D&D (2024) 4e (DnD: Tactics) remake wish list.

Haplo781

Legend
I'm more into power source refinement.

Like Martial is War. "of or appropriate to war". That not roguish. Rogues cheat. Fighter, Rangers, and Warlords fight.

I'd pull Rogue out of Martial to make a Subterfuge or Underworld power source with Swashbuckler (defender), Boss (leader), and Saboteur (controller).

Then make Arcane pure knowledge based magic and shove Sorcerers with Benders and Shair into an Elemental Power Source.
4e Martial is "not magic"
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
OK but what would you put the rogue under then
If 4e Shadow didn't exist, I'd make Shadow nonmagical and make the Assassin, Rogue, Executioner, Knave/Jack and Swashbuckler use the Shadow power source.

But since Shadow exists, Then Trickery or Guile if you put Rogue with underhanded classes Assassin or Skill if you put Rogue with thinking classes like Alchemist and Tinker.
 

Haplo781

Legend
If 4e Shadow didn't exist, I'd make Shadow nonmagical and make the Assassin, Rogue, Executioner, Knave/Jack and Swashbuckler use the Shadow power source.

But since Shadow exists, Then Trickery or Guile if you put Rogue with underhanded classes Assassin or Skill if you put Rogue with thinking classes like Alchemist and Tinker.
Why tho
What purpose does that serve in fiction or mechanics
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Why tho
What purpose does that serve in fiction or mechanics
Like I said. The Fighter, Ranger, and Warlord are explicitly Warrior classes. And throughout D&D history, they were always warriors or warrior adjacent in every edition.

The Rogue isn't a Warrior. The Rogue in 4e and every other edition is a trickster and cheater.

In fiction and mechanics, the only thing the Rogue has in common with the Fighter, Ranger, and Warlord is they don't use magic. But the Barbarian and Swordmage have more in common with the Fighter, Ranger, and Warlord in visuals and play as they are also warriors.

The Rogue really doesn't belong in Martial. The Rogue is in Martial because
  1. There are only 3 Power Sources in PHB 1 and the Rogue had to be in PHB 1.
  2. The D&D community was ready for Tech and Mental ability to be fully fledged aspects of the game (see Warlord)
  3. The Rogue couldn't be in a power source all on its own
But if there were a "Weapons/Armor" and "Skills/Tech" split in Martial, most fans today would push Rogue in the Skill side. Rogues establshing a Skills based power source would help support the creation of other skills based classes.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
4e has alot of powers that were essentially the same but with bigger hit dice or a better rider effect as you leveled. You could simplify those powers into 1 that simply improved as you leveled.

The other thing to scrap in 4e IMO is the concept of 1 use of each power per rest cycle. Instead, allow a class to use X encounters and Y dailies per day and the player gets a pool of powers to choose from.
 


Haplo781

Legend
Mostly to add more classes

I mean, how many more casters do we need?
If Martial is the only non-magical powers source, then every edition will just be piling on more and more casters after year 2.
1. There's already 46 classes. I'm not convinced we need more.
2. The distinction between "caster" and "non-caster" is utterly meaningless in 4e.
3. Even if it weren't a meaningless distinction, splitting the one "non-caster" source into multiple doesn't solve the problem; anything that can be stuck into a hypothetical "non-martial martial" source can ... just be stuck in the existing martial source.
 

Remove ads

Top