D&D 4E New Year, New 4e

[Tequila Sunrise]

I already have a lengthening to-do list for this project, from ‘make the math simple and elegant’ to ‘reverse engineer PC power guidelines’ to ‘do something about Second Wind.’

What's wrong with SW?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

Agreed on the healing magic issue; at least when seen thru the lens of previous editions and most other games, 4e healing doesn't make much sense. But I would want to see explanatory fluff rather than have 4e's healing mechanics changed. "4e healing physics aren't the same as healing physics in other games. It's not as simple as 'The power of god heals your wounds!'"

Also, what's the problem with a dwarven striker having more hp than other strikers/leaders/controllers? Just curious.

My advice would be to try to find workarounds for the big things, apply house rules to fix the small things, and try hard not to think about it too much.

Clearly you're not familiar with C4's previous work, which is exactly what you describe. Given the quality of C4's current fixes, I'm very excited to see what results from this project!

In addition to some of the things that have already been brought up, I’d like to see the hex grid introduced to 4e. ‘Officially’ moving away from squares is probably a pipe dream, but I’d like to see hex conversions. “A Large creatures takes up 7 hexes,” “A blast looks like this in hex,” etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Also, what's the problem with a dwarven striker having more hp than other strikers/leaders/controllers? Just curious.

We have 2 examples of the Warlock in D&D, both nominally casters, a.k.a. "Squishies."

The original version would have roughly as many HP as a Rogue, a bit less than a Cleric, and a lot less than a Ranger. Each of those classes go up the scale in HP because of expectations of being in melee with multiple opponents.

OTOH, my 4Ed Warlock just lags the party's Dwarven Fighter by less than 20hp, and leads all others by at least 6. Its a bit jarring to have a "Squishy" have to be on the front line because he's the next most durable PC in the party, especially since his powers are clearly designed for medium range attacks.

Its a bit topsy-turvy to see the melee-striker Rogue dealing out lots of damage and being at risk for his life every time he gets hit while the medium range Warlock often shrugs off damage that would bloody or drop others...and while accurate, not typically dishing lots of damage.

There's a disconnect. An incongruity.

It would seem as if the Rogue should be tougher but dish less damage while the Warlock should be the glass cannon.

 

[Quickleaf]

I have an unusual answer with a bit of a story behind it.

Short version: narrative - mechanics disconnect.

Long version: A barbarian PC in my campaign has the Nocturnal paragon path which les her phase when she charges. She later asked if she could phase thru a castle wall while sneaking and I had to explain "no, because (a) not charging and (b) no line of sight."
Another time she and another player objected to an enemy making an opportunity attack against her as she charged past because she was "phasing" (which they interpreted to mean "in a ghostly mostly impervious to damage form"). In the heat of the game, I had no good explanation and just made a ruling "no, you are not invisible, that's not how the ability works." This epitomizes my main problem with 4e - the mechanics often have insufficient or discordant narrative tied to them.

Of course, changing it is possible, but not always spur of the moment, and the hand waving required can feel lacking. Usually I'm a "yes" DM and my players usually aren't trying to milk every advantage by bending/breaking rules. The problem is the poor narrative - mechanics bond, which leads to situations of "well, in *my* imagined headspace this is how it happens..." It's this sort of stuff that leads to pages upon pages of errata.

What I'd rather see, in this case, is a discussion in the core rules about *what exactly* phasing means / looks like in a narrative sense. Even listing a couple possibilities would be better than nothing. Instead 4e seems to start with mechanics and rely on that to craft narrative.

That can work, but when it fails it fails spectacularly.

 

[Balesir]

What I'd rather see, in this case, is a discussion in the core rules about *what exactly* phasing means / looks like in a narrative sense. Even listing a couple possibilities would be better than nothing. Instead 4e seems to start with mechanics and rely on that to craft narrative.

Ah, another area where, clearly, tastes differ dramatically.

I would much rather see only sketchy explanation for this sort of stuff. Why? Well, if a full explanation is given, I invariably find myself thinking of some of the stuff "that's a pile of bull-puckey!" I have found, though, that the process:

- Read and remember the basic rules - i.e. the stuff like 'what Phasing does in the rules', not all the "game elements" like monsters, classes and so on; the Rules Compendium, basically.

- Develop concepts and visions in my own mind of what the game-world incarnations of these effects look like.

...works really well. It has the great advantage that everyone can have their own image of what the effects actually look like in the game world - in whatever way works for them. As long as everyone agrees that the mechanical outcomes work as the rules say they do, all the different visions of what it means can work seamlessly together.

 

[DonAdam]

I've been contemplating these sorts of questions as well. Here are a few thoughts I've had.

The relatively little things:

Flatten Ability Scores: I mean two things by this. First, secondary stats could be less important. This would make more multiclassing options viable, instead of only those that overlap with a primary or secondary stat. Second, one could lower ability scores overall. There is a boring sameness in the number of two-18 1st level characters. Moreover, increases in abilities over levels create all sorts of math problems (masterwork armor, sagging NADs, etc.). So just scrap 'em.

Spaces: 1 yard/meter hexes.

Simplify the Math: Bake all the bonuses to attack, damage, and defense or core roles abilities into the shared or class progression. Magic items don't need to scale; a +1 (or +2) should remain relevant at all levels.

Essentials Warlord: I want one!

Feat Add Breadth, Not Depth: Feats shouldn't add bonuses unless they're designed to make a subpar build viable (e.g., quarterstaff users). I would like to see more feats that unlock new ('trained-only') uses for skills, and ones that increase non-combat effectiveness. Fewer feats might make sense too.

Utility Powers: Should almost always have non-combat uses. They're called utility powers.



The bigger/more controversial things (I expect):

Bring Back Exploration: Find a way to make traps, shorter fights, etc. really matter. Not just setpiece battles. Dungeon delves are boring in comparison to genuine dungeon crawls.

More Monster Immunities: Every power need not be useful in every fight, especially if fights are shorter.

Distinguish Power Sources: I really like that Essential martial characters don't have daily powers. What if every power source had a different structure for AEDU? Arcane characters might lack encounter powers and have more dailies. Primal characters might not have magical at-wills. The content of powers could also speak to power source (e.g., maybe warlords give temporary hp instead of healing or can only restore hp to characters that aren't bloodied, etc.).

Less At-Will Magic: I like the mixed power source classes that showed up later, with martial at-wills and magic-sauce encounters and/or dailies. I don't need a barbarian that's magical every round. Make more use of subclasses. An Avenger could be a Slayer that gives up some static bonuses for Daily Oath of Enmity powers. I don't need to swear a new Oath of Enmity multiple times every fight.

Fewer Powers per Character: Two dimensions to this. First, cutting down on the giant number of powers that each character has as they level up would speed up play and make encounters more varied (rather than a set checklist of powers for each character). Second, finding a way to eliminate the powers that are just higher level versions of other powers (e.g., hurricane vs. storm of blades) would help eliminate bloat.

Fewer Levels, More Tiers: I don't need 10 levels per tier. Give me 20 levels, made of 4 5-level tiers.

 

[C4]

What's wrong with SW?

The rule I use now (SW is a Move action) is better than RAW, but not really elegant. Ideally, move actions should be only for moving. Also, I'm not a fan of that +2 until-start-of-next turn bonus.

On the topic of rituals, I must admit that I've never personally felt there's any problem with them. They're infrequently used, and I think that's always been the intent. But I've seen enough people complain that I can't help but consider the various 'fixes' I've seen. In addition to Balesir's I've seen it suggested that if 4e had a WBL chart that DMs regularly compared PC assets to, rituals would see more use because players would feel confident in recouping their spent gold.

What I'd rather see, in this case, is a discussion in the core rules about *what exactly* phasing means / looks like in a narrative sense. Even listing a couple possibilities would be better than nothing. Instead 4e seems to start with mechanics and rely on that to craft narrative.

I must admit I don't know how phasing works off the top of my head. What I do with rules like this is come up with my own explanation that covers all, or at least a majority of cases. For example, 'incorporeal' isn't really incorporeal; it's a quasi-solid state, which is why ghosts and such can be injured. I wouldn't be opposed to slipping in a few explanations about these kind of things. (Also the healing surge thing.)

Flatten Ability Scores: I mean two things by this. First, secondary stats could be less important. This would make more multiclassing options viable, instead of only those that overlap with a primary or secondary stat. Second, one could lower ability scores overall. There is a boring sameness in the number of two-18 1st level characters. Moreover, increases in abilities over levels create all sorts of math problems (masterwork armor, sagging NADs, etc.). So just scrap 'em.

I'm with you on this one. Ability boosts are more trouble than they're worth.

 

[C4]

Also, on the topic of 4e item 'lameness'...do people feel this way because they're not all that powerful, or because they're not quirky? (Like talking swords, and hammers that get extra bonuses in the hands of a dwarf, etc.)

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.

I'm all over this one. Not necessarily for all the reasons you mention, but because it's a whole lot easier for me!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On the topic of rituals, I must admit that I've never personally felt there's any problem with them. They're infrequently used, and I think that's always been the intent.

The problem that I personally perceive is that their cost to learn & use is not neccessarily in synch with their actual utility...not just versus other magic, but also Ritual vs Ritual. The seems to be some inconsistency in the cost/benefit of Rituals.

 

[Sunseeker]

The problem that I personally perceive is that their cost to learn & use is not neccessarily in synch with their actual utility...not just versus other magic, but also Ritual vs Ritual. The seems to be some inconsistency in the cost/benefit of Rituals.

I agree that rituals are weirdly priced, but I tended to solve that problem by playing with the difficulty in actually getting one. Not every Ye Olde Magick Shoppe is going to have every ritual, or be capable of obtaining it, and special requests always have strings attached. But this is often the problem with magic anything, the easier it is to obtain, the more difficult balancing it becomes.