D&D 4.5E (Not Essentials)

[herrozerro]

Setting aside the differences in classes. Essentials basically destroyed most of what 4E was about. Essentials introduced the idea that every challenge scaled with character level. Before Essentials challenges had a set DC and you only had a single chart telling you what DC would possibly challenge a character of a specific level. So you knew that a stuck wooden door was a challenge for 1st and an steel reinforced door was a challenge for a level 10 character. Which meant that you could put stuck wooden doors in level 10 dungeons, but if you wanted to challenge your characters you would throw in a steel reinforced door at some point.

Essentials took the other way out and said all doors are DC X relative to the characters level. Most of the complaints people leveled at 4E that weren't true were codified into Essentials. I could handle it if Essentials was just the class variability, but not the rules changes that destroyed the game and made a mockery of what 4E was about...

Unless the DM essentials book was vastly different than the rules compendium (I never looked at that one), don't take this the wrong way but it would seem that you may have never actually read the books, just parroted what everyone else says about it.

RC p126
The skill entries in this chapter give sample DCs for common uses of the skills. Some DCs are fixed, whereas others scale with level. A fixed DC represents a task that gets easier as an adventurer gais levels. By the time an adventurer reaches the epic tier, certain tasks become trivial. In contrasta DC that scales with level represents a task that remains at least a little challenging throughout an adventurer's career.

Hop on over to p175

DC table to force open doors, wooden door at 13, adamantine portcullis at 35. DC Table to break objects, all static.

Going on to p177

Object properties, Defenses, HP and examples.

So what are the issues with essentials again? Granted one I can think of is the removal of rituals, but only be omission, there is no actual invalidation of them.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm hoping we can solve this by coming up with an equation for how many hit points a point of defense is worth and vice versa so being able to hit a high defense monster of your level might kill it in 1 hit, but getting that hit will be difficult. Ideally instead of all monsters of a level having the same defenses and hit points which only vary slightly by role, you would be able to make high and low defense and high and low hit point monsters for a wider variety. Which is why I say 4.5E I mean to improve on the 4E design where possible...

Sounds like a valuable idea. Sort of a related idea I had considered an option where one could spend hit points in a last ditch defense to turn a "hit" into a miss...That way instead of this kind of thing being static it could also have a dynamic to it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm hoping we can solve this by coming up with an equation for how many hit points a point of defense is worth and vice versa so being able to hit a high defense monster of your level might kill it in 1 hit, but getting that hit will be difficult. Ideally instead of all monsters of a level having the same defenses and hit points which only vary slightly by role, you would be able to make high and low defense and high and low hit point monsters for a wider variety. Which is why I say 4.5E I mean to improve on the 4E design where possible...

There is no linear relationship. Not only is the relationship non-linear but the curve is based on the attack bonus of the monster's current opponent, so there isn't even a single formula for a given monster. It depends on the level of the characters swinging at it. It isn't literally impossible to devise this kind of thing, but there would be several objections to it. It would be quite complex (at least requiring 2 chart lookups) and it would mean that a given monster would have a different AC/NADs and hit points depending on who was fighting it.

IMHO the better way to deal with this issue is to have very strong tactical bonuses. So for instance when something is attacked using surprise there are massive defense penalties, and characters have fewer but more potent limited-use powers. This would allow a surprise 'alpha strike' on a big opponent to be launched (with some clever prep, this part the DM has to manage). This would bring back a flavor more like AD&D where the really tough opponents like dragons had to be ganked quickly and striking first was a huge advantage (flanking and having higher ground might also give significantly greater advantage than in 4e).

 

[Lokiare]

I appreciate the spirit, but in addition to @sabrinathecat 's observation that there are differences of opinion on just what constitutes "fixed" or "problem", there is the issue of legality.

As far as I udnerstand it, the GSL only applies if you sign on to it. Without the protection (and restriction) of the GSL, the closer you try to get to 4e the shakier ground you are on. A game like 13th Age is able to use many 4e ideas but not be in legal trouble because they changed so much; there are definitely tastes of 4e in it, but it is (as I understand it) a very different, looser, rules-lite game.

Generally I avoid work that feels like recreating the wheel, and I'm more focused on making awesome adventures than on rules tinkering. That said, if a Creative Commons project inspired by 4e got off the ground I'd be excited to help it grow.

The problem is we want to use as many D&D terms as we can so we would need to OGL the project. Though anything not under the OGL could be released under some kind of CCBY or other open license.

There is no linear relationship. Not only is the relationship non-linear but the curve is based on the attack bonus of the monster's current opponent, so there isn't even a single formula for a given monster. It depends on the level of the characters swinging at it. It isn't literally impossible to devise this kind of thing, but there would be several objections to it. It would be quite complex (at least requiring 2 chart lookups) and it would mean that a given monster would have a different AC/NADs and hit points depending on who was fighting it.

IMHO the better way to deal with this issue is to have very strong tactical bonuses. So for instance when something is attacked using surprise there are massive defense penalties, and characters have fewer but more potent limited-use powers. This would allow a surprise 'alpha strike' on a big opponent to be launched (with some clever prep, this part the DM has to manage). This would bring back a flavor more like AD&D where the really tough opponents like dragons had to be ganked quickly and striking first was a huge advantage (flanking and having higher ground might also give significantly greater advantage than in 4e).

Yeah, when my group faced a dragon we would always risk spells like Haste, Prayer, protection from <element> and even the dreaded Polymorph and charge in and try to beat it to death before it used any of its magic or breath weapon attacks. Those were the days when it didn't just seem like the DM was out to get you, the DM really was out the get you...

 

[sabrinathecat]

One of the problems I've run into with 3rd party products is an inconsistency with terms. Monsters taken from the Monster Manual were copied (presumably with permission). Monsters created for the module were given similar terms, but notably different: Bruised instead of Bloodied; Holy Damage instead of Radiant; etc.
Instead of helpful, I found it annoying and distracting. Sure, I knew what they meant, but consistency would have been better.

 

[Sanglorian]

The problem is we want to use as many D&D terms as we can so we would need to OGL the project. Though anything not under the OGL could be released under some kind of CCBY or other open license.

Game terms are not, to the best of my knowledge, subject to copyright. I think the legal dangers of the project are if we are found to be copying the text of the game rather than its terminology. However, a compromise could be the wording that was used in Dark Dungeons:

Dark Dungeons uses several terms and names that are Copyright 2000-2003 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. These terms are used under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a, and are designated as Open Content by that license.
Other than those terms and names, all original text in Dark Dungeons is hereby placed in the Public Domain

People who are cautious can use the OGL, while people like myself can ignore it.

One of the problems I've run into with 3rd party products is an inconsistency with terms. Monsters taken from the Monster Manual were copied (presumably with permission). Monsters created for the module were given similar terms, but notably different: Bruised instead of Bloodied; Holy Damage instead of Radiant; etc.
Instead of helpful, I found it annoying and distracting. Sure, I knew what they meant, but consistency would have been better.

A few months ago I started a project, Orcus, to standardise terminology for 4e-compatible products so people could create supplements with consistent language and layout without using the GSL. I had to put it on the backburner, but the start of the idea is here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?701690-4E-Orcus-a-Micro-Clone-of-Fourth-Edition-D-amp-D&p=17165645

 

[Lokiare]

One of the problems I've run into with 3rd party products is an inconsistency with terms. Monsters taken from the Monster Manual were copied (presumably with permission). Monsters created for the module were given similar terms, but notably different: Bruised instead of Bloodied; Holy Damage instead of Radiant; etc.
Instead of helpful, I found it annoying and distracting. Sure, I knew what they meant, but consistency would have been better.

Yeah, the problem is that we can't legally use terms that originate in 4E and we can't use terms in 3.5E in a way that is not 3.5E but copy 4E terminology. So this doesn't work. I plan on putting a lot of time and effort into this and possibly even creating a character builder and maybe some kind of 3d virtual table top that will adjudicate the rules out if you want. So I want to do this as legally as possible so I don't have to have a huge legal battle with WotC/Hasborg

I wouldn't go public domain either. I'd do some kind of license that allows people to do what they want with it by adding powers, adding keywords, adding races, or whatever but not being able to alter the core rules of the game. So that there is a consistency to it. I'd also release the rules for free on a wiki, but sell campaign guides, adventure modules, and splat books. As well as allowing anyone that wants to also sell the same. Then we could have some kind of voting system set up so the public can vote on rules that get added to or subtracted from the game. Possibly with a 1$ buy in to vote which would then be used to pay overhead on the site and products and discourage spam voting. You would literally be voting with your dollars.


I'll look into the Orcus project to see if it changes things or just terminizes them. If it just terminizes them I could use it to quickly add in all the terms to the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Game terms are not, to the best of my knowledge, subject to copyright. I think the legal dangers of the project are if we are found to be copying the text of the game rather than its terminology. However, a compromise could be the wording that was used in Dark Dungeons:

Dark Dungeons uses several terms and names that are Copyright 2000-2003 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. These terms are used under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a, and are designated as Open Content by that license.
Other than those terms and names, all original text in Dark Dungeons is hereby placed in the Public Domain

People who are cautious can use the OGL, while people like myself can ignore it.




A few months ago I started a project, Orcus, to standardise terminology for 4e-compatible products so people could create supplements with consistent language and layout without using the GSL. I had to put it on the backburner, but the start of the idea is here: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?701690-4E-Orcus-a-Micro-Clone-of-Fourth-Edition-D-amp-D&p=17165645

I have to agree that TERMINOLOGY cannot be copyrighted, you can only copyright creative works, not words. This does get to a pretty fine degree of hair-splitting though, as WotC claims Beholder for instance. They can do this in the sense of the beholder as a creative work, the name, characterization, images of the creature, etc as a whole. A term such as "healing surge" however is very unlikely to be held subject to copyright by itself. Since RULES are facts and thus also not subject to copyright, the mechanics of a healing surge couldn't be covered either, though the exact words describing that mechanic MIGHT be.

Obviously the common ploy, and the one used by 13a I would assume, is to simply license under the OGL and in a legalistic sense claim your game is a d20 derivative of 3e effectively.

The big problems with 4e would be flavor text and perhaps the more colorful power names. There are also potentially design patents, which might cover unique design elements like stat blocks, power blocks, and maybe a few other things.

Honestly though, none of this matters. Hasborg has limitless lawyer money. All they need is a credible threat, which they certainly can put on the table, and any project, commercial or not, by anyone else is over. AFAIK they have never objected to any other P&P game, even when it was fairly similar to one of their own, so it is far from a sure thing they'd bother you. It is possible though, and it would suck.

 

[pemerton]

IMHO the better way to deal with this issue is to have very strong tactical bonuses. So for instance when something is attacked using surprise there are massive defense penalties, and characters have fewer but more potent limited-use powers. This would allow a surprise 'alpha strike' on a big opponent to be launched (with some clever prep, this part the DM has to manage). This would bring back a flavor more like AD&D where the really tough opponents like dragons had to be ganked quickly and striking first was a huge advantage (flanking and having higher ground might also give significantly greater advantage than in 4e).

Good post.

I personally regard the non-gank aspects of 4e as a plus - I like the tactical consequences it has (sometimes described as "combat as sport"). But I think you're looking at the right places for changes to be made to achieve different sorts of dynamics.

(As a sidenote: the players in my 4e game are likely to be fighting Torog soon. He is 34th level, they will be 25th without expertise. I will be using an escalation die (adding to both attack and damage) to help smooth out the maths.)

 

[pemerton]

Game terms are not, to the best of my knowledge, subject to copyright.

A complexity with using the OGL is that, as part of your contractual obligations, you agree not to use certain WotC text and ideas that potentially go beyond what would be protected via copyright and trademark law alone.

There are also potentially design patent.

Do WotC have registered designs or patents for 4e elements?