D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[EzekielRaiden]

I would have given it another year or so in the development phase and released tokens like they did with Essentials, had the PHB actually be a classic style PHB with the original core classes and improved monster math they implemented. Then avoided the Windows like patches that came out every few months to fix issues that came up in play and feat taxes they issued to fix the math. The magic item economy was too ingrained in the math so that would have been fixed.

Ok I would have released 5e.

You started off fine. Classic aesthetics is fine, 3e PHB + Warlord would be fine (if very big), most folks prefer the MM3/MV math.

I genuinely do not understand the "Windows like patches" complaint. Would you seriously prefer that they leave in stuff like an accidental infinite damage loop because they didn't catch it before publication?

"Feat taxes" IMO are a fan-created problem with a fan-created anger at the solution meant to fix the fan-created problem. That is, I am genuinely convinced that they WANTED it to get (very, very slightly) harder at baseline over the tiers. (Keep in mind, it's only about +1 every 10 levels!) This was meant to make it so you were soft-encouraged to actually use teamwork--at early levels, it's super effective but not absolutely required, but in Epic tier, if you aren't actually synergizing with your allies, you WILL suffer for it.

But people got their knickers in a twist about it......despite ALSO complaining that the challenge was in lockstep. Literally unpleasable fans.

You describe the magic items as though they need to be fixed. They don't. You can literally run 4e without magic items of any kind. It's called inherent bonuses ("A Reward-Based Game" is the official sidebar), and it was included as a variant rule in DMG2. Which was published in 2009. Literally only a year after 4e launched (DMG1: June 2008.)

 

[teitan]

You started off fine. Classic aesthetics is fine, 3e PHB + Warlord would be fine (if very big), most folks prefer the MM3/MV math.

I genuinely do not understand the "Windows like patches" complaint. Would you seriously prefer that they leave in stuff like an accidental infinite damage loop because they didn't catch it before publication?

"Feat taxes" IMO are a fan-created problem with a fan-created anger at the solution meant to fix the fan-created problem. That is, I am genuinely convinced that they WANTED it to get (very, very slightly) harder at baseline over the tiers. (Keep in mind, it's only about +1 every 10 levels!) This was meant to make it so you were soft-encouraged to actually use teamwork--at early levels, it's super effective but not absolutely required, but in Epic tier, if you aren't actually synergizing with your allies, you WILL suffer for it.

But people got their knickers in a twist about it......despite ALSO complaining that the challenge was in lockstep. Literally unpleasable fans.

You describe the magic items as though they need to be fixed. They don't. You can literally run 4e without magic items of any kind. It's called inherent bonuses ("A Reward-Based Game" is the official sidebar), and it was included as a variant rule in DMG2. Which was published in 2009. Literally only a year after 4e launched (DMG1: June 2008.)

Did you read where I said I would have waited a year to put out a more robust tested game so I wouldn’t have to do any of that? Ta ta.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Did you read where I said I would have waited a year to put out a more robust tested game so I wouldn’t have to do any of that? Ta ta.

If it wasn't a plan until the fandom made it one, another year of dev wouldn't have helped.

 

[teitan]

If it wasn't a plan until the fandom made it one, another year of dev wouldn't have helped.

The question is what would you do. I said what I would do.

 

[Undrave]

Oh, certainly. I mostly said that because the most commonly claimed benefits of things like Advantage (binary, non-stacking) are:
A) it's impossible for stacking to get out of control if things simply can't stack,
B) all the time that would be spent tracking and tallying bonuses now goes to other gameplay, and
C) if there's only three states (bonus, penalty, standard), players can intuitively know what they're getting out of various buffs or risk-taking maneuvers.

I consider the "cancellation stacking" format (my term, meaning "tally up your buffs and debuffs, whichever is greater is what you have") to be a poor compromise that often ends up being the worst of both worlds. It has, by design, all the limitations of the "no stacking at all" rules (lacks nuance, can't represent degrees of benefit/detriment, easy to overuse and thus make worthless, etc.) But it gives up point C entirely (not that, IMO, Advantage was actually that intuitive to begin with; it's easy to know that it's good, but not how good it is), and weakens point B, possibly to the point of not actually saving any meaningful amount of time.

And that's...sort of the rub for this thing. We want to find something that preserves most of the speed, simplicity, and intuitive effect of the "no stacking" method, while regaining some of the nuances, degrees-of-effect, depth of design space, and room to grow so bonuses are at least almost always actually bonuses and not wasted. But I find instead that sacrifices are made on both ends, giving us more than half of the problems and less than half of the benefits of both approaches.

And, to be clear, I don't consider my proposed solution very clever either. It's just trying to...sort of play the weaknesses of the two methods against one another so they end up cancelling out and thus being a minor improvement on most fronts. It's still pretty simple (either ±4, ±2, or 0; either best/worst of 3d20, best/worst of 2d20, or just 1d20), but not quite the ur-simplicity of "nothing stacks." It's nuanced enough to cover unusual situations (like having Super-Disadvantage and Super-Boost, meaning you have a very high floor but it's very unlikely that you'll do much better, or the reverse, where you're likely to get a high roll but you have a small chance of utterly bombing) without being a sprawling morass of modifiers. It allows for at least some design depth, but prevents things going off the deep end. And it should still be fairly quick and not particularly counter-intuitive, though it might still take some time to get used to.

It's just not really all that elegant, and still leaves things fairly shallow in terms of design space.

Random idea here, but what if instead EVERYTHING stacks, BUT you have a maximum bonus you can get equal to the ability modifier you are using for whatever is being buffed? Like, if two characters grant a +2 to the Fighter’s attack, but the Fighter has a +3 in STR, then his additional bonus can only be +3.

I would still keep Combat Advantage as a thing, because it’s more of a status condition. I don’t gain combat advantage, the enemy grants it because they’re unbalanced or distracted.

Nentir Vale's world was incomplete, but that was likely to it's advantage. Even so, I felt it needed a little more work, since it seemed like every race had a lost ancient empire out there. I did appreciate making a setting around the edition's rules, instead of the other way around (though they immediately went back and totally stood the Forgotten Realms on it's head). The other settings were...ok. They felt a little watered down from their previous versions, but Eberron was meant to be pure 3.5 gonzo madness, and Dark Sun...well, go see the Dark Sun thread, I guess, lol.

It's incomplete on purpose, and I think the vagueness is for the best. Personally I really liked the World Axis cosmology, and then give us notable events in the History of the World and let us fill in the rest. The Nentir Vale itself is just an exemple of the type of environment that's all over that particular world.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

If you want an adventure path, go with Zeitgeist. It was originally for 4e, and everything I've heard says it's among the best.

You can also construct one from a sequence of adventures that run up through like...mid-paragon, I think? I don't remember the specifics, but I know Cairn of the Winter King, Reavers of Harkenwold, and The Slaying Stone are part of it. I believe Remains of the Empire is usually also thrown in somewhere, and if you can squeeze it, Madness at Gardmore Abbey.

From this and other things I've seen, you could probably assemble at least two full "heroic tier" adventure paths of solid, well-regarded adventures.

2nd this. Zeitgeist is the only AP or really even published adventure that I think plays fully to 4e's strengths:

* lots of freeform roleplay, investigation, exploration, travel, etc. in between meaningful set piece encounters that almost always tie into and move plot.

* themes and paragon paths tightly tied into setting (Neverwinter campaign guide does this well also)

* clear movement in fiction as you move up to Epic tier. The last 3-4 adventures do not at all feel like you are just reskining a heroic tier adventure (cough cough P series)

It's a great AP for any edition but it brings out all the good in 4e. That said, it is a non standard fantasy setting so won't be for everyone.

Even the well regarded WotC adventures have way too many back to back encounters for me for 4e.

 

[pemerton]

It's incomplete on purpose, and I think the vagueness is for the best. Personally I really liked the World Axis cosmology, and then give us notable events in the History of the World and let us fill in the rest. The Nentir Vale itself is just an exemple of the type of environment that's all over that particular world.

This.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Random idea here, but what if instead EVERYTHING stacks, BUT you have a maximum bonus you can get equal to the ability modifier you are using for whatever is being buffed? Like, if two characters grant a +2 to the Fighter’s attack, but the Fighter has a +3 in STR, then his additional bonus can only be +3.

I would still keep Combat Advantage as a thing, because it’s more of a status condition. I don’t gain combat advantage, the enemy grants it because they’re unbalanced or distracted.

It has potential, but it makes raising your bonus maximum one of the most important things you can do. If it's tied to raising your core stats, it's now even more important to juice yourself as much as possible at 1st level. I fear this would make the preoccupation with "play a race specifically with +2 to this class's stats" even stronger than it already was, and I'd prefer to move away from that. (Though there are other possible solutions there.)

It's incomplete on purpose, and I think the vagueness is for the best. Personally I really liked the World Axis cosmology, and then give us notable events in the History of the World and let us fill in the rest. The Nentir Vale itself is just an exemple of the type of environment that's all over that particular world.

I have thoughts on this but I have other things to do. I'll come back to it later.

 

[Pedantic]

2nd this. Zeitgeist is the only AP or really even published adventure that I think plays fully to 4e's strengths:

* lots of freeform roleplay, investigation, exploration, travel, etc. in between meaningful set piece encounters that almost always tie into and move plot.

* themes and paragon paths tightly tied into setting (Neverwinter campaign guide does this well also)

* clear movement in fiction as you move up to Epic tier. The last 3-4 adventures do not at all feel like you are just reskining a heroic tier adventure (cough cough P series)

It's a great AP for any edition but it brings out all the good in 4e. That said, it is a non standard fantasy setting so won't be for everyone.

Even the well regarded WotC adventures have way too many back to back encounters for me for 4e.

I've been running the 5e conversion of this AP, and I definitely agree that it's great with one caveat: the very first thing you do is a skill challenge designed to emphasize your role as investigators, where you canvass a crowd for potential threats to the unveiling of a new ship. I would recommend skipping or heavily altering that scene entirely, as it essentially has you doing class/appearance based profiling, then arresting (and possible attacking) protestors, who are cast as violent terrorists. It has not aged well, particularly in the context of the last 5 years.

Fortunately the rest of the AP is much better about shades of grey, and leans in to more savory (and adventurably interesting) aspects of law enforcement. That particular scene left a pretty bad taste in my player's mouths though, and I would not recommend running it straight in a modern game. It could fairly easily be cut entirely without any real effect on the rest of the AP.

 

[Undrave]

It has potential, but it makes raising your bonus maximum one of the most important things you can do. If it's tied to raising your core stats, it's now even more important to juice yourself as much as possible at 1st level. I fear this would make the preoccupation with "play a race specifically with +2 to this class's stats" even stronger than it already was, and I'd prefer to move away from that. (Though there are other possible solutions there.)

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Hm... Maybe your maximum bonus is a number generated through a formula on your character sheet?

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Hm... Maybe your maximum bonus is a number generated through a formula on your character sheet?

Max bonus based on level, or perhaps tier?

 

[Undrave]

Max bonus based on level, or perhaps tier?

Hmm... maybe a max bonus for levels 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"Feat taxes" IMO are a fan-created problem with a fan-created anger at the solution meant to fix the fan-created problem. That is, I am genuinely convinced that they WANTED it to get (very, very slightly) harder at baseline over the tiers. (Keep in mind, it's only about +1 every 10 levels!) This was meant to make it so you were soft-encouraged to actually use teamwork--at early levels, it's super effective but not absolutely required, but in Epic tier, if you aren't actually synergizing with your allies, you WILL suffer for it.

Can I just say I was always a big proponent of those expertise feats not only not being needed, but if anything being overpowered. I often ran 4e without them (or the math 'fix' people claimed was needed).

at level 11 you were +1 behind the curve... BUT compared to level 1 you had 4 dailies instead of 1, 4 encounter instead of 1 and a ton of feats... and all your damage has scaled.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can I just say I was always a big proponent of those expertise feats not only not being needed, but if anything being overpowered. I often ran 4e without them (or the math 'fix' people claimed was needed).

at level 11 you were +1 behind the curve... BUT compared to level 1 you had 4 dailies instead of 1, 4 encounter instead of 1 and a ton of feats... and all your damage has scaled.

I liked the idea behind the Essentials flavorful expertise feats. They felt more interesting--if it's going to be a feat tax, make it a tax people will want to pay, more or less. Sort of like how most chars should pick up an MC feat, if there's anything worthwhile to pick up. (Most of my Paladins took either Fighter or Bard MC feats, because the former is good for being a better Defender and the latter is good for the kind of personality I tend to play, the "noble inspiring hero"/Superman archetype.)

 

[James Gasik]

The Essentials Feat that gave me resistance to ongoing damage while fixing my Fort defense literally saved my character's life when I got hit with ongoing 2d20 by a beholder's disintegrate eye. It may have been an inelegant way to fix the math, but I never regretted taking it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The Essentials Feat that gave me resistance to ongoing damage while fixing my Fort defense literally saved my character's life when I got hit with ongoing 2d20 by a beholder's disintegrate eye. It may have been an inelegant way to fix the math, but I never regretted taking it.

Perhaps, then, the more elegant solution is to shift these things (like your one-and-only initial MC feat, unless you're a Bard, and your Expertise feat) away from being Feats and into being something else, that can be used either for the original purpose, or for something basic and generic. IOW, accept that players opposed the math structure and adapt.

E.g., I have my proposed "Heroic Origin" concept, which would bundle up Background, Theme, and (to an extent) culture/society of origin. Perhaps, as part of that, you pick a Specialty which you get at level 5 (just spitballed, open to change.) Specialties include all the Essentials-style Expertise feats, Versatile Expertise, and some third generic thing meant to be enticing for anyone who finds Expertise feats lame. And it comes with a new feat, one that sweeps up all these things and simplifies them: Diverse Specialty, which allows you to take a second Specialty if you want, but their bonuses don't stack. Solves the problem of there being dozens of different Expertise feats and integrates them in a more effective, interesting way.

As noted above, I was considering doing something similar to MC...but now I'm not so sure. I'm now thinking it may require too much kludge and systematization to be worth it. Certainly, MC feats should be trimmed to get rid of (or rework) the weak choices and merge all "you are now a Multiclass Culinarian" feats so they are selectable options under one banner rather than five Fighter feats and six Wizard feats etc.

That would then be two other things I would do to improve 4e's presentation:

1. Make "Heroic Origins," which preserve and extend the flexibility and utility of Backgrounds and Themes and clean up some of the "inelegant" so-called math fixes. Make these really important in the description of the game, like the following text:
   

   Every character, from the lowly, sneak-thief pickpocket to the lofty, shining paladin comes from somewhere: parents, birthplace, their early life before they started adventuring. In 4th Edition D&D, we call this a character's Heroic Origin. Your Heroic Origin helps you tell the story of how you became an adventurer, explaining your skills and abilities and giving you the edge that may help you overcome your foes. Just as Bilbo Baggins' genteel upbringing helped him parley with Smaug long enough to find the chink in the arrogant dragon's armor, or <insert classic D&D reference here>, your character's Heroic Origin can give you the tools you need to save the day...or at least your skin!

2. MAKE NOVICE LEVELS! Make them GOOD. Support them to the hilt and take pains not to ever denigrate or deride them. Emphasize that these are a stylistic choice and some fans REALLY REALLY love playing D&D this way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Can I just say I was always a big proponent of those expertise feats not only not being needed, but if anything being overpowered. I often ran 4e without them (or the math 'fix' people claimed was needed).

at level 11 you were +1 behind the curve... BUT compared to level 1 you had 4 dailies instead of 1, 4 encounter instead of 1 and a ton of feats... and all your damage has scaled.

Totally agree. I mean, by epic tier your PCs are these frighteningly efficient engines of monster destruction who have utterly no need to get another +1/+2/+3!!!! Taxpertise was just a totally bogus idea, IMHO. At least the Essentials taxpertise feats just tacked the bonus onto an otherwise interesting and fairly useful feat, and you could choose between several of them. I guess from the WotC standpoint that was kind of the best possible way forward with that...

Honestly, there are a lot of cool feats, but overall feats were not the strongpoint of 4e, probably rather its Achilles Heel if it can be said to have one.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps, then, the more elegant solution is to shift these things (like your one-and-only initial MC feat, unless you're a Bard, and your Expertise feat) away from being Feats and into being something else, that can be used either for the original purpose, or for something basic and generic. IOW, accept that players opposed the math structure and adapt.

E.g., I have my proposed "Heroic Origin" concept, which would bundle up Background, Theme, and (to an extent) culture/society of origin. Perhaps, as part of that, you pick a Specialty which you get at level 5 (just spitballed, open to change.) Specialties include all the Essentials-style Expertise feats, Versatile Expertise, and some third generic thing meant to be enticing for anyone who finds Expertise feats lame. And it comes with a new feat, one that sweeps up all these things and simplifies them: Diverse Specialty, which allows you to take a second Specialty if you want, but their bonuses don't stack. Solves the problem of there being dozens of different Expertise feats and integrates them in a more effective, interesting way.

As noted above, I was considering doing something similar to MC...but now I'm not so sure. I'm now thinking it may require too much kludge and systematization to be worth it. Certainly, MC feats should be trimmed to get rid of (or rework) the weak choices and merge all "you are now a Multiclass Culinarian" feats so they are selectable options under one banner rather than five Fighter feats and six Wizard feats etc.

That would then be two other things I would do to improve 4e's presentation:

1. Make "Heroic Origins," which preserve and extend the flexibility and utility of Backgrounds and Themes and clean up some of the "inelegant" so-called math fixes. Make these really important in the description of the game, like the following text:
2. MAKE NOVICE LEVELS! Make them GOOD. Support them to the hilt and take pains not to ever denigrate or deride them. Emphasize that these are a stylistic choice and some fans REALLY REALLY love playing D&D this way.

I really am stealing it for HoML in place of background (which includes origin).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Totally agree. I mean, by epic tier your PCs are these frighteningly efficient engines of monster destruction who have utterly no need to get another +1/+2/+3!!!! Taxpertise was just a totally bogus idea, IMHO. At least the Essentials taxpertise feats just tacked the bonus onto an otherwise interesting and fairly useful feat, and you could choose between several of them. I guess from the WotC standpoint that was kind of the best possible way forward with that...

Honestly, there are a lot of cool feats, but overall feats were not the strongpoint of 4e, probably rather its Achilles Heel if it can be said to have one.

I think they're kind of both, actually.

The good feats of 4e were one of its best bits. Feats were where most of the 3e-like, "Johnny-style" character building went. Chaining three highly specific feats together to achieve something unorthodox. Like, for instance, the hybrid Monk|Ranger MC Barbarian. Ranger hybrid gives you Twin Strike, which is obviously quite potent by itself. Monk (hybrid or otherwise) gives you Monk Unarmed Strike, which is very specifically a one-hand, off-hand weapon. Having the Barbarian MC feat (whichever one you fancy most) gives you access to Hurl Weapon, which makes any one-handed off-hand weapon count as a heavy thrown (range 5/10) weapon. Congratulations. You can now double rocket punch any single target within 25 feet for the price of two feats and a very unorthodox build. Or you can play a Half-Elf and stick with pure Monk, picking up Twin Strike via Dilettante.

That's the fun side though. The good feats that do interesting things.

Unfortunately, the poor feats stink, and I'd say about a third of all feats fit into that category. IMO, it's good that the ultra-awesome or "wait, that WORKS?" feats were uncommon, but the rest of them should've been at least solid, reasonable choices for a good slice of characters. That they weren't is one of the weaker parts of 4e.

 

[Baumi]

And Heroes of Myth and Legend just replaces all these with advantage/disadvantage, its just vastly faster at the table and in practice we found you lose basically nothing. All bonuses that are granted by constant things fall into 4 non-stacking types, level, ability, proficiency, and permanent (which is mostly items, but could include a wide variety of bonuses). These fixed bonuses CAN be situational, but they don't have durations. There are only 2 durations, UEOYNT and encounter.

Never heard of that Game? Where can I find it?