D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[Undrave]

If you do too much, it stops being 4E and becomes another game.

To me, the 4E system is a very strong system - but not one that works well to support the variance found in a D&D fantasy setting. It works better when the enemies you face are more limited in variance. The mechanics just don't support a wide range of ideas in enemies. To that end, the way fixed 4E and made great use of it was to use it for more modern settings. I found that a port of it worked very well for a Dead-West style game, a modern spy game, and a 1920s Call of Cthulhu style game. When most of the enemies were either humanoid or human like, the system just worked better.

And what you say of 5E is what I find to be true of 4E. And I tried - hard - to create greater diversity. 4E monsters were generally built on a very similar core with a few random abilities that were less definitional and more incidental.

I have a very clear recollection from about 6 months into the 4E era when the group of PCs were wading through a room of foes, slaughtering minions and pushing on to the big boss ... when one of them commented they were going to kill the orc on the right. Another player said, "You mean the hobgoblin? We're fighting hobgoblins, right?" They argued back and forth for a few seconds then turned to me. I had a confused look on my face, apparently, because a third player said, "I'm pretty sure he didn't say what we were fighting, just that they were shadowy brutes."

It wasn't that people were confused or made assumptions - it was that most of us never even noted that we'd failed to discuss what type of monster it was. It was just - interchangeable. That was the moment I realized that 4E would never be the D&D I'd known for so long.

Sorry to say this, but I think you were using your monsters wrong. Hobgoblins gain bonuses when standing next to each other, and thus would battle in formations, matching their militarized and ordered society. Orcs on the other hand get bonuses to charges and non-minions, in the MM, had a power to recover HP. They fight like Barbarians and charge into battle with no fear.

Monsters in 4e are incredibly well designed to have emergent strategies built into them as long as you play them as wanting to use their unique abilities. Lurkers will lurk, leaders will lead, etc etc.

Too many high level creatures basically had to have "cheater powers" to represent a threat, such as immunity to conditions and other abilities specifically designed to counter the players. I put my game on hiatus while I tried to brainstorm a better way to handle this (daze is a common debuff on player powers. If I use an enemy immune to daze, in my mind, at least, it's basically punishing a player for not taking another power, and it's not like they can just change powers willy nilly).

At the same time, focusing on the same status condition over and over feels like a weakness.

That's a very important change that I think needs to be made to not just 4e, but every version of D&D; not enough testing is done with high level play, and the "solution" seems to always be "just let monsters ignore player abilities", either through immunities, "I just save at this time" effects, or special abilities that completely neuter characters, like debilitating auras, huge AoE's that inflict negative status effects, off turn actions, multiple actions, and even negative status effects delivered by regular old attacks.

But you're also right on that point that it does feel like the synergistic nature of powers was possibly underestimated. An issue though is that some party are just better tacticians that other so their battles will be more effective and knowing what level of skill to design for is difficult. I think it might be possible to lower their efficiency with a timed turn so they can't obsessively plan everything, maybe even prevent them from coordinating out of character.

 

[James Gasik]

At the same time, focusing on the same status condition over and over feels like a weakness.

Oh it is, but I can't fault a player from looking at their list of new powers, of which they get to pick one (likely one that trades out an old power), and taking the best one available, like say "enemy become dazed and vulnerable all equal to your Wisdom modifier".

And then discovering that solos they are now fighting are magically immune to being dazed, and being dismayed, with no way to change the power other than to ask the DM nicely.

Though you know, I just realized there is a solution; instead of immunities, enemies could have abilities that say "if this monster is stunned, it becomes dazed instead. If this monster is dazed, it becomes slowed instead." That way the power still does something and has an effect, though that effect is reduced.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I would rather 4e never come back in any form than have it come backwith Bounded Accuracy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I would rather 4e never come back in any form than have it come backwith Bounded Accuracy.

Considering it's both doubly inaccurate (it's neither particularly bounded, nor particularly about accuracy) and directly responsible for at least a solid chunk of the frustrations actual 5e fans have with 5e combats, yeah, I fully agree.

 

[jgsugden]

Sorry to say this, but I think you were using your monsters wrong. Hobgoblins gain bonuses when standing next to each other, and thus would battle in formations, matching their militarized and ordered society. Orcs on the other hand get bonuses to charges and non-minions, in the MM, had a power to recover HP. They fight like Barbarians and charge into battle with no fear.

And why do players know this? They don't unless they read the MM, which many players do not.

Most players were reporting their observation that 4E made classes and monsters feel less distinct. The main criticism of the monsters was the 'choose from this menu' list of abilities that tended to be similar to other monsters.

Monsters in 4e are incredibly well designed to have emergent strategies built into them as long as you play them as wanting to use their unique abilities. Lurkers will lurk, leaders will lead, etc etc.

That is a subjective assessment that is not shared by many. There was a reason why the 4E design was abandoned for 5E. The 'cookie cutter with a little nuance' nature of the design was a big reason.

 

[braro]

I would look to remove things with small, conditional bonuses. I would go for bonuses either being small and static (+1 to hit with longswords) or large and dynamic. And cut down on dynamic bonuses - the memory issues posed by remembering the number of dynamic bonuses or effects in place is the biggest issue for new players in my experience,

 

[DarkCrisis]

I'd get a Warcraft license from Blizzard and call it "The World of Warcraft TTRPG"

 

[Zaukrie]

And why do players know this? They don't unless they read the MM, which many players do not.

Most players were reporting their observation that 4E made classes and monsters feel less distinct. The main criticism of the monsters was the 'choose from this menu' list of abilities that tended to be similar to other monsters.

That is a subjective assessment that is not shared by many. There was a reason why the 4E design was abandoned for 5E. The 'cookie cutter with a little nuance' nature of the design was a big reason.

Players wouldn't but the DM should. As for your example, that's an issue with the fiction at the table, and 100% happens in every game / edition. He literally gave an example of how the monsters were VERY different.....

 

[Undrave]

And why do players know this? They don't unless they read the MM, which many players do not.

Most players were reporting their observation that 4E made classes and monsters feel less distinct. The main criticism of the monsters was the 'choose from this menu' list of abilities that tended to be similar to other monsters.

They should know if it was the first time, but if they fought both before they should notice the difference if they're observant enough.

More importantly, the DM SHOULD KNOW what type of monsters they have because they're not supposed to play them the same way! Each monster role plays differently and using the stat block to its fullest will lead that difference to simply emerge.

Admitedly, they did get better at interesting design as the edition went on, but I don't think there was anything terrible about the first MM aside from some math being off.

That is a subjective assessment that is not shared by many. There was a reason why the 4E design was abandoned for 5E. The 'cookie cutter with a little nuance' nature of the design was a big reason.

I think 'little nuance' is selling the design short.

At least 4e monsters don't make you waste time looking up spells in the PHB.

 

[jgsugden]

They should know if it was the first time, but if they fought both before they should notice the difference if they're observant enough.

More importantly, the DM SHOULD KNOW what type of monsters they have because they're not supposed to play them the same way! Each monster role plays differently and using the stat block to its fullest will lead that difference to simply emerge.

I've been DMing for decades. I do a good job. This was an issue distinct to the 4E era and many experienced DMs noted it coming from their groups and from their provision as well. There are a lot of threads that were cricial of 4E that go into this phenomena in detail. Rather than argue with me, you can go find those.

Admitedly, they did get better at interesting design as the edition went on, but I don't think there was anything terrible about the first MM aside from some math being off.

I think 'little nuance' is selling the design short.

At least 4e monsters don't make you waste time looking up spells in the PHB.

I think you meant to say, at least 4E monsters lack a diverse set of abilities to provide a broader range of options for DMs to utilize to craft more interesting encounters.

4E essentally says, "Here is a monster type. They attack, and they have 1 or 2 nuances. Really focus on those nuances and use them over and over every time you use them." Unfortuntely, a lot of those nuances were not that distinct from other monsters that shared similar nuances, so a lot of them blended together. However, once again we're relittigating things that took up significant forum space for half a decade. We do not need to go over this again. If you liek 4E, there are plenty of materials to play - and no need to argue. It works for some - but overall WotC and the community favored abandoning the design in favor of something far more traditional.[/quote]