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

[KidSnide]

This is something I really don't want design space used on as far as rules and such as part of the main/base game.

I mean I can see the desire to have some nice handy reference for some of that kind of stuff, but every time you make a rule you kill a bit more of the freeform aspect of RP. I think the 4e theory of 'rules for resolving conflict only' is wise.

I think the key is that non-combat rules needs to be optional and properly tailored to the campaign. If a game is mostly about dungeon crawling, then castle building is just flavor text concerning what the PCs do in the background. There's no reason to have detailed rules about it. Whether or not the PC can build the castle is purely discretionary on the part of the GM.

However, if the game is Birthright or Kingmaker, then castle-building is the sort of thing that PCs are expected to do. In such a game, it is reasonable for the PCs to want to know how much a castle costs and what kind of benefit it provides in times of war. Tangible rules are necessary in such a game because a kingdom building player needs to be able to make informed decisions about where and when to build defenses. Completely generalized conflict resolution doesn't do that much good for such a game because the in-game decisions about constructions should (at least in some way) the in-game reality of that task.

That's why these sorts of rules should be intrinsically optional. They are only appropriate for certain types of campaigns. However, at the same time, they are important for the types of games that focus on those activities. With a collection of optional campaign rules, D&D can handle a much broader range of campaign styles.

-KS

 

[Dausuul]

With regard to "noncombat classes" and the like, I would prefer to focus on areas where all PCs can participate. For instance, at Paragon level, the sphere of domain rulership and army-level combat might open up, and PCs would get "domain classes" that let them participate in various capacities.

So, for instance, one PC might take the Monarch domain class* and become ruler of a small realm. Another PC might take Master Spy and gain a network of contacts who provide regular intelligence on rival domains, giving the PCs bonuses in battles and diplomacy. A third might take Legendary Champion and be able to participate in army-level combat directly, an "army of one." Et cetera.

The goal here is to avoid "netrunner syndrome," where one PC gets access to a sphere of activity that no other PC can enter. If one PC gets a domain class, they all do.

[size=-2]*All domain class names made up on the spur of the moment.[/size]

 

[Quickleaf]

Solo monsters as encounters that break the mold of monster design.

For example, if you're running a fight against a shapeshifting hag solo, you might design it as 4 linked elites with less than normal hit points, each representing a new form the hag assumes until at last you face her in her true guise.

Or a solo death trap which isolates the PCs when a certain trigger occurs, so they're on their own to defeat this thing until they can reach each other through clever thinking.

Or a solo monster possessed by a demon which must be killed/exorcised in a certain way or the possessor spirit simply jumps to a new host... like one of the PCs!

Really play with what 'bloodied' means for a particular solo, create a sense of development in the fight.

 

[tyrlaan]

Solo monsters as encounters that break the mold of monster design.

For example, if you're running a fight against a shapeshifting hag solo, you might design it as 4 linked elites with less than normal hit points, each representing a new form the hag assumes until at last you face her in her true guise.

Or a solo death trap which isolates the PCs when a certain trigger occurs, so they're on their own to defeat this thing until they can reach each other through clever thinking.

Or a solo monster possessed by a demon which must be killed/exorcised in a certain way or the possessor spirit simply jumps to a new host... like one of the PCs!

Really play with what 'bloodied' means for a particular solo, create a sense of development in the fight.

Have you seen this? The D&D Boss Fight (Part 1) | The Angry DM: D&D Advice with Attitude

I've used this method and I confirm its awesomeness.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Solo play.

Provide a framework for this that covers more than just a random dungeon generator.

 

[Zaran]

This is something I really don't want design space used on as far as rules and such as part of the main/base game. Straight skill challenges, if not properly used within the flow of the game, are awful. If you just kind of float in to and out of them, they work well. Some times though, it's isn't an actual "skill challenge" but rather a use of basic skills. On a number of things I generally let a player RP through it and only use rolls where necessary, as in outside the box or norm activities. A basic guide of economic structure would be cool though.

Example: You RP through finding a source of stone for your fortress but then you want to haggle on the price. There a Diplomacy roll might be needed if the margin is over 5% or whatever you decide.

I find often that a number of DMs aren't bad, they just lack comfort or confidence in their "grasp" of the rule structure. My answer to that is don't worry about the rule structure past what you need to. Never let the rules get in the way of your fun, only let them enhance it.

Actually I meant that I do not want to turn those things into Skill Challenges.

 

[Incenjucar]

Rules for simulating the various conditions and events of the Dawn War and related "historical" periods would be quite nice. There's a lot of material that simply wouldn't work the same after the fall of the Primordials as before.

 

[Quickleaf]

Have you seen this? The D&D Boss Fight (Part 1) | The Angry DM: D&D Advice with Attitude

I've used this method and I confirm its awesomeness.

Great blog! Well thought out points and exactly the kind of rules stretch I was thinking.

 

[knightofround]

My top 10 list!

1. Skill Challenges. Great idea, poor implementation. More than anything else I wish someone would hire Stalker0 to make a full-spread supplement on skill challenges. I feel like 4E essentials missed a big opportunity to revamp the skill challenge system.

2. Epic tier. There's tons of good stuff in the DMGs and MMs for heroic/paragon, but there's still very little for epic. 4E Essentials makes epic play mathematically easy for players, but it's still hopelessly complex for DMs.

3. Mass combat system. Every other version of D&D has mass combat systems, but there's nothing yet for 4E.

4. World building. DMG1&2 is great for helping a DM run a smooth session and handle things in the short term. But there's not much for long term campaign planning, world building, etc. It's kinda sad that I still use my 2E worldbuilder supplement to build 4E worlds.

5. Boss encounters. Post MM3 solos are okay, but I want boss encounters that are more than a single monster with X extra actions/attacks/defenses. I want videogame-y boss encounters with multiple stages that are truly unique. This is something covered in the blogosphere but there's no supplement support yet.

6. Campaign world specific support. It's sad that I end up using my 3E books more than my 4E books whenever I run a 4E FR/Eberron/DarkSun campaign. The 1 player guide + 1 dm guide was a cool idea but it didn't work. There's too much duplicated information and just not enough quantity of information. There's also a big lack of campaign-world-specific adventures in the paragon and epic tiers.

7. Urban support. Most of 4E's official support is based around dungeon crawling which is fantastic, after all its *dungeons* and dragons. But there's only like 2 pages in DMG2 on how to run a campaign in a city. It's easy to chain together 3 combat encounters per extended rest in dungeons. It's tougher to do that with city encounters. Plus there needs to be more support on how to handle social encounters, political encounters, etc.

8. More monster support for the PC races. For example, in MM1 there's an entry for halflings, which is great, but its just: 1 minion, 1 artillery, 1 skirmisher, and 1 lurker. They're all heroic tier, and there is no defender, brute, or solo options. There's a tonnnn of monster support for exotic stuff like dragons, beholders, animals, demons, undead, etc...but the core races are lacking.

9. Disease tracker. This was a really good idea, and I think the "tracker" idea in could be expanded to more than just diseases. For example, it could be used on artifacts to "power up" or "power down" depending upon the player's actions. Or the tracker idea could be used on storybuilding. Killing an orc chief is +2 points, saving the damsel in distress is +1 point, each hostage that dies is -1 point...and then the story changes depending upon how many points the party scores.

10. More terrain powers, aka more expansion with the famous page42 in DMG1. After playing around with the few terrain powers released thus far, I'm hungry for more!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not sure if this fits the scope of your thread, but an edge & flaw system for characters seems to be missing.

Or more specfically - a flaw system. Edges are well represented with feats, powers, backgrounds and themes. Not much more is really needed there, I think.

But a system for hindrances, flaws and complications would be nice. (And if you decouple it from edges, it also avoids the typical min/maxing issues with such systems).