D&D 4E How To Clone 4E Using 5E Rules

Tony Vargas · May 25, 2019

EzekielRaiden said:
Whereas I would move in the diametrically opposite direction:

Yeah, don't make the mistake the "tactical module" did and create something for the 4e fans, based on how the game's detractors painted it.

Design robust social and exploration challenge rules.

Skill Challenges are a plenty robust sub-system, what they lacked was da flavah. The best SCs I ran or played in where the ones that had been added to, creating a sort of game-within-a-game, that had the success and failure map to something more concrete, in the fiction, that could be readily tracked by all players at the table.

Address the tension between non-combat and combat resources (e.g. feats and utility powers being pulled two different ways).

'Silo'ingPC abilities by Pillar seems like it'd be fairly workable.
The extreme would be to give every player choice an aplication in each pillar.

Address presentation issues (e.g. call powers Talents or Abilities or *something* that won't put players' backs up).

Meh, the choice of a jargon term or two, even if it's what some people chose to get vocal about, as it made for a decent sound bite, was never the great heresy AEDU committed against D&D. It was just that it came intolerably close to delivering class balance - sometimes even in the face of modestly different levels of system mastery.

Hexmage-EN · May 25, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Skill Challenges are a plenty robust sub-system, what they lacked was da flavah. The best SCs I ran or played in where the ones that had been added to, creating a sort of game-within-a-game, that had the success and failure map to something more concrete, in the fiction, that could be readily tracked by all players at the table.

I know all the best skill challenges I've ever heard of have been ones that used the base system as loose guideline and then added different spins on it.

Immortal Sun · May 25, 2019

thanson02 said:
Not necessarily. The point would be to take what 4E has and keep the good stuff and streamline the clunky parts. If someone was able to come out with a 4.5, a couple things I would like to see is:

Updated Skill Challenge rules: These are basically situational trackers for the DM and needed more play-testing. The fan base I feel has done a good job with that from what I've seen online. So updating the rules actually reflect or the community has evolved that mechanic to would be good. Also, break it down by category type so instead of saying skill challenges say social challenges, environmental challenges, hybrid challenges, etc.

I don't see why any additional level of granularity is needed? You'll know they're social challenges because the DM will call for social-checks, or checks with social outcomes. You'll know they're environmental challenges because the DM will call for checks that are relevant to the environment.

I'm not really aware of any improvements made by the community, again, I find 4E to be the least-needing of house ruling of any edition I've ever played (unless you're aiming for a specific flavor of gaming). That is to say: I think Skill Challenges work pretty well out of the box.

Modular Character Development System: One of the things I really loved about 4E was instead of having a linear character process (for the most part), was that you basically had slots at every level that needed to be filled. They're different places where they can get the abilities from, but ultimately you could write your characters advancement with the tools available anyway you wanted. With a 4.5, I would like to see that brought to the forefront and be the actual central structure that you used to build your character. So for example, at first level all characters get two passive abilities and three active abilities, at second they get two more active abilities, ect. At first level, these can be determined by your race and class for the most part, but as you go up to the levels you would have options either from their race background, their character theme, the class, feats, etc and it will allow the player to mix and match what they want so they can set the mechanics up to express not just what the character does during gameplay but who this character is as they develop going up through the levels instead of having a linear track with a few slight variations.

I don't know about your experiences, but 4E is pretty modular. I'm not sure how to make it "more modular" without simply creating more abilities with more variety in their effects.

A actual social encounter rule system: This is an area where every version of D&D has had problems. It would be nice to see them come up with something solid that works in accordance with the mechanics in place. You kind of get that with the 4E bard already, but it would be nice to see an actual system in place that compliments what the bard does and can still be used with the rest of the players who want to have more social interactions then combat focus.

Yeah, social "encounters" have always been something D&D never handled well, but I can't say I can think of a system with social encounter rules that isn't A: really complex or B: not good. Social encounters are really free-form and depend a lot on a player's ability to think critically and speak well, or at least roll well to make their character speak well.

All I'm really getting at is that, at the end of the day, there's IMO so little to justify a 4.5 that at best you'd be getting a 4.1, and I question if that's really necessary for a whole new retroclone to be born out of.

I mean, about 2 pages of houserules would probably address everything you just mentioned.

Immortal Sun · May 25, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Depends if you can also get players. Something in print helps. 4E could prolly do with some streamlining, overhauled skill system etc.

My biggest limitation on getting players is the awful stigma 4E has been saddled with. There's nothing wrong with the system, it's just really different and grogs hate it. I've probably met more people who hate it and have never played, than people who have played and come away unhappy; and even among the latter, much like 5E, it's a matter of expectations. 5E isn't other editions. 4E is just moreso not other editions. Going into either expecting them to be something they're not is a recipe for being unhappy.

Some corner-case RPG is not going to be "in print" in the same context as say, 5E. No, PDFs aren't the same, but for $8 you can pick up the PHB from DriveThruRPG, or you can get it for about $10 (after shipping) on ebay. Some hypothetical 4E retroclone is not going to be stocked on the shelves of your FLGS.

Zardnaar · May 25, 2019

Immortal Sun said:
My biggest limitation on getting players is the awful stigma 4E has been saddled with. There's nothing wrong with the system, it's just really different and grogs hate it. I've probably met more people who hate it and have never played, than people who have played and come away unhappy; and even among the latter, much like 5E, it's a matter of expectations. 5E isn't other editions. 4E is just moreso not other editions. Going into either expecting them to be something they're not is a recipe for being unhappy.

Some corner-case RPG is not going to be "in print" in the same context as say, 5E. No, PDFs aren't the same, but for $8 you can pick up the PHB from DriveThruRPG, or you can get it for about $10 (after shipping) on ebay. Some hypothetical 4E retroclone is not going to be stocked on the shelves of your FLGS.

It's more for IRL. For example if I want to play Castles and Crusades I have 3 or 4 phb and a printout of the PDFs plus hard covers of the other books. Each player can have one, they have decent production values.
Generally recruit 3E and 5E players, I can explain the guts of the rules in about 5 minutes.

Presenting stuff in ways modern players can understand is key. I don't use THAC0 for example in 2E AD&D.

With a clone you could cut all the gold and meh options say black or lower in guides and have some preconstructed characters as default examples.

Giltonio_Santos · May 26, 2019

Zardnaar said:
In 5E attack granting is a short rest ability, in 3E it was a level 1 or 2 spell.

My point is that battle masters can effectively do it at will. From my experience, most 5e fights will last 2-3 rounds, and characters will take a short rest after fighting 2-3 combats. If granting an additional sneak attack to a rogue every round was game-breaking, it would be breaking games by now. I don't think that's the case.

Zardnaar · May 26, 2019

Giltonio_Santos said:
My point is that battle masters can effectively do it at will. From my experience, most 5e fights will last 2-3 rounds, and characters will take a short rest after fighting 2-3 combats. If granting an additional sneak attack to a rogue every round was game-breaking, it would be breaking games by now. I don't think that's the case.

It's not at will though. A fighter giving up an attack is a lot different than a support class.
You also need the Battlemaster Fighter plus Rogue plus the right maneoveur chosen to enable it.

Say you had a cleric with at will attack granting. Yes I know a warlord isn't a cleric but I would assume it would have some nice abilities instead of spells.

When I made a warlord concept for 5E I used the BM dice as a reference as I have seen it in action with rogues. My warlord could do it more than the BM fighter.

It was a first level spell in 3E, at will in 4E but 4E basic attacks were weaker along with 4E attacks in general. Until they made the splat support for basic attacks.

dave2008 · May 26, 2019

EzekielRaiden said:
Address presentation issues (e.g. call powers Talents or Abilities or *something* that won't put players' backs up).

However, 4e actually already did that. The "powers" where actually called spells (arcane), prayers (divine), and exploits (martial)

Tony Vargas · May 26, 2019

Giltonio_Santos said:
My point is that battle masters can effectively do it at will. From my experience, most 5e fights will last 2-3 rounds, and characters will take a short rest after fighting 2-3 combats. If granting an additional sneak attack to a rogue every round was game-breaking, it would be breaking games by now. I don't think that's the case.

Traditional D&D design principles put at least some value on the 14,400 uses of an at-will action you could hypothetically squeeze into a really busy 24hr day.

5e, I think, is closer to your understanding of the value of an at will than that - or cantrip designs would be different - but Zard and quite a few others are skeptical of at will cantrips as presented, and leary of any other at-will additions.

Add the 4e poster boy status of the Warlord and it's an extra-tough sell.

Zardnaar · May 26, 2019

Cantrips are fine they deal less damage than say attacks. The few classes that get ability score to damage on cantrips get it at higher level or give up spellcasting power to do it. Eg Warlock.

A Warlord with 4E type powers for example should be competitive over say a cleric. It doesn't have to use magic for example.

Clerics don't deal that much damage with their weapons they are a primary spellcaster. A Warords damage would be similar to the highest damage of the best member of the party.

The Battlemaster version is more for versatility. A strength based fighter sucks for damage so giving an attack to an archer makes sense.

A Warlord can't really deal fighter level damage, and you have that with the Battlemaster. The BM is one third Warlord.

However if you make full warlord that can grant attacks you're not giving up that much combat ability. A Rogue at level 11 deals similar damage to a fighter.

If a Warlord can grant at will attacks your now dealing fighter level damage via rogue but still are 100% Warlord.

If you cloned 4E using 5E rules you could rewrite the Rogue class to be more in line with it's 4E incarnation.

In 4E terms it's striker level damage on a leader class. That's the problem.