D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[RangerWickett]

You could tell what they did mechanically, but they were bereft of evocative flavor.

Also, the whole power card for Steel Serpent Strike took far more space than "Once per short rest, when you hit someone, make a few shove attempt."

 

[dave2008]

Whenever this topic comes up I like to summon @Myrhdraak you already created a wonderful 4.5e system. I can't remember if they ever posted it publicly, but could do so in short order if WotC released a 4e SRD.

Other than that I see a lot of good ideas here.

 

[Zardnaar]

Use the 5E skill system and les of a straight jacket so build it off the old Star Wars Saga RPG.

It's basically a 3.5/4E hybrid but the numbers are still booked a bit but it uses the 4E emgine.

Powers wouldn't exist as such but the rider effects would be there and you just add the effect to the damage you're dealing so the overall effect is similar to 4E you don't need pages of powers.

 

[James Gasik]

Huh. I don't know, I still remember Fighters screaming VORPAL TORNADO!

You become a whirling cyclone of death, spinning your weapon about as you strike one foe after another, pushing them back and knocking them down.

Seems evocative to me.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

There's a lot of small things I would fix.

• Balancing fell off a bit at higher levels, the maths were off.
• Many Daily Powers were very powerful and were either you do something awesome or you miss completely, I would add degrees of success (which many other powers had).
• I would incorporate some type of escalation die to accelerate combat.
• I would tweak the maths slightly (notably HPs and hit chance) to accelerate combat.
• I would bring 5E advantage system in some way to simplify some of the math.
• Many more.

And there's one big glaring issue which, in my opinion, is what tanked the edition:

• 4E powers are almost exclusively combat-oriented. The game does not stop you from doing exploration, social and roleplay. But it doesn't support it a ton via your character progression. There were utility powers, but they were few and often still combat oriented. I'd had a plethora of utility powers (some classics and some less-known) to give more opportunities for players to solve non-combat encounters.

I actually have a lengthy document that has a ton of notes, drafts and ideas for a 4E inspired game. It's probably gathering dust somewhere.

 

[Haplo781]

Fix the core math, rework the classes that didn't quite click, completely redo item design, and that's about it.

The game is fine overall. It does a better job at supporting the other pillars than 3.x or 5e, it's just that the combat rules are so far and away more competent that it makes it glaringly obvious how bad the non-combat rules have always been.

 

[Charlaquin]

You could tell what they did mechanically, but they were bereft of evocative flavor.

Right, so like I said, expand the flavor text section, that’s fine. Just don’t sacrifice clarity of function in the process.

Also, the whole power card for Steel Serpent Strike took far more space than "Once per short rest, when you hit someone, make a few shove attempt."

there is probably room to make some powers more concise.

 

[Shiroiken]

I thought 4E was a more or less fine game, I just felt it was too different from prior versions of D&D. If it was released under a different name, I feel it wouldn't have had many issues at all.

1. Combat took forever and a day, because every combat had to be "meaningful." My experience was 2 hours was the norm, and every combat felt the same. Monsters came on strong, but then the party would eventually overwhelm them with daily and encounter powers.
2. Skill Challenges were a failure. Either you forced characters to get involved, even when it didn't make sense (early part of the edition) or a single specialized character could solve the problem (later part of the edition).
   1. The concept could be reworked to use Clocks like Blades in the Dark, where you need a number of successes before time runs out. A single character couldn't get it done in time, and the constraint would encourage non-specialists to participate.
3. Some things just didn't make sense when applied universally, most notably "Come and Get It" power, which would force ranged attackers to move into melee because reasons. DMG gave the impression the DM is just supposed to roll with it, making up whatever reason they could. Logic was irrelevant, only game balance.

 

[Atomoctba]

That’s what utility powers were, and not having to give up a combat power for them was one of the benefits of the unified power progression structure. Also rituals, which anyone could learn to do.

I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to more utility powers though, they were often some of the most interesting powers in a character’s kit.

To a point. Lots of utility powers were to be used in combat: up your defenses, move to safety or to reach a new enemy, demoralize your opposition, etc. While there was utilities like "interrogate better" or "find more food exploring", to many players it was a difficult choice, because take them would reduce tactical options in combat. So, if I was not clear before, I would split the utilities in "combat ones, just not attacks" and "out-of-combat, to do social or exploration things". You would get the "combat ones" in the same rate 4e gave utilities, but also get (at same rate or another one) the "out-of-combat" ones to round better the character.

 

[payn]

I'd probably put non-combat options and combat options on different progression paths; one of the big issues with the non-combat utility powers and feats was that they directly competed with the combat ones; you never knew if a non-combat utility would come in handy, but combat ones always did.

This. Its something I would do in many editions and even other TTRPGs.

PF2 tried to do it right, but the options are wildly variable in usefulness. For example, skill feats range from once a campaign, to once a session, to once every encounter. Its obvious which choice is getting taken.