free 4E?

[Voadam]

Find me "shift", "pull", "push" and "slide" in sufficient OGC that I can say "Success: weapon damage and slide 2" without falling back on "... and you may move the target up to 10 feet in any direction. Such movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity". (That would be "Hit: 1[W] and slide 2" in WotC terms.)

You mean better terminology for the awesome blow feat without the -4 to hit and reflex save?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#awesomeBlow

I'm not familiar enough with shift and to say whether it is equivalent to a five foot step.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Find me "shift", "pull", "push" and "slide" in sufficient OGC that I can say "Success: weapon damage and slide 2" without falling back on "... and you may move the target up to 10 feet in any direction. Such movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity". (That would be "Hit: 1[W] and slide 2" in WotC terms.)

heres a question, why cant you use shift, pull, push and slide? does wizards own something about these words or concepts that would disallow one to be put in a ogl?

the concepts are so basic and fundamental. I think its too vanilla to stake any legal claim to.

Now if was called runicas shifting step of glory... than i think you have a case.

i mean, correct if i'm wrong. its like trying to own the copyright to water, in my opinion.

if i were to re due the names though i guess i could use.

shift=advancing step
push=knock back

i cant seem to come up with others though.

 

[jmucchiello]

Maybe you can. Maybe you'll win in court. Maybe you won't. The whole point of finding pre-existing OGC sources for 4e concepts is to have a defense in court: "See, I was referring to "push" from the Book of Sliding Minis Around On a Table where "push" was declared open content in 2005."

If you are just going to use push, pull, slide, minor action, implement, etc without OGC sources, then why bother with the OGL at all at the point.

Case in point: minor action. It is identical to a 3e swift action. But in your "4e" product can you refer to it as a minor action safely or should you use the more confusing safe terminology: swift action. Only a judge can answer that and only in the context of a specific legal action.

 

[Treebore]

Copyright does not give WOTC the degree of control of the word "push" as you indicate. Far less, actually.

However I do agree that the differences would still be enough that many consumers would not want to use it because it would be too much effort to figure out how it relates.

 

[Angellis_ater]

Joe, see this as an interesting mental challenge, you are already finding the problem areas - why not see if you can find solutions for them?

Oh, and if there is a mechanic we can refer to, we could also rename it. So a five-foot step can become a Shift, if need be, since we are backed by the MECHANISM of it. Push/Pull are another thing, however, and we do need to find mechanical analogues to them.

 

[kcmopd1913]

Push/Pull are another thing, however, and we do need to find mechanical analogues to them.

Push = Bull Rush
Pull = Drag

All are the in 3.5 SRD.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

As far as providing an OGC copy of 4E, won't you run into the same issues that arise when porting software?

My understanding is that, for software, "contamination" is a big problem, and the solution is to separate the specification team from the implementation team. Basically, anyone writing the new rules could not have read the 4E rules in the last 6mo - 1yr. Otherwise, it is hard to make a defense that your new expression does not derive from the source material.

 

[kcmopd1913]

Hi,

As far as providing an OGC copy of 4E, won't you run into the same issues that arise when porting software?

My understanding is that, for software, "contamination" is a big problem, and the solution is to separate the specification team from the implementation team. Basically, anyone writing the new rules could not have read the 4E rules in the last 6mo - 1yr. Otherwise, it is hard to make a defense that your new expression does not derive from the source material.

Not really. Most of 4e was done using the UA book and thats all pretty much OGC minus a few bloodlines in that book. The skills system, and the defense system off the top of my head is OGC.

 

[tomBitonti]

Not really. Most of 4e was done using the UA book and thats all pretty much OGC minus a few bloodlines in that book. The skills system, and the defense system off the top of my head is OGC.

Which is to say, much of 4E is itself derivative material?

How does the 4E content that is similar to the UA content not fall under the OGC terms?

Edit: Answering for myself: Because they have a new expression of the ideas.

That brings up aother questions: Are there any sections of the 4E content that are insufficiently distinct expressions to avoid entanglements with the OGC license? (Does this even matter? Does WoTC have an automatic out written into the licenses?)

On the other hand, if the 4E content is truly a new expression, that seems to run back into the contamination issue. An OGC 4E would have to be very careful in using 4any 4E expressions.

 

[pemerton]

The rule that material that is derivative of OGC - let's call that material M - is itself OGC only applies if M is itself published under the OGL.

WoTC does not need to use the OGL to publish material that is derivative of its own earlier OGC, and has not used the OGL to publish 4e.

Therefore, 4e is not OGC even if it is derivative of some of WoTC's OGC.