D&D 4E 4E Redux

[The Crimson Binome]

That's been the back and forth in my head. Changing the monsters would require "CHANGING THE MONSTERS", and for some reason I feel like altering the class/feat chapters of 4E feels like less work than altering an entire Monster Manual.

If you're going to incorporate changes at the scale indicated, then it would probably work best if you just wrote an entire new game. Use a Monster Manual of your choice as inspiration, if you want it, but fundamental changes to characters would require fundamental changes to the rest of the system.

Honestly, if you spend a couple of hours on it every other day, it shouldn't take you more than six months. Monsters in 4E already have fairly predictable formulas for their stats, so you only need to write the new formulas and give a handful of examples.

 

[cbwjm]

Want to work with me on this? I've actually already started the process of replacing Extra attack with 1-2-3-4[W] damage scaling at 1, 5, 11, 17 (replacing extra attack with unique class features; makes multiclassing feel different and differentiates the classes). I've started on a maneuver system for 5E too. Adding in cantrip style weapon attacks that sacrifice ability damage to gain effects wouldn't be hard at all.

Sure. I've only just started putting together the exploits. Before now i was looking ar smaller benefits that would let you spend attacks to improve another with an additional effect. Fighters would eventually be the kings of these moves once they hit 11th level and could choose from exploits others couldnt use.

Currently, for the martial cantrips, I'm looking only at the 4e core rulebook. I'm still thinking of basing their power on the number of extra attack you earn so that fighters are better at them but then I hadn't thought about providing benefits to replace extra attack which could be a great idea.

 

[dave2008]

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?

I think is a great idea and would love to see what you come up with. FYI, [MENTION=6694190]Myrhdraak[/MENTION] has already done this and it is pretty amazing. You might want to drop them a note.

Some misc. thoughts:
1) streamline powers as you suggested. I would have martial exploits (fighter and rogue stuff), arcane spells, and divine prayers (different name maybe as it includes druid/primal stuff)
2) AEDU structure not required as you suggested (a la essentials)
3) Lesson the advancement curve: +1 every other level
4) take spells back to 1-9: I really like that idea
5) 3 classes: martial, arcane, divine/primal - every "class" is just a selection of feats/powers that define the character and role

 

[Xeviat]

Sure. I've only just started putting together the exploits. Before now i was looking ar smaller benefits that would let you spend attacks to improve another with an additional effect. Fighters would eventually be the kings of these moves once they hit 11th level and could choose from exploits others couldnt use.

Currently, for the martial cantrips, I'm looking only at the 4e core rulebook. I'm still thinking of basing their power on the number of extra attack you earn so that fighters are better at them but then I hadn't thought about providing benefits to replace extra attack which could be a great idea.

Here's been my thoughts on removing extra attack:

Have "weapon attack" scale like cantrip damage. Allow giving up ability mod or weapon dice of damage to power effects. Higher level characters can thus put more effects into an attack. A simple maneuver would be -1 weapon die to attack 2 targets for X[w]+ability. Two-Weapon Fighting would then be the way to get multiple dice at low levels, dealing 2d6+Mod to 1 target or 1d6+Mod to 2 targets.

By removing Extra Attack, multiclassing flattens out (I forgot to mention that for my 4E changes, I want to be able to work in 5E style multiclassing, but it would be easier in a 5E mod).

May I PM you?

 

[Xeviat]

I think is a great idea and would love to see what you come up with. FYI, [MENTION=6694190]Myrhdraak[/MENTION] has already done this and it is pretty amazing. You might want to drop them a note.

Some misc. thoughts:
1) streamline powers as you suggested. I would have martial exploits (fighter and rogue stuff), arcane spells, and divine prayers (different name maybe as it includes druid/primal stuff)
2) AEDU structure not required as you suggested (a la essentials)
3) Lesson the advancement curve: +1 every other level
4) take spells back to 1-9: I really like that idea
5) 3 classes: martial, arcane, divine/primal - every "class" is just a selection of feats/powers that define the character and role

Oooh! I'll definitely have to hit them up.

 

[cbwjm]

Here's been my thoughts on removing extra attack:

Have "weapon attack" scale like cantrip damage. Allow giving up ability mod or weapon dice of damage to power effects. Higher level characters can thus put more effects into an attack. A simple maneuver would be -1 weapon die to attack 2 targets for X[w]+ability. Two-Weapon Fighting would then be the way to get multiple dice at low levels, dealing 2d6+Mod to 1 target or 1d6+Mod to 2 targets.

By removing Extra Attack, multiclassing flattens out (I forgot to mention that for my 4E changes, I want to be able to work in 5E style multiclassing, but it would be easier in a 5E mod).

May I PM you?

Feel free to PM me.

I'll have to go through my docs with ideas for manoeuvers and consolidate them.

I was looking at some 4e exploits last night, I had forgotten just how many have up modifier to damage to create another effect so that might be worth using as a baseline for additional effects. Swap one benefit for another.

I may not be getting the names right but 4e had effects like the following taken from the ranger and fighter that gave up the ability mod to damage.

Twin strike. Make two attacks to deal 1[W] to each.

Sure strike. +2 to hit for 1[W].

I do wonder if somwthing like twin strike would be too powerful at later levels for the relatively low cost of giving up +5 damage on an attack (2 attacks with a greatsword at level 11 would be deal I g 6d6 per hit) but then I also want players to feel powerful at later levels so that might be okay.

 

[Xeviat]

I do wonder if somwthing like twin strike would be too powerful at later levels for the relatively low cost of giving up +5 damage on an attack (2 attacks with a greatsword at level 11 would be deal I g 6d6 per hit) but then I also want players to feel powerful at later levels so that might be okay.

It's actually a good way to allow for interesting notions with the different weapons. If certain effects require giving up a weapon die or weapon dice, and others require giving up ability damage, it would make those effects favor light weapons or heavy weapons respectively. You could favor choices without having to restrict them.

But, this type of stuff might be easier under the 4E structure since ability scores grow faster. In my early attempts to start on this, assuming 1d8 as baseline and 18 Stat, you could build a system where weapon die damage scaled at a rate similar, though more spikey, than ability mod + enhancement mod scaling.

This talk has got me thinking that maybe 5E's bounded accuracy curve may make monster design easier, since minions might not be required if higher level characters are routinely doing considerably more damage per hit. But I do like minion, standard, elite, and solo distinctions from an encounter design perspective, a higher level monster doesn't have AC out of the range of lower level characters so that could work for being solos and elites.

 

[cbwjm]

I found this the other day, someone took the fighting maneuvers of the battlemaster, added a few extras, and replaces the fighting styles with learning maneuvers instead. It's a pay what you want on drivethruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/248600/VDP-5E-Fighting-Maneuvers?manufacturers_id=13388

I'm wondering if this might do 90% of what I want to make martial combat a bit more interesting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, I like 4e combat, except I wanted to tweak things a LITTLE bit, such that you could fight fewer tougher monsters, or more less tough monsters in a bit more flexible way than in 4e. That when you do unleash the big capstone move that it doesn't foof. I wanted a few less twiddly power uses and more meaty ones. So I did tweak things a bit https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDqxN9WDlPUruYUIuDZo1YJcMcEqMSLm/view?usp=sharing in HoML. Feel free to rip things off, I put an OGL on it for good measure a while back too.

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.

I don't really agree in the long run. These classes are not as thematically strong as the ones in the PHB1 which are rock solid sure of themselves in their role. If you want a different role with a basically similar class, then make a new class! If you want to share power lists, then do so, make them source-based or whatever (HoML has powers derived mostly from 'boons' which are sort of like mini bits of class which you can simply accumulate to make what you want on top of your base class). It also has some 'source powers'. There are TONS of class concepts out there, more than enough to go around, particularly if you avoid such 'kitchen sink' designs as 'Wizard' and 'Fighter' in favor of somewhat thematically tighter classes.

Yes, you could do this all with 'kits', 'themes', 'sub-classes', 'builds', etc. I just tired of the madness and flattened the whole thing down to "this class does X" and if you don't like X, then be something else! Given how little is fixed to class irrevocably in HoML it really isn't an issue like it was in AD&D. Nor is it the monstrous pain to make a new class that it was in 4e.

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.

Never liked this idea, it is too limiting. Control is not just 'artillery', which in fact I would consider a flavor of striking in general (though its certainly true that a lot of area attacks will attain a degree of 'denial' based control).

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.

I don't particularly see the specific 12 of 5e to be especially canonical, and I have no intention of doing without my warlords . Still, 4e has a LOT of classes, and then they have builds, themes, PP and ED on top of that, which is a HECK of a lot of variety. I have probably equal variety, and a bit more than 12 classes, but not much more (and honestly many have not been fleshed out sufficiently to play in HoML yet). Its enough though with the shared power lists per source and powers mostly coming from boons which are not strictly bound to a specific class.

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 didn't really see the point. I mean, maybe in 4e proper that might have been a decent 'PR' move, but I doubt it would have saved 4e and might have lead to a more awkward design. In HoML I wouldn't see a point, it is NOT D&D, so why cater to sacred cows of bygone editions?

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'm in favor of the A/E/D/U style of having a fixed set of slots everyone adheres to. It is a great leveler and design constraint which makes things 'just work'.

-------

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?

Well, I like my ideas best, so stick with them! hehe.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with your premises and goals but wouldnt it be easier to spice up 5e rather than totally transform 4e?

As I see if you revamp the battlemaster or give at will attacks to all martial classes, give monsters some further abilities/attacks you will go a long way to your goals with far less work.

IMHO no. I don't like 5e's numbers that much, the design of its combat system, skill system, 6 defenses (dumb), and various other things. By the time I tweaked all those things, I might as well just run a hacked 4e derivative instead! So that's what I do...

TBH, what I LIKE about 5e is mostly the way classes are more straightforward and builds are accomplished in a more straightforward fashion with less decisions needed. It thus seems much easier to design HoML with an eye towards making an improved 4e, which will naturally have some things in common with changes that are in 5e, though not too many necessarily!