Design Space - What are the biggest gaps in 4th Edition?

[KidSnide]

Another area of open design space is rules to support alternate types of campaigns. Dark Sun is the only real example of a well-supported alternate campaign style. It has themes dedicated to the campaign world, appropriate monsters, rules for survival in a horrible wilderness and advice for how to adapt and/or the huge variety of possible PCs to those appropriate to the genre.

Other campaign styles could get similar support.

For example, a nautical campaign would be well served by well thought out rules for both ship-to-ship and underwater combat. Appropriate ship-board and underwater terrain powers could also be high value. It would also be nice to have rules for guns and cannons, for those who want more of a Pirates or Napoleonic style gameworld. (It's probably less common to want a low-magic world, but advice on how to adapt Dark Sun style inherent bonuses would also be helpful.) Appropriate themes would help players build genre-appropriate PCs and some nice ship (and underwater) battle maps would make great swag.

A Kingmaker-style campaign needs a different set of support. Once again, appropriate themes are a good starting point (mostly, I think, because they give the players a rules-based incentive to build characters that are appropriate to the genre of the campaign). Such a campaign also wants guidelines for hex crawl adventures and a good library of wilderness skill challenges for the exploration part of the game. Later on, that type of game wants economic rules for building towns, castles, kingdoms and organizations, plus the mass combat rules discussed up thread.

With the materials coming out this year, a Ravenloft campaign is becoming well supported. Still, there is open space for guidelines about how to adjust PCs mechanically if they choose (or are forced to) succumb to evil. Also, there is a lot of room for well design domain lords. The less swingy nature of 4e combat requires a little more creativity about how to create Lords that are frighting, yet fun to face in battle.

There are plenty of other appropriate ideas, including an steampunk/industrial Zeitgeist-style campaign, a mythical historical Greco-Roman or medieval Ars Magica style game, a zombie apocalypse setting or a gritty, low-PC-wealth den of thieves urban survival campaign. Any or all of these would be well served by character options, obstacles/opponents appropriate to the genre, and special rules to resolve the types of conflicts common to the campaign that are unusual in a standard dungeon crawl game.

And, of course, nearly any campaign style would also be well served by a well design adventure path. There's no reason that Paizo and ENWorld have to be the only ones creating them.

-KS

 

[Incenjucar]

I think there may actually be enough open design space (combined with rarely-used rules) to build a campaign around. I could see a setting where air-and-aquatic (dive dive dive!) mounted mass combat to defend a castle was a thing.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Before they

start building on mounted combat (which I love, btw!), they need to properly reassure us that they won't gimp paladins' utility 4 to call their steed, and implement Call Celestial Steed properly in the builder.

Here's an iconic archetype missing from 4e, a new fighting style option for rangers :

Two-handed fighting style: While wielding any versatile weapon in two hands, you can treat it as a double-weapon, with the offhand side having the same stats as the main side. If you can wield two-handed weapons in one hand, they gain the versatile property.

Note: It would allow Aragorn to Twin Strike with his Ranger sword or Anduril, and the Golden Axe dwarf to do his Combo A, slash-chop, with his battleaxe or war axe (with a +1 bonus for wielding it in two hands, to boot). Also, Eternal Defenders could use an Execution Axe or Fullblade with their multi-attacks. The tradeoff is you lose Toughness for free and can't ever use a normal weapon in your offhand, but that's not your style anyway. Finally, you save on gold and look cooler (IMO). Additionally, weapon buffs such as Bless Weapon or Artificer powers suddenly work better, since it's only one weapon.

 

[KidSnide]

I think there may actually be enough open design space (combined with rarely-used rules) to build a campaign around. I could see a setting where air-and-aquatic (dive dive dive!) mounted mass combat to defend a castle was a thing.

Right now the game is filled with character rules. With the standard advice that PCs should be able to choose anything, it means that most campaigns start in the same place: with an arbitrary set of PCs.

If you have a collection of optional setting rules, then a GM can mix-and-match them to create very distinct campaigns. A "Lords of the Seven Seas" or "Pirate King" game could combine nautical and Kingmaker-style rules. Ravenloft and Dark Sun rules creates a true post-apocalyptic survival horror campaign. Or, as Incenjucar suggests, Kingmaker + mounted aerial rules creates a nice Skylords game.

The special joy of campaign optional rules is that they become more useful once you have a decent set of them.

-KS

 

[BobTheNob]

I always wanted them to take "Non-combat" off the core growth stream. By this I mean that players are not obligated to give up potential combat effectiveness for non-combat.

For instance, using a feat for skill training. Never seen a player do it...why? Who wants to when I can hit harder!

I would like to see that non-combat aspect of the character is allowed to grow independent of standard character growth, and that its sort of like a separate class, almost like how themes work. So for instance, have "non-combat classes" as things like...
* Ritualist : Uses rituals tosolve non-combat dilemas
* Burglar : Gets nifty little tricks for getting in and out of situations
* Silver Tongue : Team negotiator
* Scout : The guy with all the ability to sneak in, observe and report back

It could vary, but the core point is : seperate growth of combat capability from non combat capability such that they dont come from the same resource pool.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think it is worth noting that 'negative space' is a valuable element of design. For instance I appreciate the fact that there aren't structured rules for what happens outside of combat, or elaborate profession rules, etc. It is TOUGH to maintain that negative design space when everyone is clamoring for more stuff, and you need material to fill books, etc. For any given area the designers chose to maintain a light touch there is bound to be some subset of players who'd love THAT to be a focus of the game.

So, I would just say that the developers should remain aware of the reasons why some things don't have mechanics.

I think some things would be great, but they might be best addressed in setting material. For instance rules for building strongholds, running towns, cities, and empires might be great, but I would put them in a 'Birthright Setting'. The reason being inevitably if you publish a book on the subject then it becomes the default assumed way that things work. No RPG supplement can really cover even a fraction of the options that this material would really deserve.

Other stuff though is definitely prime material to get hit, like curses, rare items, magical research, etc.

 

[Fifth Element]

II would like to see that non-combat aspect of the character is allowed to grow independent of standard character growth, and that its sort of like a separate class, almost like how themes work. So for instance, have "non-combat classes" as things like...
* Ritualist : Uses rituals tosolve non-combat dilemas
* Burglar : Gets nifty little tricks for getting in and out of situations
* Silver Tongue : Team negotiator
* Scout : The guy with all the ability to sneak in, observe and report back

It could vary, but the core point is : seperate growth of combat capability from non combat capability such that they dont come from the same resource pool.

I think I started a thread about this a couple of years ago, with the idea that characters would each have a combat role and a non-combat role, with abilities concomitant to each. Didn't really get anywhere with it, but obviously I'd support the idea.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

II would like to see that non-combat aspect of the character is allowed to grow independent of standard character growth, and that its sort of like a separate class, almost like how themes work. So for instance, have "non-combat classes" as things like...
* Ritualist : Uses rituals tosolve non-combat dilemas
* Burglar : Gets nifty little tricks for getting in and out of situations
* Silver Tongue : Team negotiator
* Scout : The guy with all the ability to sneak in, observe and report back

It could vary, but the core point is : seperate growth of combat capability from non combat capability such that they dont come from the same resource pool.

I think I started a thread about this a couple of years ago, with the idea that characters would each have a combat role and a non-combat role, with abilities concomitant to each. Didn't really get anywhere with it, but obviously I'd support the idea.

I remember that thread; might be worth necromancing. Could you see themes or a themes-based variant encompassing such a thing? It could advance per level or possibly have a rate of advancement patterned on the advance of time in the campaign world.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Fifth Element]

I remember that thread; might be worth necromancing. Could you see themes or a themes-based variant encompassing such a thing? It could advance per level or possibly have a rate of advancement patterned on the advance of time in the campaign world.

My google-fu is failing me at the moment and can't find the thread. I think themes are on the right lines of what I was thinking about back then. Characters could have powers-y things to use in non-combat encounters based on the selected role. I was thinking along the lines of negotiator, explorer, and a few others.

Edit: I found one that you started here, which covers some of the territory. Still can't find the one I'm thinking of.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure I would want the non-combat aspects of my character that pigeonholed in general. Class already DOES pigeonhole you to some extent, but "non-combat" is a HUGE arena. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of a class for that. Not to discourage anyone, but I think I'd have to see some implementation. I kind of suspect it is one of those ideas where it sounds intriguing but when you sit down to write it up it won't really gel.