D&D 4E Simplifying 4E

[MwaO]

Actually, I'm rather happy with the essentials Wizard, and plan to build the spellcasters off of it. I just want traditional spell lists, though I'll still have Utilities and Rituals as separate things (possibly with some way to use attacks for utilities for noncombat sessions).

Your fighter sounds a lot like the essentials fighter. My plan is to start there, but have their encounter power chosen by their subclass, and their dailies replaced with static bonuses.

Those two classes fix most of the bigger issues with players who think they don't like 4e in terms of class structure. Namely:
The Wizard has the apparent Vancian complexity that players of Wizards like, but with a 5e 'oh, I guess I'm going to spam instead' quality.

The Fighter has no complexity whatsoever. But the damage numbers will be correct throughout the build as opposed to Slayer who isn't quite accurate. One of the big issues D&D has as a whole is that some people probably shouldn't be playing D&D at all, but do so because their friends play. They just want to roll damage and be apparently useful. That Fighter solves the problem from 1-30. It starts off strong compared to other Strikers and ends up reasonably strong simply because it has multiple attacks throughout the build such as Ranger does.

 

[Cleon]

Make a Fighter build where they get no encounter or daily attack powers, even if they take a Paragon Path or other option that gives one out. They gain a special Fighter power called Fighter's Strike which is a melee/ranged basic attack that does 1w+stat and either requires Str or Dex, depending on weapon choice. They then also gain a class feature called Double Attack which is where they get to use Fighter's Strike twice in a standard action.

My tastes would go the opposite route.

Have a fighter use a different Daily/Encounter/At-Will system than standard 4E.

Instead of having, say, X different encounter powers they'd use once each per encounter I'd prefer a fighter who could perform X encounter powers per encounter and choose them from a range of Y martial powers they'd mastered.

i.e. allow them to repeat the same encounter power or switch to a different one to match their tastes or circumstances.

For the Daily power, rather than have an entirely different ability I'd prefer it to be a "Heroic Boost" that does the same thing as any At-Will or Encounter Power the fighter knows, but better.

i.e. a "Heroic Boost" on a Double Strike type power would be, say, a Triple Strike, while a Heroic Boost on a standard at-will attack would add a hefty bonus damage dice.

 

[MwaO]

My tastes would go the opposite route.

Have a fighter use a different Daily/Encounter/At-Will system than standard 4E.

Instead of having, say, X different encounter powers they'd use once each per encounter I'd prefer a fighter who could perform X encounter powers per encounter and choose them from a range of Y martial powers they'd mastered.

i.e. allow them to repeat the same encounter power or switch to a different one to match their tastes or circumstances.

For the Daily power, rather than have an entirely different ability I'd prefer it to be a "Heroic Boost" that does the same thing as any At-Will or Encounter Power the fighter knows, but better.

i.e. a "Heroic Boost" on a Double Strike type power would be, say, a Triple Strike, while a Heroic Boost on a standard at-will attack would add a hefty bonus damage dice.

That's an interesting possibility for a Fighter within the 4e system, but there are two problems:
Spamming X doesn't work particularly well within 4e unless the powers are exceptionally balanced. See the problems with Dishearten, Lightning Rush as examples.
That's actually too complex for the player who just wants to be useful and be admired for his damage output. Even if what's happening mechanically is that the combat encounter adds just enough monsters to basically ignore the PC's presence.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I want to get back to running 4th, but the edition has a lot of baggage for me. So, I wanted to discuss some changes I wanted to do, and gather some ideas on how to do them.

Parse the Classes
I want to limit the classes to a core set of 12-14 classes.

That's fine - if you're limiting yourself to 3-4 Sources, or you want certain sources to omit certain roles...

Warlords are a fighter subclass, invokers are clerics, avengers are paladins, etc.

Don't kid yourself you're consolidating classes if they're just going to turn into sub-classes.

Parse the Powers
One thing I didn't like about 4E classes was that reading the classes was boring. I didn't want to read over a giant list of powers to get an idea of the class.

I never did, I always just read the first level powers when getting a feel for it, the class features really had most of the feel. I'd only read powers as of classes I actually played, as I got to a level to choose 'em. Much simpler that way.

Mostly, I intend to merge a lot of powers and have a Maneuver section and a Spell section. Each class will have their maneuver and/or spell list,

Maybe go the other way, and consolidate powers (maneuvers, spells, etc) by Source. So you wouldn't need separate powers or even lists for each class, every Martial Class could choose any maneuver, but their features would interact with it differently. A Martial Defender tacks on marks when he uses a maneuver, a Martial Controller makes melee maneuvers Close or Ranged ones Area, etc..

Feats should be nice, not required

Toss all the feat taxes and feats that add bonuses in general, for a start.

Class is separate from Role
As the Slayer Fighter, Hunter Ranger, Blackguard Paladin, and Guardian Druid of post essentials 4E showed, classes can be multiple roles.

Well, sub-classes can, essentially each sub-class becomes a different class, often largely incompatible with it's parent class (and you can't MC between 'em) in Essentials. Not great for 'simplifying' the game.

If you do want to divorce class from Role, consider having Class determine Source, and something else Role or role-emphasis (allowing that some builds might not go all-in to only one role).

Rolls will be a function of subclass choice, not class choice.

In essence, then each class is like it's own Source, and each sub-class like a class.
4e came close, at times to being a Source X Role matrix, with a class at each position. Sticking to the 3 most traditional sources (martial, divine, arcane) that'd imply 12 possible classes. You won't simplifying that if you let each class cover multilple roles, instead of 12 or more classes, you'll potentially have 48+ sub-classes.

Still not seeming like you're going to get anything 'simpler' out of that.

What are your thoughts? My intent is to keep the monster math the same, but adjust the player side of things so it's simpler and more classic appearing. Most of my group doesn't like 4E, but their dislike (from their own explanations) doesn't seem insurmountable.

'Simpler and more Classic' is pretty nearly a contradiction in terms. D&D has never been simple.

But, if you really want to try to cater to the illusion of simplicity some D&Ders get from familiarity, /do/ start with the 'big 4' classes (or better yet 0D&D original 3 classes, no 'Thief'), but, behind the curtain, treat them more as 4e does Source:

Fighter (Martial)
- Cavalier (Defender)
- Ranger (Controller)
- Rogue (Striker)
- Barbarian (Striker)
- Warlord (Leader)

Priest (Divine)
- Cleric (Leader)
- Druid (Controller)
- Paladin (Defender)
- Blackguard (Striker)

Wizard (Arcane)
- Evoker (Striker)
- Illusionist (Controller)
- Enchanter (Controller)
- Conjurer (Controller)
- Transmuter (Controller)
- Abjurer (Defender)
- Diviner (Leader)
- Necromancer (Leader)
- Sorcerer (Striker)
- Warlock (Controller)
- Artificer (Leader)
- Duskblade (Striker)
- Swordmage (Defender)
- Bladesinger (Controller)
- Bard (Leader)
- Warmage (Striker)
- Truenamer (Controller)
- Sha'ir (Controller)
- Witch (Leader)
- Beguiler (Leader)


Then have a Wizard spell list, a Cleric spell list, and a Fighter maneuver list. Sub-classes then have feature that synergize with or modify the spells they take.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Having gone through this exercise with my own 4e hack, I think Tony has some good points. So do other people.

It is VERY VERY difficult to make sufficiently distinctive power choices if you put powers onto a power source list (IE all Martials can pick from the same powers). Yes, you can have a class feature that interacts with that, but you don't really achieve anything close to the level of distinctiveness that 4e powers can get you to (not all DO, but they CAN).

Also, role as a source of powers or other mechanical elements of the character is just IMHO a non-starter. Its not thematic at all. There's really very little in common between the various Defender classes for instance (and they're really the most samey of all roles). At best you're hobbling your ability to make really interesting and distinctive characters by divorcing role from class. I quickly abandoned this as a viable design concept.

In the end I also MOSTLY abandoned the power source power lists as a concept. At first I tried doing what Tony is referring to, and having just a few archetype classes (Warrior, Mystic, and Trickster), but there's just not enough in common there. Doing it by 4e power source doesn't work much better. Doing it by class we already know is not that great, so what did that leave? In the end I've abstracted a LOT of what 4e puts into class into packages that are mechanically called 'Major Boons'. You get one per level (actually you get one level per major boon you have, another discussion entirely). These package up concepts like "casts fire-based powers" or "has a natural animal companion and some tricks to go with it", etc. Power sources also have a thin list of basic powers that you can pick. Some of the boons also do things like introduce a new 'feature', such as 'add fire damage to any attack you make once per encounter' or whatnot. Classes have their basic 'shtick' features that adapt them to their role and spin the various powers to some extent, but also include some non-combat stuff that speaks more to the essence of what the class is about in world terms.

Because classes don't have a huge amount of specific material its VERY easy to make them, and at the same time you don't NEED a vast number of them to get all the different permutations of characters you want, as a lot of that can be pulled in by acquiring the right boon.

One thing to say about the boon system though, you get a boon for narrative reasons, and then you get a level because you got the boon. This is kind of subtle, but what it means is that character build-out is mostly narratively driven. Its under the player's control to some table-specific degree, but its not likely you'll be sitting around comparing this boon to that boon and mixing and matching just the right ones to do XYZ. Its a lot more organic. Design-wise the point is there's a less compelling argument for insuring that every random assortment of boons doesn't lead to some 'broken' build or other. Its mostly only necessary to think about what elements are LIKELY to come together within a plausible story-arc for a given character.

I've also trimmed down a lot on the sources of powers, so PCs generally have something on the order of 4-7 power choices at a given time. By making each power more distinctive and significant in use you get a pretty varied set of outcomes and tactics that you can use, but its less focused on mechanical issues and more on general tactical concepts and narrative play.

We haven't really played through all of this a whole lot, it seems to work reasonably well, but I don't know for sure what happens when you run an entire campaign if things continue to work or if it may get repetitive or out of hand in some fashion. Its definitely easier to run than even 4e!

 

[Cleon]

That's an interesting possibility for a Fighter within the 4e system, but there are two problems:

Spamming X doesn't work particularly well within 4e unless the powers are exceptionally balanced. See the problems with Dishearten, Lightning Rush as examples.

Well so long as two classes are approximately in the same ballpark balance doesn't bother me much anymore. Trying to get all classes at even power level seems way more trouble than its worth, and achieving it would likely limit the design space so much they'd risk feeling to "samey" for my tastes.

If there was a class with the suggested power structure than it'd be likely that some of the powers they could pick would be ones that it'd require special circumstances to be desirable for use consequtively - a charge type attack, for example, might require the character move a minimum distance and in most battles they'd likely use it to get into melee and then only use it again if any defenders in said melee has been neutralized, to avoid receiving a counter-attack when they charge again.

It might require a good deal of modification of the 4E rules, but it could give the game more of a verisimilitude feel if done right.

That's actually too complex for the player who just wants to be useful and be admired for his damage output. Even if what's happening mechanically is that the combat encounter adds just enough monsters to basically ignore the PC's presence.

Isn't that what the Slayer's for.

 

[MwaO]

Well so long as two classes are approximately in the same ballpark balance doesn't bother me much anymore. Trying to get all classes at even power level seems way more trouble than its worth, and achieving it would likely limit the design space so much they'd risk feeling to "samey" for my tastes.

The problem is that's not how combat really works, even for martials. Someone tries to repeatedly to trip you; it doesn't matter how inept you are at combat, it isn't going to work as well as the first time. Good combatants mix up their options - 4e just chooses to give the player narrative control over what they try to do and when and represent success with a hit.

The outcome of making spammable options is that everyone ends up spamming the same options repeatedly. You can see this in 5e, where the -5/+10 damage feats really up the effectiveness of Advantage or a +Superiority Die to hit.

Isn't that what the Slayer's for.

Slayer has two issues:
The Stances for the most part are junk. They add a non-worthwhile choice that's mostly about whether or not you do extra damage or move. That's complexity for the sake of complexity. Just give them a choice of extra damage or move before they make their attack roll.

The damage they do is not sufficient in Paragon+ in a semi-optimized game and too much in a Heroic non-optimized game. The advantage of having 2 attacks and no other options is that the class is campaign-independent - you want to play one in a non-optimized game and you don't understand optimization? You'll do exactly the right kind of damage without much fuss. You want to play one in an optimized game and you do understand optimization? Again, right kind of damage, no fuss.

And of course, rolling two attacks is fun. You'll usually hit at least once per round, so you get to do some damage every round. It is exactly what that kind of player wants to do - be useful, do a bunch of damage on a good round.

 

[Cleon]

The problem is that's not how combat really works, even for martials. Someone tries to repeatedly to trip you; it doesn't matter how inept you are at combat, it isn't going to work as well as the first time. Good combatants mix up their options - 4e just chooses to give the player narrative control over what they try to do and when and represent success with a hit.

The problem I have is the wide gap between "isn't going to work as well as the first time" and "can only do it once per encounter".

If there was some kind of penalty to reusing the same attack against the same opponent (or group of opponents) in the same encounter I'd be fine with it, but as it is a fighter can trip someone as an encounter power and is then unable to even attempt to trip another foe, even if the other foe didn't see the fighter trip an enemy in that encounter or have any idea the fighter is expert at tripping.

Unfortunately working out some hard rules for such matters is a long way from the "Simplifying 4E" of this thread's original premise.

 

[MwaO]

The problem I have is the wide gap between "isn't going to work as well as the first time" and "can only do it once per encounter".

If there was some kind of penalty to reusing the same attack against the same opponent (or group of opponents) in the same encounter I'd be fine with it, but as it is a fighter can trip someone as an encounter power and is then unable to even attempt to trip another foe, even if the other foe didn't see the fighter trip an enemy in that encounter or have any idea the fighter is expert at tripping.

It isn't a question of whether or not the Fighter can trip another opponent, it is that the Fighter simply doesn't see the option to do it well in the context that it is a meaningful fight.

If you really want the capability to re-use a martial power, just roll twice to hit, take the lower of the two rolls, don't gain any benefits of 'what happens on a miss', and use up another similar power of a level above the power. Yes, not particularly useful, but hey, really want to use Come And Get It twice as a 13th level Fighter? Use up your Encounter 13 and do it again...

 

[Cleon]

It isn't a question of whether or not the Fighter can trip another opponent, it is that the Fighter simply doesn't see the option to do it well in the context that it is a meaningful fight.

If you really want the capability to re-use a martial power, just roll twice to hit, take the lower of the two rolls, don't gain any benefits of 'what happens on a miss', and use up another similar power of a level above the power. Yes, not particularly useful, but hey, really want to use Come And Get It twice as a 13th level Fighter? Use up your Encounter 13 and do it again...

The question as far as I'm concerned is tied up in the messy topic of verisimilitude. The problem I have is there may be many occassions in a real world battle that a martial artist might be able to use the same move twice or more with the same or nearly the same effectiveness.

It's as much a matter that some aspects of 4E don't gel well with my preferred playstyle. I think the game itself is perfectly playable but it's not really my cup of hot water infused with plant materials.