5E How To Clone 4E Using 5E Rules - Page 6
Page 6 of 33 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 321
  1. #51
    Member
    The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)



    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    3,188
    I would truncate and streamline the 4E gameplay, learning a lot (ironically enough) from the innovations of the OSR and PbtA movements. Give a lot of options for every class but not an overwhelming amount that slows down play or leads to decision paralysis (a commonly cited problem with 4E). Maybe consider rewriting classes as PbtA-style playbooks so (nearly) everything a player needs is already on the character sheet. Maybe even lower the level cap from 30 to 10-15 (i.e., five levels per tier) and flatten the math. Expand the exploration and social aspects, moving them a bit more forefront than is generally assumed that 4E has.

  2. #52
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Jose/Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    15,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Retreater View Post
    I wouldn't expect you would need WotC's blessing to release your own originally designed system.
    You don't, but, unless your opus is the best RPG designed to date at the moment it's released, it will vanish into a void of abject indifference, along with all the money you invested in self-publishing it.

    ( If it actually is the best RPG designed to date at the moment it's released, it will win some obscure awards for "best new game of the year" before being forgotten.)

  3. #53
    Member
    Lama (Lvl 13)



    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Owensboro, KY
    Posts
    734
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Vargas View Post
    You don't, but, unless your opus is the best RPG designed to date at the moment it's released, it will vanish into a void of abject indifference, along with all the money you invested in self-publishing it.

    ( If it actually is the best RPG designed to date at the moment it's released, it will win some obscure awards for "best new game of the year" before being forgotten.)
    It's likely going to be forgotten in any case. You might as well do what you love.

  4. #54
    Immortal Sun
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zardnaar View Post
    2. A lot of 4E players don't want to change that much.
    Aside from making combats go a little faster, which 4E solved itsself later on, I really think this is spot-on about how I feel about 4E. I don't want a "similar but different" system, I think 4E is good right where it is. It's already D&D but different and I've got no problems with that.

    There's a lot of posts between this one and yours that are just stand out examples of what I don't want. I'm not looking for a grindy, dungeon-crawley game. I'm not looking for a combat-centric system (D&D is already combat-centric, but contextually even moreso within that).

    I'm looking for a game that: balances martial and casters.
    A game that provides roughly equal progression tracks (IE: no quadratic vs linear power development).
    A game that clearly delineates tiers of play.
    A game that allows me to design monsters to be "special" without needing to bloat their construction with existing feats or classes.
    A game that aims for a more "heroic adventure" (or derogatorily called wuxia) type of play.
    A game that eliminates vancian magic.

    4E does all of that. What need have I for a 4E retroclone, except to potentially inject back in the elements that were removed from its predecessor, that I have no interest in seeing in 4E?
    XP jmartkdr, Jacob Lewis, Aldarc, Xeviat gave XP for this post

  5. #55
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Jose/Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    15,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Giltonio_Santos View Post
    Why do you think so? With 4-6 superiority dice renewable with a short rest, Battle Masters can effectively grant attacks to their allies at will, while still getting to attack, if they're 5th level or higher. Looking at the 4e version of Commander's Strike, I can't see what's in it that would make a direct translation more complicated.
    The issue with the 4e version was the wording, which was eventually cleaned up.

    A 5e translation (at will, give up /action/ to grant /attack/) struggles to be worthwhile, in the hands of the Tanky fighter, because it's virtually always better to just attack, himself.

  6. #56
    Member
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    thanson02's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Sun View Post
    Aside from making combats go a little faster, which 4E solved itsself later on, I really think this is spot-on about how I feel about 4E. I don't want a "similar but different" system, I think 4E is good right where it is. It's already D&D but different and I've got no problems with that.

    There's a lot of posts between this one and yours that are just stand out examples of what I don't want. I'm not looking for a grindy, dungeon-crawley game. I'm not looking for a combat-centric system (D&D is already combat-centric, but contextually even moreso within that).

    I'm looking for a game that: balances martial and casters.
    A game that provides roughly equal progression tracks (IE: no quadratic vs linear power development).
    A game that clearly delineates tiers of play.
    A game that allows me to design monsters to be "special" without needing to bloat their construction with existing feats or classes.
    A game that aims for a more "heroic adventure" (or derogatorily called wuxia) type of play.
    A game that eliminates vancian magic.

    4E does all of that. What need have I for a 4E retroclone, except to potentially inject back in the elements that were removed from its predecessor, that I have no interest in seeing in 4E?
    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.

    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.

    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.

    There's some other minor stuff, but these would be the big things that I would be excited about with a 4.5
    XP Fanaelialae, Mistwell gave XP for this post

  7. #57
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Jose/Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    15,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Sun View Post
    4E does all of that. What need have I for a 4E retroclone, except to potentially inject back in the elements that were removed from its predecessor, that I have no interest in seeing in 4E?
    It'd be a platform to produce modules and supplements compatible with 4e, and to continue to add to and develop it in the directions it was originally heading (before all the hadwringing and backsliding).
    Last edited by Tony Vargas; Saturday, 25th May, 2019 at 09:33 PM.
    XP Jacob Lewis, Aldarc, Garthanos gave XP for this post

  8. #58
    Member
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrosanct View Post
    I think Morrus has the right of it. A lot of people accuse 4e of focusing solely on the combat encounter, spending 95% of your time in tactical combat. Plenty of people certainly want that. Well, play up to that assumption. Build adventures as more of combat encounters. And as another suggested, tie them together. Kind of like how a lot of turn based strategy computer games did back in the day. I think there is definitely room in the D&D world to have a tactical grid based version where combat is the large majority and focus of the design, as opposed to how it is now, with three equal pillars.
    Whereas I would move in the diametrically opposite direction: 4e has the encounter math structure done, amazingly, almost surely better than I could mock up with limited playtesting resources. Why reinvent the wheel? Preserve "MM3 on a business card" as much as possible because that's work I don't have to do and which is completely outside copyright.

    Instead, address the places it fell down. Make robust item-creation tools that give a solid way to know how powerful an item is supposed to be, so DMs can give out their powerful relics if they want to but not in such a way that it hides the power boost. Design robust social and exploration challenge rules. Address the tension between non-combat and combat resources (e.g. feats and utility powers being pulled two different ways). Address presentation issues (e.g. call powers Talents or Abilities or *something* that won't put players' backs up). Create "quick skirmish" rules to handle smaller, lighter combats, alongside "mass combat" rules to handle vast army fights--both directions where 4e's great combats falter.

    Keep the core of what made 4e great, because that's easy to copy and hard to rebuild. Then make the stuff 4e lacked, or address the places 4e fell short. Much less work for a much more valuable product, AFAIC.
    XP Aldarc, Xeviat gave XP for this post

  9. #59
    Member
    A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)



    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Sun View Post
    Aside from making combats go a little faster, which 4E solved itsself later on, I really think this is spot-on about how I feel about 4E. I don't want a "similar but different" system, I think 4E is good right where it is. It's already D&D but different and I've got no problems with that.

    There's a lot of posts between this one and yours that are just stand out examples of what I don't want. I'm not looking for a grindy, dungeon-crawley game. I'm not looking for a combat-centric system (D&D is already combat-centric, but contextually even moreso within that).

    I'm looking for a game that: balances martial and casters.
    A game that provides roughly equal progression tracks (IE: no quadratic vs linear power development).
    A game that clearly delineates tiers of play.
    A game that allows me to design monsters to be "special" without needing to bloat their construction with existing feats or classes.
    A game that aims for a more "heroic adventure" (or derogatorily called wuxia) type of play.
    A game that eliminates vancian magic.

    4E does all of that. What need have I for a 4E retroclone, except to potentially inject back in the elements that were removed from its predecessor, that I have no interest in seeing in 4E?
    Depends if you can also get players. Something in print helps. 4E could prolly do with some streamlining, overhauled skill system etc.

  10. #60
    Member
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)



    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    177
    Personally I've started going through my 4E books for inspiration on how to make higher CR monsters more potent, seeing as my 16th-level party is chewing through CR 20+ monsters like they're nothing.

    As for how to make the game more like 4E on the player side, a number of options from 4E are already present in 5E in some form. For example, the racial powers that all 4E characters got at 1st-level are feats in Xanathar's, the Sentinel feat replicates the feel of the Defender role, and Manuevers bring a little bit of the 4E martial feel. One could just say that all PCs get their racial feat for free, and all characters who gain a fighting style get the Martial Adept feat (including the Battle Master Fighter).

Similar Threads

  1. Rules light 3.x non retro-clone d20? (Forked Thread: D&D has a lot of rules!)
    By Zelligars Apprentice in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, 7th February, 2009, 09:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •