D&D 4E New Year, New 4e

[C4]

The OP mentioned cleaning up the math. What exactly is the problem there? If it's referring to feat taxes or how the math bakes in magical items, I thought inherent bonuses addressed that.

I do use inherent bonuses, and feat tax replacements, but it's not really elegant. Instead of having four different bonuses that add up to "+1 per level," I'd rather drop the enhancements, the stat boosts, and the expert bonuses, and just say "you get +1 to attacks and defenses per level." It's simpler for new and casual players, and it makes it easy for DMs who want to go the flat/ter math route. (Half level, or even no level bonus at all to attacks and defenses.)

Effects: There's so many of them and some of them are silly complicated to resolve, not to mention there are buckets of effects that last many turns, both from players and monsters. When I custom-build monsters, unless I want some very specific effect, every effect happens on a successful attack, and any that last are kept very simple. "You are weakened." "-2 penalty to attacks." "you are polymorphed into a chicken, will save ends!" More complex effects are limited in use. "You take a -2 penalty to will saves, and each failed save increases this penalty by -2. If the penalty equals or exceeds your will score, you become Dominated by the BBEG."

Yeah, high on my list is 'simplify condition tracking.' Just about anything that currently reads "until the end of your next turn" should read "until the end of the target's next turn." That way, nobody has to remember which condition came from who; all you have to do is roll saves or remove conditions at the end of your own turn.

 

[Larrin]

Didn't see these mentioned, they're pretty much on the subject of powers:
1) more general/accessible power selection. For example: The at-will Cleave power seems like a power that any strength based weapon user should have a choice of taking (barbarians and wardens most obviously, but straladins, rangers seem like they should have the choice and even avengers getting a wisdom based version seems within reasonability). But they can't. Essentials seems to approach this idea with power attack being shared between rangers and fighters, and giving healing word to sentinals. But they kind of fail as well since it isn't obvious if a knight can take a stance at-will that only appears on the slayer list (similar things with the scout and hunter). Ideally there would be pools of powers that like minded classes could choose from by default. That way instead of having to make 20-30 new powers for every new class, and trying to make sure those powers aren't similar to other powers (which I think has lead to some really odd/unintuitive powers) you could easily make a class, maybe give a few unique powers when you think there's a gap, but otherwise make use of all the other powers already written.

2) Versatile power as the norm: the Hunter's powers would be my template here: with one power you can slow, slide or knock prone. Three useful effects in one power. That should be common, if not the norm. Heck, most [weapon] at-wills are essentially (but not legally) a basic attack PLUS one effect, and with two at-wills you have two choices. Why not just go all the way with that and give most classes some level of a versatile "basic attack, chose 1 of three effects". For spells there would likely be some variation available (ie it wouldn't be based on a basic attack, perhaps), but it would be cool if taking "fireburst" gave you a burst spell AND a single target ranged spell for the price of one, etc.

3) Avoid class/subclass/prestige class/path choices locking in powers and requiring new, UNIQUE, powers: The warpriest domains are the best example. Every new domain required creation of 2 new at wills and new encounters from 1-27. This makes it not only difficult to design a new domain, it actually is a bad idea from the frame of old clerics who suddenly have their power list explode in size. Thus it becomes difficult to make good new domains, and doing so has negative effects. And since you've just made 38 unique powers, a lot of them will suck, and since you 'don't have a choice' (a rules interpretation I oppose) you might just find the flavorful domain you would love to play having a lot of lame-duck powers forced upon it.

Paragon paths are also horrible offenders of this. Every power is locked in and some PPs lose out in effectiveness/desirability simply because you have an unusably bad power that you can't replace in one (or three) levels. Yuck. Part of this is the need for each power to be unique, and the more powers you have make up, the more likely you will make ones that aren't worth it.

Making powers that resonate with a domain or PP is a great idea, but forcing a domain or PP to have said power isn't. It will make having more that 7 domains feasible, and make PP creation simpler, etc.

 

[Balesir]

I really like 4e, so there's not all that much I would change. I disagree with some of what has been suggested, specifically this:

Paragon paths are also horrible offenders of this. Every power is locked in and some PPs lose out in effectiveness/desirability simply because you have an unusably bad power that you can't replace in one (or three) levels. Yuck. Part of this is the need for each power to be unique, and the more powers you have make up, the more likely you will make ones that aren't worth it.

Making powers that resonate with a domain or PP is a great idea, but forcing a domain or PP to have said power isn't. It will make having more that 7 domains feasible, and make PP creation simpler, etc.

An important point about the design element "Prestige Class" is exactly that it is all fixed together. This allows PP designs with one really powerful Power (Maw of Chaos, I think is an example) that is balanced by having another Power/Powers/Ability that is pretty "meh". Allow swapsies, here, and either balance goes out the window or you need to rebalance several Powers to be "just the same as the others at the same level". The way it is now is, I think, less boring.

I do. Treasure is pretty boring now. This game used to be about killing things and taking their stuff - heck, it used to be about taking their stuff and you only killed them if you couldn't get it any other way!

I'd love to see magic items become interesting again.

So use Artifacts and Inherent Bonuses. I keep saying this, but no-one seems to be listening. I really like the (original) idea that "magic items" are group PC design elements (i.e. like character feats and Powers, but they can be shared around the party) and Artifacts are the "DM's candy box and store of stuff to make the world interesting and drive the story". In terms of "4.5E", returning to the original magic item system is one of the first things I'd do (if I had ever left it, in the games that I run...)

Other changes:

- Getting rid of "obsoleted" elements is an obvious step.

- I would probably use "Residuum" or the equivalent to separate Magic Items from money, per se. Rituals and Consumables would still use money, but Residuum would become an "indestructible" commodity that was essential for making Magic Items. I.e. every item requires its full value in Residuum, and the "Disenchant" ritual returns the item's full value in Residuum. Recipies for items and/or the ritual itself may cost extra in money.

- Go through all "EoNT" powers and (a) make all that work on the target alone end at the end of their next turn, and (b) make those that work by giving a benefit to the attacker on their next attack/turn work by giving the attacker a "token" that can be used to get the bonus, working a bit like a striker's "curse" or "quarry".

- Go through all untyped bonuses and consider really hard making them typed. Maybe also rationalise on types (e.g. merge "item" and "enhancement").

- Maybe add damage threshholds to minions.

- Lots more explanation on how to use Skill Challenges. Actually, ideally, extend "combat" style rules to social and exploration scenarios, but that would be a major undertaking...

I think that's about it - can't think of anything else right now.

 

[Storminator]

So use Artifacts and Inherent Bonuses. I keep saying this, but no-one seems to be listening. I really like the (original) idea that "magic items" are group PC design elements (i.e. like character feats and Powers, but they can be shared around the party) and Artifacts are the "DM's candy box and store of stuff to make the world interesting and drive the story". In terms of "4.5E", returning to the original magic item system is one of the first things I'd do (if I had ever left it, in the games that I run...)

Meh. I do both of those things, and let PCs swap out items as they level. Magic item treasure is still completely boring. How many artifacts am I going to hand out? Mostly, I just don't give out any treasure, then about once per level I say "here's 5000 gp!" Which is functional, but boring.

The problem is that the answer to "we loot them! What did we get?!" is never satisfying.

PS

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't and never will run 4Ed as a DM, but I like to play it. My personal observations & humble opinions from the pure player perspective:

1) too many feats, powers and class abilities give ephemeral bonuses or penalties. This slows things down: our group is playing a campaign that has lasted @ 2+ years, and we are still experiencing slowdowns as people are trying to figure out the net effects of all the temporary plusses and minuses to attacks, defenses, damage, and effects characters get that shift for round to round. Not a combat goes by when someone doesn't forget some of these modifiers.

2) the one player who typically has more bookkeeping to do is the DM- going to uniform damage & other effects makes sense and saves time. However, as a player, I really like rolling dice, the more the better. (Could be that it's because I'm sooooooooooo ooooooooooolllllld.)

3) do something about Ritual magic. I think RM is one of the best ideas with the worst implementation in 4Ed. Admittedly, this may require more of an overhaul than most would want to do, but there it is.

4) HPs & HSes are just messed up. I'm playing a Dwarven Starlock, and I have more HP and better HSes than any other PC in the party except the Dwarven Fighter. I grok Dwarves being durable, but that's kind of silly. In addition, having healing magic not work when the target has no HSes left is extremely disruptive of immersion, making the magic seem to be not magical at all. Perhaps such magic should grant uniform healing based on the particular magic used, or on some attribute of the Healer, but as-is, its terrible.

 

[n00bdragon]

Every few months I swap some house rules around and see what works and what doesn't. The best ones I keep using forever. Here's what I've found are the best of the best changes:
- Cut monster HP in half
- Double monster damage for values from the MM1 and MM2. Multiply MM3 damage by 1.5 or so
- Give non-minion monsters extra damage on crits based on their level starting with +1d6 and improving every five levels
- Double the amount of HP second wind restores
- Restore daily resources like powers and healing surges on level up instead but double the use of all those resources (every daily power can be used twice, double number of healing surges, etc)

 

[Randomthoughts]

I really like 4e, so there's not all that much I would change. <snip>

So use Artifacts and Inherent Bonuses. <snip>

Other changes:

- I would probably use "Residuum" or the equivalent to separate Magic Items from money, per se.

- Go through all "EoNT" powers <snip>

Yeah, I don't think a lot of changes are needed. To be clear, a core issue (imho) is something that warrants new rules that change the current RAW - essentially that the current RAW are broken. I just don't see a lot of those. Sure, I would change a few more things - like making power sources more distinct for my Dark Sun campaign - but that's not a core problem, just a preference IMHO.

That's why I don't find magic items to be a core issue; I use Artifacts and Inherent Bonuses too. I just think that it could have been handled a better way to make things more interesting. By the same token, I don't see the math to be a core issue (yet) b/c they are addressed by inherent bonuses (and waiving the feat taxes).

OTOH, the current RAW on Rituals is a core issue, at least IMC. They are hardly utilized, for the very same reasons previously identified (cost being the main culprit). The solution I was considering was along the lines contemplated by Balesir here.

Finally, another vote for looking at condition tracking. By my definition, it's not a core problem (but it's close). I use tokens that do a relatively good job. But I have to believe that all the different condition durations (EoTNT, EoYNT, etc.) aren't worth the hassle. Keep things simple.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm extremely happy with 4e's design premises and the delivery on its promise. There is little I would (and have) changed outside of the advice and the editorializing within the books. The metagame tools and thematic material are at the heart of what makes 4e work. Losing them for the sake of causal logic driven class framework and mechanics would not be a net loss; it would be the undoing of the game. The PHB and Martial Handbook Fghter material are leaps and bounds better than the Knight and the Slayer from Essential; both thematically weak and metagame indifferent (or averse). While the Thief, Hexblade and some elements of the Ranger, overall it worked to undo the defining elements of the system. 10 off the top of my head:

1) Increase damage (+ 1/tier and +1/2 levels) across the board.
2) Make condition tracking a little more uniform.
3) Open up Power Swapping after the initial multiclass investment for easier archetype rendering.
4) More and better, flavor-rich Themes with metagame tools (bangs and kickers and carrots for milestone attainment) embedded in them.
5) Most of the feats are awful and need a complete revamp. Feats should be tools to further enrich characters, not add a + 1 here or there or keep the PC output:Challenge math in-line. Wilderness Knacks in Essentials, feat powers, theme powers are great examples of what feats should provide.
6) Rituals need to be tightened up from both a cost perspective and a Skill Roll:Output/Effectiveness perspective.
7) A Zone-In, Zone-Out Mass Combat system (player side - I'm working on one - and DM side) is always welcome.
8) Clarifying rules to help people out who want extra-encounter attrition (Condition Tracks).
9) Honesty about 4e's expectation of leveraging the metagame at its core. Sincere and clear advice for groups detailing how to minimize this (which powers to stay away from and why).
10) Templates for PCs in games with only 2 or 1 player and advice to DMs on how to run these.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oh yeah...that was another one that bugged me- multiclassing. The feat cost combined with the the nonstandard nature of the feats was particularly annoying to me. The base feats themselves should have granted a trained skill (to be chosen, not just one particular one), an implement and a power. And once a member of the class, the new class' POWs should have merely been other options to choose from. The only MC feats after that should have been to ADD a power, not to swap out.

 

[Siberys]

I'd look to Gamma World for structuring the gaining of abilities, and redesign to remove fiddly bonuses, perhaps with a saga-like or Savage-worlds-like condition track mechanic.

Basically, what I'd do if I were designing a fantasy heartbreaker is make a 4e supplement that made theme, class, and race mechanically identical; reduced feat bloat by tying feats into related trees; and cleaned out powers so there's very little tracking that isn't covered by "[UENT/save ends] [Condition]" - no weird durations or -2 ACs bandied about needlessly.