D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[Kannik]

The Elementalist is, in my not so humble opinion, one of the best things to come out of Essentials. It is the first truly, actually SIMPLE spellcaster in D&D history. Warlocks were always fiddly, and regular casters have a bunch of stuff to memorize. The Elementalist, at least to a more meaningful degree than any previous attempt, actually made good on the idea of a class that was unequivocally magical, undeniably doing magic, but in really straightforward, easily digested ways. The only other rulesets I've seen achieve this are 13A and (to a lesser extent) PF Spheres of Power, and even then I don't think either did it quite as well. I would not promote the Elementalist to being its own class though. It would simply be one of the main build options for Sorcerer: a more fixed, linear model for those who want to make just a few choices and then get to the MAGIC baybee!

I've always liked elementalists (been playing them since my DM made one in 2e, prior even to the Tome of Magic being released) and I very much concur that the Essentials version felt well put together (I say only felt because while I started one that campaign ended before I got a chance to play her through and see if it was indeed a well constructed class).

If all the classes/subclasses/builds listed as part of them whether which bits of the AEDU structure the character uses, it might be easy enough to fold into the main Sorcerer class.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps, in attempting to be systematic, I messed up. So here's the list in alphabetical order. Using the original names, not the new subclass names; extra Essentials subclasses in parentheses.

1. Ardent
2. Artificer
3. Assassin (+Executioner)
4. Avenger
5. Barbarian (+Berserker)
6. Bard (+Skald)
7. Battlemind
8. Cleric (+Warpriest)
9. Druid (+Protector, Sentinel)
10. Fighter (+Knight, Slayer)
11. Invoker
12. Monk
13. Paladin (+Blackguard, Cavalier)
14. Psion
15. Ranger (+Hunter, Scout)
16. Rogue (+Thief)
17. Runepriest
18. Seeker
19. Shaman
20. Sorcerer (+Elementalist)
21. Swordmage
22. Vampire
23. Warden
24. Warlock (+Binder, Hexblade)
25. Warlord
26. Wizard (+Bladesinger, Mage, Sha'ir, Witch)

So yes, it would seem I have been wrong these many years, since I kept saying there were 25 classes and there are 26.

I make no exceptions for any Essentials subclass; some would be removed (e.g. Berserker, probably Binder), some would be folded into the base class one way or another (e.g. Elementalist, Knight, Hexblade), and some would be folded into some other class (e.g. Slayer to Ranger.) Bladesinger always came across as simply bad design: turning Wizard encounter powers into its dailies? Really? So...that always sounded more like a subclass for cutting than for folding in. Even if I did, it would be into the Swordmage, not the Wizard.

The Elementalist is, in my not so humble opinion, one of the best things to come out of Essentials. It is the first truly, actually SIMPLE spellcaster in D&D history. Warlocks were always fiddly, and regular casters have a bunch of stuff to memorize. The Elementalist, at least to a more meaningful degree than any previous attempt, actually made good on the idea of a class that was unequivocally magical, undeniably doing magic, but in really straightforward, easily digested ways. The only other rulesets I've seen achieve this are 13A and (to a lesser extent) PF Spheres of Power, and even then I don't think either did it quite as well. I would not promote the Elementalist to being its own class though. It would simply be one of the main build options for Sorcerer: a more fixed, linear model for those who want to make just a few choices and then get to the MAGIC baybee!

Elementalist is definitely one of the more solid post-Essentials "E-like" classes. Not all of those were particularly bad, the e-Cleric builds are also reasonably solid, though uninspired. Its just that the whole enterprise was a bit wrong-headed. It was taking what was really unique and successful about 4e, and doing LESS of it. That never works in the wider sense. Hexblades (though technically 'just' a warlock subclass) are also a solid effort, the whole pact weapon thing is just kinda cool. Anyway, I was always more a fan of the PHB2 era classes, they were the best overall, with a solid primary and secondary role design, all A-shaped, and with solid thematics. I mean, the worst class in PHB2 is probably the Barbarian, and it certainly isn't a bad implementation, though maybe a bit conservative.

 

[Undrave]

Case in point... the flavour and feel of the Warden is great.

Really sad I never got the chance to play a Warden... It looks so much fun!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really sad I never got the chance to play a Warden... It looks so much fun!

Nothing is stopping you

 

[Undrave]

Nothing is stopping you

A severe lack of 4e play group and the fact my books are in storage are stopping me.

 

[Red Castle]

A severe lack of 4e play group and the fact my books are in storage are stopping me.

Then what are you waiting for to get those books out of storage and initiate some players to the wonders of 4e?

 

[MwaO]

A severe lack of 4e play group and the fact my books are in storage are stopping me.

The 4e Discord server, which has about 4000 people or so on it, usually has new games showing up every third day or so in the looking for games channel:

Join the D&D 4e Discord Server!

Check out the D&D 4e community on Discord - hang out with 4,135 other members and enjoy free voice and text chat.

discord.gg

 

[Laurefindel]

I haven’t played much of 4e so I do t have anything to say about mechanics, but ease down on the technical language to something more natural, change box formats to make it less boardgame-y/collectable trading card game-y, use more faux-medieval terms and be slightly less transparent about roles and whatnot, and you’d have a game I’d be willing to try.

I know all of these things shouldn’t be important and prevented me from seeing the essence of the game, but turns out they are important for me. Basically, 4e failed at the presentation step for me. It was a a bold new Curriculum Vitae format, and didn’t get called back for interview from me.

 

[Undrave]

I haven’t played much of 4e so I do t have anything to say about mechanics, but ease down on the technical language to something more natural, change box formats to make it less boardgame-y/collectable trading card game-y, use more faux-medieval terms and be slightly less transparent about roles and whatnot, and you’d have a game I’d be willing to try.

Really playing into my idea that people didn't like that their role playing GAME reminded them it was a GAME by having competently written GAME rules...

 

[Vaalingrade]

I haven’t played much of 4e so I do t have anything to say about mechanics, but ease down on the technical language to something more natural, change box formats to make it less boardgame-y/collectable trading card game-y, use more faux-medieval terms and be slightly less transparent about roles and whatnot, and you’d have a game I’d be willing to try.

I know all of these things shouldn’t be important and prevented me from seeing the essence of the game, but turns out they are important for me. Basically, 4e failed at the presentation step for me. It was a a bold new Curriculum Vitae format, and didn’t get called back for interview from me.

I disagree with all of this. I certainly don't want the mush-mouthed, borderline unusable 'natural language' used currently or the galling lack of transparency that hides the devs not using the rules they tell you to use.

Also, I outright reject the idea that 'readable and usable' are 'boardgame-y. And using 'something-y' as a putdown at this point.