You are asking this of the person who is, currently, creating it. (AIUI, anyway. I don't think it's been fully, officially published yet.)Never heard of that Game? Where can I find it?
We’ve already discussed in this thread that bounded accuracy is not a good fit for 4e's style. We DON’T want orcs and goblins to still be threatening in the Paragon tier.Bounded accuracy and get rid of mandatory magic items(magic marts). I didnt like essentials because it erased the old style 4e instead of supplementing it.
I would burn it to the ground first.Bounded accuracy and get rid of mandatory magic items(magic marts).
They included an optional rule in the DMG2 to get rid of magic item if you want to. Basically, characters got an additional bonus to attack and defense at miltiple levels to compensate. I personally use this rule in my campaigns.Bounded accuracy and get rid of mandatory magic items(magic marts). I didnt like essentials because it erased the old style 4e instead of supplementing it.
I'm actually working on a 4e-inspired system right now(it has other inspirations too), and I have some similar ideas.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.
And if you did, it's way easier to increase the level of a monster.We’ve already discussed in this thread that bounded accuracy is not a good fit for 4e's style. We DON’T want orcs and goblins to still be threatening in the Paragon tier.
or use like 50 minionsAnd if you did, it's way easier to increase the level of a monster.
Or a swarm!or use like 50 minions
solo (maybe with a better name) elite basic minion and swarm of all seem like they could work.Yeah, I'd think you want extensible swarm rules as well as minions (or maybe even instead of minions!) - that way you have fewer stat blocks to run as DM, and you can butter up the players by describing how the PCs are carving their way through hosts of foes.
I agree with all of that, totally. The other side of it is that the titanic list-o-feats, coupled with the fact that you kinda need to understand at least basic core feats that support your character build/concept really feels pretty burdensome to a lot of players. In this regard 5e's "just pick something at 3rd" approach to character build is pretty appealing! I think the hope was that Essentials would bring it to 4e. It sorta did...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.
Well it's my hack. There's a rules document online here Heroes of Myth and LegendNever heard of that Game? Where can I find it?
I mean, it's not like 5e is free of such things, the list is just shorter because there's less in 5e, purely in terms of fewer books (often shorter ones too, mechanically, since each book is meant to appeal to any possible buyer: player, DM, worldbuilder, etc.) The endless complaints about Lucky, PAM/SS/GWM, etc., show that there's still some of that going on. Every Sorcerer (especially Dragon Sorc, double especially Fire ones) should take Elemental Adept to deal with enemy resistances. "Just pick something at 3rd" is kind of a misnomer when it comes to 5e, because while it does apply for some things, for others it's much more complicated...especially spellcasters.I agree with all of that, totally. The other side of it is that the titanic list-o-feats, coupled with the fact that you kinda need to understand at least basic core feats that support your character build/concept really feels pretty burdensome to a lot of players. In this regard 5e's "just pick something at 3rd" approach to character build is pretty appealing! I think the hope was that Essentials would bring it to 4e. It sorta did...
Right, so the eternal question is how much you simplify and make the building part of the game straightforward, and how much you elaborate it more and let people do lots of cool weird stuff. I would say, if you include things like MCing in 5e, you can do a LOT of pretty weird stuff! There's a thread floating around right now where a guy is complaining about some kind of ridiculously optimized 5e PC. Charops did NOT DIE with 4e. Although it seems a lot of GMs aren't interested in letting it flourish.I mean, it's not like 5e is free of such things, the list is just shorter because there's less in 5e, purely in terms of fewer books (often shorter ones too, mechanically, since each book is meant to appeal to any possible buyer: player, DM, worldbuilder, etc.) The endless complaints about Lucky, PAM/SS/GWM, etc., show that there's still some of that going on. Every Sorcerer (especially Dragon Sorc, double especially Fire ones) should take Elemental Adept to deal with enemy resistances. "Just pick something at 3rd" is kind of a misnomer when it comes to 5e, because while it does apply for some things, for others it's much more complicated...especially spellcasters.
That said, you aren't wrong that there's a certain amount of...shall we say, not very interesting "baked in" feat expectations. Not truly expected, per se, but implicitly so. I think some of that is fine. 4e may have included too much, 3e definitely included too much. Something not so much halfway between 4e and 5e as...like two thirds of 4e, say? Enough mechanical richness to be engaging, but keeping in mind the need to avoid past excesses.
I do find that a lot of efforts to clone 4e quickly become efforts to genetically engineer 4e, and then become their whole own beast.Right, so the eternal question is how much you simplify and make the building part of the game straightforward, and how much you elaborate it more and let people do lots of cool weird stuff. I would say, if you include things like MCing in 5e, you can do a LOT of pretty weird stuff! There's a thread floating around right now where a guy is complaining about some kind of ridiculously optimized 5e PC. Charops did NOT DIE with 4e. Although it seems a lot of GMs aren't interested in letting it flourish.
Do skills get weaker with growing levels compared to combat powers?One is that the skills math and the combat maths are not the same. This gets worse as levels grow, and the gaps get bigger. It shows up in stat blocks for monsters and NPCs with weak skill bonuses; in the fact that using skills against defences is not mathematically smooth; etc.
Exactly: I've pointed out both of these issues in various forms and places in this thread, but you and I seem to be the only ones who see both of these issues. On the skill vs defense and DC front, HoML solves this entirely. All the same bonuses with the same values apply in both realms, and in fact at this point defenses are being designed out in favor of a mechanism where the player is able to select an appropriate 'action' to defend with. This can be a skill, a raw ability score, a power, etc. In fact my main rules focus right now is figuring out exactly what the full expression of the rules is which governs which of these are eligible responses to a given attack. Of course this works in reverse too, as skill checks are now perfectly valid 'attacks'. Overall this is a great improvement in the 4e 'engine', but not one you can achieve within the aegis of full 4e compatibility. I'd note that I've also eliminated the oddball 2 point difference between AC and NADS (well, at this point neither AC nor NADS formally exist anymore, but the game has no odd different classes of attacks that get different bonus amounts).4e has issues with feats. It has issues with AC - eg Barbarians get an ad hoc AC buff to reflect the fact they don't have INT or DEX as a core stat but are a light armour class; but then Primal Power has a DEX-based sub-class that makes the ad hoc AC buff unnecessary. There is power bloat, weapon bloat, etc.
But all of this is fixable, in the reality of play, either by ignoring and/or editing-on-the-run, or by obvious just-in-time fixes. (Eg just houserule to solve the barbarian AC problem).
There are, in my view, two deep structural problems with 4e D&D.
One is that the skills math and the combat maths are not the same. This gets worse as levels grow, and the gaps get bigger. It shows up in stat blocks for monsters and NPCs with weak skill bonuses; in the fact that using skills against defences is not mathematically smooth; etc.
The second is related: there is no smooth interface between the concrete elements of combat resolution (turn-by-turn resolution in a tight ingame time frame; plus tight tracking of physical location using squares-per-turn movement rates) and the abstraction of skill challenge resolution.
Fixing the former requires changing the maths, which in turn breaks compatibility. I don't have a good sense of what fixing the latter would look like.