# C4, the Best Edition Never Published



## C4 (Aug 21, 2010)

C4 is short for the Complete 4th Edition. So, what’s C4 about? Well, a few things.

First, I’m not gung-ho about the CB (character builder), and I know I’m not alone. A set of all-sources-and-errata-included docs that require only Adobe Acrobat come in handy for some of us. This is C4's primary purpose.

Second, the game is still problematic. It has overpowered options like the infamous taxpertise feats and crippled trap builds like the star pact warlock. The designers, for whatever inane reason, haven’t seen fit to errata these problems and probably never will. C4 is my own errata for these problems.

C4 is a work in progress; I've written a lot, but there's still a lot more to write. If you're interested, email me at Complete4th@gmail.com and I'll send you what you want. No charge, just ask nicely!

What I've done so far:

C4 Forward
Character Advancement
Races
Skills
Heroic Feats
[Mundane] Equipment
Adventuring
Combat
Rituals
Martial Practices

*Arcane Classes*
Sorcerer
Artificer
Swordmage
Warlock
Wizard
Bard

*Divine Classes*
Cleric
Paladin
Invoker
Avenger
Runepriest

*Martial Classes*
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Warlord

*Primal Classes*
Barbarian
Druid
Seeker
Shaman
Warden

*Psionic Classes*
Ardent
Battlemind
Monk
Psion

*Shadow Class*
Assassin

(Yes, C4 is a gross violation of everything that copyright lawyers hold dear. No, I don't lose any sleep over it and neither does WotC. Feel free to huff about it though, if that's how you get your kicks.)


----------



## nnms (Aug 21, 2010)

First of all, get rid of the coloured background if you expect people to print this.  If it's for screen use, put it in landscape format to suit the proliferation of wide screens.

Secondly, I think you've got a big gross violation of copyright going on.  Have you taken text verbatim from the PHB and other sources and passed it off as your own work?

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but you need to write this in your own words, not just copy from stuff written by others.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 21, 2010)

Lets see:

- uses the trade dress without changes. 
- uses classes and races only with slight changes.
- no legalize to protect you from anything (not that it would help).

Congratulations. You won the "prime example for a violation of pretty much anything" award. Contact your lawyer about your prize.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 21, 2010)

Is this a massive attempt at copyright infringement?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 21, 2010)

C4 said:


> C4 is short for the Complete 4th Edition. So, what’s C4 about? Well, a few things.
> 
> First, I’m not gung-ho about the CB (character builder), and I know I’m not alone. A set of all-sources-and-errata-included docs that require only Adobe Acrobat come in handy for some of us. C4 are these documents. And as an added bonus, they're all free.
> 
> ...




I think you need to not copy other people's work. Why not take this energy and submit articles to Dragon or Dungeon?


----------



## WhatGravitas (Aug 21, 2010)

Oh man, this *is* a huge copyright violation! 

This said, I do dig your idea - collecting a "best of" of all 4E material, updating/errata-ing and putting it together would be amazing (and one could fix expertise/defence feats in the same go or chuck out unbalanced or weird stuff)... but sadly, that's only within the purview of WotC.

Alas, I miss the OGL and the old d20 SRD...

Cheers, LT.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 21, 2010)

I haven't checked out the links yet, but I don't think he's trying to profit from this or anything.  He's just doing a "best of" and collecting relevant information that is already out there.  Its kind of like saying, "Given all of the 4e stuff that is out there, this is what I would use for my campaign"

And it's not like we don't see copy/paste jobs posted on these forums everytime a new book is about to be released, when people get it early.  Sure, they may omit unnecessary text, but the meat of it is still posted.


----------



## keterys (Aug 21, 2010)

As noted, you might want to delink your post and keep your work as something that your home group uses rather than something shared with everyone.

You have some interesting ideas, but it's difficult for me to really dive into them because you actually have, well, all of the quoted stuff getting in the way. It would be a lot easier for me to get a feel for your changes with a change list than having to look at every power wondering what happened.

I applaud your level of investment at least. But, do it in a way that doesn't get you in trouble, eh?


----------



## the Jester (Aug 21, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> I haven't checked out the links yet, but I don't think he's trying to profit from this or anything.  He's just doing a "best of" and collecting relevant information that is already out there.  Its kind of like saying, "Given all of the 4e stuff that is out there, this is what I would use for my campaign"
> 
> And it's not like we don't see copy/paste jobs posted on these forums everytime a new book is about to be released, when people get it early.  Sure, they may omit unnecessary text, but the meat of it is still posted.




He's doing the equivalent of giving out free copies of all the books. 

Sorry, C4, but you should NOT have these on a public site like Google Docs... if anything, keep them for your home group but don't have them on a public site, you're just going to end up with a Cease & Desist from WotC.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 21, 2010)

before these links are cut or this thread stopped.

I don't think having a 4E OGL would have hurt WotC one bit and I don't think this will either. 

But thats just me. 

Thanks for the hard work.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 21, 2010)

Your inherent bonuses are thought out a lot better than what we get in DMG 2.

Actually i would push them back to levels X5 and X9 in regular play. So finding a magical sword still gives a real bonus (about +1 when finding level appropriate items)


----------



## the Jester (Aug 21, 2010)

TerraDave said:


> before these links are cut or this thread stopped.
> 
> I don't think having a 4E OGL would have hurt WotC one bit and I don't think this will either.
> 
> ...




That's cool and all- and maybe I even agree about the OGL- but it's not up to you (or me), and neither of us is in a position to really know.

Certainly it's hard to argue that the 3e OGL didn't hurt them in the long run; the whole Pathfinder crowd is lost customers that wouldn't have a PF system to use if it wasn't for the OGL.


----------



## kunadam (Aug 21, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Certainly it's hard to argue that the 3e OGL didn't hurt them in the long run; the whole Pathfinder crowd is lost customers that wouldn't have a PF system to use if it wasn't for the OGL.




They banadoned that segment of the community that liked D&D3.5, similarly to those that still play AD&D or even older editions. These people (myself included) are not lost to WotC as I just do not play 4E.

OGL helped wotc a great deal. It still helps, as via PF it keeps people in the hobby. Maybe 5th edition will again be good.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 21, 2010)

Lord Tirian said:


> Oh man, this *is* a huge copyright violation!
> 
> This said, I do dig your idea - collecting a "best of" of all 4E material, updating/errata-ing and putting it together would be amazing (and one could fix expertise/defence feats in the same go or chuck out unbalanced or weird stuff)... but sadly, that's only within the purview of WotC.
> 
> ...




OGL is still out there for d20/3.x use. He could do basically what PF does and create something CLOSE to a 4e clone. He just isn't going to be able to call it 4e compatible or paste in text from WotC products. OGL was a nice concept but GSL doesn't allow this kind of thing. He might be able to do something using GSL but it would also be somewhat trickier since you aren't allowed to change existing material (maybe you can make a variant of the fighter, but you can't rewrite the existing fighter class). I suspect one might be able to walk that line with the implicit understanding that the material is INTENDED to stand alone, but you still can't change certain things like character advancement rules. Sure as heck can't use WotC trade dress.

Honestly though, my impression from bit of random skimming I did that like other 4e house rule sets I've seen it is both annoyingly too much and at the same time annoyingly too little. If I'm going to play a totally nonstandard variant I might as well go the step further and rewrite the core rules to fix what ails them and just call it what it is, a different game.


----------



## C4 (Aug 21, 2010)

nnms said:


> First of all, get rid of the coloured background if you expect people to print this.  If it's for screen use, put it in landscape format to suit the proliferation of wide screens.



Good point. Hopefully I can reformat to landscape without having to remake the docs...ah, yet another InDesign puzzle to work out.



Dice4Hire said:


> I think you need to not copy other people's work. Why not take this energy and submit articles to Dragon or Dungeon?



Why don't I take my role playing energy and audition for local theatre? Because I'd rather do this.



Lord Tirian said:


> This said, I do dig your idea - collecting a "best of" of all 4E material, updating/errata-ing and putting it together would be amazing (and one could fix expertise/defence feats in the same go or chuck out unbalanced or weird stuff)... but sadly, that's only within the purview of WotC.



Taxpertise and NAD fixers will definitely not appear in C4 Feats...whenever I get to that.



keterys said:


> You have some interesting ideas, but it's difficult for me to really dive into them because you actually have, well, all of the quoted stuff getting in the way. It would be a lot easier for me to get a feel for your changes with a change list than having to look at every power wondering what happened.



I hadn't planned on emphasizing my house rules (I can already see the "this thread's in the wrong forum!" posts), but here's a [mostly] complete list of 'em.

*Extra Level Boosts:* C4 characters get extra attack and defense bonuses at levels 11 and 21, which replace feat taxes and masterwork armor. C4 characters also boost _every_ score at 4th and 8th levels, which keeps the game numbers consistent.

*First Level Ability Boosts:* Instead of getting racial bonuses to ability scores, C4 characters get training bonuses. Why?

First, because all races are supposed to be playable with any class, but in practice the number of race/class combos that see play are rather limited. That’s because most players look at a race’s ability score entry, and if one of its ability bonuses doesn’t at least boost the prime ability of the class the player wants to play, the combo gets discarded even if the player sees great role play potential in it. And who can blame those players? A big part of D&D is combat, and the best and most fun way to win combat is to hit. And a racial boost to your class’ prime ability is one of the few obvious and easy ways to get better at hitting.

Second, because some racial bonuses punish players for choosing thematic combos. Tieflings should make natural infernal warlocks, but because they don’t get a Constitution bonus, that combo is played less often than the tiefling fey warlock. There are feats that reward thematic combos, like Hellfire Blood, but they’re often circumstantial and many players would rather just hit more often than have a mere damage bonus.

*Class Skills:* CC4 classes have long skill lists, because your character history should dictate your skills, not your class. The only skills still restricted are Perception and Stealth, some players would take them regardless of history, due to how useful they are for an adventurer.

*Weapliments:* D&D writers still seem to think that being good at stabbing things and zapping things is wrong, so they make you maintain two items if you want to do that. The traditional paladin, whose historical weapon of choice (the long sword) is his holy symbol (the Christian cross), whose class powers include both stabbing powers and zapping powers, can’t use his sword for both in D&D. Unless he happens to be an epic paladin with a holy avenger, which inexplicably makes it okay.

Paladins, and all other C4 characters, can use weapons as implements. Because guess what? You shouldn’t be punished [more than you already are] for wanting to stab things and zap them.

*Build Fixing:* Every C4 build has exactly one of the following: a primary stat to AC, a secondary stat to AC, proficiency with heavy armor or a scaling class bonus. Every C4 build relies on just one stat for its attack and damage rolls. Mostly, this doesn’t require any difference from RAW but some builds need editting. For example the RAW arena fighter has two scaling AC bonuses (Dex and a scaling class bonus), while the bear shaman has no scaling AC bonus -- which only encourages such characters to take heavy armor proficiency. Stupid, huh?

*Martial Artists:* By RAW, only high strength characters are good at opportunity attacks. A rogue can blind several opponents from a distance with his dagger, but if those enemies rush past him, he suddenly becomes a putz as he flails wildly about trying to stab them. This is moronic, even by D&D standards, so C4 weapon wielders can use their build’s prime stat for appropriate basic attacks.

*Gnomes:* I’m not even a gnome lover, but I don’t think 4e does them justice. Or maybe I’m just really pleased with this tinker gnome home brew I found. 4e has a lot of races now, but tinkers are a classic trope that's still oddly missing. Also, the official gnome prest...whatever racial power is the saddest I’ve ever seen. It actually punishes players for playing gnome wizards, so I upgraded it.

*Other:* C4 has a few other oddball tweaks, like dropping the idiotic ‘swords only!’ swordmage restriction and dropping the wizard’s faux spell book.



keterys said:


> I applaud your level of investment at least. But, do it in a way that doesn't get you in trouble, eh?



Trouble? I eagerly await my wrist slap.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Your inherent bonuses are thought out a lot better than what we get in DMG 2.
> 
> Actually i would push them back to levels X5 and X9 in regular play. So finding a magical sword still gives a real bonus (about +1 when finding level appropriate items)



Not a bad idea...*ponders*


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 21, 2010)

RigaMortus2 said:


> I haven't checked out the links yet, but I don't think he's trying to profit from this or anything.



Profit is irrelevant.



RigaMortus2 said:


> He's just doing a "best of" and collecting relevant information that is already out there.



But it's not already "out there" - not for free, anyway. He's giving away for free what WotC sells. That's a problem.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 21, 2010)

I have to agree with the copyright concerns, this isn't the OGL anymore, and a lot of these information is copy pasted from the core books.

In fact, so much so if it is legal I would want a change list to see the differences


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 21, 2010)

If you are going to even out ability score increases then why not just ditch them entirely? MOST of the problems with things like basic attacks, non weapon/implement attacks becoming worthless, etc are all issues ONLY because there are ability score increases to start with. It means having a different and larger series of inherent bonuses, but it WOULD fix a number of problems with the core system. You've already done away with the need for masterwork armor, so why not go the next step?

For that matter why not just ditch half level bonuses while you're at it. With proper redesign of the monster guidelines they can be ditched and you don't need ANY sort of inherent bonuses at all. It will somewhat change the balance of power between higher level monsters and PCs but the higher damage and pile of hit points they have will still insure they aren't easy pickings. 

At that point feats like Expertise really aren't a big deal either. OF COURSE the guy that wants to be the best swordsman in history is going to pick up a feat that gives him a +1 with a sword, at some point, but without scaling it becomes a rather minor bonus and mostly just reinforces the character's attachment to his signature weapon/implement without creating a major penalty to using some other item.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 22, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> For that matter why not just ditch half level bonuses while you're at it. With proper redesign of the monster guidelines they can be ditched and you don't need ANY sort of inherent bonuses at all.





To me, this is the clash between people who want to house rule and people who want to redesign.

Redesign may ultimately make a superior new game, but it requires a lot more work. In this example, ditching the half level bonus as well as many other bonuses would require renumbering all attack/damages for all monsters in all 4 monster books.

That is...a significant investment.

On the other hand, some can impose a houserule that has nearly the same benefit, but requires little retooling for everything else. To me these are generally superior as it allows you to apply the fix with far less work.


----------



## jbear (Aug 22, 2010)

I'm really surprised the mods have allowed those links to stay on there for such a long time. On another thread Umbran gave a very explicit warning to a poster who did little more than give a thinly veiled suggestion to ignore a WotC denial to use their material on his webpage and just to it anyway.

This seems far beyond that because the links are posted right here.

I think some of the OPs houserules are interesting but, that seems a little beside the point.

I wonder what the story is.


----------



## Nyronus (Aug 22, 2010)

C4 said:


> Second, the game is still problematic. It has overpowered options like the infamous taxpertise feats and crippled builds like the star pact warlock. The designers, for whatever inane reason, haven’t seen fit to errata these problems and probably never will. C4 is errata for these problems.




... *snigger*

*snort*

As a person who is a power gamer, a DM for a burgeoning group of power gamers, and a Warlock fan, I can tell you that Star-pact Warlocks are not crippled. They are... if you build them wrong. Then again, a Fighter with 14 strength and a battleaxe isn't doing to well either. A Cha-Based Star-pact Warlock can wipe the floor with people. Particularly those who multiclass Wizard and go Doomsayer. As far as Warlocks in general go, they don't out-damage Rangers and while you can min-max their at-wills into 100+ DPR range if you know what your doing, they actually tend to have rather shitey nova potential. Of course, when you can stun-lock Solos, damage really stops being an issue.

As for the "taxpertise" feats, those are so painfully easy to deal with I'm surprised you take them as a big deal. 5, 15, 25. That's it. Or heck, just give the feats "for free."

I can't really comment on anything else as the links have been removed, and it seems with good reason. Copyright infringement is not cool. Though, considering the problems you chose to highlight I doubt your house-rule pack would be of much use. The people of WotC spent years designing 4th Edition and have further spent a great deal of time analyzing new data as it comes in, constantly tweaking the game as it goes to improve it with each step. They are professionals and some of, if not the best in the RPG industry who have consistently put out a good product. To be blunt, your some dude with 3 posts on an anonymous online forum claiming you can do better, and who, going by your hot-button issues, does not seem to have a good pulse on the metagame at all.

This does not inspire confidence.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 22, 2010)

jbear said:


> I'm really surprised the mods have allowed those links to stay on there for such a long time. On another thread Umbran gave a very explicit warning to a poster who did little more than give a thinly veiled suggestion to ignore a WotC denial to use their material on his webpage and just to it anyway.
> 
> This seems far beyond that because the links are posted right here.
> 
> ...




Prolly they hadn't seen it?


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 22, 2010)

the Jester said:


> Prolly they hadn't seen it?




Apparently the mice are having a bit of fun.

Actually, they did get it pretty quickly, but not instantaneously or before I saw it like they usually do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 22, 2010)

They are all at Morrus's wedding.  So I say "hey" for good timing.

But I would suggest moving this hread under houserules, and only listing changes. Would be a nice thread and even more convenient to use.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 22, 2010)

Folks,

The OP has been advised about our policies, so we don't have to worry about the copyright infringement aspect of this project further.  

There's still a major house rules aspect that may be fertile for discussion, so I've moved the thread to house rules for that purpose.

Carry on!


----------



## C4 (Aug 22, 2010)

I've asked that this thread be moved to house rules, as there seems to be interest in that aspect of C4. That being said, I'll address a couple HR related concerns:


AbdulAlhazred said:


> ...



Yes, I realize that simply rewriting the game may end with a better game in the long run. But as Stalker0 says, that requires even more time and energy than I'm putting in now. A _huge_ amount of time and energy.

Also, fixing 4e isn't C4's focus. The focus is mostly just putting all of 4e's related options into convenient packages. Fixing the game's biggest problems is just something to do while I'm copy-pasting.



Nyronus said:


> ... *snigger*
> 
> *snort*



To be blunt, you're some dude with 11 posts, sniggering like an adolescent. Now, if you're through feeling superior and hero-worshipping the designers, I'll be more specific about the starlock problem.

It's not their damage output, and it's not anything that experienced players like you and I can't deal with. It's that the build is a trap for casual players; it's the only build in the game whose powers are split between two stats. But there's no clue as to that fact, without looking through all the starlock powers. Yeah, serious players look through their class powers anyway, but many casual players just want to pick powers that have those convenient (Star Pact) tags, or ones with Lovecraftian names. Starlock is the only build that actively punishes players for choosing obvious in-build options.

And that's why I constified the Lovecraftian/star pact powers that weren't already. A minor change, but it trashes the trap.


----------



## Nyronus (Aug 22, 2010)

C4 said:


> It's not their damage output, and it's not anything that experienced players like you and I can't deal with. It's that the build is a trap for casual players; it's the only build in the game whose powers are split between two stats.




Wrong. Any V class has this issue, and there is power and Feat support for playing a Dual-Primary Paladin, so you can't even weelde out of it with the "build" qualifier.



> But there's no clue as to that fact, without looking through all the starlock powers. Yeah, serious players look through their class powers anyway, but many casual players just want to pick powers that have those convenient (Star Pact) tags, or ones with Lovecraftian names. Starlock is the only build that actively punishes players for choosing obvious in-build options.
> 
> And that's why I constified the Lovecraftian/star pact powers that weren't already.



Actually, I'm pretty sure the build description says rather plainly you should go for an even Con/Cha split, and while a total newb may not realize the issue it takes a grand total of, what? Twenty minutes before he realizes the AC is a problem? Its only a trap build if you completely ignore even the most basic issues. Its like, once again, playing a Fighter with 14 strength and a Greatsword and complaining that the build is a trap. There is enough Power and Feat support for people to play a Star'lock of either stripe, even a balanced 'lock. Total newbs may have issue, but that's about it. Then again, totaly newbs can have a lot of other problems. Modding the powers is nice and all, but it is not wholly necessary.

As for hero worshipping the designers; cute. I do love it when people associate honest admiration with stupidity. Apparently thinking some is doing a good job is a sign of idiocy. 

I admire the designers because they do their jobs well, honestly a lot better than a good chunk of other RPG companies. Just ask someone about Exalted one day. Or 3.0. As for feeling superior, your the one who rolled into the forums touting the "Best Edition Never Published." The few no-brainer house rules mentioned in this thread ar hardly worth that title.


----------



## eamon (Aug 23, 2010)

People do play trap builds.  And it is, in any case, a waste of time for others.  Worst yet is when players play trap builds for reasons they feel valid (roleplaying, for instance), and thereby saddle the DM with a large power-discrepancy between players.

A reasonably interested player can avoid them with some thought, but I've seen reasonably interested players not do so for roleplaying reasons...

Any house rule is in some sense a criticism of the base game - apparently it needs fixing.  It's also praise: apparently, it's _worth_ fixing.

A collected set of fixes could be interesting, so let's see what C4 ends up with... though I agree a set of changes (rather than complete copy-pastes) would help discussion if only to avoid copyright issues while posting on the forum.


----------



## C4 (Aug 24, 2010)

Nyronus said:


> Wrong. Any V class has this issue, and there is power and Feat support for playing a Dual-Primary Paladin, so you can't even weelde out of it with the "build" qualifier.



No other build plainly labels its powers with (Star Pact) tags, and then splits those powers between two stats.

PS: I don't know what 'weelde' is, but I know that 'your' is possessive as in "Your hair looks great today." While 'you're' is a contraction of 'you are' as in "You're a great artist!"



Nyronus said:


> Actually, I'm pretty sure the build description says rather plainly you should go for an even Con/Cha split, and while a total newb may not realize the issue it takes a grand total of, what? Twenty minutes before he realizes the AC is a problem? Its only a trap build if you completely ignore even the most basic issues. Its like, once again, playing a Fighter with 14 strength and a Greatsword and complaining that the build is a trap. There is enough Power and Feat support for people to play a Star'lock of either stripe, even a balanced 'lock. Total newbs may have issue, but that's about it. Then again, totaly newbs can have a lot of other problems. Modding the powers is nice and all, but it is not wholly necessary.



Look at the warlock chapter again; there actually isn't a build just for starlocks. They share a build with feylocks; suggested high stat is Cha, then Int, then Con. So yeah, it's a trap.

_You_ may not think my starlock tweak is necessary, but at the end of the day, there's no good reason for a trap build to exist. Meanwhile there's at least one good reason to untrap such a build; one of 4e's tenets is to reduce system mastery -- to make it so that the obvious options are at least competitive with the not-so-obvious ones. Like eamon says, players have all kinds of reasons for choosing the obvious thematic choices, so why punish them for it?



Nyronus said:


> I admire the designers because they do their jobs well, honestly a lot better than a good chunk of other RPG companies. Just ask someone about Exalted one day. Or 3.0. As for feeling superior, your the one who rolled into the forums touting the "Best Edition Never Published." The few no-brainer house rules mentioned in this thread ar hardly worth that title.



I respect the designers, but I recognize when they frak up. And yeah, I know my house rules are no-brainers. (Well, you might be surprised how many DMs are RAWtarded, but that's neither here nor there.) That's the point; 4e is pretty close to being exactly what it's meant to be, so it doesn't need an overhaul. Just a few tweaks.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 25, 2010)

eamon said:


> People do play trap builds.  And it is, in any case, a waste of time for others.  Worst yet is when players play trap builds for reasons they feel valid (roleplaying, for instance), and thereby saddle the DM with a large power-discrepancy between players.




wow... what a statement...

Someone playing a character beeing a waste of time for others... wow...


----------



## eamon (Aug 25, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> wow... what a statement...
> 
> Someone playing a character beeing a waste of time for others... wow...



What a way to take things out of context.

In a normal 4e game does the presence of a PC that does not meaningfully contribute to combat increase or decrease the fun?


----------



## marli (Aug 27, 2010)

I had to post.
iḿ one of those players, I build characters for thier story validiy etc.  Some of the most memorable moments are when my hapless monk manages to combo the enemy and wiping them out yet usally is saved from near death.(again) or charges out of reach of the hearler and is Double 20-ed, or cant take two hits in a row.

so screw you guys that insist that my monk should be weak cos i chose mis-matching class/race combos.


----------



## C4 (Aug 31, 2010)

Phew! Finally done reformatting as per nnms' suggestion, and adding Psionic Power and Dark Sun content! (Not all of it, of course; just to relevant classes.)

Now I can get back to the C4 rogue...


----------



## C4 (Sep 19, 2010)

Rogue added to the list!


----------



## C4 (Oct 8, 2010)

Major landmark today: the warlord pdf is finished, which means the C4 martial class collection is complete!

Woot!, as the young people say.


----------



## Jack Colby (Oct 8, 2010)

It is rather curious that WotC has not released official "updates" to early classes that have obvious problems due to being early 4E designs.  They had no problem retooling the entire skill challenge rules when it was noticed they didn't work as intended.  Why not do the same for the classes, etc?

And no, I am not saying the early classes are unplayable as-is, I just think it's pretty clear they could be better designed, and had some unusual aspects that were not understood until the game was released and played extensively.

C4, what you are doing is interesting, and something I agree that WotC should have already done.  Maybe this will be a nice wakeup call to say "people want to see this done."


----------



## C4 (Oct 8, 2010)

Jack Colby said:


> It is rather curious that WotC has not released official "updates" to early classes that have obvious problems due to being early 4E designs.  They had no problem retooling the entire skill challenge rules when it was noticed they didn't work as intended.  Why not do the same for the classes, etc?



I know, right? Especially since the big hubbub over the errata to magic missile, it's surprising that WotC hasn't implemented some of the really simple and intuitive fixes (like Constifying starlock powers) that fix actual problems.



Jack Colby said:


> C4, what you are doing is interesting, and something I agree that WotC should have already done.  Maybe this will be a nice wakeup call to say "people want to see this done."



Maybe, but I'm a cynic. If WotC implemented even some of the fixes I've included in C4, I'd be overjoyed and probably drop this project right then and there. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## C4 (Oct 30, 2010)

Divine classes are done.  Now to finish arcane...jesum, there's a lot of them!


----------



## C4 (Nov 29, 2010)

C4 bard and November errata added!


----------



## invokethehojo (Dec 7, 2010)

I applaud you sir, good form!

If only this were available 6 months ago, we might not have stopped playing 4e.  We considered doing the type of thing you are doing, but we tried that with 3e and found it took too much time to get it right.  Glad to see someone out there is dedicated.  If I knew how to give you xp I would gladly do so, though I'm sure this is a handle you have created purely for this thread and therefore wouldn't care anyway.

good luck


----------



## C4 (Dec 10, 2010)

You're right, this isn't my usual handle; but camaraderie is always appreciated! Sorry to hear how disillusioned you've become, what are you playing nowadays?


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Dec 10, 2010)

This is good stuff.  For me, as someone who owns all of the related books, I think your guides are a very handy reference.  If a player wants to play a warlord, for instance, all I have to do is toss them that particular booklet.  As for your changes, it is handy that many of them are written as suggestions or options, for the purists out there.

If they contained the new powers from Dragon they would be complete.  But even without them, this is a handy tool.


----------



## C4 (Dec 11, 2010)

VBMEW-01 said:


> This is good stuff.  For me, as someone who owns all of the related books, I think your guides are a very handy reference.  If a player wants to play a warlord, for instance, all I have to do is toss them that particular booklet.  As for your changes, it is handy that many of them are written as suggestions or options, for the purists out there.



Great! This has been one of my goals.

I'll probably get around to Dragon material eventually, but frankly I don't even know how much of it there is. I don't get DDI, and don't have any idea what it looks like really. It's a bit intimidating--solid books have more than enough to keep me busy already. Just for the fear factor though, roughly how much Dragon material is there?


----------



## VBMEW-01 (Dec 11, 2010)

A lot actually, as powers and things go.


----------



## C4 (Dec 13, 2010)

Just put up the artificer, and realized that I missed a divine class: the rune priest.  Classes seem to grow like grass!


----------



## C4 (Dec 17, 2010)

Sorcerer and runepriest are up...now to finish psionics or start primal.


----------



## C4 (Dec 30, 2010)

Psion is up.


----------



## C4 (Jan 4, 2011)

The seeker is up.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 8, 2011)

C4 said:


> The seeker is up.




Seeker by default is kind of a sad puppy as far as support goes with pretty nice potential... the artificer is in a similar boat .. I mean I want to build a Hephaestus alike and eventually demigod status... and they just nerfed him so he can only make bloody common items?

The Dragon does indeed have quite a bit of content some of it quite worthwhile you can actually pick up back issues with a one month subscription.


----------



## C4 (Jan 8, 2011)

Yeah, I'm keeping my fingers crossed hoping that WotC will round out classes like the seeker with more 'X Power 2' splats, but it looks like putting out more Essentials and yet _another_ power source is more important to them. 

On the bright side, Essentials won't effect C4 much. The only thing I plan to include from E is the no item daily power limit. (Those limits were dropped in 4.e right?) EDIT: And, I already included E's optional racial powers.

Personally, I don't see the point of yet more item rules. So I say, craft whatever you want!



Garthanos said:


> The Dragon does indeed have quite a bit of content some of it quite worthwhile you can actually pick up back issues with a one month subscription.



I now have most of Dragon, I'm just hoping that someone will help out by finding all the relevant race and class articles for me.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 9, 2011)

C4 said:


> Personally, I don't see the point of yet more item rules. So I say, craft whatever you want!




I think all WOTC items are kind of meh, now that flaming holy weapon which confers fire and necrotic resistance called Bahamuts Blessed Tooth which will transform in to whatever the users primary weapon is.... now that one is rare or actually unique or nonstandard - see references in phb.

My favorite rule is dont be a nit with multi items..  I dont use generic components .... if you make too many of a specific item you will end up not being able to find the items ingredients or they become horribly expensive ... ie economics.


----------



## C4 (Jan 9, 2011)

Garthanos said:


> My favorite rule is dont be a nit with multi items..  I dont use generic components .... if you make too many of a specific item you will end up not being able to find the items ingredients or they become horribly expensive ... ie economics.



Has WotC published crafting rules that I don't know about?


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 9, 2011)

C4 said:


> Has WotC published crafting rules that I don't know about?




Crafting magic items is a ritual. And all the rituals have components ... I think residuum is a flavorless and inferior replacement concept.

Gathering rules for acquiring ritual components.. can encourage the use of Rituals more a goal I like. I would allow people to gather components using Nature or Dungeoneering skills.


----------



## Evoll Grayhaven (Jan 17, 2011)

could you email what you took down as I just joined the forum and would like a copy or at least a look at the content you are working on/with. thank you in advance


----------



## C4 (Jan 22, 2011)

Shaman is up!

Still waiting to get your email address, Evoll.


----------



## C4 (Feb 2, 2011)

Battlemind is up.

We could really use some help with Dragon Mag articles!


----------



## C4 (Feb 20, 2011)

Huzzah, the last psionic class is done!


----------



## C4 (Feb 26, 2011)

The barbarian is up.


----------



## C4 (Mar 14, 2011)

Druid is up, along with an updated Character Advancement pdf with a cheat sheet for all of a 4e PC's basic bonuses!


----------



## C4 (Mar 17, 2011)

Woot, the C4 classes are complete!

Mostly. I still need to search through Dragon mag for whatever powers never made it into print, but I just finished the Warden pdf today, the last of the classic 4e classes. It’s hard to believe I’ve been writing C4 for seven months now, and it’s satisfying to reach this landmark.


----------



## C4 (Apr 23, 2011)

I've just added the assassin, which really seriously truly completes the classic classes. Now I just have to finish going thru all those Dragon mag powers!


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Apr 23, 2011)

C4 is now my edition of choice.


----------



## C4 (Apr 23, 2011)

Glad you likey!


----------



## C4 (May 23, 2011)

The Adventuring and Combat pdfs are done, and Heroic Feats are on their way!


----------



## C4 (May 26, 2011)

The Heroics Feats are up, including new [and hopefully improved] multiclass feats!


----------



## C4 (Jun 28, 2011)

All heroic feats from solid books are now compiled!

Bleh, enough feats already!


----------



## C4 (Jul 5, 2011)

C4 Rituals is now complete!


----------



## C4 (Jul 6, 2011)

Martial Practices are done. One more berry in the pie!


----------



## bagger245 (Jul 12, 2011)

Good job!


----------



## C4 (Jul 13, 2011)

Thanks, Bagger!


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 25, 2013)

C4 have you completed this or compiled it? 

I am also interested in any new development using 4e as the starting point


----------



## C4 (Sep 25, 2013)

Garthanos said:


> C4 have you completed this or compiled it?



Hi Garthanos! C4 is indeed more-or-less complete, and I'm PMing you the links. (I never did get to all of the Dragon mag material, but it has all the other original 4e character options needed to play.)



Garthanos said:


> I am also interested in any new development using 4e as the starting point



This year I began work on Points of Light, my true-to-4e clone. (I occasionally ask for suggestions in [Points of Light] threads here.) It's still very much in-progress, but if you'd like to see a few pdfs of my current progress I can PM those links too.


----------



## Garthanos (Sep 25, 2013)

To those familiar with 4e that name ought to be catchy.. but it seem like it might be a bit fuzzy for anyone else.


----------

