Will there be a 4.75 a la Pathfinder?

[TrippyHippy]

13A is not 4e and misses about half the good points of 4e. It gets the evocative characters but misses both the balance and the tactical side.

As for there not being a big enough market, compared to what? I don't think there's a Paizo-sized market. I think that 13A is currently top of the hot RPGs on ENWorld and more popular than the OSR combined. Any non-WotC RPG company would love to have those numbers.

Possibly, but many of these 'alternative D&D’ releases have largely been while D&D has been in hiatus. How they’ll perform in the light of a new edition of D&D is a speculation, but a necessary consideration.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This uses a flawed assumption. That any Pathfinder-style approach for 4E would use the GSL rather than the OGL.

No way around it, really. Pathfinder essential /is/ 3.5 - it's completely compatible, you can walk into Pathfinder with 3.5 characters, and you'll just suck a little because it's been power-creeping for a few years.

You can't do that with regards to 4e under the OGL.

You can't copyright game mechanics. Which means that all you actually need is a 4Eish game that doesn't do anything to copy trade dress and is written under and using the OGL.

That's harder than it sounds, since key things like the AEDU progression, stat blocks, and power blocks arguably fall under 'trade dress.' And, where Pathfinder could re-print core classes whole cloth, 4e classes you'd have to dodge around extensively. The result is unlikely to be compatible. A compatible result would likely be subject to a legal battle - and Hasbro needn't have a strong case to intimidate a small 3pp out of publishing, indeed, it's likely no one will even try.

It's much safer to do what 13A did, and create just another d20 games with just a few elements that resemble 4e, but 0 compatibility.

So, while there will presumably still be some good d20 games being made for the foreseeable future, and a few of them may use a 4e innovation here or there, there will never be a 4e clone to outsell 5e the way Pathfinder did Essentials.

5e's perfectly safe in that regard. The lack of any prospect of ongoing 4e support will help convince 4e fans (who, afterall, included D&Ds cohort of early adopters, as well as fans of the system, itself) to migrate to 5e - and give 4e hold-outs nothing much to hold out for (or keep talking about).

5e still has to watch its back around 3.5 fans, of course. It's best bet is to just hope that they see 5e as WotC 'taking their side in the edition war' and embrace it as a symbol of victory, even if they don't particularly care for it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's harder than it sounds, since key things like the AEDU progression, stat blocks, and power blocks arguably fall under 'trade dress.'

Does this warlord look like 4E trade dress to you?

And, where Pathfinder could re-print core classes whole cloth, 4e classes you'd have to dodge around extensively. The result is unlikely to be compatible. A compatible result would likely be subject to a legal battle - and Hasbro needn't have a strong case to intimidate a small 3pp out of publishing, indeed, it's likely no one will even try.

You can't copyright game mechanics. Although WotC/Hasbro can intimidate.

So, while there will presumably still be some good d20 games being made for the foreseeable future, and a few of them may use a 4e innovation here or there, there will never be a 4e clone to outsell 5e the way Pathfinder did Essentials.

No. But you don't need to to make money beyond the dreams of most 3PPs

 

[Kinak]

I'm steadily working on my own retroclone - Trifold 4E. I've a core ruleset that fits on a double sided trifold - but for the Fantasy version (as opposed to the Super Sentai version and the Tag Team Pro Wrestling version) there's another trifold needed. I currently have two classes, so it's very much a WIP. The classes are the Fighter and the Innate Mage (in other words a magic user centred round having one trick). There is going to be a Vancian Mage class (with a few cantrips) - but it will be based on the oD&D wizard not the 3.X wizard. Your spells are powerful - but treasure.

Just wanted to say this is pretty slick. I really like the design limitation of sticking with the trifold.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Neonchameleon]

Just wanted to say this is pretty slick. I really like the design limitation of sticking with the trifold.

Thanks

 

[nightspaladin]

Does this warlord look like 4E trade dress to you?





You can't copyright game mechanics. Although WotC/Hasbro can intimidate.



No. But you don't need to to make money beyond the dreams of most 3PPs

Yes, the terms shift and advantage are not ogl. They aren't usable and are thus infringement. IMO

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes, the terms shift and advantage are not ogl. They aren't usable and are thus infringement. IMO

Oh, yeah, '5-foot step,' 'lose DEX bonus to AC.' Right.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, the terms shift and advantage are not ogl. They aren't usable and are thus infringement. IMO

I'm pretty sure that's not how Copyright works. First you can't copyright game mechanics. Second you don't copyright each individual section, you copyright the work. Third Advantage has a different meaning to in Next - which is a different game to 4E anyway. And as I'm writing the rules text from scratch and taking inspiration from a dozen different games I don't think there's an issue.

 

[GrumpyGamer]

I'm pretty sure that's not how Copyright works. First you can't copyright game mechanics. Second you don't copyright each individual section, you copyright the work. Third Advantage has a different meaning to in Next - which is a different game to 4E anyway. And as I'm writing the rules text from scratch and taking inspiration from a dozen different games I don't think there's an issue.

If there is an issue, it is where you use the same, non-generic terms. For example I would stay away from At-Will, Encounter, Daily. There is nothing wrong with using similar principles to produce a similar result (game mechanics).

Those are just my 2 cents and I am in no way an expert on copyright law. I would recommend, if your end goal is to make money on this, that you consult a lawyer before you release it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If there is an issue, it is where you use the same, non-generic terms. For example I would stay away from At-Will, Encounter, Daily. There is nothing wrong with using similar principles to produce a similar result (game mechanics).

Those are just my 2 cents and I am in no way an expert on copyright law. I would recommend, if your end goal is to make money on this, that you consult a lawyer before you release it.

No idea what my end goal is other than to not be reliant on DDI/Character Builder. And I'm currently using At Will/Scene/Episode. Simple swap, but meaningful and part of the very many ways I'm making this game mine and strongly inspired by 4E rather than something like C4.