D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[billd91]

Some spells got a "At the end of each of its turns, the target can make another saving throw. On a success, the spell ends on the target." tacked onto them. Most of them the really powerful low level spells, like Hold Person and Blindness/Deafness.

With respect to the hold spells, at least, that mechanic was introduced in 3.5e. 4e certainly widened its reach, reduced the target number to, what, 10? 5e kept the wider reach of 4e but restored the original save as the target number as in 3.5e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

With respect to the hold spells, at least, that mechanic was introduced in 3.5e. 4e certainly widened its reach, reduced the target number to, what, 10? 5e kept the wider reach of 4e but restored the original save as the target number as in 3.5e.

As with much of what is in 5e, if it resembles 4e, it's either a superficial resemblance, or it's been hollowed out and filled with 3e-isms until there isn't much 4e left.

But yes, the target number was always 10 with 4e saves.

 

[Red Castle]

It cares about roleplay about as much as any other edition, but tactically it is far superior to every other edition.

On that we agree. But I think that changing the name for DnD Tactics, with all that it implies, would have done more harm than good and validated some of the critisisms that was spread at the time.

Calling it DnD Tactics would have implied that the edition is more focused on combat than other editions, which in itself also implies that the roleplaying part is less important. So someone that is looking to play DnD with good roleplay would have been less inclined to try the edition, probably favoring keeping with 3.5 or moving to Pathfinder.

Calling it DnD Tactics would have also implied that it is not true DnD, but a by-product game, again for those that favor combat instead of roleplay. It would have only validated the opinion of those that didn't consider the 4th edition real DnD ''See!? Even the designers agree that it is not real DnD by giving it another name!''.

Also, let's not forget that when 4th edition came out, there was also another game called DnD miniatures game. So if it would have been called DnD Tactics, where would it have stand? You would have get DnD 3.5 edition, DnD Tactics and DnD the miniatures game. There seems to be a redundancy.

DnD 4th edition is just as much DnD than any other editions, so I really fail to see what changing his name would have achieve except validating some of the critisisms at the time. Those critisisms exited even though it was name DnD 4th edition, just imagine if it would have been called DnD Tactics.

 

[MwaO]

I'm pretty skeptical that the demise of some of the more fanciful software stuff had much to do with one guy going bonkers, but yeah, there were some pretty boneheaded things that happened when 4e was coming out, and some just poor overall timing.

I'd just note GenCon 2008 was 16 days after this happened. There was a huge problem with year 1 adventures mostly being written before release of the official rules, particularly in regards to Skill Challenges. To the point where for literal months, people were asking on the forum "Hey, what's the release schedule for year 2? We want to schedule conventions which directly promote WotC product and influencers." and the LFR admins were "we don't have anything to talk about" while Paizo was simultaneously clearly ramping up to release their adventure paths.

It wasn't just a fanciful software problem — it clearly impacted the entire WotC team.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Pathfinder only existed because Paiso existed, which existed because WotC CREATED IT, and gave it access to all their customers! (by handing Dragon publication to them).

While it is true that Paizo earned an audience this way, there were many publishers of varying nature and Paizo was hardly an obvious opponent. I still maintain that the reason Pathfinder exists is because of the GSL, not Paizo specifically: in a world where 4e was fully OGL and aggressively embraced 3PP and homebrew, Paizo could easily have made Pathfinder a 4e product, with its own distinct classes and rules structures meant to bring more of a 3e feel/approach.

But the GSL was written under the belief that 3PPs couldn't make it on their own. That WotC was indispensible. It wasn't, and thus Paizo took the easier route and cut out the middleman. Coupled with the disaffected, the Internet echo chamber that fuelled the edition war, and WotC's own bungling before and after launch, and you had the perfect environment for a customer base revolt.

4e did a lot of things wrong, mostly (though not exclusively) in presentation, marketing, the GSL, and the early adventures. Remove those things, and it would have already gone significantly better.

To your point about the digital tools team, yes, I recognize that some of their projects were...well, as you say, fanciful. The 3D character designer was frankly kind of silly unless they were intending to develop a full 3D-rendered tabletop program, which...I don't think they had the manpower to create in the first place. But there's a difference between "the pie in the sky stuff wouldn't have happened anyway" and "the digital tools basically collapsed because the team lead and one of the other team members died in a horrible tragedy." Had that not occurred, it is entirely possible WotC could have become the first major VTT; remember, Roll20 didn't come on the scene until 2012.

And, like @MwaO says, there's the morale issue. Even if the direct work-hour loss wasn't a huge deal, a murder-suicide among people you know, or at least people you've met within the company, is going to cause a massive morale hit, and it isn't going to come back quickly. If you factor in the rise of Paizo, the edition war, and the slowly-dawning realization that they weren't going to meet the ambitious sales pitch they'd given the corporate overlords...yeah, I could see how morale might never have properly recovered.

 

[Deekin]

One of the major changes I would make to 4e is to nail down what the controller rroll is supposed to do.

In my case, I think the controller roll is to Create Terrain .

The wizard creates Terrain that does horrible things to people that stay inside it. Clouds of sleep gas, scintillating patterns, floating stones of blades, conjured beasts... you don't want to be in wizard Terrain.

The invoker, on the other hand, would create Terrain that supports the party. Seas of radiant fire that fill you with vigor, a forest of glowing blades that parry and repost attacks made at you, ect. You don't want to fight someone in an Invokers Terrain.


The druids Terrain would do a little bit of both, with the goal of forcing hard choices on the enemy. Stuff like growing a forest of brambles that hurt enemies that enter it or start their turn in it, but give cover from attacks made outside of it.


I don't know enough about psions to say for sure what their specialty Terrain would be. Possibly double down on the control angle, and create zones that force enemies to do certain things. Zones of forced movement, spacewalk portals, ect.

The linking mechanic, like how all defenders can mark, all strikers get bonus damage, and all leaders get the Word powers, would be something like X Mastery, a 1/encounter reaction power that does something to a target in a zone you created

Wizards would get force a reroll on a successful save, invokes might grant a reroll on a failed save, druids could immobilized someone, psions force movement... that sort of thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Slap a sticker on it "D&D Tactics"

Job done.

Truth in Advertising would have required it to be "All The Lies Are True" instead.

 

[Bagpuss]

On that we agree. But I think that changing the name for DnD Tactics, with all that it implies, would have done more harm than good and validated some of the critisisms that was spread at the time.

Calling it DnD Tactics would have implied that the edition is more focused on combat than other editions, which in itself also implies that the roleplaying part is less important. So someone that is looking to play DnD with good roleplay would have been less inclined to try the edition, probably favoring keeping with 3.5 or moving to Pathfinder.

You know they did that anyway.

Calling it DnD Tactics would have also implied that it is not true DnD, but a by-product game, again for those that favor combat instead of roleplay. It would have only validated the opinion of those that didn't consider the 4th edition real DnD ''See!? Even the designers agree that it is not real DnD by giving it another name!''.

Also, let's not forget that when 4th edition came out, there was also another game called DnD miniatures game. So if it would have been called DnD Tactics, where would it have stand? You would have get DnD 3.5 edition, DnD Tactics and DnD the miniatures game. There seems to be a redundancy.

DnD 4th edition is just as much DnD than any other editions, so I really fail to see what changing his name would have achieve except validating some of the critisisms at the time. Those critisisms exited even though it was name DnD 4th edition, just imagine if it would have been called DnD Tactics.

This is a thread about how to redo 4e not what we would have done at the time.

So many people already believe everything you have just said about 4e, just embrace it, if your going to redo it now.

Have it as its own thing. I think it could get an audience if you embraced the tactical side of it.

 

[Red Castle]

You know they did that anyway.



This is a thread about how to redo 4e not what we would have done at the time.

So many people already believe everything you have just said about 4e, just embrace it, if your going to redo it now.

Have it as its own thing. I think it could get an audience if you embraced the tactical side of it.

Problem is that the people that believe what I said are mostly people that hated the edition, or that never really gave it a try and were parroting what was said online, and were using those false claims to keep other people from trying it, to make the 4th edition looks bad. I fail to see how embracing those false claims would have benefit the 4th edition.

Like I said earlier, it would have made more harm than good. Calling it DnD Tactic would not have made people that hated it suddenly love it, but it could have kept people that love roleplay away and not bothering to try it. DnD 4th edition is DnD, don't make it look like it is a by-product.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

There's actually two potential projects:

1. A redo of 4e that's for the fans of 4e.
2. A redo of 4e that's more for bridging the gap between people who enjoyed 4e and those you tried it, didn't hate it, but still felt it wasn't for them.

I'd definitely check out 2 over 1, but that's just me. Could have a team for each project really as they'd both have a potential audience.