D&D 4E Three Moves to Fix/Change 4E

[Nemesis Destiny]

Dude, you said you don't like or play paladins and that the original paladin is fine. However the original paladin that came out was definitely not fine. In my view that's not a position that can reasonably be defended.

A view I don't share. Sure, a V-class is not ideal, but a Paladin has always had high stat requirements. I still fail to see how that makes it 'not fine'. I think the degree to which it is fine or not fine has more to do with expectations.

I will also point out that I said I usually don't like or play Paladins, but I have in 4th and I liked it. I also made one in 3.x that I liked, but again, I needed material from Unearthed Arcana to make it not suck.

(I guess if you're talking about the paladin post Complete Divine then you've got some ground, although the fixes in that book made the paladin feel like a kludge.)

I suppose, technically, I was. I can't always remember what came out when, etc, only what exists now. I would hesitate to call Divine Power a kludge, so much as maybe a patch. That's nothing new in the 4e paradigm.

My point was that a person that loves playing a class (paladin in this case) would be among the best people to playtest a class. Your comment shows at least why someone who doesn't like or play a class shouldn't be involved in it's playtest.

Elitism and 'No True Scotsman' aside, I think I understand the sentiment behind what you're saying, though I disagree. As I pointed out, ideally, playtests should be done with people in both camps.

For what it's worth, one of the fellows in my group, who *loves* playing divine classes (including paladins), played a PHB-only paladin when the game was first released, and didn't have a problem with it. So again, I'm saying that your judgement of such things is entirely subjective.

I mean seriously, look at the intro art for the paladin in the players handbook. What serious fan of the class would have chosen that?

I make a point of ignoring as much or all of the art, if/when possible. Most of it is terrible. I base choices on what *I* see or want to visualize, not someone else's idea (most of the time. We've already established though, that art taste is really, really subjective, and on those points we seem to be in agreement.

Also, this is a huge digression from the topic at hand.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Certainly not! - 100% Irish, we're completely worlds apart.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

...ideally, playtests should be done with people in both camps.

Well here's the crux of one of my wishes. I would have fans of a class critically playtest what the game designers design. All people involved should be fully motivated and committed to producing a fun to play class. I'm happy for options to come out later but the original presented should be fully functional & self contained.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Not ready past the first page, but my fixes would be;
1) Bake in the math into the system get rid of all expertise type feats

2) No magic item bonus to attack or defense, change the magic items as follows;
Common items, have elemental damage and the extra critical die, so a +2 frost weapon does damage as per the regular type but with the elemental keyword and on crits does +2 extra dice of damage.
Also items that have feat like powers like Dwarven armour that allows second wind as a minor.

Items that provide extra encounter or daily powers, less common.

3) Ritual store irems, these rare items can have a ritual cast on them and the ritual can later be completed by 3 minor actions x tier. So a heroic ritual can be done in one round by spending 3 actions or over 3 round by spending a minor in each round.

 

[mudlock]

...but a Paladin has always had high stat requirements.

Sure... back when everyone was rolling for stats, and you were lucky if your character lived to see 3rd level. Under those situations, paladins were random, rare, and powerful.

But practically everyone buys ability scores now, and anyone can build a paladin any time they want, but their "high stat requirements" means they're actually WORSE off than a non-MAD class who doesn't need to spread themselves so thin.

Now, if you want to argue that the game would be better if MORE classes had MORE incentive to focus on more than just two (or sometimes just one!) attribute, that sounds like an interesting conversation to have. But in 4e today, any class that does that is a trap.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Sure... back when everyone was rolling for stats, and you were lucky if your character lived to see 3rd level. Under those situations, paladins were random, rare, and powerful.

But practically everyone buys ability scores now, and anyone can build a paladin any time they want, but their "high stat requirements" means they're actually WORSE off than a non-MAD class who doesn't need to spread themselves so thin.

Now, if you want to argue that the game would be better if MORE classes had MORE incentive to focus on more than just two (or sometimes just one!) attribute, that sounds like an interesting conversation to have. But in 4e today, any class that does that is a trap.

So far, the best solution I've seen is Death To Ability Scores.

 

[Aulirophile]

Not a fan. That idea has issues with several mechanics of 4e, across various builds/classes.

Not that getting rid of ability scores is inherently bad, it could be workable, but a good chunk of the game would need to be redone. More of a 5e thing I think. For 4e just fixing the math on scaling is as far it should go, and there have been some creative solutions to that which could be implemented by relatively minor errata.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Not a fan. That idea has issues with several mechanics of 4e, across various builds/classes.

Not that getting rid of ability scores is inherently bad, it could be workable, but a good chunk of the game would need to be redone. More of a 5e thing I think. For 4e just fixing the math on scaling is as far it should go, and there have been some creative solutions to that which could be implemented by relatively minor errata.

Fair enough- I'll take your word for the mechanics of it, but it's more the idea that I like, not necessarily this particular implementation of it.

As far as fixes go that don't totally bork things, I liked the suggestion (can't remember where) that implied the hole was caused and could be fixed by magic items granting stat boosts (+2 per tier).

 

[Ramius613]

1. Rework magic items from the ground up. Commons would be useful to everyone. Uncommons would have elements that would be beneficial to a characters role and or power source. They would also have a Common element as well. Rares would have a Common and Uncommon element. They would include an element for a specific class. Also, they would have the ability to be customized and gain power as the character leveled. Something similar to Weapons of Legacy in 3.5. Also at the end of a PC's career, they could choose one of the 3 (based on the idea that you only saw 1 / tier) which one could be infused with a bit of your sentience (sp?) and become an artifact.

2. Work Rituals into the game so that they actually become useful beyond Raise Dead, Transfer Enchantment, and Enchant Item. This would also include support in modules, as well as ways to help DMs incorporate them in their own adventures.

3. The skill system and skill challenges. It needs some work, not as much as my previous two changes. I'm unable to put my thoughts into words, atm, but I know that something needs to be changed.

 

[On Puget Sound]

1. fewer conditions. Do we really need grabbed, immobilized and restrained? Maybe have layered conditions, i.e. slowed twice= immobilized and dazed twice= stunned

2. simplified condition ending and condition tracking. All non-save conditions end at the end of the victim's turn (when they would normally roll a save).

3. either allow two hybrid talent feats, or give each hybrid decent AC without costing a feat.