D&D 4.5E (Not Essentials)

[sabrinathecat]

1: Downloadable character builder and monster builder that is completely up-to-date with all rules.

2: mounted combat

3: multi-class feats for all classes that are sensible (I had a thread about fixing multi-classing a while ago)

4: equal support for all classes, or drop the class entirely

5: roles--not necessary

6: playtesting before publishing!!! (some of the mistakes are embarrassing)

7: books updated with all errata.

8: ONE SET OF STEALTH RULES THAT MAKES SENSE!!! Those got changed so many times that I have no idea now how it works.

9: equal racial support, or drop the race entirely

10: Broader Open Game License!--like 3.0 first had before Book of Erotic Fantasy made them change it.

 

[Garthanos]

I think it's important to have a class's at-wills be unique. One of they key ideas is that "Every time the fighter attacks, he feels like a fighter."

I use the phrase "all characters able to act according to archetype always" for the A in AEDU.

However if a class feature modifies how a power works sufficiently then is that power not made unique

 

[Dungeoneer]

I use the phrase "all characters able to act according to archetype always" for the A in AEDU.

However if a class feature modifies how a power works sufficiently then is that power not made unique

That may technically be the case, but remember this is about how it FEELS to the player. I SUSPECT they would not appreciate the subtlety, but it's something you'd probably want to test.

 

[Jester David]

Thats just the point. The narrative space for the Fighter is Martial Heavy Weapon Defender. Martial Heavy Weapon Striker is going to use a different set of powers, many of which are likely shared with the Ranger and Rogue. Those are the Striker(weapon) powers. The Fighter uses the Defender(weapon) powers along with Fighter powers and probably Martial powers that are shared among all 4 classes.

The narrative space is only close if you make it close. I dont see a lot of people arguing that the Ranger and the Rogue are narratively exactly the same despite both being Martial Light Weapon Strikers that even share the same high skill paradigm and even the same prime stat(Dex).

There are a lot of people saying the ranger and fighter are similar. And the seeker is pretty much a renamed ranger, as was shown by how easily the ranger filled that role with Essentials.

And many people want to play a striker fighter. It's easier to give them a striker fighter then have them mangle a tank fighter with a secondary role as striker into a striker.

That would go a long way towards alleviating some complaints from the non-4e crowd. I'm not sure exactly what it would accomplish except for watering down some of the classes that have class defining at-wills. I'm thinking more Bard at-wills than Twin Strike, but TS will be pick number one for all martial classes. But again, a list of generic power source at-wills or role based at-wills would be a good idea.

It's hard to water down At-Wills when most can be reduced to "deal damage and a minor effect". They can be pretty darn interchangable.

The bard is tricky and there could always be exceptions. But, really, the bard doesn't seem like a class that should be slinging magic at first level. They're kinda a mixed source class anyway, so give them martial At-Wills and arcane Encounters and Dailies with some class features that add a bardic feel to their At-Wills (or can be used in addition to the basic power.

I think it's important to have a class's at-wills be unique. One of they key ideas is that "Every time the fighter attacks, he feels like a fighter." Having a unique power that no other class shares is part of that. The fighter knows that the ranger is not going to bust out Tide of Iron. That's HIS thing.

Which is fine in theory, but in practice there's only so much mechanical space in At-Wills. There's only so many conditions or effects you can impose via an At-Will. There's already a lot of overlap.
Having At-Wills be generic but modified by the class means even if the ranger and fighter are both using Twin Strike it feels different to both.

 

[Remathilis]

What fixes would be required if WotC were to suddenly drop 5E and try to make a 4.5E that fixes all the problems of 4E without completely destroying it and starting over from scratch?

I'm not totally sure, but I think Essentials WAS a good starting point. I could totally have seen (and in fact thought 5e would be) Essentials formalized, errata'd, cleaned up, and printed in one tome. If they had ridden the wave Essentials started in fixing 4e (and continued to go further) then it might have been possible to keep a 4.5/5e game using that system.

That said, I'm glad they are making Next what it is, but Essentials would have been a good "building point" for the next game as well.

 

[Marshall]

There are a lot of people saying the ranger and fighter are similar. And the seeker is pretty much a renamed ranger, as was shown by how easily the ranger filled that role with Essentials.

A. The Seeker is one of the under-supported messes. It still has a role that it can fulfill, if played well.
B. Its a Primal Controller.
and
C. The Hunter isnt capable of anything but being an off-striker, let alone a controller. Its one of the poster children for how badly the E4e design team understood 4e.

And many people want to play a striker fighter. It's easier to give them a striker fighter then have them mangle a tank fighter with a secondary role as striker into a striker.

You're stuck on the name. Slayer, Fighter, Weaponmaster, Battlerager,... who cares what the Heavy Weapon Striker is called?!?

It's hard to water down At-Wills when most can be reduced to "deal damage and a minor effect". They can be pretty darn interchangeable.

Theres a handful of at-wills that fit that description, the vast majority dont. How would you replace Commander Strike, Hellish Rebuke, Vicious Mockery, Throw and Stab....?

Which is fine in theory, but in practice there's only so much mechanical space in At-Wills. There's only so many conditions or effects you can impose via an At-Will. There's already a lot of overlap.
Having At-Wills be generic but modified by the class means even if the ranger and fighter are both using Twin Strike it feels different to both.

Sure, that why you shift the generic ones from the class lists to role or power source lists.
The idea would be that Twin Strike for the Ranger gets Quarry damage and for the Fighter it marks.

 

[C4]

Anyhow, I don't mean to knock anyone's ideas, it's just a huge amount of work and inherently involves value decisions that not everyone will agree on (e.g. Look at the "build of every role for every class" debate forming in this thread). I will add that I like a lot of these ideas as house rules for my own games and have actually implemented several behind the DM screen.

QFT!

I've made a lot of adjustments to my 4e clone, Points of Light, and fixing the math is the simplest of them. Often, fellow 4e fans will give me several solutions to an issue I want to fix; I end up picking one, not because it's inherently better than the others, but simply because I have to pick one.

Most recently, I've been rewording a lot of 4e-isms in order to make Points of Light legally legit. And I frequently find myself having to make value judgments that I'd rather not make. For example, do I reword 'warlord' and 'inspiring word' into the similarly film-physics logical 'marshall' and 'warcry,' or default to less abstract in-game logic with 'healer warrior' and 'healing maneuver'?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You could always split the difference when it comes to naming powers. For instance, "Healing War Cry" or "[Insert Foreign Word] Charge". One word to remind the player what the power does, and a flavor word or phrase to keep it separate.

Also think of things like "Bonetti's Defense". Well, that's obviously a defensive power, and still distinct from other defensive utilities...

 

[C4]

I honestly think a 4.5 would drop power sources altogether.

At the end of the day, a classes power source had no mechanical meaning. It existed solely so there could be overpowered splat books entitled "X Power" and so that forumers could argue endlessly over whether there should be a Martial Controller.

I think that 4e power sources are rather muddled, and not as consistent as I'd like them to be. For example, the arcane source (particularly the wizard) is a grab-bag of concepts and every magical effect imaginable. Because Tradition!

But I do think that more focused power sources have value. If nothing else, they help me keep my design consistent and thematic. For example, arcane classes are what other editions would call enchanters, illusionists, and beguilers whose art originated in Faerie (the Feywild) and Sibylie (the Shadowfell). They all have class features and powers which involve psychic damage, charms, illusions and the like.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=93857]C4[/MENTION] Where are you sharing your work these days? I always liked the name "Champion" as an alternative to the Warlord.