Monday, December 1, 2014

Classic 4E from Necromancer Games

On February 28, 2009 the following post was made by Clark Peterson to the Necromancer Games forums:

"OK guys. I am getting ready to jump into 4E (and Pathfinder too, settle down). 

Here is my plan: I am going to create "Classic 4E": a set of alternate content for 4E to replicate the old school way of playing D&D. It will work in conjunction with the 4E PHB. 

It will contain the classic races--elf, dwarf, half-elf, halfling, human, gnome, etc. No dragonborn, no warforged. Now, that said, if you and your DM want to use that content from the PHB you can. 

It will contain the classic classes--fighter, ranger, paladin, rogue, cleric, druid, wizard, monk, as well as some 3E favorites such as the barbarian and bard. 

It will have some rules changes: 

--things will not be tied to the grid, they will be done in feet. 
--there will be no more hopping around the grid teleporting, but movement in combat will still be stressed 
--the old powers that have to do with things other than combat will make their return 
--spell memorization will return in a fun new way 
--powers will be more limited for the classes, but more useful. Not every class is a wizard 
--alignment returns (optionally) 
--buffing is not forbidden anymore. 4E took away buffing spells. I dont mind putting them back. 

I want to do this the way Paizo is doing Pathfinder. I want to develop it as a community. I will soon be opening a "4E Classic" forum with a thread for each class and race etc. We can post incremental updates of our rules compiled as a pdf as alpha and beta. The final version will be available as a pdf and perhaps in print as well since people love thier printed game books. 

But I want to develop this together. 

So what do you think? 

Clark" 

I read those words and my interest level was pretty high.  I had already decided to go with Pathfinder after buying the 4E PHB, DMG, and MM rule books.  I could tell that 4E was moving in a different direction than I was interested in at that time.  The goals of this project seemed more in line with what I was interested in from my D&D gaming.  I would continue to check in from time to time to see what kind of progress or suggestions had been made. 

Further down in the thread is a proposed Classic version of Smite Evil:

Smite Evil [Classic] Paladin Attack 1                                                                                                                                                         
Your weapon shines with holy radiance as you strike your evil foe.
At-Will • Divine, Radiant, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One Evil creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier radiant damage. If you marked the target you gain an additional bonus to the damage roll equal to your Wisdom modifier.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level. 

Even further down the thread is a proposed Classic version of Magic Missile:

Magic Missile [Classic] Level 1 Wizard Spell
A missile of magical energy flies unerringly to its target
Encounter  Arcane, Force, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 100 ft. (20) + 10 ft. (2)/3 levels
Target: One creature within range and in line of sight per missile
Attack: Automatically hits the target unless target has total cover or total concealment
Hit: 2d4 + Intelligence modifier force damage per missile
Increase damage to 3d4 + Intelligence modifier force damage per missile at 21st level.
You fire an additional missile at 6th, 12th, 18th and 24th level when you cast this spell. If you fire multiple missiles you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for resistances or roll damage.
Special: You can use this power one additional time per encounter at each multiple of 3 levels, i.e.: 2 times at 3rd level, 3 times at 6th level, 4 times at 9th level, and so on, though never more than once per round. [Note: this may be deleted if a spell point system is used, which it appears will be the case]

On page three of this same thread Elton Robb suggested the following changes to the Classic version of Magic Missile:

Magic Missile [Classic] Level 1 Wizard Spell
A missile of magical energy flies unerringly to its target
Encounter  Arcane, Force, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 100 ft. (20) + 10 ft. (2)/3 levels
Target: One creature within range and in line of sight per missile
Attack: Automatically hits the target unless target has total cover or total concealment
Hit: 2d4 + Intelligence modifier force damage per missile
Increase damage to 3d4 + Intelligence modifier force damage per missile at 21st level.
You fire an additional missile at 6th, 12th, 18th and 24th level when you cast this spell. If you fire multiple missiles you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for resistances or roll damage.
Special: You can use this power once a day.

Why the changes?

I feel that 4e borders on Superheroic. There's a good case for this, and Superheroism is too high an austerity level for classic play. Reducing it to once a day while maintaining it's machine gun effect makes it a special "main gun" type power (akin to the Wave Motion Gun in Leiji's classic Manga -- Starblazers). This will make it precious to the wizard, as the wizard won't be overpowering the fighter. It makes the magic more limited in this case.

Moving on to page 4 of that thread and there is even another proposed change - this time by phoenixfeather - to the Magic Missile:

Magic Missile [Classic] Level 1 Wizard Spell
A missile of magical energy flies unerringly to its target
At-Will  Arcane, Force, Implement
Standard Action  Ranged 100 ft. (20) + 10 ft. (2)/3 levels
Special: You can use this power a number of times per day equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1), but only once per round.
Target: One creature without total cover or total concealment within range and in line of sight per missile
Effect: 2d4 force damage per missile.
You fire an additional missile at 6th, 11th, 16th, 21st, and 26th level when you cast this spell. If you fire multiple missiles you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for resistances or roll damage.
Special: This power may not benefit from modifiers or abilities that affect damage rolls. 

I still find it all a fascinating read.  It has become even more interesting to me since I have found a co-worker friend of mine that is unloading all of his 4E books for a steeply discounted price.  I now have quite a collection but I still have not played rules as written or otherwise.  One of these days I am going to have to give it a test run.  

It seems that all discussion of Classic 4E has been dead for some time now.  Honestly, I do no think it was going to be an easy fix of whipping up a quick document of a few pages to use in conjunction with the 4E manuals.  I am pretty certain that it would have required another manual of several hundred pages to get it to work once you started assembling information on a Classic 4E version of races, classes, spells, powers, etc. 

It is a shame that this project just stopped and was never completed.  It was easy to see that there were people interested in seeing the results.  I know that Clark Peterson gave it up but does anybody know if a dedicated group of fans continued this work?  If so, does anybody know the secret handshake to qualify for receipt of this material.  Yes, I know about some of the proposed 4E clones games and I have information on them.  I am just curious about this particular project.   

12 comments:

  1. So much to say here. I will try to keep it brief:

    1. Why not play 5E?

    2. Clark Peterson is a judge in Idaho. There have been complaints filed about him because of his gaming. I am sure you can find the stories online.

    3. 4E didn't become very big, so that is probably one of the reasons why this was abandoned. Pathfinder did not take off because of quality. It took off because WotC made 4E. Thus, people move to Pathfinder. The only way for their project to have worked would have been when 5E came out.

    4. If enough people start hating on 5E (which I doubt) I will put out 4E :P

    5. Necromancer Games is back putting out a 5E rules first edition feel. The delay on the WotC DMG has caused them a delay. They raised over 60k on KS.

    6. So, why interested in a 4E clone? Necromancer did 3E, you choose pathfinder over 4E. So what is it about this project that interests you over the other options?

    7. Would you be interested in a fantasy RPG based off WotC era D&D, but with a proper skill system? That is, you have a paladin and paladins have all of these skills. When you level up, you put points into the skills. All of this based around d20.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. 5E is great from what I can tell so far.

      2. Yeah, I've read some of those stories...lol.

      3. I agree completely. I was interested in this project from a completely academic standpoint. How much effort would it have required for Clark to accomplish his goals? At what point does the effort required become pointless? At what point should you have just started from the ground up on your own design. How far can 4E be stretched and still be recognizable as 4E? I'm just fascinated by efforts to "fix" rules sets and the reasoning behind it.

      4. No worries there!

      5. I saw that. I've always liked their philosophy of shooting for a 1st edition feel.

      6. There are several 4E clones in various stages of development. I'm just interested in this particular one because 4E was a very different design from the previous editions and I am just curious about how much effort it would take to accomplish this. I don't have any real system mastery over 4E but I suspect that achieving his stated goals would wind up taking a lot more effort than he initially thought. Would the fix be a bloated mess that was just as big in scope or size as the rules it is fixing? If so, then that is most likely a failure. A fix should ideally be easy to implement. I don't think this would have been accomplished with a few tweaks here and there.

      7. Sure, why not?

      Delete
    2. I do no think you can really replicate the "feel" of AD&D with a different rules set. So for me, all of the attempts don't really work. I mean, does it really feel like AD&D if you can play a Gnome Paladin/Mage/Druid/Thief when you do not use THACO?

      In regards to 4E, I think the market really failed to appreciate with WotC was doing. While I am not expert on the 4E rules, the intent seems very clear. RPG gaming has declined. The biggest losers in that is D&D because of the market share. The view was that teenagers who once would pick up D&D now play online games. The solution was to try and give them a D&D experience closer to the experience of computer games.

      To do this, I believe they:

      1. Simplified and made the rules more consistent
      2. Increased the power of PCs
      3. Dramatically reduced downtime for PCs by adding in things like healing surges.
      4. Came up with a brilliant hybrid class system where you can put more than one class together at a time to essentially build a new class.

      I would rather play 4E than any type of 3E. I think from a design point of view it is a far better game that is intentionally trying to do something new. I think more designers should look at computer games to get some fresh ideas on how to do things.

      With all of that said, what do you think is necessary for a first edition feel? I think answering that would let people know how big of an issue it would be.

      Off the top of my head, here is what I think is necessary. Is does not seem that big of a job.

      1. Return the alignment system.
      2. Add in the missing classes from AD&D. Maybe remove some of the post AD&D classes.
      3. Add in the AD&D rules for spell memorization/prayer.
      4. Break up the spells based on classes again
      5. Use the AD&D version of spells. Some of the damage values may need to be tweaked.
      6. Reduce starting HP.

      So in other words, AD&D classes, casting, and alignment added to the 4E mechanics. The result is weaker than 4E PC, but stronger than AD&D. You keep as much of the unique mechanics as possible.

      Delete
    3. Hey, I get what you're saying about replicating the feel of AD&D with 4E. I think the goal is better served by concentrating on play style rather than rules. With that being said, some rules areas are problematic in this regard just as you pointed out.

      I have become really interested in diving into 4E and really getting to know the system. This was spurred on by visiting some of the 4E fan forums and reading about the clone and extension efforts by fans. It turns out that there is probably a large chunk of fans that would like it better if they left their preconceived notions at the door and just messed around with the game. Treat it as a new game you're learning for the first time instead of a new edition of an old favorite.

      Your thoughts on 4E are interesting and definitely worth pursuing.

      Delete
  2. I think you are correct in about treating 4E like a new game. In reality, this is what the big problem with 3E was. You really had a different game come out with the D&D name. However, WotC spent at least a year doing heavy PR. They paid Gygax for feedback, yet they ignored everything. Then, they continued to string him along and pay for public appearences. All of this to try to get 1E players who never moved on to 2E to give them a chance. Then the took it takes a village to build a game approach and allowed 2E players to feel like they were contributing to the game. It was about making them feel part of the process.

    The result was a new game, with an old name that convinced a lot of people that it still was D&D regardless of the facts. Those paying attention realized it wasn't D&D and thus the backlash. While I think the 3E rules are some of the worst designed rules in a major RPG, I think many AD&D players might have viewed 3E better if there weren't so many people trying to tell them that it was D&D and that it was so much better than AD&D.

    With 4E, I think it was pitched as an improvement to D&D. Which, 3E players took to mean a continuation of the essential design. Yet, the designers really tried to build a much better game. It was too different from 3E, so they went to Pathfinder.

    I think 5E is trying to get everyone together. I doubt that is the case. I have a feeling 4E players will be the ones that will dislike it the most.

    So, you know how it was only the even number Star Trek films that were popular, 2, 4, and 6? Well, I wonder is it is the odd with D&D, 1,3,5. If this is the case, 6th with be hated, but 7th will be popular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL...interesting analogy to the Star Trek movies.

      I think they milked Gygax for all he was worth.

      I might have to look at some 4E tweaking myself after reading stuff like this...

      Delete
  3. My first thought on reading the post is that yes, a "classic" edition of 4E would be several hundred pages long. In fact it would probably look a lot like....5E. Heh....As someone who did manage to run about 200 sessions of 4E before I gave up, I see a lot of hidden DNA in 5E of 4th edition concepts, but ultimately in order to make 4E a "classic style" D&D you pretty much have to strip out everything that makes 4E distinct.

    It's not a bad system for what it does, and I still contend they could release the rules for 4E right now as "Dungeon Tactics RPG" or some other monicker and it would sell and be well-received. But it just didn't provide enough scope of play to cover everything D&D had become, and 5E does a surprisingly good job of dialing it back to the old days even as it carries the system forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting...I was curious if that would actually be the case. I haven't had quite near your experience with the system but I can see what you're saying. I actually had thought just about the same thing - if 4E was released as a competing product from another company without the D&D label - about 4E being better received.

      Delete
  4. 4E has become a huge distraction for me now. I have been trying to understand what is do bad about 3E. I really haven't found a good answer. I know part of it has to do with the assumed use of a battlemat and the grid. But in reality, every 3E game I have see has a mat out. They use miniatures. People measure if they can do things. They talk about the path they can take. There is discussion of attacks of opportunity, what feats they can use, talking to other players to coordinate, etc.

    The other issue had to do with streamlining things so that you do not have nearly as much min/max going on. 3E seems so much more about what new classes and feats can I add and when to up my power. 4e dispenses with that non-sense.

    To me, be best features about 4E are the ones I find complained about. I think the introduction of MMO concepts to be a good idea and a great first attempt. In MMO, you have tanks who taunt (attract monsters), you have dps (those that do damage), you have healers, and then you have crowd control (stun, slow, do things to keep the enemies from getting on you.) The other has to be healing surges to keep the game fast paced.

    Now if, and this is a big if, you could play 4E and have those combat roles without the need of bringing out minis, then I think I would really enjoy a long 4E campaign.

    With all of that said, I am starting to think that rebuilding 4E to a 1E feel is the wrong project, or at least the wrong way to go. Instead, I think you need to start with 1E and then rewrite certain parts to embrace the 4E aspects one wants to keep. I think it would easier, faster, and result in a much more 1E feel.

    I really want to do that project, but I have too many other things in the pipes. Not to mention I am not sure it would make much money. I am not sure either 1E or 4E players would want to play a 4E rules/1E feel game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jamie stated, "Now if, and this is a big if, you could play 4E and have those combat roles without the need of bringing out minis, then I think I would really enjoy a long 4E campaign.

      With all of that said, I am starting to think that rebuilding 4E to a 1E feel is the wrong project, or at least the wrong way to go. Instead, I think you need to start with 1E and then rewrite certain parts to embrace the 4E aspects one wants to keep. I think it would easier, faster, and result in a much more 1E feel."

      Interesting thoughts and I like that approach. I would buy that product!

      Delete
    2. I am starting to think I am way too old for new versions of D&D. I took a look at the "basic" 5E rules released as a PDF in Aug. It has like 55 pages for character creation. Another 30-40 pages of rules. Then you get to the spell list.

      It took my three times to read more than a page. It isn't complicated or poorly written. It just contains so much superfluous content. It seems like they are trying to present it as D&D is a real role-playing game. It just isn't about combat. So, here are pages full of essentially useless information to help people try to be creative. And, if you can't, here are pages worth of roll d6 for character traits.

      Maybe if I have the actual book with art to hold onto, it would not seem like drudgery. But the PDF was painful and I still only made it through part of character creation. I do not see why it takes 3-4 times the pages to do what my AD&D PHB does when it is just talking about character creation.

      So, I really think starting old and working in new concepts is the best way to go.

      Anyway, back to working on PJ 2E. Focusing on rule alternations now.

      Delete
    3. I can understand that. I think you're onto something with starting with the old and adding in new concepts approach.

      Ooh....I'm looking forward to seeing what comes about with PJ 2E!

      Delete