D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, the 'light' version really still needs to solve the difference between skill and attack bonus, as well as between NADS and AC. It's a very ugly little flaw in a great engine, and no valid goal of design is served by it. Quite the contrary.

I'm not really sure I agree with...any of this actually.

Things that do different stuff do not need to be perfectly identical. NADs are risky but potent: lower bonuses, but if you press a weak defense you get rewarded. That's reasonable design space that adds value; if NADs are reduced to "just a different AC," then you may as well eliminate them entirely. Likewise, skills are doing a fundamentally different thing compared to combats. We expect, even demand that there be gaps in skill between the weak and the powerful in terms of skills. And there is even something partially analogous to different skill bonuses: Weapon proficiency. Some weapons have a higher bonus than others, and this is good, it makes accuracy a valid axis of difference between weapons. As long as skills are internally self-consistent (which as far as I can tell they are), there is still a useful purpose served by not making everything perfectly uniform forever. I fully agree that variation solely for its own sake is suspect, but these things are not truly "solely for its own sake."

You could of course still simplify. Trained is +5, Boosted (from race, background, etc.) is +2, Expert is +3 for a maximum bonus of +10. Strip out typed bonuses and just say you can only get one source of Boost, Training, and Expertise. Easy-peasy system anyone can pick up and play, and the skill list is already nicely focused. (Though maybe pull out Perception since it's too valuable as a skill and make it a derived attribute like Initiative.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What is there to solve exactly?

First of all there's a 2 point gap between NADs and AC, which is utterly pointless. It was obviously put in with the theory that it corrected for weapon proficiency, but all they needed to do was add implement proficiency that worked the same way instead. This deals with all the hand wringing about weaplements and crossover corner cases where a feat applies to a vs NAD attack etc. etc. etc. Not, by itself, a HUGE issue, but why even have this issue in the game? If you get rid of it, you can drop tons of silly restrictions on which feats work with which types of powers, etc. Its just BETTER.

Then there's the issue with the variance between Skills, Defenses, and Attack modifiers. If they all follow a more consistent progression then you can do things like sub in a skill to replace a defense (say with a feat or utility power effect, or even a class feature). This opens up a LOT of new design space, and again gets rid of a few odd points where limitations were placed on things, or certain stuff just 'didn't work' like escaping from a grab.

These 2 things are definite rough spots that really had no reason why they existed in the design except just generally a lot of 4e seems to have been thrown together or reworked at the last minute.

I solved all of these quite easily:

Skills, weapons, and implements all use the same proficiency rule, +5. We can argue about if it should be +2, +3, or +5, but as long as the number is the same for all... Then I just plain got rid of AC, but you could keep it and just make it average the same as the NADs. Honestly, it removes a lot of silly corner cases and annoying limitations on stuff. More than you would even think.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not really sure I agree with...any of this actually.

Things that do different stuff do not need to be perfectly identical. NADs are risky but potent: lower bonuses, but if you press a weak defense you get rewarded. That's reasonable design space that adds value; if NADs are reduced to "just a different AC," then you may as well eliminate them entirely. Likewise, skills are doing a fundamentally different thing compared to combats. We expect, even demand that there be gaps in skill between the weak and the powerful in terms of skills. And there is even something partially analogous to different skill bonuses: Weapon proficiency. Some weapons have a higher bonus than others, and this is good, it makes accuracy a valid axis of difference between weapons. As long as skills are internally self-consistent (which as far as I can tell they are), there is still a useful purpose served by not making everything perfectly uniform forever. I fully agree that variation solely for its own sake is suspect, but these things are not truly "solely for its own sake."

You could of course still simplify. Trained is +5, Boosted (from race, background, etc.) is +2, Expert is +3 for a maximum bonus of +10. Strip out typed bonuses and just say you can only get one source of Boost, Training, and Expertise. Easy-peasy system anyone can pick up and play, and the skill list is already nicely focused. (Though maybe pull out Perception since it's too valuable as a skill and make it a derived attribute like Initiative.)

Of course there will be gaps in skill between the best, the good, and the average/bad. Some people are NOT going to ever choose to defend with an acrobatics check, and probably won't acquire whatever feat/etc. allows that. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be possible! I don't really buy your NAD argument either, it feels very post-hoc to be honest. Effectively the average success rate for all attacks on all defenses is the same, so why should their numbers be off by 2? It made zero sense.

As I say, I basically did what you suggest, you get +5 for proficiency, a level bonus, an ability bonus, and a 'permanent bonus', which is just the catch-all for enchantment or any other random thing. Its a MUCH easier and cleaner system, but with all the advantages of 4e's engine. I mean, I have tweaked other stuff, but you could apply this sort of design directly to 4e and all it would force you to do is tweak a few numbers here and there. I doubt anything would require genuine redesign, and there'd be a bunch of feats that would become simpler or even redundant. If there's a 'negative' it might be eliminating a few char op bits where you get some small mileage out of applying bonuses meant to apply to weapon attacks vs AC and instead apply them to attacks against a NAD. I think WotC managed to add "you can't do this" text to most stuff, or just released a ruling against it, to block most cases, but why even need that stuff?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, @EzekielRaiden being able to use Skills as Defenses also addresses your point about Perception. It can simply be treated as BOTH, and 'passive perception' now is literally a defense! In a few cases active Perception or Insight might also be invoked, though the difference between active and passive is kind of moot.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh, @EzekielRaiden being able to use Skills as Defenses also addresses your point about Perception. It can simply be treated as BOTH, and 'passive perception' now is literally a defense! In a few cases active Perception or Insight might also be invoked, though the difference between active and passive is kind of moot.

That's not my issue with Perception.

It's not that it may be used as a defense. It's that treating it the same way as every other skill, when it is clearly FAR AND AWAY the most valuable skill, is a game design issue. When one, and only one, skill is considered "must have" for legit all characters, that's a good sign that it doesn't actually belong in the "skill" category and should be some other kind of thing. Hence, my saying it should become like Initiative. You wouldn't want to make Initiative a skill, because then literally everyone would be pressured to find ways to get that as one of their skills, and anyone who doesn't do that would be at a serious disadvantage relative to those who do.

Then there's the issue with the variance between Skills, Defenses, and Attack modifiers. If they all follow a more consistent progression then you can do things like sub in a skill to replace a defense (say with a feat or utility power effect, or even a class feature). This opens up a LOT of new design space, and again gets rid of a few odd points where limitations were placed on things, or certain stuff just 'didn't work' like escaping from a grab.

Whereas I consider this poor design. Skills are a different thing. They should not be used as defenses. The fact that Perception can be seen as one is exactly why it shouldn't be a skill.

 

[James Gasik]

There is a good argument to be made for Perception not to be a skill. It originally wasn't in AD&D, until the Complete Thieves' Handbook decided it should be, for whatever reason. And the game ran just fine without a dedicated Non-Weapon Proficiency for Alertness and Observation.

Heck, I remember there was a chance or a PC to have exceptional hearing or vision noted on the 1e DM's screen!

I don't really think it's healthy to have things walled off behind successful Perception checks; the DM is already the eyes and ears of the player; nobody notices anything unless the DM tells them. To further say "oh but I can't tell you this detail unless you make a check" after hearing a couple paragraphs of flavor text always struck me as a bit weird.

The trick is, to paraphrase Holmes (Sherlock, not Eric) is not to see, but to observe; given the same data, but be able to draw better conclusions from it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Actually HoML ditched AC for DR. The last revision replaces NADs with an active defense check. You can effectively use any power/skill/etc. to defend yourself.

I would love the NAD with a minor (say 1pt) and then DR to reflect most of it's defense would be great

 

[Undrave]

First of all there's a 2 point gap between NADs and AC, which is utterly pointless. It was obviously put in with the theory that it corrected for weapon proficiency, but all they needed to do was add implement proficiency that worked the same way instead. This deals with all the hand wringing about weaplements and crossover corner cases where a feat applies to a vs NAD attack etc. etc. etc. Not, by itself, a HUGE issue, but why even have this issue in the game? If you get rid of it, you can drop tons of silly restrictions on which feats work with which types of powers, etc. Its just BETTER.

It's not pointless. It allows you to create weapon powers that target NADs, thus making them more accurate. It's an extra tool to make weapon powers more interesting and variable. If it doesn't matter, might as well get rid of AC entirely.

I don't remember feats that only applied to attacks vs NADs? Maybe a bonus to weapon VS implement keywords?

Then there's the issue with the variance between Skills, Defenses, and Attack modifiers. If they all follow a more consistent progression then you can do things like sub in a skill to replace a defense (say with a feat or utility power effect, or even a class feature). This opens up a LOT of new design space, and again gets rid of a few odd points where limitations were placed on things, or certain stuff just 'didn't work' like escaping from a grab.

If Skills and Defences are calculated similarly, then there would be less chance using a Skill as a defence would make a difference. Why invest in such a feat then?

These 2 things are definite rough spots that really had no reason why they existed in the design except just generally a lot of 4e seems to have been thrown together or reworked at the last minute.

Never felt like they were rough spots myself.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's not pointless. It allows you to create weapon powers that target NADs, thus making them more accurate. It's an extra tool to make weapon powers more interesting and variable. If it doesn't matter, might as well get rid of AC entirely.

I am a fan of ditching AC for most things to target reflex...

 

[Undrave]

I am a fan of ditching AC for most things to target reflex...

I could see Armor acting as damage reduction, but the range of numbers you'd need for it to stay competitive would be pretty unwieldy, no?