My 4e Clone: Points of Light

Garthanos wrote:

Liking, Granthal the Guardian Silya the Slayer. Hanja the Healer. Swanti the Censor

Yeah, I thought it'd be nice to create a fluff-based precedent for the role-based features, particularly defender guardian marking. Right now it's just lying around the Char Advance document; but I'll put it into context at some point.

Garthanos wrote:

Magely Classes? ummmmm thas an odd bit of language use.

Originally, I tried to come up with unique names for each class that wouldn't be copyright targets for WotC lawyers, but even with thesaurus.com it was nigh-impossible. I think it was the primal classes that finally made me throw my hands up and say "Fuck it, I'll give each power source a name, and call its classes that!"

Which reminds me, I think 'martial' and 'primal' are themselves copyright targets...

Trademarking is what you have to avoid.... ie if the word has a TM or an R in a circle next to it.

Text as a whole is copyright....

Note when the power sources are part of the title of say "Divine Power" or "Martial Power" they put a tm on the end of the whole thing as those are product identity.

When its used in the players handbook it is being used as a standard english adjective and usually/often all lower case they dont seem to be claim trademark that I can see. (and from what I understand it would also be impossible)

The DMG and Players Handbook when named have the (r)

While one might use the phrase arcane power to describe the hidden nature of magical energy if you named the book Arcane Power that would be infringement.

Garthanos wrote:

While one might use the phrase arcane power to describe the hidden nature of magical energy if you named the book Arcane Power that would be infringement.

Pretty much this. Trademarks are literally about 'trade' (i.e. commerce) and is derive from the ancient practice of tradesmen marking the things they'd created with a specific mark denoting that they made it. Trademark protections are about keeping other people from using another person's mark in marketing their products, but outside of marketing you're free to use the terms in whatever fashion you like.

A primary example of this is Captain Marvel. The one appearing in DC comics came first, but because Marvel got the trademark on the name, all of DC's Captain Marvel comics have to use "Shazam" instead. But inside the comic stories themselves they were free to call the character Captain Marvel because that doesn't violate the trademark.

So Arcane, Divine, Martial, Primal, et cetera are all fair game and far too generic of terms for trademark infringement and can most certainly be used in the body of a work.

Honestly? Your biggest trademark problem is going to be "Points of Light" since that was a specific marketing term used in the promotion of 4E and is close enough to something resembling 'product identity' that it would cause problems.

That's fabulous news, if it's true! The problem is that I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't been able to find any authoritative layman guides to retrocloning; so to be safe, the consensus seems to be "Change any terminology that can't be found in the 3e SRD."

If a lawyer or a reputable source assured me that I didn't need to be so radical though...

Chris24601 wrote:

Honestly? Your biggest trademark problem is going to be "Points of Light" since that was a specific marketing term used in the promotion of 4E and is close enough to something resembling 'product identity' that it would cause problems.

You really think so? Damnit, this legal crap is a hassle!

I really like the Points of Light title too...  

Well, I wouldn't go out of my way to abuse it, but you've got a lot more leeway than you'd think. Even if its not in the 3e SRD, if its a term that has a commonly accepted meaning, and doubly so if that meaning also applies outside of gaming, then you can absolutely use it.

Martial for example is a common term for things related to war/combat. It also shows up in the SRD for martial weapon proficiencies. Arcane and Divine are also used in the SRD to refer to different types of spells and, in the general language, refer to mysterious and religious related phenomena respectively. Psionics is used all over the the place in comics and mass media so that's totally useable. Primal also has meaning outside of games and, so long as you emphasize the connection of the classes/powers to ancient/original sources of power they really can't touch you for using the term Primal.

Where I would tread more cautiously is the use of the term "Power Source" because while it is a generic term, it was also used in a very specific fashion in 4E. Using phrases like "source of power" or "Origin" or simply "Arcane/Divine/Martial/Primal classes" would be sufficient though.

One big way to avoid any such issue though is to put a little time and thought into your cosmology and tying the origins of power to specific points in the cosmology you provide. In this case though it definitely needs to NOT be the World Axis (or at least not THAT World Axis) you're referencing as that IS covered by copyright.

But if you, say, set it up along the lines of the historical conflict between the ancient nature religions (i.e. the Old Faith and/or Shamanistic practices; i.e. the primal powers) and the religions that rose out of civilization (i.e. Greco-Roman Pantheons; i.e. the divine powers) and then have various mystery cults who guard the secrets of their power (Hermetics, Orphic Circles; i.e. arcane powers) you'd have a background distinct enough from 4E's World Axis that, even if you are using somewhat similar terms, you'd be covered in terms of being sufficiently different from the 4E material.

Pantheists, Animists ,Independent and Hermetic workers of The Craft ... plus Martial Artists oh my.

Well, would you both mind going over a few terms with me then? I'd love more leeway, but I don't want to risk the fame and fortune of potential fans who want to sell PoL-related material.

Things that I know must be changed:
Dungeon Master (GM)
Name of Planes, and possibly the whole cosmology. (Far Realm, Feywild, Shadowfell, etc.)
Non-SRD Race Names (Dragonborn, warforged, eladrin, ect.)
Saving Throw (it's in the SRD, but not in the way 4e uses it)
'Encounter' Power, 'Daily' Power
Heroic Tier, Paragon Tier
'Power Source'

Things that I'm not sure need to be changed:
Second Wind, Healing Surge, Bloodied
Area, Close, Blast, Burst, Wall
'Combat Advantage'
Short Rest, Long Rest
Minor Action, Opportunity Action, Immediate Interrupt, Immediate Reaction
Combat Conditions
'Melee Basic Attack,' 'Ranged Basic Attack,' 'Opportunity Attack'
'Role,' the names of the four PC roles, the names of the monster roles
Minion, Elite, Solo

If you'd feel confident publishing an 3pp adventure or splatbook using a given term, great! I'll leave it as-is. If it's at all a 'maybe,' I'm going to play it safe and change the term.

Healing Surges note 13 Age uses Recoveries...  I prefer more broader use for and variations in naming those differently is pretty easy Heroic Effort for instance then you would say you spend 1 heroic effort to perform or a Heros Comeback. (could be used for Second Wind).

A 4e Saving throw is more accurately a resistance check ...

Gamemaster is pretty universal in non D&D games.

Dragonkind or just plain Dragonblooded or Draco Formed
Tieflings are Half Daemons or Demon bound or Devilbreed or....

I reflavored Warforged as animated armor = Animous.

I split feats/powers differently in my thinking... I consider powers feats and passive feats a different category... call them features. A Daily Power is then a Climactic Feat.

Let me clarify: I already have replacements for most of the listed terms -- and have already integrated them into my pdfs. What I'm asking is "Which of these words definitely doesn't have to be changed, and which ones do?"

First, here are some general rules for avoiding problems.
1) One word terms (ex. Bloodied, Dazed) are almost never going to be specific enough to be able to claim product identity unless its a word or acronym they specifically invented (Illiathid or THAC0 for example).
2) Word sequences can get specific enough that you need a new term for them (ex. Healing Surge, Power Source).
3) If it appears on the SRD you can always use the term, even if you change the rules for it (ex. 13th Age uses 4E style saving throws because saving throws are in the SRD and the 4E version are still a d20 check to avoid/remove a condition).
4) the d20 SRD isn't the only game out there with open content and nothing says you can only use one OGL source for your project. You might want to check 13th Age for which portions of their systems they've labeled open game content and poach terms from there as well.

Further comments in Bold;

C4 wrote:

Well, would you both mind going over a few terms with me then? I'd love more leeway, but I don't want to risk the fame and fortune of potential fans who want to sell PoL-related material.

Things that I know must be changed:
Dungeon Master (GM)
Name of Planes, and possibly the whole cosmology. (Far Realm, Feywild, Shadowfell, etc.) -definitely the entire cosmology. That's actually copyrighted.
Non-SRD Race Names (Dragonborn, warforged, eladrin, ect.)
Saving Throw (it's in the SRD, but not in the way 4e uses it) -Saving Throw is fine actually. 13th Age uses it in the 4E fashion and its still a d20 check.
'Encounter' Power, 'Daily' Power
Heroic Tier, Paragon Tier
'Power Source'

Things that I'm not sure need to be changed:
Second Wind -Second Wind is fine, as its a real world phenomenon.

Healing Surge -My preference would definitely be 'Recoveries' and that they should NOT be used for anything other than healing, lest they undermine the core daily/encounter math (defender classes NEED those daily hit point reserves just to survive combats so only the classes that DON'T regularly get beat on in a fight will actually be able to afford spending them on non-combat goodies.)

Bloodied -Bloodied is also a real thing (though perhaps 'Battered' if you're wanting an alternative)

Area, Close, Blast, Burst, Wall -All of these are generic terms and you'd probably only need to change a couple of them to avoid the 'word sequence' issue. I'd suggest simply drop Close for 'Melee' and and change Wall to 'Line' and you're golden... i.e. 'Melee Blast, Melee Burst, Melee Line, Ranged Burst, Ranged Line

'Combat Advantage' -the d20 term is 'flat-footed' but you could just call it 'Advantage' and its sufficiently generic enough to not be a problem.

Short Rest, Long Rest -These are probably fine as is, as they are real things. Something as simple as 'Quick Rest' and 'Full Rest' would probably be fine though.

Minor Action -You could keep 'minor action' as is, but I'd change it anyway to a word that doesn't start with 'M' so its easier to distinguish from 'Move action' when abbreviating.

Opportunity Action, Immediate Interrupt, Immediate Reaction -I'd suggest lumping these all under the term 'Reaction' and then define 'Interrupt' as a keyword for a reaction that can cancel the effects of another action by its use.

Combat Conditions -If it appears in the SRD you can probably use the term, even if you do change the definition for it a bit. Of the 4E conditions only marked, dazed and stunned are not self-evident conditions and might need new names. Everything else is fair game (i.e. deaf, dying, helpless, petrified, slowed, weakened, restrained, surprised, immobilized, prone, blind, dominated and unconscious are all pretty much what they say on the tin. You don't have to invent a new term for being knocked to the ground just because 4E used prone). Maybe change 'dominated' to 'controlled' if you want, but everything else is a self-evident condition.

'Melee Basic Attack,' 'Ranged Basic Attack,' 'Opportunity Attack' -13th Age uses Melee and Ranged Basic Attacks, so you're fine on those. I covered Opportunity Action above and Attacks of Opportunity are right out of the SRD.

'Role,' the names of the four PC roles, the names of the monster roles -If the role is self-evident (ex. artillery monsters) it can be kept as is. You might change Lurker to 'Ambusher', but Artillery, Controller, Soldiers, Skirmishers and Brutes are exactly what they say on the tin. PC role names probably need to be changed (though controller can stay as is, its VERY on point) though. I'd mix things up a bit by splitting the Striker role into 'Artillery' (ranged striker) and 'Skirmisher' (melee striker) since having five roles is another cosmetic difference from 4E. I'd go with 'Protector' instead of Defender and change the name of the Soldier monster role to match.

If I could think of something better than 'leader' for the role that didn't sound right out of a video game I'd give it to you, but I think if you could probably keep it if you also added a distinct 'Leader' role to the monsters as well (versus being a subtype). This would then give the entire game the roles of Artillery, Controller, Leader, Protector and Skirmisher for both PC's and monsters (which is distinct from 4E) with Ambusher and Brute as monster-only roles (though I could see putting the Executioner into the Ambusher role and the Barbarian being a Brute role if you wanted to put PC classes into those roles).

Minion, Elite, Solo -Minion and Elite are both fine as those actually refer to things outside of games. Solo is the only problematic one. The video game term for a Solo would be a 'Boss' while the Elites are 'Mini-Bosses' and Minions are 'Mooks'. If you want something a bit less gamey sounding, I'd go with 'weak (minion), standard, strong (elite) and elite (solo)'.

If you'd feel confident publishing an 3pp adventure or splatbook using a given term, great! I'll leave it as-is. If it's at all a 'maybe,' I'm going to play it safe and change the term.

ETA: 13th Age uses the following conditions for reference. Based on these Dazed and Stunned are fine as is (side-bar, I like the constrained condition a LOT).
Confused: You can’t make opportunity attacks or use your powers. Your next attack action will be an at-will attack against one or more of your allies.
Constrained: You can only make basic attacks. Fighter, that also means no flexible attacks.
Dazed: You have a –4 penalty to attacks.
Fear: Fear dazes you and prevents you from using the escalation die.
Stunned: You have a –4 penalty to defenses and can’t take any actions.
Weakened: You have a –4 penalty to attacks and to defenses. (Penalties for Dazed or Stunned don’t stack.)

13th Age also uses Basic Attacks, Opportunity Attacks, Saving Throws of the 4E variety, Ongoing Damage, Resistance and Temp Hit Points. You're fine using any of those terms as is.

Good point about HS, Though I think if you do add more functions to HS it can be reasonable to increase the number mayhaps you dont want to do that across the board (for instance if HS controls activating magic item dailies increase the number appropriately)... and I think coming up with ways of assuring that classes which dont currently have ROLE specific reasons to use them for healing do have reasons to use them as part of there class functionality seems a better idea than leaving them with a surplus.

In other words maybe work on the problem not dance around it.

On topic I find myself mostly agreeing with Chris.

I also like Skirmisher and Artillery distinction.

My only background in Trademarking relates to creating Logos and similar work the rest is info gleaned from online sources including ones from Universities (not every online source is unreliable ).   

Garthanos wrote:

Features of the Martial Practices to Consider:

[*]creates specializations within a skill - if you allow this it doesnt have to be connected to the other elements.
[*]ability to exert and spend a resource to enhance a skill in a focused fashion for a task (ex allowing taking ten under circumstances you normally couldnt like in a skill challenge).
[*]mostly naturalistic learning time and teacher and money - though I am adding Karma Points  (alternative reward can be spent on alternative rewards connected to my Birthright setting adjustments)
[*]creating long term structures like items note mp forging is highly inadequate - I am extending this legendary boons (via oaths) and masters training (via regimen) - can use karma points for these too.

Just a side track from the conversation:  Thank you for posting this list!  For whatever reason, except for the first and the last point, these functions to Martial Practices went over my head.  After I sat down and divided the published Martial Practices into these categories as well as going through and seeing how they connect with players occupational backgrounds, I finally got a chance to see them in the context of gameplay and storytelling.  They not only make sense, but I can now see the richness in diversity they can provide to a character.

Back to regular conversation.   

Thanks for the explanation and the proofread, Chris!

Very helpful.

thanson02 wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

Features of the Martial Practices to Consider:

[*]creates specializations within a skill - if you allow this it doesnt have to be connected to the other elements.
[*]ability to exert and spend a resource to enhance a skill in a focused fashion for a task (ex allowing taking ten under circumstances you normally couldnt like in a skill challenge).
[*]mostly naturalistic learning time and teacher and money - though I am adding Karma Points  (alternative reward can be spent on alternative rewards connected to my Birthright setting adjustments)
[*]creating long term structures like items note mp forging is highly inadequate - I am extending this legendary boons (via oaths) and masters training (via regimen) - can use karma points for these too.

[*]

Just a side track from the conversation:  Thank you for posting this list!  For whatever reason, except for the first and the last point, these functions to Martial Practices went over my head.  After I sat down and divided the published Martial Practices into these categories as well as going through and seeing how they connect with players occupational backgrounds, I finally got a chance to see them in the context of gameplay and storytelling.  They not only make sense, but I can now see the richness in diversity they can provide to a character.

Back to regular conversation.   

I worry that good stuff started in 4e are not being developed. Some of these things arent in what I would consider in a finished form.

Perhaps if a Points of Light seems pushing into product identity territory - You might derive off of it.
maybe something like "Beacon of Heroes"

C4 wrote:

If a lawyer or a reputable source assured me that I didn't need to be so radical though...

I'll point to Pathfinder's current Shaman class that has a spirit animal companion to show some things can be used.

C4 wrote:

Chris24601 wrote:

Honestly? Your biggest trademark problem is going to be "Points of Light" since that was a specific marketing term used in the promotion of 4E and is close enough to something resembling 'product identity' that it would cause problems.

You really think so? Damnit, this legal crap is a hassle!

I really like the Points of Light title too...

Points of Light wasn't trademarked by Wizards of the Coast.

C4 wrote:

'Daily' Power

13th Age uses it in this style so I'd say no. Chris already covered the rest far more thoroughly then I could.

Garthanos wrote:

Tieflings are Half Daemons or Demon bound or Devilbreed or....

Tieflings are an OGL term through Pathfinder. Making all tieflings half-devils with a very specific look may infringe on copyright. But also, why would you want to limit yourself to such a degree? Using tieflings as either demonic or infernal puts you firmly in the "not infringing on people's copyright" and also gives you more flavour and options.

Personally some of the name changing I would do and have mentioned are as much to establish ones own touch on things make them more accurate to there use and a bit to give it a perceptual identity of its own.

JohnLynch wrote:

Points of Light wasn't trademarked by Wizards of the Coast.

Doesn't matter. To be grossly cynical about it what matters is, at $200 per hour, how long can you hold out against a company that could drag out a case claiming infringement on product identity when they can afford to drag the case out against you for YEARS.

The idea behind name changing is that the less it mimics ANYTHING they can claim as product identity the better. Game terms, even if close, aren't worth going after because you can only copyright the expression of the rules, not the rules themselves. But 'Points of Light' isn't a game rule, its a marketing phrase and fluff element and THOSE are well within the grounds of 'Product Identity' which is where they'll readily come after people trying to make a profit off it (due to slippery slope arguments in trademark/copyright enforcement they can't afford to NOT protect their product identity).

13th Age isn't precisely a clone of 4E like Pathfinder is of 3.5, but the key point here with both 13th Age and Pathfinder is there's NOTHING in their names connecting them to ANY Dungeons & Dragons product identity. Any retro-clone that tries something to tie into WotC/Hasbro's product identity (ex. calling your game 4th Earth with a logo that emphasizes '4E') is just begging for a cease and desist order and a closer look from their lawyers for other possible infringements.

You're much better off NOT tempting fate when a couple of changes can protect you from worries about lawsuits and infringement cases and free you to just focus on producing the best product you're able to.

Garthanos wrote:

thanson02 wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

Features of the Martial Practices to Consider:

[*]creates specializations within a skill - if you allow this it doesnt have to be connected to the other elements.
[*]ability to exert and spend a resource to enhance a skill in a focused fashion for a task (ex allowing taking ten under circumstances you normally couldnt like in a skill challenge).
[*]mostly naturalistic learning time and teacher and money - though I am adding Karma Points  (alternative reward can be spent on alternative rewards connected to my Birthright setting adjustments)
[*]creating long term structures like items note mp forging is highly inadequate - I am extending this legendary boons (via oaths) and masters training (via regimen) - can use karma points for these too.

Just a side track from the conversation:  Thank you for posting this list!  For whatever reason, except for the first and the last point, these functions to Martial Practices went over my head.  After I sat down and divided the published Martial Practices into these categories as well as going through and seeing how they connect with players occupational backgrounds, I finally got a chance to see them in the context of gameplay and storytelling.  They not only make sense, but I can now see the richness in diversity they can provide to a character.

Back to regular conversation.   

I worry that good stuff started in 4e are not being developed. Some of these things arent in what I would consider in a finished form.

And their not.  There are many times when I am working with 4E and I get a slight feel of 1st Edition.  Some parts good, some rough, but chuck full of potential.

To C4:  I didn't see yet, but did you bring up the World Cosmology you are using or are you planning on introducing multiple models?  I saw references to the Feywild and the Shadowfell, but not much else.  Also I have not been on the forms for a while, so I am a bit behind on what is going on and catching up.