D&D 4E 4E Redux

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. It's no secret that I loved 4th Edition. And after running 5E for a few years, I've decided that I really don't like DMing it. I like playing. I like the player side of the game for the most part. But I find the monsters to be supremely boring. I miss the complexity of combat in 4E. I miss the set piece boss battles (and legendary monsters don't do it for me, even with their lairs). 5E combat is over way too soon.

So, I've been thinking passively for years about trying to make a 4E hack. Either rewrite the 5E monsters to make them like 4E, or polish up the player side of 4E to streamline it (last time I looked at the list of powers, I got decision paralysis). I feel like rewriting the classes of 4E would be less work than remaking all of the monsters, but the monsters may just require writing new monster level guidelines and doing some analysis on PC damage per round (and adding some role mechanics back into the tank classes).

But, if I were to rewrite the classes of 4E, here are my thoughts:

Decouple class from role. Essentials showed us you could have a striker paladin or fighter, a leader druid, and a controller ranger. The core four classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) could possibly have builds that allow for any of the roles.

Redefine controller as artillery. Controller as a role is hard to build for, as it is more determined by power selection and not class abilities.

Reduce the classes down to the 5E 12+ (I love psionics, I'll still bring it in, and I'm growing to like the Artificer as a class). I believe these classes have minimal overlap, and other missed classes could be different builds within the other classes (warlord could be a leader fighter or a weapon oriented bard, invoker could be a controller cleric).

Largely decouple powers from classes. Create spell lists and shared powers. No need to have 8 different at-will weapon attacks that do 1d[w]+mod and slowed for 1 round.

Reintroduce the 1-9 spell progression. A 20th level character ends with 4 encounter and 4 daily powers, and those could be tracked against 2nd-5th and 6th-9th level spells (this ends up being fairly close with the slots of 5E), with 1st level spells becoming at-will slots at a point.

Not all classes have daily powers. Borrowing from Essentials, some classes/subclasses could have different power structures. Fighters could have their daily power allowance go towards spells (eldritch knight), static bonuses, or additional encounter exploits (I imagine the eldritch knight stealing from the blade singer and using wizard encounters as dailies, but getting to pair them with at-wills).

-------

This might be a lot of work, but its stuff I like working on. Redoing the monsters as I need them might be easier, though.

What do you think?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

A lot of this does not sound like 4e.

Hi everyone. It's no secret that I loved 4th Edition. And after running 5E for a few years, I've decided that I really don't like DMing it. I like playing. I like the player side of the game for the most part. But I find the monsters to be supremely boring. I miss the complexity of combat in 4E. I miss the set piece boss battles (and legendary monsters don't do it for me, even with their lairs). 5E combat is over way too soon.

So, I've been thinking passively for years about trying to make a 4E hack. Either rewrite the 5E monsters to make them like 4E, or polish up the player side of 4E to streamline it (last time I looked at the list of powers, I got decision paralysis). I feel like rewriting the classes of 4E would be less work than remaking all of the monsters, but the monsters may just require writing new monster level guidelines and doing some analysis on PC damage per round (and adding some role mechanics back into the tank classes).

But, if I were to rewrite the classes of 4E, here are my thoughts:

Decouple class from role. Essentials showed us you could have a striker paladin or fighter, a leader druid, and a controller ranger. The core four classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) could possibly have builds that allow for any of the roles.

This may be the case, but I think this was to 4e's detriment. There were so many weak classes built over the course of 4e, many of which either tried to cover multiple roles, or performed their primarily role poorly. (In previous editions, usually splats made PCs stronger. 4e might have the first to do the opposite.) I think the only one of those core four that did the two roles well was the fighter, although the sentinel druid might have made a decent leader.

Redefine controller as artillery. Controller as a role is hard to build for, as it is more determined by power selection and not class abilities.

I don't like that idea. Wizards made really good controllers, and not really good artillery. Yes, building a controller is harder. The best way to do it, IMO, is to make sure there's a good selection of controlling spells, and few if any non-control spells. Otherwise you could end up with PCs like the 2e cleric with the Death sphere, and not the healing sphere. (See the invoker mention for that.)

Reduce the classes down to the 5E 12+ (I love psionics, I'll still bring it in, and I'm growing to like the Artificer as a class). I believe these classes have minimal overlap, and other missed classes could be different builds within the other classes (warlord could be a leader fighter or a weapon oriented bard, invoker could be a controller cleric).

I'm not a big fan of lots of classes, so this is something I could get behind. As for the invoker, I'd rather see it a separate class. If you want to do the unholy guy who does necromancy, or a storm cleric who doesn't do healing, that's what the invoker is about.

Largely decouple powers from classes. Create spell lists and shared powers. No need to have 8 different at-will weapon attacks that do 1d[w]+mod and slowed for 1 round.

I don't agree with this. If you have a melee attack that also slows, you're basically a defender. That ability does not belong on a PC with low hit points and low AC.

Reintroduce the 1-9 spell progression. A 20th level character ends with 4 encounter and 4 daily powers, and those could be tracked against 2nd-5th and 6th-9th level spells (this ends up being fairly close with the slots of 5E), with 1st level spells becoming at-will slots at a point.

I would be fine with that, provided there are at-will spells right from the start. I don't like the whole "three Magic Missiles and I'm done" school of thought at any level.

Not all classes have daily powers. Borrowing from Essentials, some classes/subclasses could have different power structures. Fighters could have their daily power allowance go towards spells (eldritch knight), static bonuses, or additional encounter exploits (I imagine the eldritch knight stealing from the blade singer and using wizard encounters as dailies, but getting to pair them with at-wills).

I found this made things hard to balance, especially at later levels when older 4e classes were getting three daily powers. (My recollection of the bladesinger was also something very weak... but IIRC there were two similar classes, and I might be confusing which of the two had confused weak roles.)

I think you are better off focusing on the monster side of things. I don't see how trying to introduce 4e elements but mainly the parts that did not involve mechanical rigor makes things better, when trying to emulate 4e.

 

[sfedi]

What's you opinion on limiting yourself to the levels of 4E where you don't get that analysis paralysis?
Wouldn´t that do the trick?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What's you opinion on limiting yourself to the levels of 4E where you don't get that analysis paralysis?
Wouldn´t that do the trick?

I agree with that. I would never try paragon level 4e again, unless I have a group of very fast players.

 

[heretic888]

Just use companion characters from the DMG2 instead of regular PCs. Way simpler and more streamlined than any 5E PC.

If you want a little extra complexity you can give them a theme, paragon path, and/or epic destiny as they gain experience (which companion characters don't get by default).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think that the multi-role thing can be done better using feats and powers, or make the level 1 build choice more impactful.

A lot of the classes are going to be very hard to satisfying accomplish inside of one of the “12+”.

Is the Avenger a Paladin? Do all Paladin’s get a choice between heavy armor and unarmored defense?

A lot of character identity for many classes exists in mechanics that are built into powers. How does a Monk work with generic powers? It won’t be anything like the 4e monk, that’s for sure!

My suggestion is to:

rip out 4e’s math, and replace it with bounded accuracy

Drop monster HP more in line with Monster Vault and MV: Nentir Vale numbers

Dramatically shrink sources of stacking bonuses of any kind. No six sources of damage bonuses, none of it.

Kill all fidly feats that don’t contribute to story in any way. Situational tactical stuff is fun, +x on y attacks that deal z damage is boring.

Give all classes a basic close and basic ranged attack. All things that rely on basic attacks work with any basic attack of the right kind (opportunity attacks are available to everyone, leaders can give attacks to anyone). All attack powers use a basic attack, and add to/modify it, whenever possible.

Gain power slots, learn new powers to use with those slots. Want to power attack 3 times an encounter? Cool! Have fun!

Increase skill and other utility powers.

Bake in Themes from the start.

Allow choosing essentials style builds that gain passive features instead of a wide array of powers.

Give each role and power source powers available to all characters of that role and power source, to consolidate powers a bit, and save some work. But class powers are a vital part of 4e.

 

[sfedi]

Another way to keep 4e progression, remove the overwhelming options (apart from Essentials) and level up is to:
Remove magic item powers, or keep one.
Remove consumables.
Make two stacks of encounter powers, so you always have only two encounters to choose from. The player can change these stacks outside of combat.
Utiliy powers, I don´t have a clear way to handle them in order to reduce complexity.
Have one daily "active", which is the next one to use. You can even declare, as GM, in which combats dailies are supposed to be used, or are available.

 

[MwaO]

Here's how I redid the basics of 5e monsters to be more 4e for the spell casters:
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/171589/Simple-Caster-NPCs-Knights-of-Myth-Drannor

That's a PWYW, so just feel free to pay nothing. The actual spell casting monsters from MM are in the Simple-Caster NPCs and work basically the same way.

 

[Retreater]

Hi everyone. It's no secret that I loved 4th Edition. And after running 5E for a few years, I've decided that I really don't like DMing it. I like playing. I like the player side of the game for the most part. But I find the monsters to be supremely boring. I miss the complexity of combat in 4E. I miss the set piece boss battles (and legendary monsters don't do it for me, even with their lairs). 5E combat is over way too soon.

So, I've been thinking passively for years about trying to make a 4E hack. Either rewrite the 5E monsters to make them like 4E, or polish up the player side of 4E to streamline it (last time I looked at the list of powers, I got decision paralysis). I feel like rewriting the classes of 4E would be less work than remaking all of the monsters, but the monsters may just require writing new monster level guidelines and doing some analysis on PC damage per round (and adding some role mechanics back into the tank classes).

But, if I were to rewrite the classes of 4E, here are my thoughts:

Decouple class from role. Essentials showed us you could have a striker paladin or fighter, a leader druid, and a controller ranger. The core four classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard) could possibly have builds that allow for any of the roles.

Redefine controller as artillery. Controller as a role is hard to build for, as it is more determined by power selection and not class abilities.

Reduce the classes down to the 5E 12+ (I love psionics, I'll still bring it in, and I'm growing to like the Artificer as a class). I believe these classes have minimal overlap, and other missed classes could be different builds within the other classes (warlord could be a leader fighter or a weapon oriented bard, invoker could be a controller cleric).

Largely decouple powers from classes. Create spell lists and shared powers. No need to have 8 different at-will weapon attacks that do 1d[w]+mod and slowed for 1 round.

Reintroduce the 1-9 spell progression. A 20th level character ends with 4 encounter and 4 daily powers, and those could be tracked against 2nd-5th and 6th-9th level spells (this ends up being fairly close with the slots of 5E), with 1st level spells becoming at-will slots at a point.

Not all classes have daily powers. Borrowing from Essentials, some classes/subclasses could have different power structures. Fighters could have their daily power allowance go towards spells (eldritch knight), static bonuses, or additional encounter exploits (I imagine the eldritch knight stealing from the blade singer and using wizard encounters as dailies, but getting to pair them with at-wills).

-------

This might be a lot of work, but its stuff I like working on. Redoing the monsters as I need them might be easier, though.

What do you think?

One of the big selling points for me about 4E is that all classes have functions to serve, so it's easy for a player to know what his or her role in the party is. It's also easier for a DM to plan for. So I'm not sure about getting rid of the classes and roles. It almost seems like it would be easier to graft some 4E design elements to 5E rather than the other way around.