D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[billd91]

Some spells got a "At the end of each of its turns, the target can make another saving throw. On a success, the spell ends on the target." tacked onto them. Most of them the really powerful low level spells, like Hold Person and Blindness/Deafness.

With respect to the hold spells, at least, that mechanic was introduced in 3.5e. 4e certainly widened its reach, reduced the target number to, what, 10? 5e kept the wider reach of 4e but restored the original save as the target number as in 3.5e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

With respect to the hold spells, at least, that mechanic was introduced in 3.5e. 4e certainly widened its reach, reduced the target number to, what, 10? 5e kept the wider reach of 4e but restored the original save as the target number as in 3.5e.

As with much of what is in 5e, if it resembles 4e, it's either a superficial resemblance, or it's been hollowed out and filled with 3e-isms until there isn't much 4e left.

But yes, the target number was always 10 with 4e saves.

 

[Red Castle]

It cares about roleplay about as much as any other edition, but tactically it is far superior to every other edition.

On that we agree. But I think that changing the name for DnD Tactics, with all that it implies, would have done more harm than good and validated some of the critisisms that was spread at the time.

Calling it DnD Tactics would have implied that the edition is more focused on combat than other editions, which in itself also implies that the roleplaying part is less important. So someone that is looking to play DnD with good roleplay would have been less inclined to try the edition, probably favoring keeping with 3.5 or moving to Pathfinder.

Calling it DnD Tactics would have also implied that it is not true DnD, but a by-product game, again for those that favor combat instead of roleplay. It would have only validated the opinion of those that didn't consider the 4th edition real DnD ''See!? Even the designers agree that it is not real DnD by giving it another name!''.

Also, let's not forget that when 4th edition came out, there was also another game called DnD miniatures game. So if it would have been called DnD Tactics, where would it have stand? You would have get DnD 3.5 edition, DnD Tactics and DnD the miniatures game. There seems to be a redundancy.

DnD 4th edition is just as much DnD than any other editions, so I really fail to see what changing his name would have achieve except validating some of the critisisms at the time. Those critisisms exited even though it was name DnD 4th edition, just imagine if it would have been called DnD Tactics.

 

[MwaO]

I'm pretty skeptical that the demise of some of the more fanciful software stuff had much to do with one guy going bonkers, but yeah, there were some pretty boneheaded things that happened when 4e was coming out, and some just poor overall timing.

I'd just note GenCon 2008 was 16 days after this happened. There was a huge problem with year 1 adventures mostly being written before release of the official rules, particularly in regards to Skill Challenges. To the point where for literal months, people were asking on the forum "Hey, what's the release schedule for year 2? We want to schedule conventions which directly promote WotC product and influencers." and the LFR admins were "we don't have anything to talk about" while Paizo was simultaneously clearly ramping up to release their adventure paths.

It wasn't just a fanciful software problem — it clearly impacted the entire WotC team.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Pathfinder only existed because Paiso existed, which existed because WotC CREATED IT, and gave it access to all their customers! (by handing Dragon publication to them).

While it is true that Paizo earned an audience this way, there were many publishers of varying nature and Paizo was hardly an obvious opponent. I still maintain that the reason Pathfinder exists is because of the GSL, not Paizo specifically: in a world where 4e was fully OGL and aggressively embraced 3PP and homebrew, Paizo could easily have made Pathfinder a 4e product, with its own distinct classes and rules structures meant to bring more of a 3e feel/approach.

But the GSL was written under the belief that 3PPs couldn't make it on their own. That WotC was indispensible. It wasn't, and thus Paizo took the easier route and cut out the middleman. Coupled with the disaffected, the Internet echo chamber that fuelled the edition war, and WotC's own bungling before and after launch, and you had the perfect environment for a customer base revolt.

4e did a lot of things wrong, mostly (though not exclusively) in presentation, marketing, the GSL, and the early adventures. Remove those things, and it would have already gone significantly better.

To your point about the digital tools team, yes, I recognize that some of their projects were...well, as you say, fanciful. The 3D character designer was frankly kind of silly unless they were intending to develop a full 3D-rendered tabletop program, which...I don't think they had the manpower to create in the first place. But there's a difference between "the pie in the sky stuff wouldn't have happened anyway" and "the digital tools basically collapsed because the team lead and one of the other team members died in a horrible tragedy." Had that not occurred, it is entirely possible WotC could have become the first major VTT; remember, Roll20 didn't come on the scene until 2012.

And, like @MwaO says, there's the morale issue. Even if the direct work-hour loss wasn't a huge deal, a murder-suicide among people you know, or at least people you've met within the company, is going to cause a massive morale hit, and it isn't going to come back quickly. If you factor in the rise of Paizo, the edition war, and the slowly-dawning realization that they weren't going to meet the ambitious sales pitch they'd given the corporate overlords...yeah, I could see how morale might never have properly recovered.

 

[Deekin]

One of the major changes I would make to 4e is to nail down what the controller rroll is supposed to do.

In my case, I think the controller roll is to Create Terrain .

The wizard creates Terrain that does horrible things to people that stay inside it. Clouds of sleep gas, scintillating patterns, floating stones of blades, conjured beasts... you don't want to be in wizard Terrain.

The invoker, on the other hand, would create Terrain that supports the party. Seas of radiant fire that fill you with vigor, a forest of glowing blades that parry and repost attacks made at you, ect. You don't want to fight someone in an Invokers Terrain.


The druids Terrain would do a little bit of both, with the goal of forcing hard choices on the enemy. Stuff like growing a forest of brambles that hurt enemies that enter it or start their turn in it, but give cover from attacks made outside of it.


I don't know enough about psions to say for sure what their specialty Terrain would be. Possibly double down on the control angle, and create zones that force enemies to do certain things. Zones of forced movement, spacewalk portals, ect.

The linking mechanic, like how all defenders can mark, all strikers get bonus damage, and all leaders get the Word powers, would be something like X Mastery, a 1/encounter reaction power that does something to a target in a zone you created

Wizards would get force a reroll on a successful save, invokes might grant a reroll on a failed save, druids could immobilized someone, psions force movement... that sort of thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Slap a sticker on it "D&D Tactics"

Job done.

Truth in Advertising would have required it to be "All The Lies Are True" instead.

 

[Bagpuss]

On that we agree. But I think that changing the name for DnD Tactics, with all that it implies, would have done more harm than good and validated some of the critisisms that was spread at the time.

Calling it DnD Tactics would have implied that the edition is more focused on combat than other editions, which in itself also implies that the roleplaying part is less important. So someone that is looking to play DnD with good roleplay would have been less inclined to try the edition, probably favoring keeping with 3.5 or moving to Pathfinder.

You know they did that anyway.

Calling it DnD Tactics would have also implied that it is not true DnD, but a by-product game, again for those that favor combat instead of roleplay. It would have only validated the opinion of those that didn't consider the 4th edition real DnD ''See!? Even the designers agree that it is not real DnD by giving it another name!''.

Also, let's not forget that when 4th edition came out, there was also another game called DnD miniatures game. So if it would have been called DnD Tactics, where would it have stand? You would have get DnD 3.5 edition, DnD Tactics and DnD the miniatures game. There seems to be a redundancy.

DnD 4th edition is just as much DnD than any other editions, so I really fail to see what changing his name would have achieve except validating some of the critisisms at the time. Those critisisms exited even though it was name DnD 4th edition, just imagine if it would have been called DnD Tactics.

This is a thread about how to redo 4e not what we would have done at the time.

So many people already believe everything you have just said about 4e, just embrace it, if your going to redo it now.

Have it as its own thing. I think it could get an audience if you embraced the tactical side of it.

 

[Red Castle]

You know they did that anyway.



This is a thread about how to redo 4e not what we would have done at the time.

So many people already believe everything you have just said about 4e, just embrace it, if your going to redo it now.

Have it as its own thing. I think it could get an audience if you embraced the tactical side of it.

Problem is that the people that believe what I said are mostly people that hated the edition, or that never really gave it a try and were parroting what was said online, and were using those false claims to keep other people from trying it, to make the 4th edition looks bad. I fail to see how embracing those false claims would have benefit the 4th edition.

Like I said earlier, it would have made more harm than good. Calling it DnD Tactic would not have made people that hated it suddenly love it, but it could have kept people that love roleplay away and not bothering to try it. DnD 4th edition is DnD, don't make it look like it is a by-product.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

There's actually two potential projects:

1. A redo of 4e that's for the fans of 4e.
2. A redo of 4e that's more for bridging the gap between people who enjoyed 4e and those you tried it, didn't hate it, but still felt it wasn't for them.

I'd definitely check out 2 over 1, but that's just me. Could have a team for each project really as they'd both have a potential audience.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There's actually two potential projects:

1. A redo of 4e that's for the fans of 4e.
2. A redo of 4e that's more for bridging the gap between people who enjoyed 4e and those you tried it, didn't hate it, but still felt it wasn't for them.

I'd definitely check out 2 over 1, but that's just me. Could have a team for each project really as they'd both have a potential audience.

I have the 4e books. I CAN in theory run a 4e game right now. I would mostly be intrested in fixin 4e issues and getting new players to buy in... so I would go with 2

Adv/disadv and concentration (but not just for spells) are both 5e things I would take.
2e HPs being WAY lower but front load them like 4e did
use HD as surges as a mix between 4e and 5e.
You could make prof 1+ 1/3 level and non prof 1/4 level instead of just adding 1/2 level (although I like the half level with +2 for prof)

and instead of everyone getting the exact same A/E/D/U power set I would mix it up a little but base the average off the 5e warlock (2 subclasses that you can mix and match 'encounter; a few at will then short rest recharge slots with powers known and small mini feats the class can choose 'invocations' and at high level a few big daily powers 'high arcanum'

 

[Vaalingrade]

Adv/disadv and concentration (but not just for spells) are both 5e things I would take.

Please not as basically the only mechanic.

When Pathfinder invented it, it was a sometimes food and a sometimes food it should have remained.

And instead of everyone getting the exact same A/E/D/U power set

Everyone gets A/E

Make the workday variable.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

I have the 4e books. I CAN in theory run a 4e game right now. I would mostly be intrested in fixin 4e issues and getting new players to buy in... so I would go with 2

Adv/disadv and concentration (but not just for spells) are both 5e things I would take.
2e HPs being WAY lower but front load them like 4e did
use HD as surges as a mix between 4e and 5e.
You could make prof 1+ 1/3 level and non prof 1/4 level instead of just adding 1/2 level (although I like the half level with +2 for prof)

and instead of everyone getting the exact same A/E/D/U power set I would mix it up a little but base the average off the 5e warlock (2 subclasses that you can mix and match 'encounter; a few at will then short rest recharge slots with powers known and small mini feats the class can choose 'invocations' and at high level a few big daily powers 'high arcanum'

Intriguing ideas. Warlock definitely isn't my favourite class in 5e, but as a retool of 4e it could be a decent blueprint.

So, as a start, what might a 1st level Fighter look like under this new model? Then move on to the other "big 4" classes if you have the time.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Intriguing ideas. Warlock definitely isn't my favourite class in 5e, but as a retool of 4e it could be a decent blueprint.

So, as a start, what might a 1st level Fighter look like under this new model? Then move on to the other "big 4" classes if you have the time.

a GMforpowergamers 6e fighter looks like this:

you have 3d10 as HD and you max 2 (20) and roll or take 6 for the third (with optional rules to roll all three or max all three or anywhere between)

you pick a linage and a background and stats... but we are skipping all this for class.

you would pick your 1st subclass (although I might name teh level 1 and level 3 subclass something else maybe theme for one) like the patron it is a background fighter thing... what you were trained as
Sentinal (guard) Slayer (striker) Marshal (leader) and you open some new abilities with it and get some cool things

You have a list of 10ish at will exploits... (cantrips) maybe half of them are straight up combat... (maybe trip attack, push attack, 1 bse attack and off hand attack, at least 1 has to be a mental attack maybe some kind of intimidation thing). but the others should be exploration and social... but you ONLY pick 2 now and 4 or 5 by level 20... they scale though at levels 5 11 and 17

You then have a list of 1st level short rest exploits (like spells) and we can totally take the 1st level fighter feature and slot this in easy "Second wind... spend a encounter resource as a bonus action to regain 1d10+level hps.


TBH a 1st level fighter might look the same more or less as one now... 1/short rest second wind, maybe take a fightying style and make it break into two atwills BUT you have the choose, maybe instead of second wind you choose other things... maybe a tide of iron push or a brute strike that just deals more damage...

 

[James Gasik]

Please not as basically the only mechanic.

When Pathfinder invented it, it was a sometimes food and a sometimes food it should have remained.

Everyone gets A/E

Make the workday variable.

I thought 4e invented advantage with the Avenger?

 

[Voidmoji]

A variation of 4e that used advantage and disadvantage in the same manner as 5e is not a game I would purchase or run. 4e has a problem with too many small modifiers at times. I don't feel like the solution of no modifiers would work with a more tactical system such as 4e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I thought 4e invented advantage with the Avenger?

PF came out before the Avenger and had a number of races that got advantage on something.

 

[Undrave]

A variation of 4e that used advantage and disadvantage in the same manner as 5e is not a game I would purchase or run. 4e has a problem with too many small modifiers at times. I don't feel like the solution of no modifiers would work with a more tactical system such as 4e.

I'd just make all modifiers the same value and just have you keep track of your bonuses with physical counter Same for numerical penalties. they would cancel each other out too.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I would enhance the role playing by creating dozens of unique subsystems for various non combat things. Wanna be a bee keeper? Run an item shop? Engage in romance? Subsystems baby!

 

[Voidmoji]

I'd just make all modifiers the same value and just have you keep track of your bonuses with physical counter Same for numerical penalties. they would cancel each other out too.

As is happens, that’s exactly what I do in The Fantasy Engine, my 4e-inspired game. All situational modifiers are either Boons (+2 to skill ranks) or Banes (+2 to difficulty). They cancel each other or before being applied. Boon 3 + Bane 2 is Boon 1, for example.

Things that impact rolls continuously, such as proficiency and equipment bonuses work normally, since you just note them down once for most rolls.

I actually use some Fantasy Flight generic game tokens to track stuff in RPGs, even when I’m playing over Roll20, and so using them for this would be easy, especially due to their different colors.