D&D 4E 4e Mechanics That Ought to Exist (But Don't Yet!)

[Dannager]

Every once in a while an idea crosses my mind for a mechanic that I'd love to see implemented in 4th Edition D&D. The Companion Character rules from the DMG2 are good examples of what I'm talking about - new small rules systems that expand what can be done with the game itself.

So what mechanics have you brainstormed up that you think would be awesome in 4e, but haven't seen any exposure yet? This is your chance to get some feedback on them and get them out there.

A couple of my own: first, powers attached to particularly significant monsters (solos, for instance) that can be used by the PCs. These would usually take the form of special attacks that can be made against the monster itself (think: weak points). Mechanically, they would operate very similarly to terrain powers; pass a skill check and you can make the associated attack. Because these powers are attached to the monster itself, their effects can be tailored to what the monster can do. Slash the magical focusing stone from the back of the necrotic behemoth, for instance, and suddenly its aura is gone! This could create some awesome God of War-style cinematic moments mid-fight.

Another idea: powers that grant passive benefits as long as you haven't yet expended them. These would be like the opposite of stances or rage powers - your character is slightly better at something until this power is used, and then loses that benefit until the power is recovered. Obviously, at-will powers wouldn't have anything like this attached to them, but encounter and daily powers certainly could.

 

[the Jester]

Another idea: powers that grant passive benefits as long as you haven't yet expended them. These would be like the opposite of stances or rage powers - your character is slightly better at something until this power is used, and then loses that benefit until the power is recovered. Obviously, at-will powers wouldn't have anything like this attached to them, but encounter and daily powers certainly could.

Reminds me of late 3e's reserve feats.

I think 4e needs a good "dominion management" system, where the pcs can run territories, abuse their serfs and collect taxes. But I think every edition needs this, and we haven't had one in the rules since, what, the RC?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Every once in a while an idea crosses my mind for a mechanic that I'd love to see implemented in 4th Edition D&D. The Companion Character rules from the DMG2 are good examples of what I'm talking about - new small rules systems that expand what can be done with the game itself.

So what mechanics have you brainstormed up that you think would be awesome in 4e, but haven't seen any exposure yet? This is your chance to get some feedback on them and get them out there.

A couple of my own: first, powers attached to particularly significant monsters (solos, for instance) that can be used by the PCs. These would usually take the form of special attacks that can be made against the monster itself (think: weak points). Mechanically, they would operate very similarly to terrain powers; pass a skill check and you can make the associated attack. Because these powers are attached to the monster itself, their effects can be tailored to what the monster can do. Slash the magical focusing stone from the back of the necrotic behemoth, for instance, and suddenly its aura is gone! This could create some awesome God of War-style cinematic moments mid-fight.

Interesting idea and might work on Hydra-head-chopping?

 

[Starfox]

I miss divine characters with powers based on their deity. A domain system like 3E, only more so. Sadly, each such specialization would need its on class in 4E, so its not likely to happen.

At present, all divine characters feel pseudo-monotheistic. They are manipulating the energies of the astral space, using a divine persona as an interchangeable figurehead. It works, but feels very flat.

 

[weem]

I think 4e needs a good "dominion management" system, where the pcs can run territories, abuse their serfs and collect taxes. But I think every edition needs this, and we haven't had one in the rules since, what, the RC?

Love the RC and still have mine - I have used that info through all editions now and so you beat me to the post as I agree, dominion management is something I would really like to see.

 

[Mentat55]

I miss divine characters with powers based on their deity. A domain system like 3E, only more so. Sadly, each such specialization would need its on class in 4E, so its not likely to happen.

At present, all divine characters feel pseudo-monotheistic. They are manipulating the energies of the astral space, using a divine persona as an interchangeable figurehead. It works, but feels very flat.

They introduced domains for all the deities in Divine Power. What if current (and new) daily powers, say, had special riders for certain domains? Would that be enough, or should the powers themselves be different?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem with the 2e, and from what I can see also the 3.5, domain systems is that it never produced particularly useful characters. There are certain critical functions that a cleric performs and thus all domains require most of the same core set of powers, which are the powers that you'll be using most of the time. You can make a character that doesn't do any of the standard "cleric stuff", but then the question you have to ask is why should such a character be a cleric at all? At least in 4e the essence of a class is the things that it does. If you don't heal and buff/debuff then you really don't need to use the cleric class. Nothing is wrong with a character being a priest of the war god and being a fighter for example. In terms of the flavor of clerics of different deities that is a pure fluff issue. Simply describe powers in the way you want. Spiritual Weapon becomes the mystic eagle of Atur hovering over your enemy, etc. The same thing works for the fighter who's a priest of the war god, you can reflavor some of his powers to represent blessings of the diety (and he can always MC too). Want a guy that brings holy fire down on the enemy? This is why Invoker is separate from cleric, it does a different thing.

I'm actually finding it pretty hard to come up with really new subsystems to name at this point. A mass combat system seems to be about the only one that hasn't been mentioned which might be useful to some people.

 

[Starfox]

They introduced domains for all the deities in Divine Power. What if current (and new) daily powers, say, had special riders for certain domains? Would that be enough, or should the powers themselves be different?

To be honest, I don't think I'd be satisfied with polytheist clerical diversity unless they went as far as Rune Quest did, where cult were the closest thing to character class they had. In RQ, priestly types were not restricted to support roles - they could have any role depending on what faith they served. And that would just not work in D&D. So I guess I'm wishing for an entirely different game system, really. Which is quite unreasonable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To be honest, I don't think I'd be satisfied with polytheist clerical diversity unless they went as far as Rune Quest did, where cult were the closest thing to character class they had. In RQ, priestly types were not restricted to support roles - they could have any role depending on what faith they served. And that would just not work in D&D. So I guess I'm wishing for an entirely different game system, really. Which is quite unreasonable.

It depends on how you think about it. A ranger can be a devotee of a god and call himself a priest of that god and be a striker. He can always mix in a bit of calling down the power of his god by taking an MC feat in cleric. The cleric class is just "a guy that uses the power of his god to do his leader thing." Don't get too stuck on the class of your character defining WHO he is, that's RP stuff and classes don't particularly have to define that.

 

[the Jester]

The problem with the 2e, and from what I can see also the 3.5, domain systems is that it never produced particularly useful characters.

I disagree. My 2e specialty priests (admittedly homebrewed) were roughly balanced, with different roles and sets of abilities emphasizing their deities' interests. I saw lots of others that were similar. The key is to give up the idea that all clerics are healers.