D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[Voidmoji]

4e already has a lot of "add X or Y" where X or Y may be +1 +2 or a stat...
useing advantage would let them stream line some of them...

Take teh warlord (my favorite class) if you had at wills and 1st and 3rd level encounter powers that gave advantage on things(the at wills scale to add a static +1/+2/+3 at 5/11/17), and 1st level daily's that add 1d4 to the rolls and 5th level dailys that add 1d6... witha rule that you can only add 1 die (so no stacking a +1d4 and +1d6 or even 2 +1d4s) and can't stack advantage... BUT you can have advantage +1 +1d6

I don’t like the advantage/disadvantage system of 5e. It’s as simple as that. I’m not hear to crap on anyone’s preferences or fun! But for myself, I wouldn’t buy or run a game where it existed as a replacement for modifiers in general.

My dislike is for much the reason @Undrave pointed out. I like situational modifiers. I feel like they fit with the crunchy nature of 4e tactical combat. I just think they need cleaned up. And I have solutions for that that don’t involve reducing them to a binary state.

I’ve considered using the mechanics of rolling extra d20 for some specific things in my own game, but if that happens it will be rare.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The thing with using a 5e type advantage system is that it doesn't stack, so you never have to look for more ways to gain the upper hand.

In 4e, making use of the environment, figuring out how to flank AND having multiple allies give you a bonus were all possible tools in your arsenal to overcome a tough foe. It made you engage with the environment more, made mobility more important and promoted more teamwork. If you only need 1 of those to get the maximum bonus you can get, you'll forget the others, ya know?

"Roll 2 dice take the higher/lower result" still has room in the game as a mechanic for sure, though.

Simply piling on bonuses to attack rolls for these things however is pretty lazy design. 4e itself doesn't even do much of that. Invisible, flanking, surprise, etc. are all CA, and don't stack! 4e monster design also moved away from the idea of simple bonuses and similar techniques.

Now, I don't disagree that advantage should be applied on a very limited basis, so I think the actual difference here is simply that I would avoid using bonuses much at all. They're fine as a way to generate baseline hit probability, but a poor way to express limited tactical advantage.

 

[Voidmoji]

Simply piling on bonuses to attack rolls for these things however is pretty lazy design. 4e itself doesn't even do much of that. Invisible, flanking, surprise, etc. are all CA, and don't stack! 4e monster design also moved away from the idea of simple bonuses and similar techniques.

Now, I don't disagree that advantage should be applied on a very limited basis, so I think the actual difference here is simply that I would avoid using bonuses much at all. They're fine as a way to generate baseline hit probability, but a poor way to express limited tactical advantage.

I’m not here to argue tastes, but claiming that a system with linear modifiers is lazy, but removing all that variability and going with an extra die on the roll to cover it all somehow isn’t, seems like an odd tack.

I encourage people to play games they want, with rules they enjoy, and that includes 5e style advantage and disadvantage. For some people it is the perfect solution! But it is certainly not inherently better, and 4e strikes me as one of the less lazily-created games out there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I’m not here to argue tastes, but claiming that a system with linear modifiers is lazy, but removing all that variability and going with an extra die on the roll to cover it all somehow isn’t, seems like an odd tack.

I encourage people to play games they want, with rules they enjoy, and that includes 5e style advantage and disadvantage. For some people it is the perfect solution! But it is certainly not inherently better, and 4e strikes me as one of the less lazily-created games out there.

4e generally did OK. I'm mostly pushing back against the notion that it even heavily uses situational bonuses as it's primary mechanism. You can definitely stack up a bunch of stuff, and I don't endorse that sort of design much, but 4e definitely moved away from that over time.

So, again, I tend to use other things instead, but where a fairly decisive advantage is warranted, like surprise, then advantage is fine. It's simple and clear.

 

[pemerton]

@AbdulAlhazred

What sorts of alternatives to numerical bonuses are you thinking of, to express limited tactical advantage? Free movement, and friendly forced movement, are one sort that 4e uses a bit. Condition infliction is another, though it's typically downstream of an attack rather than upstream.

 

[Voidmoji]

4e generally did OK. I'm mostly pushing back against the notion that it even heavily uses situational bonuses as it's primary mechanism.

That's all fine. I just object to the idea that modifiers instead of the A/D system is somehow lazy game design.

 

[pemerton]

That's all fine. I just object to the idea that modifiers instead of the A/D system is somehow lazy game design.

I don't think anyone advanced that idea. Here's what AbdulAlhazred posted:

Simply piling on bonuses to attack rolls for these things however is pretty lazy design. 4e itself doesn't even do much of that. Invisible, flanking, surprise, etc. are all CA, and don't stack! 4e monster design also moved away from the idea of simple bonuses and similar techniques.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@AbdulAlhazred

What sorts of alternatives to numerical bonuses are you thinking of, to express limited tactical advantage? Free movement, and friendly forced movement, are one sort that 4e uses a bit. Condition infliction is another, though it's typically downstream of an attack rather than upstream.

Well, increased effect is certainly one option, which could include a damage bonus (though again this can be a bit vanilla). But you have also hit on a number of the possibilities. Granted they are 'downstream', but I don't see that as a big issue in a general sense. You could also deny the opponent use of some resource of their own. So, for instance, negating your opponent's ability to respond with an interrupt, marking the opponent, etc. The benefits could also have to do with other characters. So, if I flank a monster, I grant my ally an MBA if I hit, etc. Obviously these things can tie into roles too. 4e is great, but I think it is a design that still has a good bit of room to get even better! Also, faster simpler play opens up some new dimensions in and of itself.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's all fine. I just object to the idea that modifiers instead of the A/D system is somehow lazy game design.

Yeah, I'm not saying 4e did, particularly, though the tendency did exist at times. I actually think of the non-stacking advantage/disadvantage thing as a kind of design constraint which spurs one to more creative solutions.

 

[Voidmoji]

Yeah, I'm not saying 4e did, particularly, though the tendency did exist at times. I actually think of the non-stacking advantage/disadvantage thing as a kind of design constraint which spurs one to more creative solutions.

Excellent, thank you.