NOT automatically translate into "better."

"Let's give the haughty magicy elves a different name." "Ok, let's call them "eladrin"... Ooooo aaaahhhh...."OH! AND, they have green pupil-less eyes." REALLY!?!? WOW! Ooooo...aaaaahhhh.

Stuff and nonsense. Completely unnecessary.

Just my 2 coppers. An "eladrin" will never appear in any game of mine.,,and before the onslaught begins about why they are so great, that's my prerogative...no eladrin in my game. period. You don't have to play in it, not your concern.

Play the game you like, have fun and happy elfing.
--SD

 

[Mercurius]

As someone recently pointed out to me, technically a "retro-clone" is the exact same game as its original, just re-packaged and printed to make it readily available, as well as to provide the base for new adventures and such. Now of course a "clone" need not be an exact duplicate, just carry the same essential "genetic" qualities, and there we have quite a bit of leeway of interpretation.

For me the answer to the OP's question would be answered in the same way as the question of how I would design 5E, so in a sense I can't really answer the question without going to far afield and start designing 5E. But if I were to add nothing major--which I would do with 5E--then I would try to slim the game down quite a bit, make something akin to Castles & Crusades for 4E.