Removing homogenity from 4e

[TheNovaLord]

If this is actually what the OP and others mean by homogeneity, this discussion was doomed from the get-go.

The above is not an accurate depiction of how 4th Edition gameplay works.

It is a slanted, piecemeal summary designed not to faithfully explain how the system works but rather to make it look like a particular viewpoint has more credence than it actually does.

If you want to improve the game, start by criticizing it honestly.

people seemed to be unsure what the OP meant , i just added a summary of what i thought he meant

i could have been wrong

....ive played a lot of 4e at cons and homeplay

it has quite a bit i like, and quite a bit i dont

for me this balance isnt enough to make it something i want to play anymore

BUT

if this thread comes up with things i can say "oh, good idea" and it make something i wanna play again, then i at least, will have got something out of a thread . i hope it keeps civil and doesnt get mod stomped, like much free speech is regularly beginning to on the forum, before some nice ideas can be gleaned from it

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The thing is, the only way 4E is likely to change is if WotC changes it. There isn't an OGL to allow an alternate take, and the extent of the houserules necessary to do it on a fan based level makes this just as unlikely as WotC changing it.

Since WotC is the most likely source of the change you are discussing, that change could negatively impact those of us happy with the status quo, which brings up the question of the original premise.

 

[NoWayJose]

The thing is, the only way 4E is likely to change is if WotC changes it. There isn't an OGL to allow an alternate take, and the extent of the houserules necessary to do it on a fan based level makes this just as unlikely as WotC changing it.

I'd agree with that. This type of thread ("here is a perceived problem with D&D; let's come up with a houserule for improvement") never goes anywhere. At the end of the day, we aren't being paid to develop and playtest new rulesets and nobody will seriously volunteer their time. Therefore, the thread only survives only as long as people get to argue about whether the perceived problem actually exists or not. Once some consensus is reached, or people agree to disagree, there are a few half-hearted suggestions, and then the thread dies.

Since WotC is the most likely source of the change you are discussing, that change could negatively impact those of us happy with the status quo, which brings up the question of the original premise.

Conversely, for those who are not happy with the status quo, the only way to effect a change is to protest on these and other forums. If these calls for change become prevalent enough, WoTC will pay hopefully attention. It's kind of like democracy that way, and that's a good thing.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

The thing is, the only way 4E is likely to change is if WotC changes it. There isn't an OGL to allow an alternate take, and the extent of the houserules necessary to do it on a fan based level makes this just as unlikely as WotC changing it.

Since WotC is the most likely source of the change you are discussing, that change could negatively impact those of us happy with the status quo, which brings up the question of the original premise.

Maybe the OP just wants it house ruled and will take whatever constructive suggestions come up in a thread like this. In this case, we don't need any blessing from WotC to make it happen. Just discuss some ways to solve it, like Firelance did.

I, for one, would adopt 4E if I had the necessary patience to rework everything I find lacking about it using house rules. I prefer to play other games, but I understand those who like its basic framework enough to try it, and I believe telling those people that their concern comes from not playing enough, or that their discussion won't help in anything is counter-productive.

If I had my way with 4E, I'd bring back non-adventuring skills (things like craft and perform), work into a set of martial classes with no vancian feeling (a bunch of at-will maneuvers and we'd be ready to go), and recreate the different class progressions of pre-4E D&D (with different classes having different features at different levels), but I know none of those work well with the 4E design philosophy, and work against the absolute class balance that they're trying to create (which I don't see as an important feature myself).

I'll keep following this thread, and really hope some neat ideas appear here, so I can't discuss them with my 4E DM.

Cheers,

 

[Rechan]

I, for one, would adopt 4E if I had the necessary patience to rework everything I find lacking about it using house rules.

And therein lies the problem: patience over the time and effort it would take to rework the system itself.

One of the reasons for the homogeneity is because it's hardwired. The complaint for instance of bonuses at every level, same universal bonuses, getting things at the same level, etc - are how the system is balanced. Once you take a hammer to that, then you're going to have a lot of effects.

To give an example, let's just say you don't like the +1/2 level to skills and attacks. Well, now you have to reduce monster defenses by 1/2 level, because that bonus is factored into the math of their defenses. Not to mention that even if you get rid of the +1/2 level, everyone's bonuses are still going to be the same.

Even something as varied as the Psion is really a lot like any other class - they have At Wills, Dailies, and Utilities, gain feats, bonuses, etc at the same speed. The only difference is that their encounter powers are broken into two halves, which you can use each half or put them together.

We're talking about a massive re-write of the system to satisfy the OP.

To put it to scope, it's like someone going into the 3e board and saying, "I don't like 3e's system of magic. How do you make an entirely different system of magic from scratch, integrate it into the system, and make it distinct for each spellcasting class?" and expecting it to be a snap. Because now you're breaking the spells that monsters use for SLAs, you're breaking the defensive spells used for combating monster effects (or god forbid, healing), you're going to have to address a huge chunk of the PHB (the Spells chapter) and how each class uses magic. Not to mention effected encounter design, because there's an assumed expectation of buffs and counter-measures against monster powers.

 

[Remathilis]

How to alleviate sameyness (the re-write approach).

You have two elements to a typical 4e character: power source and role. Role already plays a major part in defining your character, but power source is generally fluff (having less an effect on character mechanics). Lets make powersource define your rate of advancment.

MARTIAL: More at-wills and encounter powers, less dailies.
ARCANE: More at-wills and dailies, few encounter powers.
DIVINE: Few At-wills, more encounter powers & dailies
PRIMAL: Leave as is. Focus on dailies being shapechanging powers and having higher HP than other classes in a role.
PSIONIC: No encounter powers, power points augment at-wills.
SHADOW: No Daily powers, but a BOATLOAD of Encounters that can "chain" to form daily-like powers.
ELEMENTAL: Use current system, but focus on summoning/animal control powers so that Elemental PCs usually work through intermediates (think Beastmaster ranger or shaman).

Role would not only define hp/healing surges, but grant an overall bonus to attack, defenses, etc.

Classes get "unique" abilities as they advance. For an example, look at a barbarian's "rage strike" which is gained at 5th level (and so far is the only class feature not gained at first). Additional abilities could include non-combat abilities (like detect evil, channel divinities, or evasion) or specific at-wills, encounter, daily or utility powers that are a bit more powerful than a typical at-levels to augment the "loss of choice" at that level.

Give ability scores more to do (Int granting skills or languages, etc) to give PCs a requirement to diversify beyond Primary/Secondary/Tertiary/Con/Dump/Dump.

Use the Defenses mechanism to determine saves. The current "50/50" save roll is broken (orb-wizard, solos, etc)

Get rid of the "feat-tax" feats (Weapon/Implement/Focused Expertise, Paragon/Might Defenses, Melee Weapon Training) and give feats a bit more versatility (something the XX Power books started). Most of these feats could be built back into the "defenders have a faster base attack" mechanic mentioned above.

Give monsters more than 1-2 at-wills and 3-5 encounters. Esp true of "NPC" monsters, elites and solos. Anything to avoid "grindspace".

I doubt any of that will happen but they are my humble suggestions on what 4e needs to fix to make it truly great IMHO.

 

[Remathilis]

And therein lies the problem: patience over the time and effort it would take to rework the system itself.

One of the reasons for the homogeneity is because it's hardwired. The complaint for instance of bonuses at every level, same universal bonuses, getting things at the same level, etc - are how the system is balanced. Once you take a hammer to that, then you're going to have a lot of effects.

To give an example, let's just say you don't like the +1/2 level to skills and attacks. Well, now you have to reduce monster defenses by 1/2 level, because that bonus is factored into the math of their defenses. Not to mention that even if you get rid of the +1/2 level, everyone's bonuses are still going to be the same.

Even something as varied as the Psion is really a lot like any other class - they have At Wills, Dailies, and Utilities, gain feats, bonuses, etc at the same speed. The only difference is that their encounter powers are broken into two halves, which you can use each half or put them together.

We're talking about a massive re-write of the system to satisfy the OP.

To put it to scope, it's like someone going into the 3e board and saying, "I don't like 3e's system of magic. How do you make an entirely different system of magic from scratch, and make it different for all the spellcasting classes?" and expecting it to be a snap. Because now you're breaking the spells that monsters use for SLAs, you're breaking the defensive spells used for combating monster effects (or god forbid, healing), and you're going to have to address a huge chunk of the PHB (the Spells chapter) and how each class uses magic.

110% agree. Which is why even my humble suggestions are merely smoke. I couldn't re-write 4e to fit my tastes, nor would I want to. Sadly, I find myself no longer wanting to play the latest iteration of my favorite game.

 

[Rechan]

Sadly, I find myself no longer wanting to play the latest iteration of my favorite game.

To which I say "So?"

Just because it's the NEW version doesn't mean you have to like or play it. There are a ton of retro clones or d20 variants out there.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Its also indicative of the shallow approach to the game those of us who have disagreed with the OP have described.

"You're doing it wrong" is not useful advice. How would you fix the problem?

I still say that finding and discussing a game you do want to play is healthier than discussing how to change an existing game many are satisfied with to serve you.

Fixing the game so you have more fun (customization) has been part of D&D since Day 1.

Since WotC is the most likely source of the change you are discussing, that change could negatively impact those of us happy with the status quo, which brings up the question of the original premise.

Hey, if the game changed, you could just customize it yourself or go find another game, right? Maybe more people would be happier with something other than the status quo, even!

To which I say "So?"

Man, if you don't want to see discussion about D&D, I'm not sure why you're at ENWorld.

 

[Rechan]

Man, if you don't want to see discussion about D&D, I'm not sure why you're at ENWorld.

The key phrase is "the latest iteration".

Just because he doesn't like 4e doesn't mean he can't enjoy the earlier editions of his favorite game. If I don't get a PS3, I can still play my PS2, and I can still talk to people who like talking about video games about my PS2 games.