D&D 4E New Year, New 4e

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=93857]C4[/MENTION] Yeah, it's less phasing specifically and more the entire design approach. You can see it with powers like "Come and Get It" too, where some mental gymnastics are required to interpret how the power works on, say, a centipede swarm or mindless skeletons. These kinds of issues are all over 4e and I consider them endemic of a design philosophy. On the one hand, it's very liberating and 4e fans like the "mechanics before narrative" philosophy, but if I were to redo 4e it would be one of the areas where I would dial back and seek a better balance.

 

[Manbearcat]

<snip>

powers like "Come and Get It"

<snip>

"mechanics before narrative" philosophy

Do you maybe mean "outcome before (trumps) process" or outcome-based (what is cool, thematic, genre-relevant) design over process-based (granular, causal logic-driven) design philosophy?

 

[Dice4Hire]

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.)


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

C4, please do not change font colors. On the black background, your posts cannot be read.

 

[Quickleaf]

Do you maybe mean "outcome before (trumps) process" or outcome-based (what is cool, thematic, genre-relevant) design over process-based (granular, causal logic-driven) design philosophy?

Unfortunately, I don't follow all that jargon

What I mean is 4e presents abilities with insufficient explanation. Phasing and "Come and Get It" being prime examples. How do I adjudicate a fighter using "Come and Get It" on a centipede swarm? I have no idea. Neither does my player. Now we are firmly in a gray area of the rules...do I prevent the player from using this power or do I ignore the behavior of a swarm and just run with it. Normally I will do the latter, but the fact that we need to pause and sort these things out I consider to be a mark against the game.

A couple solutions for "Come and Get It" might be:
* For powers which had sticking points in the playtest include sidebars explaining hot to adjudicate outlying scenarios
* Give certain creatures no Will scores, thus making them immune to all powers targeting Will
* Design all powers to be versatile like the Essentials Hunter, wheree the player selects from a list of effects (and make it explicit that the DM can forbid a certain effect if the scenario calls for it)
* Provide a "swappable effects/conditions" list, so that when a certain effect/condition doesn't make sense, the DM and player have some ready-to-go replacements of equivalent power

Does that make sense?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My responses are in italics, and I think you'll find that many 4e lovers will feel the same.

edit: forgot that quotes are in italics.

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


The bigger/more controversial things (I expect):

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

-Deal breaker, if this ends up looking like 3.5, where sneak attack can't be used against undead, constructs or oozes. Basically, if central class features don't work against broad monster types, this is unacceptable.

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.).

-Another potential deal breaker. Especially the warlord examples. This idea reads like a how to for making the game run less well.

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.

-The Avenger is one of the coolest classes in the game, and part of that is exactly that it is it's own thing, whose combat skill is literally guided by his or her faith (wis weapon attacks), and a hyper focus on whichever enemy is his or her target. Oath is already restricted enough, thanks. I can support the existence of non magical at will options, but don't you dare take away my semi magical barbarian at wills.

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.

-Could work if the powers being replaced are instead just upgraded, but there should also be higher level options that can replace older powers. Also, the choice to replace powers with new ones should happen more often.

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

-I do.

Something this made me think of: I want either more at-will powers, or for at-will powers to have more varied effects, (more powers that have three effects to choose from, for instance) or both.

I'd be fine with most classes that mix magic and non magical skill having both magical and non magical powers of each category to choose from, so the player can dial up or down the amount of magic their character uses, but not with getting rid of the magical at-wills from the class.

 

[C4]

My computer is fraking with my fonts, and apparently colors, so I'll repeat this question for those who didn't see it: On the topic of 'lame' magical items, why do people feel this way? Is it because 4e items aren't all that powerful, or is it because they're not quirky? (Talking swords, dwarven hammers, etc.)

I don't want this thread turning into a lot of bickering and noise, so let me talk a little about the Come and Get It issue, the AEDU structure, and other controversial topics. I'm very much a fan of original 4e design philosophies:

I don't have much problem with 'martial' characters creating strange effects; I'll probably be renaming it the Ki power source or some such, because that's more or less how I think of it already. That said, I don't plan on writing huge power lists -- even for entire power sources -- and stuff like Come and Get It probably won't make the cut. I will however present a set of guidelines for players and DMs to create their own powers, in whatever variety of zaniness they choose. Kind of like how players and DMs used to collaborate on spell research.

I will never write a class feature that's useless against a wide swath of monsters. (Sneak attack vs. undead/construct/no anatomy.) I will never write an essentials-style class, though a variant rule for allowing players to fiddle with the AEDU dials wouldn't be too hard. (Including, of course, an explanation as to how it will effect character balance.)

 

[n00bdragon]

Unfortunately, I don't follow all that jargon

What I mean is 4e presents abilities with insufficient explanation. Phasing and "Come and Get It" being prime examples. How do I adjudicate a fighter using "Come and Get It" on a centipede swarm? I have no idea. Neither does my player. Now we are firmly in a gray area of the rules...do I prevent the player from using this power or do I ignore the behavior of a swarm and just run with it. Normally I will do the latter, but the fact that we need to pause and sort these things out I consider to be a mark against the game.

A couple solutions for "Come and Get It" might be:
* For powers which had sticking points in the playtest include sidebars explaining hot to adjudicate outlying scenarios
* Give certain creatures no Will scores, thus making them immune to all powers targeting Will
* Design all powers to be versatile like the Essentials Hunter, wheree the player selects from a list of effects (and make it explicit that the DM can forbid a certain effect if the scenario calls for it)
* Provide a "swappable effects/conditions" list, so that when a certain effect/condition doesn't make sense, the DM and player have some ready-to-go replacements of equivalent power

Does that make sense?

How are you getting stuck on this? The fighter yells "Come and get it!" or does something similar and the centipedes charge him. Why do the centipedes move without provoking attacks and on the fighters turn and all at once? Because otherwise he couldn't stab them. This is running on action-movie logic here. I think if you look at martial 4e characters as action-movie characters the game will start to make a lot more sense. Realism and simulation take a backseat to the Rule of Cool.

Oh, and before you get your jimmies rustled remember, this is game where magic exists. Magic.

 

[C4]

How are you getting stuck on this?

Dude, I'm with you here, but chill. We don't need a flaming rehash of this debate. Thanks.

 

[Storminator]

My computer is fraking with my fonts, and apparently colors, so I'll repeat this question for those who didn't see it: On the topic of 'lame' magical items, why do people feel this way? Is it because 4e items aren't all that powerful, or is it because they're not quirky? (Talking swords, dwarven hammers, etc.)

I seem to be the one in the thread with the biggest issue with items.

4e items are pretty limited in power, but also in versatility. They work much better as part of a character build. I.e. this weapon, with this feat, with this power in this circumstance is great! The player chooses the feat and the power and looks for the circumstance, but it all falls apart if I, the DM, chose to give him the wrong weapon. So I either give him the weapon he would have chosen anyway, force him start remaking his character to use the weapon I gave him, or simply let him "buy" (directly or thru any of a million DM tricks) the weapon he wants.

4e items are too weak in power (I gave a 6th level PC a 27th level item once because it didn't seem overpowered and gave him the effect I felt he deserved), the powers they have aren't interesting enough, and the items aren't broadly useful for a number of different character builds.

PS

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On the topic of 'lame' magical items, why do people feel this way? Is it because 4e items aren't all that powerful, or is it because they're not quirky? (Talking swords, dwarven hammers, etc.)

Quirkiness is part of it.

But, to me, 4Ed magic items seem to be in exactly the reverse to magic items in earlier editions as 4Ed casters are to those in previous editions.

To explain: Casters in prior editions had to ration out their spells because they had only limited uses per day. 4Ed casters all have at-wills, so they're always dong something magical. The items are somewhat the reverse- items in prior editions tended to have important continuous or long-term effects, whereas 4Ed items tend to have small continuous/important effects, with an occasional "Wow!" moment. In some ways, this lack of dependability makes them seem less magical.