D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I recall, the rules compendium made a few minor changes, and definitely clarified a few things. I want to say Opportunity Attacks were changed in some way, but it's been awhile.

Mount rules changed, there are subtle differences in how free actions work, and a few other things. Flying is also slightly changed.

 

[Kannik]

They also consolidated a number of the more DM-facing rules into the compendium, including the rules on traps, environments, and the latest version/revision/way of presenting skill challenges, so it really became a one-stop-shop for nearly everything happening at the table.

 

[Aldarc]

Thinking about this thread again. There is not one way that I would redo 4e, but actually about three or more ways, each with different aims and purpose.

4e Standard: The standard version of the game that has been polished with errata and lessons-learned. Basically what OSE is to B/X.

4e-Adjacent / World Axis Version: The version of the 4e game that leans into the World Axis mythos and power sources without regard for D&Disms when it comes to class or race design.

4e "MOBA-style": A more drastic alteration version of the game that takes additional design cues from MOBAs and tactical video games. A large set of character classes that provide a small handful of abilities - i.e., a basic attack, three abilities, and an ultimate - with character progression and ability customization being tied to finding magic items, which could also provide abilities. Characters generally don't get more abilities as they level up. This would potentially where I would put bounded accuracy, though I would also lower the total levels for a flatter progression.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

all of this is great. Not exactly how I would do it but great.


Take the 5e warlock and remove all flavortext... then pop that idea into every class

so each class gets 2 mix and match subclasses. Each class gets a list of leveled abilities balanced to be encounter based (the spells warlocks know) that they get 1/short rest then 2 then later 3 and 4.... so if the fighter learns "come and get it" they can use it twice, or it once and reaping strike once, even if they know 5 exploits by then. Have them scale (so no need for a 3w version at level 11 of a 2w exploit) a pool of at wills (the cantrips) and starting at level 2 a pool of mini feats (invocation) that can be new at will new encounter or new daily abilities. around level 11ish you start to get big game changing daily powers (high arcanas)

Once you have the classes done like that I would add paragon paths and epic destinies pretty much direct port.

now for prof instead of adding +2 or 3 and half level, I would make everything scale as prof and not prof... prof equal to 1/3 level+1 (so 1 until 3rd then 2 then at 6th 3 ect) non prof equal to 1/5 level (so 1 at 5th 2 at 10th ect)
becuase I like the idea of expertise (a minfeat/invocation for say rogue and bards) instead of double it just adds additional 2 at first 10 levels and 3 after level 11

HPs/HDs/Healing surges... all healing spells and potions will work off HD, but some will be as if you spent some will be spend and get a bonus... BUT we are cutting hps down... every class lower there HD by 1 step (so wizards back to d4s and fighters are at d8s and barbarians d10s and there is no d`12 class)
THEN you start at 1st level with 3HD (default is 1 max 2 average, but optional 2 or 3 maxed) but you only get HD at odd levels... at even levels we go back to 2e and you get +1 +2 or +3 hps (like 2e after 9th level) No con bonus to HP rolls, just to the healing from spending a HD. So a 20th level fighter has 11d8+38 hps and 12 HD to spend to heal so most fighters even at 20th level don't have 100hps A wizard would only have 11d4+14 hp and 12d4 HD

multi classing will be done by feats. the first one lets you get a class ability's, and lets you trade 1:1 an encounter or at will from your class with one from a new one... the second feat gives you either a second class feature or an upgrade to the one you have AND going forward can take the encounter powers known from both classes... maybe a 3rd feat or part of the second would let you trade 1:1 a high level daily as well.

A generic list of skill powers (at least 3 per skill at least 5 that are either tool prof or generic that can be taken by any class

every class those encounter abilities (like the warlock spells) must have options at every level (so 1-5) that work in all three pillars of teh game. So every fighter will have at least 5 choices they can make that are social, and every wizard will have at least 5 options that are exploration ect...

finally give the roles from 4e an expantion... each class gets 3 major and 3 minor roles 1 of each for each pillar... and some subclasses can raise a minor one to a major one... example: you want to play a rogue that is a striker/face/scout that is easy and the default... but with some work you can play it as a striker/brute/survivalist

leader classes will still grant bonuses... but from 5e we will take advantage and then controler debuffs can give disadvantage... but not all of them some will add or subtract a 1d4 (like 5e bane/bless)

wizards get to keep there spell books, like 4e they learn 2 powers per one that a other class does but can prep them each morning... BUT they can learn new ones in game, a number equal to there int mod can be added to there spell book in game.

a bunch of spells will be made rituels and the ritual rules from 4e will come back... no learning these as encounter or daily, they are just rituals. Some casters (wizard and cleric) get rituals but others need a feat for it.


so we have mostly 4e iwth a 5e twist

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thinking about this thread again. There is not one way that I would redo 4e, but actually about three or more ways, each with different aims and purpose.

4e Standard: The standard version of the game that has been polished with errata and lessons-learned. Basically what OSE is to B/X.

4e-Adjacent / World Axis Version: The version of the 4e game that leans into the World Axis mythos and power sources without regard for D&Disms when it comes to class or race design.

4e "MOBA-style": A more drastic alteration version of the game that takes additional design cues from MOBAs and tactical video games. A large set of character classes that provide a small handful of abilities - i.e., a basic attack, three abilities, and an ultimate - with character progression and ability customization being tied to finding magic items, which could also provide abilities. Characters generally don't get more abilities as they level up. This would potentially where I would put bounded accuracy, though I would also lower the total levels for a flatter progression.

Well, the 'light' version really still needs to solve the difference between skill and attack bonus, as well as between NADS and AC. It's a very ugly little flaw in a great engine, and no valid goal of design is served by it. Quite the contrary.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, the 'light' version really still needs to solve the difference between skill and attack bonus, as well as between NADS and AC. It's a very ugly little flaw in a great engine, and no valid goal of design is served by it. Quite the contrary.

Which is the light version? If you are talking about the Standard, then the main point is simply providing a polished version of the standard game, regardless of whether you consider it a "very ugly little flaw," since such a product for people to try 4e is unavailable on the market at present.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, the 'light' version really still needs to solve the difference between skill and attack bonus, as well as between NADS and AC. It's a very ugly little flaw in a great engine, and no valid goal of design is served by it. Quite the contrary.

AC was a sacred cow not slaughtered... I still think that the Non AC defenses alone could have worked... Ref and Fort both getting small bonuses from armor

 

[James Gasik]

AC was a sacred cow not slaughtered... I still think that the Non AC defenses alone could have worked... Ref and Fort both getting small bonuses from armor

Like how Shields granted Reflex defense. To be honest, AC became somewhat irrelevant at higher levels of play; there were Feats that allowed Martials to target NAD's with their attacks in addition to having powers that did so, and usually the difference between AC and a good defense was only like 2 points anyways.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

AC was a sacred cow not slaughtered... I still think that the Non AC defenses alone could have worked... Ref and Fort both getting small bonuses from armor

Actually HoML ditched AC for DR. The last revision replaces NADs with an active defense check. You can effectively use any power/skill/etc. to defend yourself.

 

[Undrave]

Well, the 'light' version really still needs to solve the difference between skill and attack bonus, as well as between NADS and AC. It's a very ugly little flaw in a great engine, and no valid goal of design is served by it. Quite the contrary.

What is there to solve exactly?