D&D 4E Simplifying 4E

[Tony Vargas]

The question as far as I'm concerned is tied up in the messy topic of verisimilitude.

Whether you call it 'versimilitude,' 'realism' (as we did in the olden days), or just say 'the fighter can't have nice things,' it's only messy if you hold fantasy to a RL standard and prioritize it over game balance, fun, and playability.

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".

There a wide gap between punched through armor with lethal force and missed completely, but D&D simplifies it down to a an attack roll. It also simplifies a whole round of attacking & parrying down to an attack per round.

So a mechanic that gives a character a reasonable chance of succeeding at a marginal combat trick once per encounter, with the timing decided by the player is a perfectly reasonable simplification, on the same order as other abstractions that have long been part of the game. It's just one that gives a little more agency to the player of the fighter-types than has traditionally been the case (which can only be to the good).

 

[Xeviat]

I wouldn't want to quite go as far as to treat power source as literal power lists. To take 3E as my "classic" example, as that's where I start, a single spell could be on multiple spell lists. Heck, some were even on everyone's spell list. A "Holy Strike" at-will for 1[W]+Str damage, +Cha radiant damage, would only be on the paladin's list, but a "Heavy Blade Master" at-will could be a very similar 1[W]+Str+Dex damage.

I don't prefer the stances of the essentials fighter, though I do like the attempt to differentiate Fighters and rogues with stances and tricks. It might be something I go with, where "warriors" use attack modifiers and "experts" use tricks. The trouble would be if multiclassing came in, which the standard 4E structure is better able to handle.

As for 12 classes and 2-4 subclasses per, I don't intend the subclasses to be any more complicated than 5E's subclasses. They'd determine some of your class abilities, like your role ability (mark, striker damage, minor heal, whatever controllers are supposed to get ...). Yes, this is me trying to fit 5E's classes into 4E's math, but I think that's going to make a game that I enjoy more than both. I loved DMing 4E. I love statting out characters in 5E.

As for powers themselves, I have an idea to bring back the 1-9 spell level progression. Basically, when you first get a spell level, it's a daily power. Later, some of those dailies become encounters as you learn higher level ones. As 20th level 4E characters know 4 Encounters and 4 Dailies, that could fit into 2-5 as E, 6-9 as D, with 1s becoming At-Will at a certain point along with scaling of your cantrips.

If E's are roughly 2x A's, and D's are 3x A's, halfcasters could get some spells as their D's (like how the Bladesinger Wizard got wizard encounters as dailies), but be able to make a basic attack along with them. This is like the valor bard and eldritch knight abilities of 5E.

I'm not really worrying about multiclassing yet, though if I keep to the normal AED structure on everyone, simply allowing power swaps would work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It might be something I go with, where "warriors" use attack modifiers and "experts" use tricks.

The Warrior|Expert (Fighter|Thief) divide has long bothered me. Warrior stuff is mostly combat, Expert stuff mostly non-combat, yet the game works better if every PC can contribute meaningfully both in and out of combat, as most other classes can.

As for 12 classes and 2-4 subclasses per, I don't intend the subclasses to be any more complicated than 5E's subclasses. They'd determine some of your class abilities, like your role ability (mark, striker damage, minor heal, whatever controllers are supposed to get ...).

Aside from calling it class (with class lists) and sub class instead of source (with power lists) and role, that's prettymuch what you've talkied yourself out of. I suppose the labels matter if you're trying to sell it as 'simplified' on the basis of sounding more like D&D.

Yes, this is me trying to fit 5E's classes into 4E's math

Bigger numbers.

I have an idea to bring back the 1-9 spell level progression.

Smaller numbers.

Basically, when you first get a spell level, it's a daily power. Later, some of those dailies become encounters as you learn higher level ones. As 20th level 4E characters know 4 Encounters and 4 Dailies, that could fit into 2-5 as E, 6-9 as D, with 1s becoming At-Will at a certain point along with scaling of your cantrips.

Sounds plausible. Not simpler, but you might be able to finagle it around to something usable.

I'm not really worrying about multiclassing yet, though if I keep to the normal AED structure on everyone, simply allowing power swaps would work.

Surprisingly well, I'd think. An advantage of balanced AEDU that 4e never fully leveraged.

 

[Xeviat]

The Warrior|Expert (Fighter|Thief) divide has long bothered me. Warrior stuff is mostly combat, Expert stuff mostly non-combat, yet the game works better if every PC can contribute meaningfully both in and out of combat, as most other classes can.

Oh, I don't mean "expert" stuff as non-combat and "warrior" stuff as combat. I mean like the difference between the essential's fighter's stances and the essential's rogue's tricks. Likely semantics.

Aside from calling it class (with class lists) and sub class instead of source (with power lists) and role, that's prettymuch what you've talkied yourself out of. I suppose the labels matter if you're trying to sell it as 'simplified' on the basis of sounding more like D&D.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Bigger numbers.
Smaller numbers.

It's not just about bigger numbers vs. smaller numbers. It's about the inherent balance points of the system. 4E fights take more rounds, giving you more opportunities for varied actions. Player and monster numbers were largely comparable (monsters had more HP, but they also didn't generally have healing). Warriors had interesting actions from the get go, even if you just looked at at-wills (someone could trip and deal damage with an at-will, in 5th you can only trip). It's mostly that number of rounds things that does it for me. A 5E Fighter can drop it's self in one hit (2d6*+3, 5-15 damage, averaging 11.33, typical fighter starting HP is 12). Even a slayer's damage of something like 2d6+3+2+2, or whatever it would be, compared to a fighter's starting HP of like 27 means you're going to take at least two good hits instead of possibly one.

Plus, encounter recovery and healing surges makes designing an adventuring day more interesting.

Sounds plausible. Not simpler, but you might be able to finagle it around to something usable.

I only think it's simpler in that instead of each class having a power list of 100+, with differently named duplicates across them, those duplicates are pared down.

Surprisingly well, I'd think. An advantage of balanced AEDU that 4e never fully leveraged.

I'm wondering if my not liking martial dailies could be reconciled in this, and just have daily martial powers that are activated upon waking and give an all day bonus; that way this could be traded for a different daily for a multiclasser.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, I don't mean "expert" stuff as non-combat and "warrior" stuff as combat. I mean like the difference between the essential's fighter's stances and the essential's rogue's tricks. Likely semantics.

I suppose. There's not much of a difference, both are ways of presenting at wills as 'being' basic attacks, which is, I guess, something of what it looks to me like you're going for: preserving the benefits of the 4e design while applying a more traditional, thus simpler-seeming, veneer.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Lists of powers by Source and features by Class (Role) vs bit lists of powers by Class and features by sub-class (Role) not being that different.

It's not just about bigger numbers vs. smaller numbers. It's about the inherent balance points of the system. 4E fights take more rounds, giving you more opportunities for varied actions.

Sure. But as far as converting from 5e proficiency +0-4 over 19 levels to 4e training +1/2 level, it's just a matter of a bigger number.

I only think it's simpler in that instead of each class having a power list of 100+, with differently named duplicates across them, those duplicates are pared down.

I can see how the idea of powers transitioning from daily to encounter could eliminate some similar powers (like daily Fireball and encounter Combust) within a class, if that's what you mean. I'm just not sure it's /simpler/.

I'm wondering if my not liking martial dailies could be reconciled in this, and just have daily martial powers that are activated upon waking and give an all day bonus; that way this could be traded for a different daily for a multiclasser.

Oddly, that was a trick I did with spell way back in the day. It was a complaint that Vancian was 'stoopid,' so I created a few spells with an all-day duration that essentially gave a at will ability or continuous effect. Having some martial powers that just turned on some benefit all day when chosen after a rest, and others that worked normally, would be a nice way of letting players both choose what works best for their concept, and resource management that's most comfortable for them...

Of course, if you wanted to get a little more complicated, you could just let players choose from at will, encounter or daily powers with attacks, just like they already did with utilities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

There are a variety of answers to this. First of all its not that hard to keep grabbing additional powers that are, or can be, some form of tripping. A character can generally create a shtick this way (and its usually a good idea as it can leverage some feats, like say Headsman's Chop in the case of knock prone effects). Secondly you can look at these things as plot coupons, not as 'you can only do it once per combat' but more as "once per combat you can create the perfect conditions to trip someone", the rest of the time you can't (but see above of course). Thirdly you do have page 42, which lets you try any sort of oddball trick you can convince the GM you can pull off. Its not ideal, but if you REALLY REALLY MUST trip that guy and you don't have a power available to do it, well, there you go!

Its certainly true that any given fighter doesn't have a power at his fingertips for every kind of fancy maneuver you can imagine might be possible. OTOH higher level PCs have a LOT of tricks up their sleeves! Even a level 9 PC, certainly not high level in 4e's conception, has quite a lot of possibilities.

I never really bought this argument against 4e, that it somehow restricted you too much in what you could do. Its certainly giving you limited chances to pull off your most amazing stuff, but its not all that restrictive on the whole.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The Warrior|Expert (Fighter|Thief) divide has long bothered me. Warrior stuff is mostly combat, Expert stuff mostly non-combat, yet the game works better if every PC can contribute meaningfully both in and out of combat, as most other classes can.

This is why role is such a kick-ass concept! There are 4 obviously different approaches to being a warrior that are laid out for a class designer to build on (not even counting various mixtures of primary and secondary role). The Rogue can crank out damage via getting advantage on targets, the Fighter can be beat stick, the Warlord buffs and inspires, and at least in theory you could build a martial controller that would do it a different way. The beauty of it is, the same basic concept works for all the power sources, you can have clerics, paladins, avengers, and invokers, and they're all quite different, but all divine. Simple modular design utilizing a common language shared by all classes. Brilliant.

 

[Xeviat]

This is why role is such a kick-ass concept! There are 4 obviously different approaches to being a warrior that are laid out for a class designer to build on (not even counting various mixtures of primary and secondary role). The Rogue can crank out damage via getting advantage on targets, the Fighter can be beat stick, the Warlord buffs and inspires, and at least in theory you could build a martial controller that would do it a different way. The beauty of it is, the same basic concept works for all the power sources, you can have clerics, paladins, avengers, and invokers, and they're all quite different, but all divine. Simple modular design utilizing a common language shared by all classes. Brilliant.

I definitely miss role. In my 5E game, one player is playing a Valor bard and he doesn't seem to be enjoying the buffing thing. He started as a lore bard, but when he spent the first 5 sessions running into melee, we switched him to Valor. If valor and lore had different listed roles, that could have been avoided.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Igwilly]

I agree with role specifications. Perhaps each having only one role is too limited, but I did a research about class roles in RPG games first. The result was a nice, detailed list – which I still change every now and then. I think this will help me when creating my game.
But, I would like to say, the Thief/Rogue shouldn’t be just a dirty-fighting variant Fighter. Its core is out-of-combat effectiveness. Actually all “Experts” are like this. I think it’s fine for some classes to be somewhat more limited in combat but with greater skills.

 

[Xeviat]

See, I want everyone to be reasonable everywhere. One character may have less options in combat, but as long as those options are as good as the others, it should be fine.

I don't like 1 role per class because I want class to mean something in the world. I want to be able to see a character and say "that's a wizard".

I think each class should handle combat differently, and have some unique mechanic to how they do things.

Barbarians rage: this offers some kind of trade off. Do I give in and rage now? Or do I hold onto my senses and wait?

Bards: inspiration, boosts allies capability while still doing their own actions. Could be protective or offensive.

Cleric: channel divinity offers limited dual role/classing. War cleric is kind of like a fighter, sun cleric is kind of a wizard.

Druid: wildshape allows Druids to change their role on the fly.

Fighter: master of martial combat, they have more maneuvers than other warriors.

Monk: my thought is stances to dance in and out of, allowing them to play with a flow of abilities.

Paladin: divine challenge, the paladin excels a fighting a single opponent (whether it is to lock them down from hurting others, or to kill them faster).

Ranger: rangers fight in tandem with their pets, controlling two units as one (for those that don't want pets, I could see a small bird as a passive, non-unit, pet).

Rogue: rogues fight with trickery, going after vulnerable targets. I'd love to see rogues have to spend actions setting up devastating attacks or setting up their allies (for lazylords).

Sorcerer: becoming more and more like your bloodline, sorcerers will have lots of unique magical abilities at will, more so than a wizard's cantrips.

Warlocks: curse, maybe allowing one curse per round, slowly debilitating everyone. Ultimate in multi targeting?

Wizard: master of arcane, simply more spells than everyone else.

Something like this changes up playstyles for each class. A leader fighter (warlord) is going to be different from a leader rogue (noble?) or a leader cleric (healer) or a leader wizard (abjurer?).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk