D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[Faolyn]

I hear this an awful lot, and I still don't understand it. 4e is no more "a combat game" than either 3e or 5e--and in several ways, significantly less of one.

I'm not saying it was, but I am saying that when I first read the 4e books, the only impression I got was combat--which is not the impression I got with any other edition of (A)D&D. And that impression turned me off significantly.

lls are both much more powerful and much more accessible than either 3e or 5e. "Spells with non-combat purposes" ARE in the PHB. They're called rituals.

Making non-combat spells into rituals, for instance, just emphasized that the game was about combat by stuffingthe non-combat spells off to the side.

They chose to put only 8 classes in each book to keep the books focused.

But it's interesting that instead of keeping one of the combat-heavy classes for PHB2--which is also a terrible idea, IMO, because by that time I was turned off and wouldn't be interested in spending money on it--they just to keep the face class away. One shouldn't have to buy two PHBs to play a game.

PHB2, which came out all of 9 months later (June 2008 for PHB1, March 2009 for PHB2), covered all the missing baseline classes except Monk. I've no idea what you're talking about regarding the MM, since it's got plenty of typical neutral creatures (owlbear, berbalang, manticore, griffon, shambling mound, etc.) It's got angels, unicorns, storm giants, and (yes) dryads...who ARE plant-beings, why is that an issue exactly?

But where were the metallic dragons, for instance? The game seemed to say that the only purpose for a monster was to fight it--not to ally with it, save it from a greater threat, befriend it, or anything else. IIRC, metallics didn't show up until much later. The same with the unaligned creatures--there was very little lore for most of them indicating that they weren't just combat monsters who weren't super-evil.

The ancient Greeks thought "hamadryads" were semi-divine trees, after all (with some myths positing the "dryad" alone as merely the projected spirit of the hamadryad tree body.) Specifically they are "medium fey humanoid (plant)." All "(plant)" does is tell you that dryads breathe and eat, but do not need to sleep; they're still humanoids.

It hardly matters what the Greeks thought because D&D has rarely cared about sticking to the actual mythology. D&D mythology has put them in between "protectors" and "seducers," and definitely not frontline combat.

I don't at all blame you for being put off by the presentation, but like...a whole bunch of this stuff is simply false, and some that isn't false is pretty willfully ignoring what's actually there in the rules (e.g. rituals, SCs, Bard showing up less than a year in, etc.) Is there any wonder people get frustrated with the way folks talk about 4e? You're talking about fixing problems that weren't there and addressing absences that weren't even absences!

Look, the question is, how would I redo 4e. And this is how: show, right off the bat, that the game is not just combat. Don't wait for a second book. Don't push non-combat options off to the side. Allow for friendly monsters in the first MM. Make it so, at first glance, one can tell that there's more to this game than just killing things.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Huuuuh... no. Daily Powers usually always had either: an assured effect, effect/dmg on a miss, granted a passive buff, or had the 'Reliable' keyword (especially Martial powers) that let you retain your Daily if you missed. There was no way to outright 'waste' your daily aside from bad strategic decisions.

I didn't say all daily powers; I said many. But I should have said too many.

Anyway, I was about to say that I remembered it varying heavily from class to class and was about to give the fighter as an example. But I had completely forgotten about the reliable keyword. I looked it up and indeed, there's 11 powers with it as a keyword in the PHB, and 10 of them are from the Fighter's. That explains what we had overlooked and why it felt really bad!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Making non-combat spells into rituals, for instance, just emphasized that the game was about combat by stuffingthe non-combat spells off to the side.

I don't understand. Why is this somehow deprecating them? Both Cleric and Wizard get Ritual Caster for free, and everyone else can pick it up too. Why is this somehow "stuffingthe non-combat spells off to the side"? They're right there. You're supposed to use them. Ritual components were expected loot!

But it's interesting that instead of keeping one of the combat-heavy classes for PHB2--which is also a terrible idea, IMO, because by that time I was turned off and wouldn't be interested in spending money on it--they just to keep the face class away. One shouldn't have to buy two PHBs to play a game.

....except that you have both Warlock and Warlord, two classes specifically built around using Charisma. Nice cherry picking though.

But where were the metallic dragons, for instance? The game seemed to say that the only purpose for a monster was to fight it--not to ally with it, save it from a greater threat, befriend it, or anything else. IIRC, metallics didn't show up until much later. The same with the unaligned creatures--there was very little lore for most of them indicating that they weren't just combat monsters who weren't super-evil.

Why do you need a combat statblock for something you intend to ally with?

Also: MM2 has gold dragons. May 2009.

It hardly matters what the Greeks thought because D&D has rarely cared about sticking to the actual mythology. D&D mythology has put them in between "protectors" and "seducers," and definitely not frontline combat.

Ah, so it's not what the things mean, it's what they mean only after you ignore anything irrelevant to your point. Good to know.

Look, the question is, how would I redo 4e. And this is how: show, right off the bat, that the game is not just combat. Don't wait for a second book. Don't push non-combat options off to the side. Allow for friendly monsters in the first MM. Make it so, at first glance, one can tell that there's more to this game than just killing things.

My point is, and was, that they weren't "pushed off to the side." There are explicit rules for quests--and how to reward players for completing them. There are skill challenges. Skills that actually matter, and carry serious weight, as opposed to the awful nothingburger rat race of 3e skills.

 

[Pedantic]

Just to echo a few points that stand out to me:

1) Clarify the role of utility powers - Some of them added skill bonuses, some of them were in combat mobility powers, some of them did totally unique things. They should generally pick a lane and stick to it, or be subdivided into several different kinds of powers that do all the things they purport to do.

2) Expand the basic skill descriptions significantly. If we must lean on skill challenges, at least provide enough specific tasks and DCs that a DM can backport a level 16 Medium Thievery check against the lock DCs and tell you you've opened a masterwork puzzle tumbler lock, and that the one you open during the level 19 skill challenge is an enchanted rotating cylinder lock.

Skills that actually matter, and carry serious weight, as opposed to the awful nothingburger rat race of 3e skills.

Excuse me? Skill challenges decrease the impact of picking any particular skill (unless you're pushing for the more regressive form, where the DM spells out acceptable checks upfront), and 3e doesn't have a scaling DC table. You could argue that DCs are set too high or low for given effects, but there's a clear upper bound for plenty of skill uses, while 4e DCs have the potential to scale indefinitely with your environment.

Unless you're positing that picking skill proficiencies once is the killer app over allowing points level by level? I don't think that's quite enough to get you to "awful nothingburger rat race."

 

[James Gasik]

Be sure to put out great adventures to go with it. I bet many of the poor perceptions were formed in part by the early published adventures in 4E's life span.

Boy ain't that the truth. WotC adventures aren't often great, but some of the 4e ones were rotten. OTOH, I greatly enjoyed a lot of the Living Forgotten Realms adventures, and Scales of War was a great adventure path.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not saying it was, but I am saying that when I first read the 4e books, the only impression I got was combat--which is not the impression I got with any other edition of (A)D&D. And that impression turned me off significantly.


Making non-combat spells into rituals, for instance, just emphasized that the game was about combat by stuffingthe non-combat spells off to the side.


But it's interesting that instead of keeping one of the combat-heavy classes for PHB2--which is also a terrible idea, IMO, because by that time I was turned off and wouldn't be interested in spending money on it--they just to keep the face class away. One shouldn't have to buy two PHBs to play a game.


But where were the metallic dragons, for instance? The game seemed to say that the only purpose for a monster was to fight it--not to ally with it, save it from a greater threat, befriend it, or anything else. IIRC, metallics didn't show up until much later. The same with the unaligned creatures--there was very little lore for most of them indicating that they weren't just combat monsters who weren't super-evil.


It hardly matters what the Greeks thought because D&D has rarely cared about sticking to the actual mythology. D&D mythology has put them in between "protectors" and "seducers," and definitely not frontline combat.


Look, the question is, how would I redo 4e. And this is how: show, right off the bat, that the game is not just combat. Don't wait for a second book. Don't push non-combat options off to the side. Allow for friendly monsters in the first MM. Make it so, at first glance, one can tell that there's more to this game than just killing things.

For all the people asking about 4e Metallic Dragons.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't understand. Why is this somehow deprecating them? Both Cleric and Wizard get Ritual Caster for free, and everyone else can pick it up too. Why is this somehow "stuffingthe non-combat spells off to the side"? They're right there. You're supposed to use them. Ritual components were expected loot!

Because it furthers the difference between combat and non-combat. It makes it difficult to use utility spells in combat, and attack spells out of combat. And making ritual components into expected loot means that the use of rituals become DM's whim.

I found a wiki that says the ritual affect normal fires had a 25 gp cost. I imagine that's per casting. What that says to me is that the game doesn't actually want you to cast these rituals--certainly not in the way they're supposed to be able to cast magic missile. It says to me that these rituals were an afterthought, added in only because they realized that D&D shouldn't be combat and combat only.

....except that you have both Warlock and Warlord, two classes specifically built around using Charisma. Nice cherry picking though.

There's no cherry-picking. There's more to being a face character than a high Charisma.

Why do you need a combat statblock for something you intend to ally with?

So you know how much damage it can take, because it might join in battle with you. So you know its abilities, which it might use on your behalf.

Also: MM2 has gold dragons. May 2009.

And again, not in the main MM. An afterthought, because they realized D&D shouldn't be combat and combat only.

Ah, so it's not what the things mean, it's what they mean only after you ignore anything irrelevant to your point. Good to know.

Yes, pointing out that D&D has always used a particular monster in a particular way and not in a completely different way is good to know.

It's why we think of the tarrasque as a tremendous, nigh-unbeatable kaiju and not as a six-legged, horse-sized lion-turtle thing that attacks by flinging its poop around and that can be defeated with a sprinkle of holy water.

My point is, and was, that they weren't "pushed off to the side." There are explicit rules for quests--and how to reward players for completing them. There are skill challenges. Skills that actually matter, and carry serious weight, as opposed to the awful nothingburger rat race of 3e skills.

<shrug> The one time I played 3e--a very long campaign, but only the one--the skills were important and were used a lot. Ditto for the 5e games I've been in. Which means that that's more a problem with the DM and not the game.

And anyway, quest XP is hardly needed if you do milestone leveling, which is what my table has always done.

 

[Undrave]

Making non-combat spells into rituals, for instance, just emphasized that the game was about combat by stuffingthe non-combat spells off to the side.

That makes it so they don't compete with each other, that the Cleric doesn't have to gives up the fun utility spells because he has to keep some healing spells in reserve becaus the Barbarian is too reckless.

they just to keep the face class away.

The PHB1 Cleric has a CHA build, the Paladin, Warlock and Warlord had CHA build. The Fey Warlock was very Bard-esque already.

There's no cherry-picking. There's more to being a face character than a high Charisma.

...Like what? Spells that basically replace your skills?

Because it furthers the difference between combat and non-combat. It makes it difficult to use utility spells in combat, and attack spells out of combat. And making ritual components into expected loot means that the use of rituals become DM's whim.

There's nothing stoping you from using powers out of combat. The utility spells in combat tho? That's on purpose. That's a feature, not a bug. Don't people complain about Mordekainen's Magnificient Mansion being basically a bomb in battle? It was designed to curtail the power of magic as seen in 3e while still keeping it available.

4e had very clear and precise expected wealth per level. And Ritual Components were part of the mundane equipment table, with the expectation being that you could get those pretty much in any city.

I found a wiki that says the ritual affect normal fires had a 25 gp cost. I imagine that's per casting. What that says to me is that the game doesn't actually want you to cast these rituals--certainly not in the way they're supposed to be able to cast magic missile. It says to me that these rituals were an afterthought, added in only because they realized that D&D shouldn't be combat and combat only.

The GP cost was designed so you can't just start pumping out rituals all willy nilly at the level you gain them, but make them trivial as your wealth increase (again, wealth per level tables). They were also designed so a Wizard doesn't automatically make skills useless. Knock can be used in place of Thievery to open a locked door, but it'll cost ya.

Ritual magic wasn't meant to be spammed as a get out of jail free card, they were meant for strategic applications, as a supplement to your mundane means. You also were meant to treat them as a team ressource and pool your money together for benefitial effect. More than one ritual could involve multiple people taking part in its casting or required haling surges or skill checks.

So you know how much damage it can take, because it might join in battle with you. So you know its abilities, which it might use on your behalf.

the DM can just fudge it. There's a formula for making monsters so you can just use it for the HP and defenses, make up abilities as you want. shrug Good NPCs feel less useful for a MM1 than a solid array of actually useful monsters.

 

[Campbell]

4e doesn't have face characters (4e bards are not faces) in the way that is meant here because at no point does the game expect you to have a single character handle any sort of conflict. Skill challenges are meant to engage the whole party in the same way combat encounters are meant to engage the whole party. Individual characters may be built to be better at skill challenges or combat, but every character should be capable at both. Within the context of social skill challenges different characters will bring different skills and utility powers to bear.

Here is an example of what it can look like (my PC, Lucann, was built to excel in skill challenges):

The chamberlain, the king, and the dragon (drobe)

Alright. Lets get this started then. We will perform the Action Scene of the chamberlain/king/dragon after we establish and resolve the Transition Scene. "You are standing on the grand, stone steps to the gargantuan entrance hall of the castle. A servant has answered the door and has rung the...

www.enworld.org

No one has to like the structure of play, but it being structured differently than many D&D fans are used to does not make it a combat game.

 

[Faolyn]

The GP cost was designed so you can't just start pumping out rituals all willy nilly at the level you gain them, but make them trivial as your wealth increase (again, wealth per level tables). They were also designed so a Wizard doesn't automatically make skills useless. Knock can be used in place of Thievery to open a locked door, but it'll cost ya.

And a fireball can be used in place of a a bunch of fighters with swords and bows, and yet that's free.

But it's combat, so it's OK. If it's not combat, 4e curtailed it.

And who said anything about pumping them out? In every other edition, you had a limited number of spells you could prepare or cast. Why couldn't knock be a 1/day spell?

the DM can just fudge it. There's a formula for making monsters so you can just use it for the HP and defenses, make up abilities as you want. shrug Good NPCs feel less useful for a MM1 than a solid array of actually useful monsters.

...And the fact that you consider a good NPC to not be useful is exactly the problem here. And, honestly, says a lot more about 4e than you think it does, and not in a good way.

It's also very limiting in another bad way--what if you wanted to have a good creature turn bad? Or if you had an evil party who wanted to collect shiny dragon scales? Sorry, no stats for you just because the alignment says Good?