D&D 4E How To Clone 4E Using 5E Rules

Aldarc said:

The Warlock would probably provide one of the best "templates" for developing a 4e approach to 5e classes. It has a Build-Your-Own-Class feel to it, with a nice mix of 1/day, at-will, and other circumstantial powers.

Click to expand...

Yep I posted a 5E warlord a while ago on the forums using warlock as a template.

Zardnaar said:

Yep I posted a 5E warlord a while ago on the forums using warlock as a template.

Click to expand...

I think that a fab four conversion would probably be needed first to sell people on this template: i.e., cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard.

Aldarc said:

I think that a fab four conversion would probably be needed first to sell people on this template: i.e., cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard.

Click to expand...

I don't think this would be too hard. If the level 20 endpoint is the same as the Warlock (4 encounter, 4 daily spells, plus class utilities from invocations), these could map to 2nd through 9th level spells. This could give 4E structural balance while maintaining legacy things from 3E/5E that "feel" more like D&D.

Ive been working off and on on a similar idea. I want to revamp the player side of 4E but keep the DM and Monster side. I think 4E's failing was entirely in presentation, as the 4E haters in my gaming group loved the 4E things that were translated to 5E (short rest, at-will cantrips, etc).

dave2008 said:

I did notice a difference in the type of play it seemed to create between my new players and my veterans. The new group played 4e for 5 years or so, but I could never get them into the creative play that my veterans found so easy. I believe some of the issue, but definitely not all, was the rules for everything nature of the game.

Click to expand...

Ironically, there were even rules for improvising actions!

I'd spin it just a tad and say that the difference wasn't 'rules for everything' - 1e AD&D was notorious, in it's day, for that, too. It was more functional, clear rules, accessible to the player, that covered enough of what the player might want to do, and enough to model the character in an enjoyable way. Not everything (no blacksmithing! argh!), just enough that you aren't constantly going off the reservation in search of effectiveness and/or realization of concept.
Back in the day, we did a /lot/ of that (uphill, in the snow, both ways - and we were thankful!)

Xeviat said:

Ive been working off and on on a similar idea. I want to revamp the player side of 4E but keep the DM and Monster side. I think 4E's failing was entirely in presentation, as the 4E haters in my gaming group loved the 4E things that were translated to 5E (short rest, at-will cantrips, etc).

Click to expand...

It may have to do with what was translated, too. At-will /cantrips/, but not the corresponding martial dailies, for instance.

My conclusion, based on deep discussions with 4e's detractors, delving into what it would take to "fix" 4e, is that the problem wasn't 4e, timing, presentation, slow this or dissociative that - it was balance. Imbalance - favoring traditional/tier-1 casters - was the only acceptable fix. Fault could always be found with any solution that addressed the voiced complaints, but didn't also return that status quo.

5e has kept many of the things that were criticized, but still returned to the traditional class dynamics. (More or less, the Bard sure made out pretty well for itself.) But it's striking how the toys 4e gave casters: ease of casting in melee (via Close attacks), at-will spells, short-rest recharge spells, rituals that don't use up daily spells (at a wealth cost), increased hps, etc... Were all not only retained, but sometimes expanded or further enhanced: rituals no longer always cost wealth, the wizard kept his greater hps, casting in melee of any kind doesn't draw an attack (not just close), at-will spells scale more dramatically with level and you learn more of them. Conversely, the new toys given martial characters (and whole a martial class), were usually either cut completely, or greatly reduced in scope & effectiveness.

I'm easily envisioning a class structure where the Fighter could be built very similarly to the 5E fighter.

*Class ability that determines role (mark, or even a striker, leader, or controller ability; more later)
*Encounter "Action Surge" like the fighter has now.
*A large number of at-wills, possibly tied with weapon groups to limit how many can be used at the same time and encouraging the fighter to be a weapon master.
*"Daily" slots determined by subclass. The Eldritch Knight would have spells here, and the ability to use them as minor actions alongside at-wills to help them Gish; a simple fighter could have static bonuses that balance against dailies in a 5 encounter day, and a complex fighter could have martial exploits.
*Class based Utilities; I would tie these to skills because that feels right for non-magical stuff.

Heck, the 5E fighter looks just like this, it is just presented differently from the 4E fighter.

I very much think 4E could be condensed into a 1 to 20 level system. That might require rebuilding some Epic tier monsters to Paragon tier, or just open the opportunity for epic rules beyond what 5E has.

3 tiers lvl 1-7, 8-14. 15-20.

*Deleted by user*

Most people don't play high levels anyway so level 21-30 is more work for no gain. Make it smaller you might actually make something (see Star Citizen).

I'm using the 5E engine in my personal toy, its more 3.X and OSR based than 5E. If you actually want to play it you need new players, guess where the prime number of recruits are and what they're playing.

You might want toi use AEDU, micro feats, or ye olde grittiness all of which 5E lacks.

Tony Vargas said:

Ironically, there were even rules for improvising actions!

I'd spin it just a tad and say that the difference wasn't 'rules for everything' - 1e AD&D was notorious, in it's day, for that, too - it was functional, clear rules, accessible to the player, that covered enough of what the player might want to do, and enough to model the character in an enjoyable way.

Click to expand...

True. 1e was such a cluster that, I've come to realize, we ignored or where ignorant of large portions of the game.

Advice if you're serious about this focus on cloning the playstyle and not the exact 4E interpretation of it. When I play C&C for example I'm not pretending to play 1E. It looks like 3E plays like 1E is a way to describe it I suppose.