D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Parmandur]

Well, sure, you swap out the d10 HD, certain fighting styles, action surge, second wind, and Extra Attack...

...or, you could start with cleric and swap out spellcasting, channel divinity, divine domain, destroy undead, divine intervention...

...or Bard and swap out Spellcasting, Bard College, magical secrets, and re-skin 'song' of rest...


...and add 6 or 8 or so Archetypes...

Well, no, the point of the variant Class Features (I'll call this "Kits" for now) is to work with the same Subclasses: so a "Warlord" Kit might replace a number of Fighter kill-y features for support-y features, but your could still have a Cavilar, Samurai, Champion, Battle master, etc. as a Warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, no, the point of the variant Class Features (I'll call this "Kits" for now) is to work with the same Subclasses: so a "Warlord" Kit might replace a number of Fighter kill-y features for support-y features, but your could still have a Cavilar, Samurai, Champion, Battle master, etc. as a Warlord.

...ooh, even worse.

Though I was only 9/10th joking with the Bard observation. You remove spellcasting wholesale and replace it with a comparable suite of maneuvers/tactics/whatever-you-wanna-call-it-when-you-do-something-awesome-without-magic, a few other gentle tweaks with a sledgehammer, and hey, even under that proviso, you could have a Valor (Bravura) Warlord and a Lore (Strategic?) Warlord... would be pretty far from the mark, but not as far off as starting with the Fighter's tanky DPR chassis.

 

[Parmandur]

...ooh, even worse.

Though I was only 9/10th joking with the Bard observation. You remove spellcasting wholesale and replace it with a comparable suite of maneuvers/tactics/whatever-you-wanna-call-it-when-you-do-something-awesome-without-magic, a few other gentle tweaks with a sledgehammer, and hey, even under that proviso, you could have a Valor (Bravura) Warlord and a Lore (Strategic?) Warlord... would be pretty far from the mark, but not as far off as starting with the Fighter's tanky DPR chassis.

Another possibility, given the initial test includes a spell less Ranger with Manuvers: a spell-free Bard might fit the bill.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Aye. A spell-free, music-free bard.

A drab.

If the anagram fits, might as well put the bard out of our misery.

A multi-talented fighter with the ability to inspire his comrades through sheer force of will? Sign me up.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think you're entirely wrong, either. The game Strike! is a pared-down 4e, with a lot of similar mechanics. However, the setting/character you choose has to fit within the combat zeitgeist or it stops making a lot of sense (at least, if you use the tactical stuff.) When 4e's PHB2 came out I looked at the various abilities for the classes with the same role...It made me wonder why they didn't just publish a list of abilities for each role and then let the players flavor as needed/desired. (Of course, the obvious answer is "To sell you more books.") I never got PHB3, but I understand it underlined the point even more, if you were looking at that way.

This is not entirely off-base, but I think you need more structure than that in order to make it reasonably straightforward for most "I just want to play the game" type folks (about 90% of all players) to get on with it. When they really want to color outside the lines, 4e is quite easy on them in terms of doing it.

However, my own 'hack' of 4e (which is now considerably its own game) has made things easier and points some ways forward. One problem is that there are some small but considerable 'bugs' in the way 4e's system works.

1) Proficiency as a bonus was a mistake, this pretty much forces you to use the weapon/implement you chose to start with, and it inherently penalizes and type of build which eschews a weapon/implement entirely. This is one place where a penalty (for non-proficiency) was appropriate. Thus being unarmed is inherently a really good option, nobody is disadvantaged for going that way!
2) The NAD/AC difference is totally bogus. This fecks up plenty of things and requires a whole slew of patches, both in terms of feats to be provided by the designers and clever build strategies by players, just to subvert. Dumb!
3) Skill bonuses should have been policed to remain exactly in step with attack bonuses. This allows any skill or attribute to simply BE an attack (or a defense). This is MUCH more flexible and opens up all sorts of design space.

Just this slight amount of re-engineering, while it is problematic to do as a house rule since it does slightly change a lot of powers and abilities/feats/etc. makes a much improved core engine.

The 4th thing I found to be useful was just getting rid of AC entirely. Make all attacks go against 'NADs' and then convert armor into a small amount of DR. This creates a nice effect where multi-attacks are suddenly a good bit less inherently desirable.

 

[cbwjm]

The 4th thing I found to be useful was just getting rid of AC entirely. Make all attacks go against 'NADs' and then convert armor into a small amount of DR. This creates a nice effect where multi-attacks are suddenly a good bit less inherently desirable.

This has the added bonus of saying that you hit someone right in the nads everytime you hit with an attack.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We've lost the laugh button...

 

[Aldarc]

This is not entirely off-base, but I think you need more structure than that in order to make it reasonably straightforward for most "I just want to play the game" type folks (about 90% of all players) to get on with it. When they really want to color outside the lines, 4e is quite easy on them in terms of doing it.

However, my own 'hack' of 4e (which is now considerably its own game) has made things easier and points some ways forward. One problem is that there are some small but considerable 'bugs' in the way 4e's system works.

1) Proficiency as a bonus was a mistake, this pretty much forces you to use the weapon/implement you chose to start with, and it inherently penalizes and type of build which eschews a weapon/implement entirely. This is one place where a penalty (for non-proficiency) was appropriate. Thus being unarmed is inherently a really good option, nobody is disadvantaged for going that way!
2) The NAD/AC difference is totally bogus. This fecks up plenty of things and requires a whole slew of patches, both in terms of feats to be provided by the designers and clever build strategies by players, just to subvert. Dumb!
3) Skill bonuses should have been policed to remain exactly in step with attack bonuses. This allows any skill or attribute to simply BE an attack (or a defense). This is MUCH more flexible and opens up all sorts of design space.

Just this slight amount of re-engineering, while it is problematic to do as a house rule since it does slightly change a lot of powers and abilities/feats/etc. makes a much improved core engine.

The 4th thing I found to be useful was just getting rid of AC entirely. Make all attacks go against 'NADs' and then convert armor into a small amount of DR. This creates a nice effect where multi-attacks are suddenly a good bit less inherently desirable.

Have you ever formally shared your house ruled version of 4e? I am definitely curious to read through the product.

 

[Sadras]

This has the added bonus of saying that you hit someone right in the nads everytime you hit with an attack.

Essentially auto-crits?