Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts

[Neonchameleon]

A question: is it good that the secondary effect is always a benefit? Should there be instances where the secondary effect might be less than advantageous, to further add to the element of choice/risk?

A question: Why do you think the secondary effect is always a benefit? To name two of my favourite PCs:

The first was a Malediction Invoker. She spent more of the fight dazed as a backlash of her own spells than she did undazed (and would routinely cast more magic than her body could take, hurting her).

The second was a Bravura Warlord who dived into combat almost heedlessly. One common secondary effect of his powers was to offer the enemy free attacks on him.

Maybe I can get the ball rolling by offering more specific examples:

Does any one like the 4th edition death and dying mechanics?

No. But I don't like any D&D death and dying mechanics.

Does any one like healing as a minor action?

If you are going to have healing in combat yes. Having to give up all your actions to just heal someone in combat is annoying. And is why the Cleric was often disliked in AD&D - and overpowered in 3E. Of course you could just take the idea of healing in combat outside and shoot it and I wouldn't object.

Does any one like some of the newer innovations, such as themes, both those currently presented, or others that might be developed, such as blacksmith, performer, or royalty?

Yes. They seem pretty popular - separating your approach to the world and focus (your class) from your social role or background (your theme).

 

[Tuft]

If you are going to have healing in combat yes. Having to give up all your actions to just heal someone in combat is annoying. And is why the Cleric was often disliked in AD&D - and overpowered in 3E. Of course you could just take the idea of healing in combat outside and shoot it and I wouldn't object.

I played a pixie sorceress in a 3E campaign. We did the Savage Tide campaign arc from 1-20 at half recommended XP + lots of additional side adventures. (I was one of those that clamored at the DM to give us less and less XP for each adventure - we did not want the campaign to end...) She had picked up a few healing spells, partially by some house-rule feats and partially by being where persuasive at magic items, and some of the most fun in-combat moments were flying full-tilt straight across the battlefield to apply some crucial healing. This tended to result in that you ended up next to the very monster that necessitated the healing in the first place, which was especially nail-biting with low HD, not much Con bonus, and an ECL modifier...

There was especially the time where our fighter had been mind-controlled and was on the way back into the previous room, which would anger the high-level undead demons we had just negotiate safe passage from, not to mention that the fight would probably be a loss without him. Just managing to reach him with that so needed Panacea... Brings a warm feeling in my heart and a nostalgic smile to my lips just writing this.

Compared to this, playing a Bard lvl 1-26 in 4E was a pure snooze-fest, especially as (A) the others preferred triggering their own surges through magic items rather than wait for me, (B) you did not have to maneuver to provide it, and (C) you needed healing less and less as the levels progressed. I barely had to give out any healing at all at levels 20-26. It was all very non-dramatic, and well, dull.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I played a pixie sorceress in a 3E campaign. We did the Savage Tide campaign arc from 1-20 at half recommended XP + lots of additional side adventures. (I was one of those that clamored at the DM to give us less and less XP for each adventure - we did not want the campaign to end...) She had picked up a few healing spells, partially by some house-rule feats and partially by being where persuasive at magic items, and some of the most fun in-combat moments were flying full-tilt straight across the battlefield to apply some crucial healing. This tended to result in that you ended up next to the very monster that necessitated the healing in the first place, which was especially nail-biting with low HD, not much Con bonus, and an ECL modifier...

There was especially the time where our fighter had been mind-controlled and was on the way back into the previous room, which would anger the high-level undead demons we had just negotiate safe passage from, not to mention that the fight would probably be a loss without him. Just managing to reach him with that so needed Panacea... Brings a warm feeling in my heart and a nostalgic smile to my lips just writing this.

Compared to this, playing a Bard lvl 1-26 in 4E was a pure snooze-fest, especially as (A) the others preferred triggering their own surges through magic items rather than wait for me, (B) you did not have to maneuver to provide it, and (C) you needed healing less and less as the levels progressed. I barely had to give out any healing at all at levels 20-26. It was all very non-dramatic, and well, dull.

The thing is what you describe isn't a healer doing their thing. What you describe is when the regular healing has been blown through and it's all hands to the pumps to rescue a situation from going pear shaped. I've had exactly the satisfaction you describe with using a 4e Invoker to tip a healing potion down the throat of the fallen Warlord (or the Fighter; my invoker did it a few times). When healing isn't so critical it's just tedious.

As for your 4e Bard, that sucks. I take it this was pre-MM3 math. And your DM wasn't biringing the hammer down. Unless it's needed, healing's pointless.

 

[Imaro]

If you are going to have healing in combat yes. Having to give up all your actions to just heal someone in combat is annoying. And is why the Cleric was often disliked in AD&D - and overpowered in 3E. Of course you could just take the idea of healing in combat outside and shoot it and I wouldn't object.

There is another viewpoint... the one where having to choose whether to attack or heal gives meaning to the actual choice... If I can heal and hit... well what's the actual choice here?

 

[Greg K]

Things to salvage from 4E:

The idea of tiers of play. I like how this was structured, and how to style different adventures into different parts of the PCs career.

I would like to see heroic and paragon extended, but without paragon paths

The cosmology. I like the feywild and the shadowfell. I like the Astral Sea (I don't find it incompatible with the older systems).

I knew I left somethings of my list. I like the Feywild. The Shadowfell I don't mind.


I like the elemental chaos after some consideration, tough I still have regions where one region is dominant. And I like the backstory of the god-primordial war and the role of giants, elementals, and demons in the cosmology.

The idea of an action economy - but NOT the implementation. Too many kinds of actions slows down play.

Minions - but implemented differently.

Yep

The idea of at-will magics, spells you never run out of

Agreed

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like 4E. So my stealing runs the other way. I'd like to steal the idea of positioning rules from Burning Wheel and use them in 4E. IMHO, they are a better fit for the 4E model than forced movement.

What I like here is that 4E cares about making characters want to move. I guess this puts me in the like the idea, not the particular implementation camp.

 

[pawsplay]

Does any one like the 4th edition death and dying mechanics?

They're pretty good, at least as good if not better than 3e or any of the optional 3e rules with which I am familiar.

Does any one like action points as presented in 4e?

No.

Does any one like healing as a minor action?

Hate it.

Does any one like some of the newer innovations, such as themes, both those currently presented, or others that might be developed, such as blacksmith, performer, or royalty?

Themes are really good. If they had been presented early on in the development cycle, circa PHBII or so, I'd have had less to criticize about 4e. They create a lot of breadth while presenting few balance problems, and restore a lot of the flavor that tends to be stripped out of 4e's 30 level, lock-step advancement scheme.

 

[pawsplay]

Things to salvage from 4E:

The idea of tiers of play. I like how this was structured, and how to style different adventures into different parts of the PCs career.

While I thik it's generally true, I think hard-coding it into levels is a mistake. What if you want to run a Planescape-centric low level campaign, for instance? I also like more gradual shifts in campaign tone.

The cosmology. I like the feywild and the shadowfell. I like the Astral Sea (I don't find it incompatible with the older systems). I like the elemental chaos after some consideration, tough I still have regions where one region is dominant. And I like the backstory of the god-primordial war and the role of giants, elementals, and demons in the cosmology.

... I'm actually kind of pissed about 4e stealing my ideas about giants and elementals before I could get them into print! Cross Mystara with Talislanta and Disney's Hercules, and it's time to disco. I like the idea of a more dreamlike but also more primordial "fairieland."

The idea of an action economy - but NOT the implementation. Too many kinds of actions slows down play.

Agreed.

The diversification of the elves - elf/eladrin/dark elf. I've taken this further IMC. But I still kept them as one race, just with divergent abilities. The proliferation of races has always been one of DnDs weaknesses - I prefer 20 different orc tribes with different traditions to 20 separate races of evil humanoids. However, this is not a 4E issue.

This is not a bad thing... it worked for Tolkien. But I don't think "teleporting elves" are a serious concept for my favorite flavor of high fantasy. It's a little too Saturday morning for me.

The simplified monster generation - when it works.

See: Basic D&D, Fantasy Craft. Both did it, and did it better. But kudos to 4e for heading in the right direction. Dropping keywords for monsters was a mistake, though.

Minions - but implemented differently. Having them be BOTH harmless and defenseless made them less than terrain.

Yeah, a near-hit there.

The idea of at-will magics, spells you never run out of. But again, the implementation is horrible. Powers with restricted uses should be situational, not all-around more powerful. Running out of them should not mean the game slows down to a pillow fight.

Both like and don't like. I think it fits for a 33-style warlock or even some archetypes of sorcerers, but I don't like it as the default for wizards. I think it takes something away from the Gandalf-Merlin archetype if they go around zotting absolutely everything.

The structuring of various (martial) stunts into powers is interesting and encourages these of stunts. But again the implementation is lacklustre and encourages repetitive gameplay. You may not do the same trick twice in a fight, but instead you do the same trick EVERY fight. This mechanism can be salvaged, but must be rewritten.

I think this idea would have worked better as "let's make martial feats better." None of this "tactical feat" crap; a third tier feat should knock your socks off! See: Pathfinder.

 

[Lanefan]

I think a secondary effect that was a disadvantage would be very interesting. The biggest change that the game has to make in a future edition (at least according to the system I'm developing at the moment) is to go from a binary resolution system to a ternary resolution system. By having three possible results rather than two, you can really get some funky stuff happening (such as what you suggest above). When I've got my system written up, I'll attach an alpha of the rules here at EN World. I've only been working on it for about 6 years.

My only concern might be the slippery slope leading to 4, 5, 6 results from a single action leading to massive overcomplication.

Hit Points
In an ideal system (again speaking from the personal ideal I'm currently forging), hit points represent what they have always meant: the capacity to turn a serious blow into a less serious one, luck, endurance, a handful of scratches that stings but nothing that a kiss won't fix, divine providence, inner strength, the will to keep going. Hit points are readily "restored" with a quick break or rest. The beauty is, that you can also "spend" hit points to do particularly exhausting actions or actions that require a special degree of effort.

Wounds
Real physical damage however is represented by wounds which for example are represented numerically by points of damage - a 10 point wound. Without assistance, a wound heals by 1 point every day - so as to define what a point means. And so healing from a wound is slower than restoration of hit points. If the total number of wounds equals a particular amount, then your character is incapacitated which typically means they can't do very much except feel a stack of pain. If the total number of wounds equals or exceeds a further amount, your character is irrevocably dying. It might take them a little while to go but at this point mundane healing (as well as most kinds of divine healing) cannot work. Great for last dying words and so on. Consciousness is a different effect that does not rely on hit points or wounds.

So far, this is surprisingly close to the fatigue point/body point system we've used for 30 years. The differences: we don't have fatigue points as a spendable resource, nor would I ever want to see this - it feels just a bit too over-the-top for me. Also, consciousness is directly tied to your remaining BP via a die roll. And your "irrevocably dying" doesn't fit; if the character is still alive at all then there's curing that can make it more alive (I'd like it to be different but this is one case where rules trump realism and I can't come up with a fix that works) and I don't even want to think about how that would interact with spells like Death's Door.

Hit Points and Wounds
The thing that makes the whole thing work is the capacity to transfer wound point damage into hit point loss. In this way, a potential wound is instead a fairly harmless scratch that as hit point loss is easily restored. This is something most can readily achieve in combat. There are instances where the capacity to transfer may be denied (typically with critical hits [soft,standard or hard] and "unavoidable" physical damage) although even then, there are a bunch of things that help protect a character from taking a wound even under the worst circumstances.

I don't understand this. In our system with extremely rare exceptions you cannot take BP damage until you have run out of FP; and you hit point total is defined as BP + FP. It seems you have HP and WP operating independently of each other, which if nothing else requires the players to each keep two separate tracks; I know in my game this would prove a headache.

But how do you transfer HP to WP and back in your system?

By well and truly dividing the two, all the silly conundrums that come up in regards to Schrodinger's cat, healing, the "bloodied" condition and so on are instantly negated, including the need for a party to have a divine healer (although a mundane healer outside of combat helps get the troops back in fighting trim). So yeah... that's what I'm doing.

You'll still need a battlefield healer unless you're implying WP cannot be recovered by any means other than rest.

Lan-"Death's Door is the bane of so many death-and-dying systems"-efan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Both like and don't like. I think it fits for a 33-style warlock or even some archetypes of sorcerers, but I don't like it as the default for wizards. I think it takes something away from the Gandalf-Merlin archetype if they go around zotting absolutely everything.

Well, if the At-Wills were not all pure combat spells...

For example, a wizard who was a "specialist" in TK/force effects might have an At-Will that did about as much damage as a punch- 1d4 + Int bonus?- but could also grasp things and move them (treating Int as the Str score) would be just fine both mechanically and thematically. Ditto a DEFENSIVE At-Will...maybe +N to all defenses, increasing as you level.

And/or At-Wills that did almost no damage, or were entirely non-combat related (though unless they had a high "Kewl factor," I wouldn't expect too many players to take those).