Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How would you redo 4e?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8951348" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I'm...not really sure how that responds to what I said though.</p><p></p><p>By stripping out "Fighter," "Paladin," "Swordmage," "Warden" etc. and replacing them with the Defender role and your choice of Source, you are necessarily eliminating the mechanical distinctiveness of each class. "Defender" now means one (and <em>only</em> one) set of mechanics. Likewise, "Martial" means one (and <em>only</em> one) set of mechanics, regardless of whether you are a Controller, Defender, Leader, or Striker. This is definitional to the approach: <em>every</em> Striker is, and must be, a Striker in exactly the same way, because the Striker mechanics are totally source-independent. There can be no distinction between the <em>way</em> that a Barbarian or an Avenger or a Sorcerer do their Striker thing, because there is one (and <em>only</em> one) way to be a Striker. That way might have toggles like ranged vs melee or something, but ultimately it has to be identical in what Striker options it grants, because you could always have chosen a different power source.</p><p></p><p>This isn't just about the bells and whistles of the experience, the wilderness survival element of Rangers or the entertaining performance element of Bards. It's the <em>whole package.</em> The thing that makes a "Martial Leader" (formerly Warlord) a <em>Leader</em> is, and must be, exactly the same thing or set/range of things as what makes an "Arcane Leader" and "Divine Leader" (formerly Bard and Cleric) a Leader in this system. All mechanical differences between classes of the same role vanish, <em>must</em> vanish, other than what is directly provided by choice of Source. You can't have unique Mark punishments or uniquely party-friendly AoEs or a distinction between "tanky bruiser" damage-dealing and "mobile skirmisher" damage-dealing, because everyone chooses from a perfectly identical list. That's the whole <em>point</em> of making it "choose from the list of four roles, and also from the list of five sources. That determines what character you play."</p><p></p><p>Your proposal to add a new category, Profession, is sort of a halfway effort at what I described as remaking the old system but with more steps. That is, you had already understood (before my post, I mean) that this approach strips out identity and leaves something same-y, and you wanted to respond to the idea that just because "Ranger" (to use your canned example) <em>does</em> fulfill the "wilderness survivalist" class fantasy, doesn't mean that has to be the <em>only</em> way to fulfill that class fantasy. Which is fair! The problem is, again, you would be doing so by needing to make these things <em>generic.</em></p><p></p><p>Like, let's look at actual 4e Themes here, because I think they are illustrative. I <em>like</em> Themes as they are, and like you I would want to see them expanded into a full on "Heroic Origin" mechanic that scoops up culture, personal life history, and all the things that get a character <em>started</em> on their Hero's Journey. But the problem with your proposal—of making it so anyone wanting "wilderness survival" goes to the one-stop shop of Theme-town—is that that "Wilderness Survivor" theme must be <em>separate</em> from everything else their character <em>is.</em> You can't have any connections between <em>any combination</em> of Role, Source, or Theme, because the player could just as easily decide to do any one of them differently. Each of the combinations must be valid, and the whole point of this redesign is to make it simple and elegant without the (allegedly) crufty wastefulness of having a distinct Martial Striker who Does Wilderness Stuff, and instead having, "Pick your Role, Source, and Theme, or roll 1d4, 1d6, and 1d100 on the following tables." (Getting to 6 sources by having Martial, Divine, Primal, Arcane, Shadow or Elemental, and Psionic.) Making "Shadow Striker" be a Striker in a unique way, different from how a Martial Striker is a Striker, would be obviously counterproductive to the goal of simplifying and streamlining, but that's exactly what you would have to do to retain the mechanical distinctiveness of Rangers vs Assassins. Having a Theme of "Hired Killer" vs "Ex-Commando" doesn't, in any way, bring back that "we are both Strikers but in very different ways" element; it simply offers a way (itself entirely generic) to support the narrative and as the name implies <em>thematic</em> elements.</p><p></p><p>To reiterate, I <em>like</em> the fact that Themes, and <em>only</em> Themes, are this generic. If they are generic but classes are <em>not</em> generic, we get the best of both worlds: each class can be mechanically distinct and tailored to a particular set of class fantasies, while still supporting players who want something else or who don't want some of the baggage that comes with a particular class. That hypothetical "Hired Killer" Theme lets <em>anyone</em> get some of the flavor and mechanics of being an Assassin without actually needing to be that class, so they can be a ruthless and cold-blooded Wizard or a no-nonsense mercenary Fighter or whatever else tickles their fancy. The "Ex-Commando" lets <em>anyone</em> be a grizzled veteran or special forces operative, whether they're a Cleric from a frontier parish or a Bard who's had to rough it between gigs or whatever else. Ideally, there would be <em>many</em> Themes, or flexibility in exactly how each is implemented, so that this can be used to narrow in pretty specifically on what the player wants to play.</p><p></p><p>This way, you can still have the cool differences between Barbarians and Sorcerers and Rogues, while still getting the "not everyone needs to be a Ranger in order to be a wilderness survivalist, and indeed even the Ranger itself doesn't <em>need</em> to lean all that hard into it." You can still have Bards with the unique ability to multiclass freely and Wizards who are the absolute best at Ritual Casting and Druids that have shape changing powers, without having to force players who want to be musical performers or learned scholars or mystics to specifically be Bards, Wizards, and Druids respectively.</p><p></p><p>I will say, as an aside, you did leave out rather an important aspect of the Ranger that <em>is</em> actually wilderness-y: the option to have an Animal Companion. Which was actually reasonably balanced, unlike 5e where it sucked and took them like six or seven <em>years</em> to fix. That's a bit part of respecting and remembering the "wilderness survivor" element of the class without <em>forcing</em> people to take it if they just want to be a badass melee or ranged weapon specialist. (There's <em>also</em> the Fey Beast Tamer Theme, though, for folks who want a fuzzy buddy but don't necessarily want to be a <em>Ranger</em> to get one. Shaman and Druid also enabled some pet-related options, meaning you could have a variety of choices on that front, and all of them were at least tangentially related to Primal magic or the Fey.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8951348, member: 6790260"] I'm...not really sure how that responds to what I said though. By stripping out "Fighter," "Paladin," "Swordmage," "Warden" etc. and replacing them with the Defender role and your choice of Source, you are necessarily eliminating the mechanical distinctiveness of each class. "Defender" now means one (and [I]only[/I] one) set of mechanics. Likewise, "Martial" means one (and [I]only[/I] one) set of mechanics, regardless of whether you are a Controller, Defender, Leader, or Striker. This is definitional to the approach: [I]every[/I] Striker is, and must be, a Striker in exactly the same way, because the Striker mechanics are totally source-independent. There can be no distinction between the [I]way[/I] that a Barbarian or an Avenger or a Sorcerer do their Striker thing, because there is one (and [I]only[/I] one) way to be a Striker. That way might have toggles like ranged vs melee or something, but ultimately it has to be identical in what Striker options it grants, because you could always have chosen a different power source. This isn't just about the bells and whistles of the experience, the wilderness survival element of Rangers or the entertaining performance element of Bards. It's the [I]whole package.[/I] The thing that makes a "Martial Leader" (formerly Warlord) a [I]Leader[/I] is, and must be, exactly the same thing or set/range of things as what makes an "Arcane Leader" and "Divine Leader" (formerly Bard and Cleric) a Leader in this system. All mechanical differences between classes of the same role vanish, [I]must[/I] vanish, other than what is directly provided by choice of Source. You can't have unique Mark punishments or uniquely party-friendly AoEs or a distinction between "tanky bruiser" damage-dealing and "mobile skirmisher" damage-dealing, because everyone chooses from a perfectly identical list. That's the whole [I]point[/I] of making it "choose from the list of four roles, and also from the list of five sources. That determines what character you play." Your proposal to add a new category, Profession, is sort of a halfway effort at what I described as remaking the old system but with more steps. That is, you had already understood (before my post, I mean) that this approach strips out identity and leaves something same-y, and you wanted to respond to the idea that just because "Ranger" (to use your canned example) [I]does[/I] fulfill the "wilderness survivalist" class fantasy, doesn't mean that has to be the [I]only[/I] way to fulfill that class fantasy. Which is fair! The problem is, again, you would be doing so by needing to make these things [I]generic.[/I] Like, let's look at actual 4e Themes here, because I think they are illustrative. I [I]like[/I] Themes as they are, and like you I would want to see them expanded into a full on "Heroic Origin" mechanic that scoops up culture, personal life history, and all the things that get a character [I]started[/I] on their Hero's Journey. But the problem with your proposal—of making it so anyone wanting "wilderness survival" goes to the one-stop shop of Theme-town—is that that "Wilderness Survivor" theme must be [I]separate[/I] from everything else their character [I]is.[/I] You can't have any connections between [I]any combination[/I] of Role, Source, or Theme, because the player could just as easily decide to do any one of them differently. Each of the combinations must be valid, and the whole point of this redesign is to make it simple and elegant without the (allegedly) crufty wastefulness of having a distinct Martial Striker who Does Wilderness Stuff, and instead having, "Pick your Role, Source, and Theme, or roll 1d4, 1d6, and 1d100 on the following tables." (Getting to 6 sources by having Martial, Divine, Primal, Arcane, Shadow or Elemental, and Psionic.) Making "Shadow Striker" be a Striker in a unique way, different from how a Martial Striker is a Striker, would be obviously counterproductive to the goal of simplifying and streamlining, but that's exactly what you would have to do to retain the mechanical distinctiveness of Rangers vs Assassins. Having a Theme of "Hired Killer" vs "Ex-Commando" doesn't, in any way, bring back that "we are both Strikers but in very different ways" element; it simply offers a way (itself entirely generic) to support the narrative and as the name implies [I]thematic[/I] elements. To reiterate, I [I]like[/I] the fact that Themes, and [I]only[/I] Themes, are this generic. If they are generic but classes are [I]not[/I] generic, we get the best of both worlds: each class can be mechanically distinct and tailored to a particular set of class fantasies, while still supporting players who want something else or who don't want some of the baggage that comes with a particular class. That hypothetical "Hired Killer" Theme lets [I]anyone[/I] get some of the flavor and mechanics of being an Assassin without actually needing to be that class, so they can be a ruthless and cold-blooded Wizard or a no-nonsense mercenary Fighter or whatever else tickles their fancy. The "Ex-Commando" lets [I]anyone[/I] be a grizzled veteran or special forces operative, whether they're a Cleric from a frontier parish or a Bard who's had to rough it between gigs or whatever else. Ideally, there would be [I]many[/I] Themes, or flexibility in exactly how each is implemented, so that this can be used to narrow in pretty specifically on what the player wants to play. This way, you can still have the cool differences between Barbarians and Sorcerers and Rogues, while still getting the "not everyone needs to be a Ranger in order to be a wilderness survivalist, and indeed even the Ranger itself doesn't [I]need[/I] to lean all that hard into it." You can still have Bards with the unique ability to multiclass freely and Wizards who are the absolute best at Ritual Casting and Druids that have shape changing powers, without having to force players who want to be musical performers or learned scholars or mystics to specifically be Bards, Wizards, and Druids respectively. I will say, as an aside, you did leave out rather an important aspect of the Ranger that [I]is[/I] actually wilderness-y: the option to have an Animal Companion. Which was actually reasonably balanced, unlike 5e where it sucked and took them like six or seven [I]years[/I] to fix. That's a bit part of respecting and remembering the "wilderness survivor" element of the class without [I]forcing[/I] people to take it if they just want to be a badass melee or ranged weapon specialist. (There's [I]also[/I] the Fey Beast Tamer Theme, though, for folks who want a fuzzy buddy but don't necessarily want to be a [I]Ranger[/I] to get one. Shaman and Druid also enabled some pet-related options, meaning you could have a variety of choices on that front, and all of them were at least tangentially related to Primal magic or the Fey.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How would you redo 4e?
Top