D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[James Gasik]

I’m a big fan of these in RPG. Similarly, I also like special techniques that play into the weaknesses of your opponents, so not all of your abilities have the same return in every combats.

Add both together and you could do X to incite your opponent to do Y, setting you up for attack Z which is strong in reaction to Y.

It’d probably be a nightmare of game design however.

I'm somewhat reminded of the various Lightsaber forms from d20 Star Wars; stances you assume that give you bonuses or penalties based on what they are about. Like aggressive stance gives you bonuses to hit and damage, but at a penalty to defense.

At least, that's how I think they worked, it's been almost 20 years now I'm sure.

 

[Voidmoji]

Would it be too abstract for people if you just couldn't use your combat maneuvers before using all the other ones? Hmm...

When I ran 4e D&D I allowed players to spend an action point to use an expended power. I liked it so much the concept is baked into my 4e-inspired game.

 

[Voidmoji]

I'm somewhat reminded of the various Lightsaber forms from d20 Star Wars; stances you assume that give you bonuses or penalties based on what they are about. Like aggressive stance gives you bonuses to hit and damage, but at a penalty to defense.

At least, that's how I think they worked, it's been almost 20 years now I'm sure.

That is pretty much how stances work in 4e.

 

[Voidmoji]

Tome of Battle did this with the Crusader, if memory serves.

Yes, indeed. And their access to maneuvers were mostly random. I played a crusader through Strahd back in the day, and it was incredibly fun.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think you and I have differing opinions on just how high a price it is. Which is fine.

Me personally... I don't have an issue with differing refresh models because I don't expect, need, or want the game to be balanced on such a thin edge that you need the exact same refresh model for every class just to make sure that's what you are going to get. Too much balance results in things feeling too much the same in my opinion. And complicating class design is not something I care about, because that's on the designers themselves to work out. They know the game they are making and how much balance they feel is necessary... so I'm good with what they go with.

Well, it's been a matter of controversy since 1975, so...

And as far as uniform slots? I don't think the game benefits from having things that modular that it's designed to mix and match everything. If it's going to be a class-based game... then keeping a baseline separation between abilities for a lot of classes (especially across power sources) is better in that regard I feel. And to be honest... it's not like 4E mixed and matched powers either (except in the lone case of the multiclass feats). Every class had their own set of powers and there wasn't any overlap even amongst power sources. Rather than like Fireball being a power available to all Arcane classes, it was just for the Wizard. So how much actual mixing and matching are we thinking we need?

I think you have too narrow a view. A/E/D/U is not just about power swaps, though they are a good bit more prevalent than you are stating. It's also about every other rule and game element which relates to powers.

But like I said... I actually don't concern myself that much at all with it, so if 2024E did indeed lean further into a standardized power suite a la AEDU... I wouldn't have any real issue with it (just like I don't have a problem with the return of "power sources" in the playtest). I just don't think the reasons people have given to go that way (most consistent refreshes leading to supposed better balance) to be all that important for the game. But your mileage may vary.

Yeah the world is large enough for both of us. But I hold zero hope that any such game will emerge.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When I ran 4e D&D I allowed players to spend an action point to use an expended power. I liked it so much the concept is baked into my 4e-inspired game.

I made it a feat to do it because they never used action points any other way.

 

[James Gasik]

I made it a feat to do it because they never used action points any other way.

Really? They never said "oh boy, a Solo, time to chain two powers together!"? Well there's one solution to that; get a Warlord for the sweet AP bonus!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Really? They never said "oh boy, a Solo, time to chain two powers together!"? Well there's one solution to that; get a Warlord for the sweet AP bonus!

So what I've found is that using 4e design, synergy comes from the team rather than doing your thing twice. Also, character tend to focus on a couple of abilities (my powers). The fighters trip or parry and tend to stick to that, so doing it twice in a round isn't as valuable as getting their awesome trip back.

Casters tend to grab more extra standards, but since I made martials fun, there's fewer of them.

except the one character who uses a machine gun crit fisher build with a single spell on a rogue. They love getting an extra chance to sneak attack things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Really? They never said "oh boy, a Solo, time to chain two powers together!"? Well there's one solution to that; get a Warlord for the sweet AP bonus!

Action Points are one of those things that seem to be very either/or. Either you love them and instantly grok how they can become a huge force multiplier when deployed wisely, or you constantly forget that they're a thing you can do (or fear to use them because you don't want to "waste" them.) I tend to fall in the former camp, but I understand how others might fall into the latter.

Minor actions seem to have been similar, but with a third camp: those who saw it as a workhorse and no more, e.g. knowing it's for your Healing Word but never thinking about it otherwise. One of my 4e DMs had a simple house-rule to help short-circuit such issues: "Take Aim" (or something to that effect) which is a minor action that gives +1 to hit against a single, chosen target for the duration of your current turn (so no off-turn shenanigans.) Great bonus, useful but not game-breaking, everyone has a reason to at least briefly think about their minor action, etc.

 

[James Gasik]

Action Points are one of those things that seem to be very either/or. Either you love them and instantly grok how they can become a huge force multiplier when deployed wisely, or you constantly forget that they're a thing you can do (or fear to use them because you don't want to "waste" them.) I tend to fall in the former camp, but I understand how others might fall into the latter.

Minor actions seem to have been similar, but with a third camp: those who saw it as a workhorse and no more, e.g. knowing it's for your Healing Word but never thinking about it otherwise. One of my 4e DMs had a simple house-rule to help short-circuit such issues: "Take Aim" (or something to that effect) which is a minor action that gives +1 to hit against a single, chosen target for the duration of your current turn (so no off-turn shenanigans.) Great bonus, useful but not game-breaking, everyone has a reason to at least briefly think about their minor action, etc.

Interesting. I almost always had a Minor Action ability to do something, be it a racial power, the ability stand up from prone with Acrobat Boots, or an off-hand attack on my Ranger.