D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[EzekielRaiden]

Its just weird to me that people have such rigid mindsets when it comes to things like that. Its an RPG, its OPEN ENDED RULES, the fiction matters! Just do it. If the wizard wants to burn down the barn with a fireball, or the Warden wants to hide in the icy winter forest, its pretty obvious what power is going to do that and how to use it.

All other editions will be interpreted with the maximum flexibility and latitude possible. 4e will be interpreted as the most rigid, unbending, anti-creative thing it possibly can be, even if this requires ignoring the actual text, inventing "rules" that don't exist, or willfully misinterpreting what is present in the most negative light possible. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Aldarc]

Roles: I would potentially expand, diversify, and/or redefine roles for 4e, possibly taking cues from MOBAs.

• Smite: Assassin, Guardian, Hunter, Mage, Warrior.
• League of Legends: Controller, Fighter, Mage, Marksman, Slayer, Tank, Specialist.
• Heroes of the Storm: Tank, Bruiser, Support, Healer, Ranged Assassin, Melee Assassin.

Not saying that 4e should follow the above roles/classes exactly, but, rather, that 4e could have expanded roles a bit from the four.

Starting to think this should have been a "+" thread.

Probably, but maybe the OP didn't know. They did say this:

So, if you are not a 4e hater, how would you rework it?

Despite this caveat, this thread attracted a fair number of people who don't seem to like 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Paragon paths aren't subclass, they're closer to prestige class. You had optional class features at 1st level that acted like a subclass. Like, you had the level 1 Fighter Talent feature which let you pick between: Weapon Talent, Battlerager Vigor, Tempest Technique, Brawler Style and Arena Training. Furthermore, you had powers that gave you bonus effects if you used certain groups of weapons. If you took advantage of those, a Hammer Fighter and Sword Fighter were effectively two different subclass.

PPs are not really equateable to ANYTHING from previous editions. They are essentially classes in and of themselves, though obviously a limited and special form of such. Their purpose is mostly THEMATIC and related to the whole tier concept very closesly 3e Prestige Classes are just a way to package up some mechanics. They do have a thematic component, but its not tied to overall play of the game, it is merely a character development tool, not much different in concept from a feat.

But a Paragon Path, I mean, just read the names of them! You get these things at level 11 and the game enters a 'new phase' the Paragon Tier, in which your foes are no longer simply deadly monsters which roam the earth and local bad guys. Now you face mighty foes of legend, centuries old dragons, strange beasts from deep beneath the earth where the fearsome Torog and the Drow are rumored to exist, etc. Here's an example:

Anointed Champion
"Ancient blessings have I spoken over my armaments. I do not fear any power that stands against me."

In times long past, when the gods warred with the primordials, the divine armies were arrayed in majestic regalia blessed by angelic armorers with powerful wards against their foes. By long study of holy texts, you have learned those ancient prayers and rites.

As an anointed champion, you ward yourself against your foes by sanctifying the arms and armor you bear into battle with sacred oil and special ceremonies. You speak prayers that have not been heard by mortals for centuries, conferring the ancient blessings upon your companions as well. As you perform your holy tasks, you can feel the pull of history urging you on to the same glory the armies of the gods knew as they bested their enemies in ages past.

--Divine Power, p44.

This is no mere 'kit' you add to your character, it is a mighty office of sacred power which you must uphold! This is epic fantasy written right across your character sheet. No other edition has anything that holds a candle to this. I mean, there's some good stuff in every Edition, but 4e does this kind of thing brilliantly, again and again, this is just some random PP I picked up in 20 seconds of browsing the database. Its not some especially thrilling pick, 90% of them rise to this level or better.

The Epic Destinies DOUBLE DOWN on that! I mean, "You are now a Demigod" what other game puts that on the table, for real? You'd have to play Exalted or something like that to get a similar sort of thing. Even high level AD&D play didn't really easily give you that kind of feel.

So, there are some challenges with the Theme -> PP -> ED model. First of all the themes are tacked on, so its fair to say they add an additional level of mechanical stuff that isn't always welcome, although it can be fun and interesting. Themes probably should have been in the game on day one, and I agree with the idea from earlier in the thread, was it @Hussar maybe that suggested it? That is to have 'Heroic Origins' as an amalgam of theme and background, maybe riffing a bit on the basic 5e background concept, but with a little more pizzazz (see 5e has some good stuff).

The other challenge with PP and ED is the way they often challenge the campaign organization in some fashion. Like, most players aren't thinking a lot about what their transition into Paragon is going to be like, what story it will tell. So, typically people get to level 11 and then suddenly they're going through all these choices and picking one. Now, hopefully its really thematic, and ties into the character's themes/drives/agenda, but it can be a challenge to try to make that all happen in a way that feels organic. That wouldn't be a big issue, except you have 5 PCs who are all going to pretty much level at the same time, and now you need to handle this 5x over. There are obvious plot devices, like some Heroic Tier capstone event that unleashes magical power on the characters or whatever, but I didn't find it super easy to manage 5 simultaneous mini-apotheoses at one time.

The same goes for EDs of course. Everyone hits 21 at the end of the Saturday Evening Session. Now all of a sudden the players are asking themselves what ED they're going to pick, but really it feels like it should be more organic and seem like "Oh, yeah, this was always DESTINED to be my fate!" It is certainly highly achievable in the sense of a character's story arc, but the 5-at-once thing can be a bit crazy.

I mean, one option would be something like a mechanism for a solo 'destiny quest' for each character, though many groups might not find that interesting. Another would be a bit more staggered progression, which 4e doesn't rule out, but then you have the problem of a mixed party where some are Heroes and some are Paragons. Its not unworkable, but 4e loves its even playing fields amongst PCs.

Anyway, its just an interesting contrast of 4e vs other editions, and an interesting kind of challenge it creates in terms of play and narrative. I guess the last word on it is, the good far outweighs the challenges. Don't muck with PP and ED! (conceptually at least, go to town on the mechanics).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Another thing I'd keep is all the power sources (I friggin' LOVE the Primal Power Source lore and wish it was in 5e!), and maybe try to bring back Shadow and Elemental... Heck, I'd take care of creating an identity for those two BEFORE crafting the Arcane power source.

Because I'm really tired of Arcane being a codeword for 'whatever BS' and being a free pass to the Wizard doing everything under the sun.

The Wizard should NOT be getting telepathy and telekinesis, dangit!

Yeah, my game got rid of Arcane. I mean, it LITERALLY means "the power of stuff that nobody knows." LOL WAT? In an system where magic comes from SOURCES OF POWER, the having/lack of certain knowledge isn't a SOURCE of power. It might be a way to gain understanding that lets you USE sources of power better. So I have no issue with the Arcana skill, but as a power source it is thematically void. And that is the root of the problem. Being thematically void it is just whatever is convenient for some designer to call it. Thus it can only ever be 'kitchen sink', an anti-thematic element! In HoML your power comes from
1. Internal Discipline and Training or Hardening - this is Martial (could also be termed 'Ki' etc. if you want a bit different thematics).
2. Spiritual - Gods, spirits, and other manifestations of cosmic consciousness/connection.
3. Life - The literal life force from which life arises.
4. Shadow - The antithesis of life, not evil, just bringing things full circle to an ending, and associated with mental control/influence/illusion, etc.
5. Elemental - Raw animating physical energy and matter, the antithesis of spiritual power.

Now, there could be other pairs, like maybe 'Time and Fate' though I would probably cast them generally as highly esoteric and having minor status even for most characters who deal with magic, though they might play a big role at the highest levels (IE as revealed powers). This gives you all the juicy conflict between the 'Primordials', raw physical powers of endless (re)creation and the 'Gods' who are more conceptual and systematizing. You could also do a "light vs shadow" kind of contrast, at various possible levels of subtlety.

So the HoML wizard is actually the "master of five magics" sort of guy. He can tap into ANY source, because he's utilizing arcane techniques! Wizards are magical universe hackers! It gives them a certain flexibility, but also means they won't likely reach the highest levels of pure attunement with their power, and sometimes when you hack things, you mess up...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So the HoML wizard is actually the "master of five magics" sort of guy. He can tap into ANY source, because he's utilizing arcane techniques! Wizards are magical universe hackers! It gives them a certain flexibility, but also means they won't likely reach the highest levels of pure attunement with their power, and sometimes when you hack things, you mess up...

This...honestly just sounds like exactly the same thing with more steps. It's still drawing power from Stuff Man Was Not Meant To Know. You've just redefined it from "you know it when you see it" to "well, it's picking and choosing from all the other things, but selectively, Because Reasons."

E.g., I assume that this hasn't resulted in Wizards suddenly becoming excellent healers or masters of making plants grow healthy and strong? Because if not, I genuinely don't see the difference between "it's the weird source" and "well it's technically all sources, but the limitations are weird."

"Arcane" has a dictionary definition of stuff that's esoteric or generally unknown....but that applies to plenty. "Elemental" has the dictionary definition of "basic." Doesn't that mean it should be the universal power source, since it is literally "elementary"? "Shadow" is literally just a thing created when an object is opaque and thus blocks some amount of the light reaching a surface. How is that actually powerful? It's because we aren't using these words for their literal dictionary definitions--we're using them as proxies for bigger, mythically-resonant things. "Elemental" specifically means a chaotic maelstrom of purified "classical elements"-style forces: fire, cold, lightning, etc. "Shadow" doesn't actually mean "a thing caused by an object blocking light from a source," but rather the mythic power and symbolism of darkness: concealment, murder, fear, corruption, etc., the power of things that go bump in the night.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

None of this would need to change with bounded accuracy.

Actually, bounded accuracy in the form of basically removing the half-level bonus creates a DRASTIC need to change tons of other stuff!

At this point you need to construct a similar power curve using the other available tools, which are going to be hit points, and damage. Given that messing with damage output is basically full up rewrite territory, the only other knob you have is hit points! In effect, the large high level solo hit point totals of 4e are going to get REALLY LARGE before a capstone dragon is suitably nasty again.

Yes, you can simply recreate 4e as a different game where characters barely progress in terms of what they can fight, and thus where the world shattering epic beings are just a problem of how to get 400 bow-armed peasants on target, if that's what you want. I wouldn't call that 4e personally. Not even close.

No, I am fully in agreement with @Aldarc and others, BA is not a thing that should be attempted for 4e! Honestly, the system's engine, as presented, works QUITE well! I don't know why people have such an insistence of tinkering. And in a historical sense, a 1/2 level bonus is mild. TSR D&D has effectively +1/level directly added to your attacks! Its hidden in the form of a table, but fighter table/THAC0 increase at that rate, and clerics are at 2/3 levels. Thieves get a 1/2 levels increase, and they suck in combat. Its not like 4e did anything very radical there.

 

[Aldarc]

Aside: In some respects, 4e would have been a pretty neat basis for a Magic the Gathering TTRPG, with six power sources for the five main colors and colorless: Colorless (Martial), Red (Chaos/Elemental/Primordial), Green (Primal/Life), Blue (Arcane), White (Divine/Astral), Black (Shadow).

It's not how I would redo 4e, but it could see how the 4e World Axis and its associated powers could have been brought in line with Magic the Gathering.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

There is no such thing as a 'face class', particularly in 4e. Its a bad concept to start with and good riddance! Any character can potentially be a good negotiator or whatnot (note that there are several CHA primary builds in PHB1 which are likely to excel at this task). Core D&D had Fighting Man, Cleric, and Magic User. I'm happy to count the added Thief as a 'big 4'. 4e PHB1 has all of these classes in fine form, as well as the classic Ranger and Paladin classes (and if Paladins aren't a 'face class' I don't know what is).

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 are not off to the side. They are in a category where the players are not forced to pick one or the other. You get Ritual Caster (Wizard and Cleric in PHB1 get it free) if you want access to the rituals. Honestly, while most PHB1 characters have a solid first feat choice, the options are fairly limited from there and its no big deal to take Ritual Caster at first or third level. You can also buy/find scrolls, they are actually pretty cheap, and add a nice element of pre-planning (and the GM can always give you ones that are effectively required or highly thematic in ongoing play).

The first 4e character I really played was a ritual specializing utility wizard. It was a simple build and was amazingly effective. The publication of rituals in 4e material was also quite substantial, there are currently almost 400 listed in my compendium.

Where I might agree with you is in terms of the material not highlighting their use much. That is, you won't find situations in published adventures where "wow this is why you want to have the X ritual!" Certainly plenty of opportunities to use them exist, but it isn't highlighted enough.

The other problem is what I call the "Consumable Problem" of 4e, which is that human mentality is oriented towards scavenging and hording. So if it costs 10gp to cast a ritual players tend to try to avoid it, since in 4e you get a fixed amount of treasure. In classic D&D play, you might say to yourself "Oh, I'll expend this scroll so I can get some better new treasure!" You could see it as an investment, or at least a 'bet', and people love to bet! They don't love to spend however, so this tended to reduce the use of any 'pay-as-you-go' resource like rituals, potions, alchemy, etc. Thus I think treasure parcels are 'bad salesmanship' and should be written out of the game somehow, whilst preserving the IDEA that the game generally gives out a range of treasure values/level.

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 again, I deny the existence of this concept in 4e.

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.

First of all, the chromatic dragons (which are the far more classic and commonly used ones, metallics as a concept didn't even exist in the first iteration of D&D) are portrayed as creatures, which, while generally evil and selfish CAN serve as allies or patrons when it serves their, uniquely dragonish, interests. MM2 has full stats for Metallic dragons, and I believe some appeared in Dragon Magazine and thus the Compendium before that. Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons was released EARLY, in November of 2008 and it has a LOT of 'dragon stuff', which will certainly let you use them in a wide variety of roles.

There are tons of non-evil creatures. The sorrowsworn, the azer, the elementals, bears, owlbear, Cyclops, most dungeon 'creepy crawlies', low level undead, rats, gricks, kruthiks, Wyverns, griffons, hippogryphs, elves, halflings, gnomes, dwarves, spiders, many types of construct, Dark Creepers, Shadar-kai, Satyrs, Nagas, most humans, ettercaps, drakes, lizard folk, mummies, githzerai. Heck, there are literally 100's of unaligned things in MM1! The above list merely scratches the surface. In fact I would say the opposite, that 4e is the edition in which the potential for a range of moral stances amongst monsters is MOST allowed. 5e provides many fewer such creatures in its core MM AFAICT.

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.

Fair enough, but as with many issues in life, if we are unable to examine the current state of things objectively we will be unable to produce any meaningful solutions, won't we? I think 4e fell short in ENCOURAGING the use of consumables, and put rituals in that category, which is a shortcoming. GMs can solve it themselves by tossing out the actual 'parcel system' and scaling rewards to risk. The game should also go with that idea, or the 'abstract wealth' model that I use in HoML, which also rids us of this sort of issue.

I guess you could place rituals inside class descriptions, mixed with powers. I think that might have initially made them a little more noticeable, but since most people approach 4e using electronic references I'm not sure there would have been a huge impact. Certainly the fact that there are around 500 published rituals seems adequate.

As for other non-combat... I mean, they had SCs, they had a tight, thematic, and useful skill system that has clearly explicated use cases, as well as a system for handling non-defined uses (page 42, though it talks a bit too much about improvising attacks). The keywords system, and the rich set of character elements and lore associated with a lot of stuff is also quite significant here. Its generally much easier than in earlier editions to know with certainty for instance that "yes indeed, hitting that curtain with the flaming sword will light it on fire" (a bit obvious, but it works well for less obvious situations too).

I mean, I've thought about this, but I don't know what it is that you would add! WotC found a couple niche things to add in, Power of Skill, and the Practices system (non-magically-themed rituals basically). Those don't hurt, but they were at best editing around the edges of what is really a pretty solid "general action resolution" system.

 

[Aldarc]

In my own observation of actual play with 4e, putting non-combat spells into rituals made our games less about combat than my comparable experiences with 3e and 5e. It's one reason why, FWIW, rituals as being separate from spells is a big win for me in games like Beyond the Wall & Other Adventures and Through Sunken Lands or even in a fair number of PbtA games with ritual magic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

How would that work? I mean, they are divided now by which class they belong to (aside from those granted by Power of Skill or other feats). I guess I'm trying to understand how this would practically work and how it would improve things. The purpose of Utility as a category was to make it so that ALL characters would have some, instead of the old "oh, I can climb better or kill better, I'll pick the killing" problem. Dividing them into, say "mobility" and "skill" is going to do what? I'm going to have to take some of each? How many of these lanes are there and how do we allow for an adequate allocation from each one without everyone ending up needing to make 100 power choices, and then remember how 100 different highly niche utilities work?

Honestly I feel like rituals mostly fill this niche. A mechanism for 'instant casting' of ritual effects might be nice, like "make it into a potion" or something (my game allows for this kind of 'instantiation' of things). That would maybe pull them closer to utilities and make the difference more seamless.

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.

I am not against color, but this sort of thing is MOSTLY color. Its a lock, it keeps the door closed, its DC is 19. The DMG1 actually DOES have a section on this sort of thing, though I'm not sure it delves into enormous detail. It does have a whole chart on what sorts of materials things are made of at different levels. I gotta say though, rereading the PHB1 skill descriptions, they are PRETTY DETAILED! Acrobatics gets an entire page, roughly and covers stunts, balance, escape, and decreasing falling damage. This is all in addition to the general description and some examples. Bluff is a bit less voluminous but its explained what it covers, what typically opposes it, and provides explicit rules for a couple use cases. Honestly, I think the specific thing you are asking for, you have to go to the DMG, or use your imagination. I have certainly never read EVERY edition's equivalent rules, but I don't think any of them states anything more explicitly here than 4e does.

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."

I'm not sure what you mean about 'scaling indefinitely'... The idea with 4e is that your environment is appropriate to your level, thematically. At level 1 the dungeon is next to the town, and level 11 it is deep in the Underdark, at level 21 it is on the uppermost layer of Hell. This may have an impact on how some rules play out, but mostly its there to convey how badass you are at those higher levels, and to 'be cool'. The scaling is simply there to tell us, "this is a place for Epic PCs, those level 11 guys cannot even pass the DCs to get in the front door." Obviously you also leverage this if there's a situation where things are 'out of place', like showing us a level 21 door in the level 11 dungeon, you ain't opening it (or else this is a serious challenge and probably its not treated as a single DC at level 11). It will be 'Adamantium' or some such thing, the exact adjectives used are not very relevant in game terms.

As for the endless rat race... Open ended skill systems where you have to keep picking small incremental increases in your ability are indeed what I would call "awful nothingburger rat race." Your character must constantly allocate N pips of his skill increases to Pick Locks, or else soon he will useless in this capacity since he'll be encountering magical Adamantium toggle-locks at some point with DCs far above his ability unless he does so. Sure, in 3e I can be a thief that is 20th level and can still only pick crappy chests that show up in level 1 dungeons. So what? You want me to go play that out? I mean, really? 4e's solution is quite workable, you take Thievery proficiency, and you now get +5 on lock picking attempts, and then you get all your other level-scaling bonuses, which means you're really good at it, and nope, you never had to decide between "good at ropes" and "good at locks" at each bloody level! If you don't WANT to be very good with locks, well don't take the proficiency, or just don't pick locks! From an RP perspective you can simply say "Yeah, let the other guy do it, locks aren't my thing." I mean, granted, that is the price of a lower resolution skill system, but its a perfectly workable solution (and most players will be perfectly happy to pick a lock now and then and not care).