Would it make sense to create an alternative D&D 4e ruleset, designed to be compatible with 4e monsters and adventures and based on OGL?
I think it would be necessary to divide the hit-points of monsters by half and give some hit points to minions, based on level.
It would be possible to create rules less reliant on exact positioning, and without the most important faults of 4e, such as dailly powers, all classes build according to the same system etc.
Alternative D&D 4e?
Moderator: Moderators
Alternative D&D 4e?
"Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat."
There is no OGL for 4e. There is the GSL but that is still being revised. Also the GSL as it is now is a titanic piece of shit.
Now what you suggest isn't that bad of an idea. It could totally possible and making sure there is some actual variety in the game.
Now what you suggest isn't that bad of an idea. It could totally possible and making sure there is some actual variety in the game.
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
]I want him to tongue-punch my box.
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
One of the most basic problems with 4th Edition is both its extreme role protection and its actual inability to differentiate these rolls.
As far as I can tell, the only role right now which is completely mandatory are leaders and that's only because they're the only classes that can reliably activate healing surges.
But the fact that right now a party of a tactical warlord and four fighters or a laser cleric and four wizards/ranger archers right now is better than anything points to the utter fail of the 4E role system.
Coming a close second is multiclassing. Right now multiclassing in 4E is completely unworkable and will never be transferrable. One of the issues are that classes need non-transferrable toys. Another one of the issues is the dissymmetry of the stats; for example, STR is a much more valuable multiclassing stat than CON. INT will never be as important as WIS.
But the biggest problem? The classes were inherently designed not to be equal to each other. Wand wizards' only real class feature is the ability to once per encounter add +DEX to an attack roll. Paladins get lay on hands, divine challenge, and channel divinity.
As far as I can tell, the only role right now which is completely mandatory are leaders and that's only because they're the only classes that can reliably activate healing surges.
But the fact that right now a party of a tactical warlord and four fighters or a laser cleric and four wizards/ranger archers right now is better than anything points to the utter fail of the 4E role system.
Coming a close second is multiclassing. Right now multiclassing in 4E is completely unworkable and will never be transferrable. One of the issues are that classes need non-transferrable toys. Another one of the issues is the dissymmetry of the stats; for example, STR is a much more valuable multiclassing stat than CON. INT will never be as important as WIS.
But the biggest problem? The classes were inherently designed not to be equal to each other. Wand wizards' only real class feature is the ability to once per encounter add +DEX to an attack roll. Paladins get lay on hands, divine challenge, and channel divinity.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
I speak about using OGL for D&D 3.5 to design a game different from 4e, but compatible to 4e monsters and adventures. The rules would be somewhat different. It would also have quite different classes with different powers - for copyright reason, and also because 4e powers are boring.
"Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat."
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
-
Ganbare Gincun
- Duke
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:42 am
So 3.5 and its iterations are pretty much your only options at this point, then, eh? Here's a somewhat related question: did Monte Cook contribute anything truly meaningful with Arcana Evolved and the Book Of Experimental Might, or was it more "screwing around with rules for the sake of screwing around with them"?FrankTrollman wrote:The thing is, 4e monsters are boring too. There's nothing to salvage. There's no rhyme or reason to anything that a grimlock is or does.
10 bucks says he pulled a Paizil. (change for the sake of change)Ganbare Gincun wrote:So 3.5 and its iterations are pretty much your only options at this point, then, eh? Here's a somewhat related question: did Monte Cook contribute anything truly meaningful with Arcana Evolved and the Book Of Experimental Might, or was it more "screwing around with rules for the sake of screwing around with them"?FrankTrollman wrote:The thing is, 4e monsters are boring too. There's nothing to salvage. There's no rhyme or reason to anything that a grimlock is or does.
I have no idea about experimental might, but I very much like Arcana Evolved.
It doesn't get everything perfect, the class still have imbalance, but it's a huge improvement over 3.x.
The biggest change is spell casting. It's more flexible, yet he removed some of the problem spells. Every spell caster has access to healing spells (and if they take the right feats they can get almost any spell). For example, Disintegrate isn't available unless you use a feat to get it. Feats actually are effective for the most part too, so it is a sacrifice to use one. It's better than 3.x spellcasting IMO.
The melee classes all got a buff. The Warmain is like the fighter only flat out better. d12 HD, he get's feats every 4 levels and on the other feat levels he gains an ability far stronger than a feat. For example on level 8 he gains an auto crit once per day.
The flavor is nice (I like it), but it's fairly easy to ditch. It's built into the system, but not in your face.
The only things to keep in mind is that the rogue fits in perfectly (in fact his niche isn't replaced), and I personally think the Barbarian does as well. This really isn't a problem since the rogue is one of the few classes in 3.x that was done really well from the get go.
It doesn't get everything perfect, the class still have imbalance, but it's a huge improvement over 3.x.
The biggest change is spell casting. It's more flexible, yet he removed some of the problem spells. Every spell caster has access to healing spells (and if they take the right feats they can get almost any spell). For example, Disintegrate isn't available unless you use a feat to get it. Feats actually are effective for the most part too, so it is a sacrifice to use one. It's better than 3.x spellcasting IMO.
The melee classes all got a buff. The Warmain is like the fighter only flat out better. d12 HD, he get's feats every 4 levels and on the other feat levels he gains an ability far stronger than a feat. For example on level 8 he gains an auto crit once per day.
The flavor is nice (I like it), but it's fairly easy to ditch. It's built into the system, but not in your face.
The only things to keep in mind is that the rogue fits in perfectly (in fact his niche isn't replaced), and I personally think the Barbarian does as well. This really isn't a problem since the rogue is one of the few classes in 3.x that was done really well from the get go.