D&D 4E [Continuation 4e] - a manifesto

GreyICE

Banned
Banned
I disagree. Many black powers are great for non-standard builds. I would agree on making a list of "deprecated" powers, though.

Also agreed.

Yeah, maybe we leave some of the black alone, especially if they're black because they "Work well with certain feats/powers/Paragon paths, but overall aren't mainstream" rather than "This power does something fairly cool, but it doesn't really do it well enough that you wouldn't rather have awesome power X."

But Purple/Red need to be set on fire - either cut if they do nothing interesting, or buffed if they do something interesting but just so badly that it doesn't matter (For instance, quite a few druid encounter powers do something similar to At-Will damage, but with an interesting rider. It's okay, but if they did some more damage they'd be quite competitive).

Should we set up a Wiki or something?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Xethreau

Josh Gentry - Author, Minister in Training
I did not expect to, but I have a great many feels for this thread already. A lot of great ideas, and I would like to offer my input.

Mechanical Compatibility/ OGL
I really think that this is a great idea. I do not know how OGL publishing would function, but I think it is a good idea. But I also think that we, as posters on the manifest, need to determine whether we truly want OGL or not. Make no mistake, this is the first priority. We cannot reasonably re-haul any other subsystem of the game if we do not know how much we may or may not need to gut in the first place. And I think that if OSRIC can do it, so can we. And like Pathfinder, the new system if published under OGL needs to be free of plagerism - whatever we determine that means.

Tweaks encounters, or what could be used in their place, and I think that needs to be determined first in encounter design, and our product could help by enlightening the DM on what archtypes are used. The fight could be a "set-piece," or it could be a giving-chase scene, a being-chased scene, a multiple-scene skirmish, a stealth mission, or an ambush. Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head, and I am sure there are more. Each of these archtypes have certain rules of genre, and those rules combined with monster rules should inform how the encounter is bu

[my computer has gone wacky and suddenly deleted a significant portion of this post following "tweaks." I will fill this in later. I believe that most of what I am trying to convey gets through. I would very much like to be involved with this project/product.]

Quick note on rituals and rest - check out my thread on the subject of "adventuring day." I think most problems could be solved by having the extended rest be 48 hours, but I also think that healing surges and "daily powers" should get more alternate uses.

On the note of powers, I have been wondering since the first day why there was not a power-scaling system. Since powers have to be replaced anyway, I say why not. When you have to start replacing powers at Paragon Tier, you don't learn a new technique, you learn to use it better.

On the note of epic tier, I agree that there should more or less be an entire focus group dedicated to this subject. With lost of feedback drawn from the community. Epic should be Herculean, Final Fantasy limit breaking, Gurren Lagann heaven-piercing, Jack (of the Lanturn fame) Devil-tricking, etc et al ad astra. I daresay there should even be a Divine tier, for characters who ascend mortality... maybe.
 

Xethreau

Josh Gentry - Author, Minister in Training
Also, why not have a unified power/spell list? Another major problem with 4e is ability score inflexability. I want to have a swashbucking warlord with a rapier and light armor, and yet none of the warlord powers grant me this. I want to run a bow-wielding cleric as well, but the warpriest strikes are all melee only.

With a unified power list, melee magical and rangewould be able to draw from a unified list. The class would be able to interact with these powers differently based on proficiency and class features.
 

GreyICE

Banned
Banned
Also, why not have a unified power/spell list? Another major problem with 4e is ability score inflexability. I want to have a swashbucking warlord with a rapier and light armor, and yet none of the warlord powers grant me this. I want to run a bow-wielding cleric as well, but the warpriest strikes are all melee only.

With a unified power list, melee magical and rangewould be able to draw from a unified list. The class would be able to interact with these powers differently based on proficiency and class features.
The thing most likely to be easily unified is probably the At-Wills (and also where unification would do the most good). Certainly I don't see a lot of benefit from unified encounter powers, and unified Dailies seems downright absurd to me (if you want Living Missile, be a Psion).

I see a lot of potential for breakage too. They've generally tried to keep top-tier single target damage out of the hands of ranged Strikers, and for very good reason (melee has risks, if there's no rewards there'd be no reason to do it). The closest to violating this rule is the bow ranger, and they are the most functional class in all of history (they do some damage. And damage. And more damage. And damage. Five to six rounds of... damage.)
 

Ferghis

First Post
I see a lot of potential for breakage too. They've generally tried to keep top-tier single target damage out of the hands of ranged Strikers, and for very good reason (melee has risks, if there's no rewards there'd be no reason to do it). The closest to violating this rule is the bow ranger, and they are the most functional class in all of history (they do some damage. And damage. And more damage. And damage. Five to six rounds of... damage.)

As much as I would love a unified powers list, I agree with GreyICE. You'd have to split them by role, at the very least, or something.
 

Nemesis Destiny

Adventurer
As much as I would love a unified powers list, I agree with GreyICE. You'd have to split them by role, at the very least, or something.
Power source would be a good place to start, and if you're doing a total revamp on par with putting out a new "edition" you would probably also want to square away the role features in powers as riders to prevent abuse from "poaching" stuff that was cross-class (such as extra damage for strikers, control effects for controllers, extra healing or bonuses for leaders, and marking/punishment for defenders).

It's a lot of work, but not insurmountable, given the nature of what you're discussing doing here.
 

Xethreau

Josh Gentry - Author, Minister in Training
I kind of like what you guys are saying. So it would look like:

At-Will powers - unified by power-source, some classes get unique additions
Encounter Powers - Unique to class, but many scale with level
Daily Powers - Unique to class

Now, I do not know about you guys, but I loved how Essentials/Psionics handled encounter powers, by just upgrading at-wills. What do you guys think about this?
 

Xethreau

Josh Gentry - Author, Minister in Training
Also guys, what do you think about weapons using ability scores like in DDN? I think that is an easy idea to get away with. Just use 4e/3.5 weapons. Then you can have your swashbuckling fighter and arrow-shoosting warlord. Or do you think that unified powers should be set to the class's prime ability, and non-unified powers should be "Class's primary ability score" ?
 

Psikus

Explorer
I was very enthusiastic at first, and I joined the 4SRD wiki and started eagerly adding stuff.

However I very quickly realized that it is far more trouble than it is worth to rewrite things to make them legal and compatible with the SRD and OGL. How are people going to readily find any information if it is all hidden under different terminology?

As long as the old downloadable Character Builder is available (and happily it is highly customizable unlike the new one) as well as all the books, I do not see a whole lot of need for another on-line resource.

I do acknowledge that many new houserules are needed to fix the infelicities of the Fourth Edition, but I think that a collection of houserules is better than rewriting everything from scratch. I very strongly recommend the thoughtful houserules at the Square Fireballs blog.

...and that is my cue. I'm the guy from Square Fireballs, and while I've been suggesting (hopefully thoughtful) houserules for a few years now, I, too, have been tempted by the notion of a full-on 4E revision. Interestingly, when I laid out the design goals for my project, they turned out quite differently than what is discussed in this thread. The most notable divergence is the position about OGL, so I'll talk a bit about it.

We want a continuation 4e to be OGL

Is OGL really necessary? While it undoubtedly has some advantages, it also brings some critical drawbacks that need to be taken into account. To me, the dealbreaker was the need to keep all material in the SRD without modification. Furthermore, while the 4E GSL allows you to cite and reference stat blocks and rules under the SRD, you can't really reproduce any definition of game terms, nor redefine them for that matter. In my case, I knew I wanted freedom to tweak and improve any little rule in the book, and the ability to eventually produce a unified ruleset for the revised game - both options that are forbidden by the GSL.

The flipside, of course, is that the license allows you to work in the game without actually needing to rewrite every rule. In my case, I thought the extra effort was worth it, but your mileage may vary.

Mechanical compatibility is absolutely necessary (...) player needs to be able to play their old 4e character in the same way they did (...) a DM needs to be able to pick up a monster manual and use it with no more difficulty than using the MM1 currently takes.

Another point where I disagree is in the issue of compatibility. To me, the absolutely necessary part boils down to races, classes (including powers) and adventures. The current catalogue of feats, paragon paths and magic items is as much a burden as a blessing, and I think there are a lot of ways that the game can be improved by cleaning the slate an starting over again. I can see many players disagreeing with this view, though, and it's definitely another ton of extra work, but that's my opinion anyway.

The issue with monsters is more complicated. I chose to update monster stats, meaning that current stat blocks will need to be converted in order to be useful. This is far from ideal, but, again, gives me freedom to work on the math and balance of the game at a higher level. On the other hand, the most compelling argument to go this route is that this conversion effort is arguably already necessary for most monsters in the game (except those in the Monster Vaults and the MM3), since the original math was so flawed.
 

Tallifer

Hero
...and that is my cue. I'm the guy from Square Fireballs, and while I've been suggesting (hopefully thoughtful) houserules for a few years now, I, too, have been tempted by the notion of a full-on 4E revision. Interestingly, when I laid out the design goals for my project, they turned out quite differently than what is discussed in this thread.

I need to check your blog and read it again. Very exciting news! (Nourishing food for thought no matter how differently your project might turn out.)
 

Remove ads

Top