D&D 4E My plans for a 4E revamp

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. I really loved 4E, and while there is a lot about 5E I enjoy, I feel like it might be easier for me to port things I like from 5E to 4E (classes built with features other than limited use powers, limited classes, shared spells across classes) than to port more 4E stuff into 5E (monster roles, minion/standard/elite/solo monster design, monsters in general, specific item progressions, encounter/daily refreshing, martial powers doing cool stuff). I've talked about this a bit before, but I have a nice empty weekend coming up and wanted to put some work in.

Here are my design principle thoughts; I'm open to discussion on the principles and how to implement them, but not really to comments like "don't waste your time" or "just play 4E":

• Condensed Classes, and classes with multiple roles: I like the idea of classes being broad things in the world. I liked how Essentials had a striker fighter, a striker paladin, and a leader druid. My idea is to have the 5E classes and have subclass define your primary role (a war cleric could operate as a defender, an avenger paladin is a striker, a tactician fighter is a leader ...).
• Shared Power/Spell lists: Rather than having each class have, for instance, an encounter power for 2W+Stat and Slow, powers and spells will be more shared between classes. This will largely be source, but be a bit broader (weapon powers, skill powers, arcane spells, divine spells, some universal spells).

*Tightening of feats.
*Smoothing of the math of character growth (not needing Weapon expertise feats to keep up with monster AC, for instance).

As you can see, the changes are pretty much all on the character side.

What do you think? Anyone care to assist a bit?

 

[Xeviat]

Class redesign ideas

Each class is going to be redesigned with an eye to each class having a different play style and likely their own mechanic.

I'm really liking the idea of using the traditional 9 spell levels. For the primary spellcasters, their daily spells will eventually then into encounter spells as they level up and learn new dailies. A 20th level character, for instance, may have encounter spells drawn from 2, 3, 4, and 5th level spells, while their 6, 7, 8, and 9th level spells are daily.

Here's my initial thoughts.

Barbarian: rage offers a toggle to switch from primary role (determined by subclass) into a wild striker.
*At-will powers: weapon attacks
*Encounter power: Rage
*Daily powers: likely tied to subclass.
*Roles: I can easily imagine a leader (like a barbarian warlord), striker (berserker), or defender roles; potentially even a melee controller with sweeping attacks and literally hamstringing people to impose conditions.

Bard: bardic inspiration is used for enhancing allies or hindering foes.
*At-will powers: weapon attacks or cantrips
*Encounter powers: songs/inspirations
*Daily powers: spells (drawn from multiple lists, with some enhancement to make up for them having access to lower level spells as a half-caster).
*Roles: bards could easily be designed to be any role.

Cleric: sort of a baseline spellcaster, but their channel divinity kind of could work out to being a multiclassing lite (war clerics play with some fighter stuff, for instance).
At-will: cantrips
Encounter and Daily: spells

Druid: wildshape could be used to dynamically switch roles. Forms could be striker or defender and each have their own at-will and encounter powers (expending spells to use their encounter powers).
At-will: cantrips
Encounter/Daily: spells

Fighter: the fighter is the baseline warrior; I've been playing with having their role be dynamic with their equipment, but I'm not entirely sure that would be workable (it works for non-leader roles, but I don't know what leader equipment would be).
At-will: weapon attacks
Encounter: action Surge? Weapon specialization attacks (different features depending on the weapon you use)?
Daily: drawn from subclass (Eldritch knight gets wizard encounter spells that they can cast alongside basic weapon attacks, like the Bladesinger design from late 4E).

Monk: I actually really liked the 4E monk design, and would like to keep the move/action design somewhat, making the balancing of those two actions into their style.
At-will: weapon attacks
Encounter: techniques
Daily: subclass dependent

Paladin: the divine challenge ability is their primary playstyle defining ability, making the paladin want to focus on one on one fights; the riders on the challenge will be different for subclass/role.
At-will: weapon attacks
Encounter: smites
Daily: cleric spells plus basic attack (the half-caster/gosh design)

Ranger: I'm strongly considering having all rangers use a pet, so managing two units is their playstyle. The nature of the pet helps determine role, like a beefy pet could be a defender and a swift pet could be a striker. Could have something small, like a hawk, allow for a build where the pet isn't a targetable creature but can be used to gain benefits against a foe.
At-will: weapon attacks
Encounter: companion coordination
Daily: druid spells plus basic attack

Rogue: rogues focus on attacking opportune targets, and use their skills to create those opportunities; might even design them to play with a set-up/attack back and forth, spending a round setting up and then a round attacking.
At-will: skill tricks (actions abilities that add benefits to the next basic attack)
Encounter: backstab
Daily: tied to subclass

Sorcerer: I start to struggle with the arcane casters. I think the sorcerer's playstyle should be more power focused than spell focused, making the sorcerer more of a half-caster that gains other supernatural abilities tied to their bloodline. This way, the sorcerer's playstyle would be kind of playing like a monster.

Warlock: curse would be their defining feature, but I think they might work best as a half caster.

Wizard: the main spellcaster. They'd follow the at-will, encounter, daily structure with extra abilities from their subclass. A summoner could be a defender, while an abjurer could be a leader, for instance.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the idea of transforming subclass into role seems...difficult. Roles were primarily defined by two sources; the pool of powers available to them and specific class features. If you're making powers broadly shared between classes, then you're committing yourself into designing a role defining feature for each and every subclass you introduce. 4E had to stretch to do that just for classes.

 

[NotAYakk]

Class as big tent is plausible in 4e. It even worked with retrofitting the Slayer.

If the "Fighter" is a big-tent class, you will have subclasses that have the defender mechanics in them. And you'll have some powers that are defender subclass only.

What I see is wrong headed here is that, in practice, you'll be making a game for a few people to play, and not a game for millions to play.

Which means you don't need 18 powers to pick between at level X for a fighter. That character-building minigame isn't something you are going to deliver (it takes a LOT of work to make up that many powers and give them fun fluff and make them vaguely balanced -- I've tried) practically.

So don't deliver it. Deliver narrow, essentials style classes (well, vampire-essentials; with mostly pre-determined power picks). Have customization along the lines of "you can pick a power from another subclass at this level".

As part of the thing for big-tent classes, make the classes more distinct.

If you are going to have Str vs AC, 2[W]+Str+Slow powers on two classes, consider that your classes aren't distinct enough yet, in either theme or mechanics.

---

Imagine if the Fighter has a pile of power strikes powers you apply after you hit.

The Rogue has movement powers that produce riders on foes you move next to.

The Ranger has stances that it flows in between, dealing an effect when leaving a style and when entering one, and a passive off-turn benefit.

The Wizard has spells that take 2 rounds to cast, but hit hard.

The Sorcerer manifests their bloodline as they use their powers.

The Warlock's magic creates symbols over the battlefield, executing clauses of its contract.

The Paladin turns damage dealt and prevented into an aura.

etc.

All of these can fit in the 4e damage budget mechanics without having powers that are at all like each other.

 

[Xeviat]

I think the idea of transforming subclass into role seems...difficult. Roles were primarily defined by two sources; the pool of powers available to them and specific class features. If you're making powers broadly shared between classes, then you're committing yourself into designing a role defining feature for each and every subclass you introduce. 4E had to stretch to do that just for classes.

I think designing role features for subclass is easier than designing whole suites of powers. It's an issue I have with 4E design, actually. Defender, striker, and leader relied a lot on their class's role ability, while controller roles were baked into their powers. This meant a striker picking up controller spells, through multiclassing or just later power design, made it feel like controllers were undefined to me.

So, for instance, paladins could be strikers or defenders easily, with different effects on their Divine Challenge ability. I could even see a leader version. Yes, this does mean someone could have a primary class defender ability and then pick up more leader oriented spells/powers, but that's where we get into the variety of certain characters having a primary role and a secondary role they can lean in to.

 

[TwoSix]

I think designing role features for subclass is easier than designing whole suites of powers. It's an issue I have with 4E design, actually. Defender, striker, and leader relied a lot on their class's role ability, while controller roles were baked into their powers. This meant a striker picking up controller spells, through multiclassing or just later power design, made it feel like controllers were undefined to me.

So, for instance, paladins could be strikers or defenders easily, with different effects on their Divine Challenge ability. I could even see a leader version. Yes, this does mean someone could have a primary class defender ability and then pick up more leader oriented spells/powers, but that's where we get into the variety of certain characters having a primary role and a secondary role they can lean in to.

Oh, it's definitely easier, it just still seems like a lot of work.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think I said it in another one of your thread a few weeks back, but I made a one shot with Essentials + 5e Math. It was fun and easy to convert. I'm sure doing it with regular 4e would be easy enough.

Powers from 4e
I used proficiency for: Attack roll, NADs (10+ Highest from two + prof), but not AC.
Trained skill give double prof (5e expertise), regular skills just add prof.
Weapon and Armor used their 5e counterpart. I kept armor penalties from 4e and shield from 4e.
Starting HP is Con score + Class HP, every level players gain + class HP
Used Advantage/Disadvantage from 5e.
Skill challenges work the same.
I used 4e Healing Surges.

 

[Zardnaar]

Condense down to 20 levels if not 10-15.

Anything more it a lot or work that no one's gonna use.

 

[Minigiant]

I think designing role features for subclass is easier than designing whole suites of powers. It's an issue I have with 4E design, actually. Defender, striker, and leader relied a lot on their class's role ability, while controller roles were baked into their powers. This meant a striker picking up controller spells, through multiclassing or just later power design, made it feel like controllers were undefined to me.

So, for instance, paladins could be strikers or defenders easily, with different effects on their Divine Challenge ability. I could even see a leader version. Yes, this does mean someone could have a primary class defender ability and then pick up more leader oriented spells/powers, but that's where we get into the variety of certain characters having a primary role and a secondary role they can lean in to.

It is doable.

Like you said, the roles except for controller were defined by a by a class feature.

So having something like a fighter choose between

• Fighter's Mark (A mark) for a defender
• Fighter's Strike (+Con to damage) for a melee striker
• Fighter's Sight (+Str to damage) for a ranged striker

Is a simple way to do it.

How you do controllers I have no idea? Change attacks to cones? Have automatic conditions to damage types?

 

[dave2008]

Hi everyone. I really loved 4E, and while there is a lot about 5E I enjoy, I feel like it might be easier for me to port things I like from 5E to 4E (classes built with features other than limited use powers, limited classes, shared spells across classes) than to port more 4E stuff into 5E (monster roles, minion/standard/elite/solo monster design, monsters in general, specific item progressions, encounter/daily refreshing, martial powers doing cool stuff). I've talked about this a bit before, but I have a nice empty weekend coming up and wanted to put some work in.

Here are my design principle thoughts; I'm open to discussion on the principles and how to implement them, but not really to comments like "don't waste your time" or "just play 4E":

• Condensed Classes, and classes with multiple roles: I like the idea of classes being broad things in the world. I liked how Essentials had a striker fighter, a striker paladin, and a leader druid. My idea is to have the 5E classes and have subclass define your primary role (a war cleric could operate as a defender, an avenger paladin is a striker, a tactician fighter is a leader ...).
• Shared Power/Spell lists: Rather than having each class have, for instance, an encounter power for 2W+Stat and Slow, powers and spells will be more shared between classes. This will largely be source, but be a bit broader (weapon powers, skill powers, arcane spells, divine spells, some universal spells).

*Tightening of feats.
*Smoothing of the math of character growth (not needing Weapon expertise feats to keep up with monster AC, for instance).

As you can see, the changes are pretty much all on the character side.

What do you think? Anyone care to assist a bit?

you might ask @Myrhdraak as he developed a pretty nice 4.5e with a similar premise. He might be interested in revisiting it again.

Personally, I was in the some boat once (port the best ideas from 5e into 4e), but I found it easier for me and our group to go the other way and pull our favorite parts for 4e into 5e.