D&D 4E 4e's Equivalent to Pathfinder

[Nyronus]

They won't be a 4e Clone like Pathfinder because of two reasons: 1. There is no big name like Paizo to swoop in and save the fanbase. 2. There is not the kind of emotional momentum to fuel such an action or to make it profitable. Pathfinder was born in hatred. Paizo and Pathfinder may be the golden boy of RPG gaming now, but I remember the antagonism and bile coming from them when 4E came out. Pathfinder was advertised with a slogan of "3.5 LIVES" slashed out and replaced with "3.5 THRIVES." That was a declaration of triumph over a hated foe. You don't declare you "THRIVE" to the world unless its meaningful. In case there was something that would bring thriving into question. 4E doesn't have that kind of dedication behind it. Since the "golden year" of Dark Sun passed, the 4E fanbase has been self-loathing and self-destructive. Most threads I've seen this last year have been dwelling painfully on the flaws of the game, real or not. No cool homebrew. No "Hey Guys, check this out" builds, no "Cool Story Bros." Just "I hate charge builds," "Fights take to long," "Heroes of Shadow Sucks." Some of those are real issues, but it was all you could hear. 4E, if it is die at all, will die with a whimper.

Although I am happy to see the 4th Party site. I don't know how it will work out, but it really does make me happy to see something like that. I may join. I have a bunch of notes, custom monsters, and a few adventures I could pass on. Hell, I have a whole campaign setting book written that I'm doing nothing with.

 

[Tallifer]

4E doesn't have that kind of dedication behind it. Since the "golden year" of Dark Sun passed, the 4E fanbase has been self-loathing and self-destructive. Most threads I've seen this last year have been dwelling painfully on the flaws of the game, real or not. No cool homebrew. No "Hey Guys, check this out" builds, no "Cool Story Bros." Just "I hate charge builds," "Fights take to long," "Heroes of Shadow Sucks." Some of those are real issues, but it was all you could hear. 4E, if it is die at all, will die with a whimper.

There were thousands of complaints by players of the Third Edition about broken builds, useless classes, complicated monsters, et cetera. That was why the Wizards thought they could appeal to the majority with a Fourth Edition. Unfortunately the Wizards misread the complaints to be more universal. It turned out that a larger portion of Thirders had no problems.

I think the same is true of the Fourth Edition. There are many complaints, but again the majority are happy. However the difference is the existence of Pathfinder to maintain a large crowd which the Wizards still want back.

I think it is folly to abandon us Fourthers for a section of players who already have their preferred games. The Wizards will simply kill off the Fourth to create an even less popular Fifth. The Pathfinder players whom I know told me that they will stick with Pathfinder. We shall see what happens in eighteen months.

 

[pemerton]

Should some of us choose not to move along with 5e, and given the nature of the GSL, I'm really curious what 4thers' options are in regards to continued support for 4e.

<snip>

Can current 3rd party supporters continue with the GSL in its current format?

Wizards can terminate the GSL at any time, at which point third party publishers have six months to sell off their existing stock.

This likely will happen either when 5e is released, or shorty afterwards.

A retro clone might be possible, but it'll be a little more difficult (since the GSL is way more restrictive than the OGL), and won't be as big as Pathfinder (a big part of their success was building a huge costumer base with Dragon and Dungeon).

The GSL is not relevant to a 4e clone.

The GSL is basically a trademark licence. In return for being allowed to use WotC trademarks and trade dress (like the D&D logo) you agree not to include certain stuff in your product (like the text of the 4e rulebooks). There's a few other bells and whistles, but that's the gist of it.

Once WotC revokes the GSL - which I assume they will do around the time 5e launches - it will be irrelevant.

The challenge for a 4e clone, after that point, will be how to do it without violating WotC IP rights - both copyrighs in their rulebooks, and trademarks. I'm not an IP lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. My view is that this challenge is non-trivial, but not necessarily insurmountable. There is professional disagreement over OSRIC - Clark Peterson from Necromancer, for instance - who is a lawyer and I think now a judge (?) - has expressed the view that it is infringing of WotC IP rights (and hence not compliant with the OGL, despite purporting to be so).

A lawyer colleague of [MENTION=82885]Matt James[/MENTION] had a good series of blogs on 4e and IP law a while back, but I can't remember his name or where the blogs were.

Technically I see no reason why someone couldn't use the OGL to construct a 4e clone in the same way people have created AD&D clones.

The legality of OSRIC, at least, is disputed.

Since the "golden year" of Dark Sun passed, the 4E fanbase has been self-loathing and self-destructive.

<snip>

No cool homebrew. No "Hey Guys, check this out" builds, no "Cool Story Bros." Just "I hate charge builds," "Fights take to long," "Heroes of Shadow Sucks." Some of those are real issues, but it was all you could hear.

Check out my Kas thread. And my Vecna thread. Hopefully I'll be posting more actual play soon.

I thought they were kidding about the toxic atmosphere on the WotC forums until I browsed some of the threads.

What's going on there?

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

A lawyer colleague of [MENTION=82885]Matt James[/MENTION] had a good series of blogs on 4e and IP law a while back, but I can't remember his name or where the blogs were.
<snip>

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-...tem-license-not-4e-gaming-system-license.html

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Myself, I am very unsettled by the words, "At this point."

Ditto. I just have this gut feeling that WotC will find some reason -- probably a bad one, but a reason nontheless -- to pull 4e material and support from DDI.

Although I am happy to see the 4th Party site. I don't know how it will work out, but it really does make me happy to see something like that. I may join. I have a bunch of notes, custom monsters, and a few adventures I could pass on. Hell, I have a whole campaign setting book written that I'm doing nothing with.

Same here.

I've noticed the 4e self-loathing too, but I don't think it says anything about 4e. It's just part of the edition cycle that I've blogged about: This has all happened before...

If there had been an internet back in the '70s, I'm sure we would have heard the same self-loathing from OD&D fans, 1e fans and 2e fans. I know I was part of the 3e cry of self-loathing.

 

[OnlineDM]

The "self-loathing" comments surprise me. Personally, I've REALLY enjoyed the stuff that's come out for 4e since the Essentials books, with the only exception being Heroes of Shadow. I love the Monster Vault, I love Madness at Gardmore Abbey, I love Heroes of the Feywild, and I love Reavers of Harkenwold. I really like the new class options we got it Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.

I don't think I'm an exception to the rule among 4e fans here. Sure, some folks didn't like a perceived "half edition" with Essentials, and I agree that Heroes of Shadow has taken some hits. But what about all of those other products?

Don't get me wrong; I'm quite interested in D&D Next. But in the mean time, I'm enjoying 4e tremendously.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A retro clone might be possible, but it'll be a little more difficult (since the GSL is way more restrictive than the OGL)

4E can easily be reverse-engineered using the OGL and not the GSL at all. People focus on the system's differences from d20, but there's a lot more similar than different.

 

[UHF]

Technically I see no reason why someone couldn't use the OGL to construct a 4e clone in the same way people have created AD&D clones. You can't patent or copyright actual rules. You'd just have to reproduce all of the rules text in your own words and provide all your own fluff. On top of that you could run into a problem with say something like Dragonborn where WotC might be able to assert that it has enough originality to achieve some level of IP protection you might run afoul of. Stuff like that is pretty grey.

That's the thing though, why clone 4e? It isn't a bad system, but it can be easily improved. If you're going to do that, then you're just writing your own RPG. Of course it could be a very close cousin of 4e, but really its hard to see any business case for it. It would have to be a completely volunteer thing, and basically there are already games out there that will be actively supported you could create content for.

IMHO once 5e hits the shelves 4e is deader than dead. Wasn't around long enough to really become entrenched. No classic settings people will miss, etc. There will be people peeved about 5e's rules, inevitably, but they're kinda SoL. I'd say there'd be a fan community that hung on, but honestly what really ever materialized around 4e? There's dirt for fan created material, not a lot of 3PP stuff overall, etc. I mean KQ barely pays attention to 4e these days, and there's sure nothing like a fan site where people collect 4e compatible material.

It will be the lost edition basically. Not even particularly collectible as the print runs were fairly large.

I switched to Pathfinder because the pre-made materials were so good. But I prefer 4e. It was just too much work to make my own adventures or update third party materials. I did run the Death In Freeport series in 4e and it played beautifully.

So... Back to OGLing it all... Easy. But many core mechanics in 4e are extremely good, like 'Attack Versus Defense'. And of course AtWill cards in 4e are just feats in other games like Pathfinder. (Cleave) In fact my Big Dumb Fighter player keeps forgetting that his character has those feats. I swing.... I swing... I swing...

You'd need to start with something OGLed like Pathfinder. Re-writing a ton or stuff would really kill your day though.

On the other hand there is something to be said for getting back to basics, like fighting with weapons, not powers. I want to disarm the enemy!

 

[UHF]

I think folks keep forgetting 4e's 3.5 OGL predecessor... its called Iron Heroes;
Iron Heroes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was also originally written by Mike Mearls.

Players get 'lists' of feats that they grow as they go up in levels. This is much like 4e powers.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think I'm an exception to the rule among 4e fans here. Sure, some folks didn't like a perceived "half edition" with Essentials, and I agree that Heroes of Shadow has taken some hits. But what about all of those other products?

The Monster Vaults are great. I like Heroes of the Feywild and the Neverwinter book. I like the Rules Compendium as a reference, but there are changes in the tone that I don't like. Here's the main one:

PHB, p 8
When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and
adjudicate the story.

RC, p
The DM decides how to apply the rules and guide the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. A times, the DM might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.
​

In its presentation of how the game is meant to be played, the distinct roles of GM and players and the balance of power between them, etc, I think Essentials is a retrograde step. That last sentence in the quote from the RC is a killer - introducing Storyteller's so-called Golden Rule into a game well-enough designed not to need it. And the description of the GM as a guide rather than an adjudicator of the storyteller also reminds me of approaches to RPGing that I'd rather forget.

Likewise, while I appreciate that there are players out there who don't want to be bothered with martial dailies, I think the dropping of them in Essentials is also consistent with that retrograde step. It verges on a concession that metagame mechanics are undesirable, and that the designers have given up on the distinction between player resource and PC resource.

I'm disappointed that, at least in their public pronouncements, the WotC designers are renouncing this great game that they created. (Skill challenges dying in a fire is the latest example.)