D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I saw some people in this forum asking for 4e be released as a SRD to Creative Commons like 5e (and possibly 3.5e). Do not get me wrong, I liked 4e, but I think it was very combat oriented and did a bad service to other game pillars. And most powers were, quite frankly, more of the same. Even so, I think many of its flaws could be reworked, specially now we have many good ideas we could port from 5e backwards.

So, if you are not a 4e hater, how would you rework it? My personal takes would be:

• Bounded Accuracy. I would remove the +half level to everything and the +3 bonus to skill proficiency would be remade in a proficiency bonus linked to level (as 5e)
• More like Essentials. Different classes, different power progressions. Not really needed the same AEDU thing to everyone. Fighters would get lots of ways to change Basic Attacks rather than different powers, for example.
• Spell Lists. Even if we keep spells as powers, no need a power list to every caster class. Wizards and warlocks, for example, could both take "spells from the arcane power list". Perhaps same idea to martials, like A5e maneuver schools.
• Exploration and Social Powers. New powers to cover exploration and social pillars. In addition to other powers your class gives, not take in place of them.
• Subclasses earlier. Not wait to level 11 to take a subclass/paragon path/whatever. Like 5e, around 3rd level is a good start.

Of course, lots of mine suggestion would need rework lots of the game moving parts, specially to keep math working both in combat and outside it. But the above would be my initial blueprint. Now, curious to know how you would redo it.

My one major change would be making it a classless system with a single list of powers. Class features would become “talents” (for lack of a better word right now).

I think the 4Ed mechanics lend themselves to being a toolbox system.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That works too. The "do something cool" (encounter) and "do something awesome" (daily) was just a way to balance interacting with the set powers and the "improvised powers". If people are improvising all the time then it's a different game. We felt this struck the right balance for us. We also let the dailies be shared -- so it was more like 4 extra dailies amoung 4 players in any which way. I also really leaned into the power -- these improvised powers got at least as good if not better dmg and effects as regular powers.



The reason I put it there is that 4e seems to have these different abstractions of mechanics using the same game elements like skills and rituals depending on the framing. In some circumstances a skill has very specific uses of a skill spelled out -- "lets you jump X more squares", etc. This is this the tactical combat use but also often the "single use" effect. Single use with DM deciding the next step and when the scene "ends" tends to use skills as descrete effects. For a skill challenge it really doesn't matter if you jump X or Y -- the success indicates you made progress. Normally I don't describe things that precisely in a SC but rather -- it's a long jump but you could probably make it. Or if it is higher Tier play you can just let the PCs do mythical stuff with the same check. Or if it is unrealistic to jump that far in Heroic Tier -- success indicates that circumstances still let you make progress somehow -- the dragon swoops by at the right time and you jump on its back and get thrown off across the chasm, etc.

Same with rituals. It will always do X. But in the context of the skill challenge that gets you 1 or 2 successes, it may or may not lead to complete success. There will be an added complication if there are successes left.

4e has this sort of dilemma around this aspect of its design. So, the skills are pretty general, and kind of represent 'approaches to problem solving', but the combat system is a very nailed-down thing where you move around precisely on a grid. Thus, for combat purposes you NEED to know "I can jump X number of squares" and you roll your d20 to see how much more than that you can manage this time (it is literally a formula, though they don't quite spell it out). So, now you go to do an SC, and its like, well.... I mean we could simply do the old "you roll, maybe you succeed, maybe you don't, but no specific numbers are attached" but that is definitely a bit different from the combat case. The game is definitely an odd combination of elements, but it basically all just works in the end.

One thing I've been trying to figure out how to do is 'rescaling' combat. So your heroic tier combats are 5' squares, but a lot of fiction is a lot looser with space, like you can do a lot more, the action happens over a wider field. I always wanted to figure out rules for that, like what if paragon squares can be 30' and epic squares can be 150'? Now, there are a few obvious issues there, but I think it can be handled. After all AD&D had 1" = 10' indoors and 10 yards outdoors (3x scaling factor).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I loved the Mc feats! they gave you a unique water downed version of a class feature. My Cleric took the Paladin one to get a Divine Challenge once per encounter. I think there should have been multiple MC feats per class so you could invest more of your resources into it, with only the first one gate keeping the rest. I could see a MC Paladin feat that gives your another use of Divine Challenge and one that gives you some Lay on Hands charges. And I think those feat should be enough to qualify you for the Paragon Path of that other class.

Once you have the first MC feat for a class, you cannot take MC feats for other classes, but you can take more feats for that specific class if you like. I don't know if you get more skill training though.

Totally agreed that taking multiple MC feats should meet the qualifications for paragon MC. If it did, PMC would be more attractive than "basically never."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For sure... again, it's how it was handled in early editions. If you described your character as coming from a family of builders, who helped create the church in the local city, and if your DM was willing to let that that mean something, then you could riff on that for both narrative and mechanical benefit. Of course, that was true of nearly EVERY skill in the game at that time -- which, while flexible and expansive could also have its perils.

I'm OLD, and I started back at the beginning of all this So, yeah, I know, 1e even still says "the character knows what the player knows" (unless you use background skills rule, but it has no mechanics attached). And that's basically what I'm saying, you can still do that in 4e! The ranger PROBABLY knows a good bit about bows and arrows, though there's no specific skill covering this. The druid who used to be a farmer can probably tell you all about cows. In any situation where they might need to make a check they can get a +5 (a proficiency bonus) for stuff like that, just tell me what plausibly indicates your character knows X, Y, or Z (and backgrounds from PHB2 are really all about this IMHO). Again, no real mechanics are attached, and 4e's system will let you do this quite painlessly. Nor do you have to spend 'slots' of some sort on this, like in 3.x.

To which is why I liked the middle ground, creating at least a touchpoint for a character's background/professional skills that could be folded into the mechanics of both skill checks and skill challenges.

Yeah, again, I think the existing class, theme, feats, and background are pretty much adequate to this task.

For a revisit of 4e, I'd consolidate further, such as merging Acrobatics and Athletics into a single skill, as well as Diplomacy and Intimidate into a single Influence skill, place Bluff and Thievery under Scoundrel, maybe add another broad skill or two, and absolutely 100% decouple specific attributes from specific skills to allow the proper calling of the what (skill) and the governing how (attribute).

Now, here I'm a bit different. I see the skills more as 'approaches' to how you typically solve problems. So the guy who uses moves based primarily on strength, in a loose sense, is solving problems with athletic means. The guy who relies on sheer quickness and agility is doing 'acrobatic' stuff. I admit, these two are somewhat closely related, but it still feels like there's a decent flavor difference (and I'm not looking for realism, but more for portrayal). In the case of Diplomacy and Intimidate, they are just DIFFERENT approaches! I wouldn't combine them. And I don't see what Bluff and Thievery have in common at all. Someone MIGHT be a 'scoundrel' and rely on a mix of the two, but its equally possible I'm all bluff and I have no thieving skills at all. Or conversely my thieving is right out there in the open and no deception is required. I wouldn't consider tricking someone with sleight-of-hand 'bluff' either, really. The more I thought about it when I wrote up the HoML skill list the less I wanted to change the 4e one.

Seconded! The MC feats were a nice way of doing it, though I would have gotten rid of the feats required to get powers from the MCed class -- just let the player pick 1 of each so long as they have an equal or more number from their primary class. I too would then create follow-up feats that granted more abilities.

(I also am a fan of Hybrids -- some of the most amazing character concepts and fun on both sides of the screen came from those.)

MCing is MUCH MUCH BETTER than most 'charops' and casual players seem to think. Giving the ability to just swap without any cost is actually pretty OP. I know MOST people here will probably not agree, but I know @MwaO has stated this same opinion. I would agree though that PMC sucks, though there might be a very few specific ones that are OK. Certainly the hybrid rules killed PMC stone cold dead, and its easy to see why.

As with MCing though, Hybrid characters can be quite 'gifted', and there are some fairly obvious build patterns that are almost too good to pass up if hybrid rules are being used. Such as taking a hybrid in Shielding Swordmage if you have INT as your primary. Warlock can be pretty potent as well, as can Paladin. I wouldn't call these characters 'broken' exactly, but clever builds can be pretty interesting...

 

[Vaalingrade]

My one major change would be making it a classless system with a single list of powers. Class features would become “talents” (for lack of a better word right now).

I think the 4Ed mechanics lend themselves to being a toolbox system.

When I first started the WoE system, that was my aim, but as it turns out, the classes are the safety rail that keeps characters balanced in 4e.

See, class features... are not created equal. At least not in a vacuum. Some classes actually have better At-Wills than others based on class features that trigger on them.

Ultimately, making 4e into a classless system would require ripping out and reworking not only all class features, but about two thirds of at-wills. Before I just rewrote the entire thing, I found it to be entirely too much work for what result it got.

Eventually I personally settled on still having classes, but making multiclassing more of a deal of knocking the other class over the head and rifling through their pockets to spare abilities.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When I first started the WoE system, that was my aim, but as it turns out, the classes are the safety rail that keeps characters balanced in 4e.

See, class features... are not created equal. At least not in a vacuum. Some classes actually have better At-Wills than others based on class features that trigger on them.

Ultimately, making 4e into a classless system would require ripping out and reworking not only all class features, but about two thirds of at-wills. Before I just rewrote the entire thing, I found it to be entirely too much work for what result it got.

Eventually I personally settled on still having classes, but making multiclassing more of a deal of knocking the other class over the head and rifling through their pockets to spare abilities.

Well, in HoML you can basically take any power you want, though a few of them won't work without an associated class feature (but that's not very common). So 'MCing' is kind of just how things are, but you only get one boon per level, so figure out what direction you are going in.

I agree in terms of 4e, and that is one reason HoML is kind of like a ground-up rewrite.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That said, I wouldn't mind slightly less and chunkier feats in a 4.5e.

This I can certainly grant! Feats in 5e--the good ones, anyway--are solid, chunky things, as feats should always have been. And there are a good number of honestly just weak feats (maybe not garbage per se, but really weak.) As I said, I think you could probably cut the total number of feats in half and still have plenty of room for lots of great feats.

When I first started the WoE system, that was my aim, but as it turns out, the classes are the safety rail that keeps characters balanced in 4e.

See, class features... are not created equal. At least not in a vacuum. Some classes actually have better At-Wills than others based on class features that trigger on them.

Ultimately, making 4e into a classless system would require ripping out and reworking not only all class features, but about two thirds of at-wills. Before I just rewrote the entire thing, I found it to be entirely too much work for what result it got.

Eventually I personally settled on still having classes, but making multiclassing more of a deal of knocking the other class over the head and rifling through their pockets to spare abilities.

It's good to hear that my abstract intuitions have some practical support behind them.

I can't imagine why you would need to specifically detail 1200 feats, let alone 12,000.


Interesting- I wasn't thinking per class with that number, but rather per role.

To be more specific, the issues I had was one of referencing. It's had to find what you're looking for with thousands of entries over multiple books.

Well, I've already voiced my opposition to reducing things down to either Source or Role, so...yeah, for me, that's no dice.

Like Vaalingrade above, I'm of the opinion that preserving the distinct classes is actually important for keeping the game balanced and functional, unless you want to truly completely rebuild the whole game, not just clean it up or tweak it a bit.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's good to hear that my abstract intuitions have some practical support behind them.

You know the interesting thing?

As much praise as we give 4e for being open bout how it works, it actually never expects you to make a whole new class. There's no guidance to create a full class. Powers? Proto-subclasses? Yes. But not a full class.

 

[MoonSong]

You know, this bit about duplicate powers being bad always confused me. Some classes have overlap in roles, and sometimes you need a tool in your kit to perform a task. What is actually wrong with multiple classes needing the same tool anyways?

I mean, in other editions, we see this with spellcasters all the time where even magicians of completely different traditions can share spells! Oh no, my Light Cleric and the Wizard can cast fireball!

You see this sort of thing in other kinds of games. Some champions in League of Legends, I know (not playing myself but having friends that do) have abilities similar to other champions as part of their kit because they need a thing that does that.

Let me clarify here. By reducing duplicates, I meant, if wizard casts fireball and sorcerer casts not-fireball, and then wizard graduates into fireball-but-better, what is the point of dancing around the issue? Let's make it all fireball and give access to everybody and then have it have an upgrade at a given level! My idea is have shared powers with role specific riders while still allowing class-specific powers with build-focused riders. And not have classes limited to only one role, a class would give choice of two or more. And the class features for every role would still be unique to each class.

 

[Haplo781]

You know the interesting thing?

As much praise as we give 4e for being open bout how it works, it actually never expects you to make a whole new class. There's no guidance to create a full class. Powers? Proto-subclasses? Yes. But not a full class.

Step 1: design about 80 new powers