D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[EzekielRaiden]

Aw man, I'm not being cheeky (I am being cheeky) but I would redo 4th Edition by writing 13th Age.

More seriously, something that keeps the tacticalness and range of monster-roles and stuff, but also simplifies it so you don't need a computer to crunch the details (I'M LOOKING AT YOU PF2!) because otherwise combat takes 2.5 hours out of a 3 hour session. I'd also lean heavily into the roleplaying, skill and social areas of the game.

Conversely, given the degree to which we've begun integrating computers into almost everything, recognizing that and leveraging it isn't that bad an idea. 4e was probably just a decade too early; the rise of tablet computing wouldn't come until 2010 with the iPad, and widespread adoption didn't happen until after 4e was already defunct. If that had differed...I could very easily see an ultra-slick tablet and smartphone app actually being seen as a huge boon. Alas, in a lot of ways, that's the lesson of 4e: it happened 2-5 years too early.

That said I do agree that it's nice to have a game that is easier to work with purely by hand, and 13th Age is an extremely well-made game that people should be cribbing from as much as their own game's design allows. (I recognize that not all rules work in all systems--just as "bake at 425 for 15 minutes" is lovely for cookies and horrible for salad.)

 

[Undrave]

But how many times do you think you've seen someone play a "skirmisher" monster as a "brute," or vice versa? Versus how many times do you think you've seen those monsters, without those labels," as being used however the DM wants to use them?

I'Ve seen it plenty of times in 4e. I've seen plenty of boring 5e combats too. Even without the labels though, the monsters have those roles built in with what stats they have and what they do. A skirmisher can disengage, a lurker can become invisible, a Controller has area of Effects, a Brute lots of HP and hits hard despite being relatively innacurate, a Soldier is basically a Fighter and a Leader unit will be able to help their allies.

4e's biggest crime was no longer pretending those things, as well as class roles, never existed. They've always been there. 4e was just being honest about it and about being a game. People hated their game reminding them they were playing a game.

<shrug> Played a 5e game where we took out frost giants using just control water to drown them. I can think of plenty of ways to combat monsters just using magic mouth. Especially if "combat them" doesn't have to mean "to the death."

That's what YOU have. Unless the DM has a plan with Control Water then it doesn't matter if a NPC has that on their spell list.

What do they do outside of combat? If it's all improvise, with nothing mechanical to support it, then it's the game saying that they don't care about anything outside of the combat. And that is boring.

4e had lore for outside of combat, it was outside the stat block because the Stat block was there for the DM to make use of during combat, putting everything in an handy dandy easy to reference block. Every monster entry in the MM even had a list of things PC could know about those monsters with the correct knowledge check result, usually in three different level.

 

[Faolyn]

And I'm saying they aren't. You went looking for very specific things, because you saw those as being the only way something could be not combat-oriented.

No. I'm giving you a couple of examples based on my memories from looking through those books when they first came out. There was nothing in them that interested me, and that's why I wrote what I wrote as to how I would redo 4e.

Those weren't the only reasons I saw that the edition was so combat-heavy, but they are some of the bigger ones.

When you didn't see them, you then assumed that that meant the game was combat-oriented. It isn't--not any moreso than 5e, 3e, or any previous edition.

And yet, I rarely see 2e, 3x, or 5e being compared to a tactical combat video game.

By telling someone what something is for, the argument goes, you are also telling them everything else is forbidden. Hence, by saying what a monster is for outside of combat, you're telling the DM they aren't allowed to do anything else. That's why people hated 4e roles, because they (erroneously) claim that they're straightjackets denying any form of difference or creativity. Why wouldn't that also apply to monsters?

This makes no sense. Giving a monster a combat use and a non-combat use isn't saying that the monster can't be used in combat.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think the whole argument is bunk. But we're already in the realm of not talking about what the text ever says, but about what people think about the text even when it explicitly rejects some interpretation.

Nothing about 5e statblocks, as @James Gasik just noted, is even slightly more non-combat-focused than the 4e ones. A couple of skills, maybe an alignment, ability scores. It's not different. But for some reason 4e gets crapped on for being all combat all the time, and 5e gets its praises sung for being super supportive.

That's why I referred to the lore, which was very lacking in the first 4e MM, and became just as poor in recent 5e books. Compare, say, 5e's hags with 4e's hags. Fifteen paragraphs of flavor text versus just one.

I have three answers for you.

First: I don't actually believe that a character who scrupulously avoids any capacity to contribute damage is consistently effective, in any edition.

"Effective" is a loaded term. What's the game like? If you think of D&D as little more than a combat simulator with medieval dressing, then sure, a non-combat or low-damage character isn't "effective." If you think of D&D as a storytelling game, wherein one plays a role, where combat is just one means to an end, then a non-combat or low-damage character is perfectly effective, and can be a lot of fun.

And I prefer to think of D&D as a storytelling game.

Second: Not using only PHB material, but if you allow stuff beyond it, 100% yes, it is possible to create characters who have nothing beyond basic attacks for personal damage contribution. Certainly the Warlord can do it, the controversial "Lazylord" setup; there's also a pacifist Cleric option that actually punishes you for doing damage to other beings, but I don't know much about that.

And this is my problem. I shouldn't need to buy PHB2 and a dozen issues of Dragon Magazine just to be able to roleplay effectively.

Third: Even your own request, if I consider it to be "effective" for the sake of argument, is at best very difficult to pull off in 5e. An Illusionist gets 4 starting cantrips (due to getting minor illusion for free--or a different cantrip of choice, if they already know that one) and eventually learns a total of 6. You have to be real scrupulous about avoiding the combat cantrips (counting things like blade ward and true strike here), there's literally only 7 truly distinct PHB options (since dancing lights is redundant with regular light) vs 8 combat cantrips (whether damage-dealing or combat-buffing.) It gets worse with the actual spells, since Illusion is one of the smallest schools. There are several spell levels with no Illusion spells at all in the PHB, and several of the spells that are present, such as blur or hypnotic pattern, only have use in combat. (Fascinating a creature for a single minute ain't non-combat utility.)

But the point is, I could mostly have non-combat cantrips and one or two combat cantrips as a back-up, and either not use them or use them sparingly. I couldn't do that with 4e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And this is my problem. I shouldn't need to buy PHB2 and a dozen issues of Dragon Magazine just to be able to roleplay effectively.

Aaaaand here we have the outright bad-faith argument. Goodbye.

 

[Faolyn]

I'Ve seen it plenty of times in 4e. I've seen plenty of boring 5e combats too. Even without the labels though, the monsters have those roles built in with what stats they have and what they do. A skirmisher can disengage, a lurker can become invisible, a Controller has area of Effects, a Brute lots of HP and hits hard despite being relatively innacurate, a Soldier is basically a Fighter and a Leader unit will be able to help their allies.

4e's biggest crime was no longer pretending those things, as well as class roles, never existed. They've always been there. 4e was just being honest about it and about being a game. People hated their game reminding them they were playing a game.

Seriously? I think I'm going to need a citation because this makes no sense.

That's what YOU have. Unless the DM has a plan with Control Water then it doesn't matter if a NPC has that on their spell list.

So you mean you couldn't think of ways to use every spell in a monster's arsenal unless it was perfectly spelled out for you?

4e had lore for outside of combat, it was outside the stat block because the Stat block was there for the DM to make use of during combat, putting everything in an handy dandy easy to reference block. Every monster entry in the MM even had a list of things PC could know about those monsters with the correct knowledge check result, usually in three different level.

I've just skimmed through MM1. That is the lyingest lie that ever lied, at least in comparison to the type of lore in most other editions.

 

[James Gasik]

But how much of that lore mattered? How useful is it to know that, until recently, the bulette was thought be extinct? Or that it was the result of a mad wizard cross-breeding a snapping turtle and an armadillo with infusions of demon ichor? Or that they feed on horses, men, and just about everything else, but aren't fond of dwarves and hate elves (I mean, seriously, when was the last time anyone had a bulette ignore a dwarf or elf in favor of other prey?).

How useful is it to know that they love to chow down on halflings and that they are fearless and always hungry?

The 1e MM gives us all this information, and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people who have ever encountered a bulette wouldn't know this. There is something to be said for saving space in books for other things, especially as the price of game books has risen from 20 bucks in the olden days to 50 bucks now.

 

[Undrave]

So you mean you couldn't think of ways to use every spell in a monster's arsenal unless it was perfectly spelled out for you?

Well, for one, I HATE having to check a different book to know what a Monster does, so I don't much care for PC style Spell Lists and I've never been bothered by NPCs having things a PC can't get.

Secondly, in the context of 4e, there's nothing stopping a DM from giving Rituals to NPCs, you can look at rituals and think 'Oh! I can make use of that in my game'. You can even give out Ritual Scrolls to random Goblins because you don't need Ritual Casting to use Scrolls. And the unused ones make great loot for players.

But putting the Rituals in the combat stat block is a waste of space and time because I'm not using rituals in combat

I've just skimmed through MM1. That is the lyingest lie that ever lied, at least in comparison to the type of lore in most other editions.

It's a game book, not an ecology manual. You can say you don't like the lore that's there but it'd be a lie to say there's no lore to the monsters.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Have classes for each pillar of play

Change AEDU somehow, anyhow so that Daily and Encounter powers get used more often. I actually like the Short Rest/Long Rest economies and then 5e "powers" resetting at those two points - although maybe I would tweak things a bit more

Skill Challenges as Clocks - I always sort of thought that's how they worked anyway, before clocks were even a thing. But then I never actually played Skill Challenges RAW because I couldn't actually understand the rules so I just made it up...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Have classes for each pillar of play

Change AEDU somehow, anyhow so that Daily and Encounter powers get used more often. I actually like the Short Rest/Long Rest economies and then 5e "powers" resetting at those two points - although maybe I would tweak things a bit more

Skill Challenges as Clocks - I always sort of thought that's how they worked anyway, before clocks were even a thing. But then I never actually played Skill Challenges RAW because I couldn't actually understand the rules so I just made it up...

I also never understood skill challenges raw and made it up but could you explain "clocks"

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I also never understood skill challenges raw and made it up but could you explain "clocks"

Clocks, as I understand them:

Something is going to happen in the future. Some sub-things need to happen for that main thing to take place. As those sub-things happen, that "ticks" the clock. Once the clock is full, the main thing takes place. Whether the clock is player facing or not depends on the game and/or GM inclination

Examples:
PCs want to find out who killed the king. Clock created. It's got 4 ticks on it. In my head, I say they need to get a clue from the docks/merchants, from the assassin's guild, from the nobility, and from the military. Each clue will tick on the clock. I may or may not give them hints on where they need to go to get the clues. This would be a clock that might be player facing.

PCs are exploring a dungeon. When they entered the dungeon, they tripped a hidden ward that made no noticeable change when they entered, but alerted some sort of guardian. I create a non-player facing clock with 4 ticks on it. I mark that clock forward every time I think it's appropriate. In a D&D-type game, maybe I'm "keeping meticulous time", so it's a literal clock. In a PbtA type game, it would be a soft GM move every time someone fails a roll; and I may foreshadow it too - "you failed your bend bars lift gates roll and it makes a lot of noise... You hear distantly something start to grind, like machinery or stones grinding together..." Once the 4th tick is marked, the guardian shows up and the players will have to react.

Does that make sense?