D&D 4E Simplifying 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with role specifications. Perhaps each having only one role is too limited, but I did a research about class roles in RPG games first. The result was a nice, detailed list – which I still change every now and then. I think this will help me when creating my game.
But, I would like to say, the Thief/Rogue shouldn’t be just a dirty-fighting variant Fighter. Its core is out-of-combat effectiveness. Actually all “Experts” are like this. I think it’s fine for some classes to be somewhat more limited in combat but with greater skills.

It just never really WORKED. This was a BIG problem in AD&D, where the thief was basically pathetic in combat. Maybe now and then he'd manage some critically useful backstab, but in 99% of the fights he was just dead weight that would have been better as a fighter. The fighter OTOH was pretty good at dealing out some good steady damage, but he couldn't do bugg-all outside of a fight. The magic user was meanwhile rolling in options all over the place.

No matter what situation you were in, half the party was basically dead weight, or at best a poor imitation of a fighter just hoping not to get skewered. IT DID NOT WORK.

Rather in 4e you have a party of equals in combat, and then outside of combat you've got the Rogue with his deftness, stealth, and etc. The fighter had his physical prowess, and various other things, intimidation, survival, whatever. The wizard has knowledge skills and (at the least) some free/cheap rituals. So they can each play a different role in combat, and a different role elsewhere, though OO combat niches are generally far less set in 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, I want everyone to be reasonable everywhere. One character may have less options in combat, but as long as those options are as good as the others, it should be fine.

I don't like 1 role per class because I want class to mean something in the world. I want to be able to see a character and say "that's a wizard".

I think each class should handle combat differently, and have some unique mechanic to how they do things.

Barbarians rage: this offers some kind of trade off. Do I give in and rage now? Or do I hold onto my senses and wait?

Bards: inspiration, boosts allies capability while still doing their own actions. Could be protective or offensive.

Cleric: channel divinity offers limited dual role/classing. War cleric is kind of like a fighter, sun cleric is kind of a wizard.

Druid: wildshape allows Druids to change their role on the fly.

Fighter: master of martial combat, they have more maneuvers than other warriors.

Monk: my thought is stances to dance in and out of, allowing them to play with a flow of abilities.

Paladin: divine challenge, the paladin excels a fighting a single opponent (whether it is to lock them down from hurting others, or to kill them faster).

Ranger: rangers fight in tandem with their pets, controlling two units as one (for those that don't want pets, I could see a small bird as a passive, non-unit, pet).

Rogue: rogues fight with trickery, going after vulnerable targets. I'd love to see rogues have to spend actions setting up devastating attacks or setting up their allies (for lazylords).

Sorcerer: becoming more and more like your bloodline, sorcerers will have lots of unique magical abilities at will, more so than a wizard's cantrips.

Warlocks: curse, maybe allowing one curse per round, slowly debilitating everyone. Ultimate in multi targeting?

Wizard: master of arcane, simply more spells than everyone else.

Something like this changes up playstyles for each class. A leader fighter (warlord) is going to be different from a leader rogue (noble?) or a leader cleric (healer) or a leader wizard (abjurer?).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But you HAVE to be able to articulate how that works MECHANICALLY. I haven't seen anyone succeed. This has been heavily reinforced in my exercise of actually trying to do it!

 

[Xeviat]

But you HAVE to be able to articulate how that works MECHANICALLY. I haven't seen anyone succeed. This has been heavily reinforced in my exercise of actually trying to do it!

Working on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LostSoul]

The simple answer to making 4E a simple game is to only use page 42.

If you want characters to function differently, you'd need to do something. e.g. x PC deals low damage normally but when another character is at bloodied HP, x deals mod damage. y PC can deal high damage 3 times before resting, but typical damage is low.

I believe there was an article that showed how status effects related to page 42.

 

[Jhaelen]

It just never really WORKED. This was a BIG problem in AD&D, where the thief was basically pathetic in combat.

+1!
Imho, 4e's definition of roles is a stroke of genius, because it just defines _combat_ roles. The system ensures that everyone can make a significant contribution to one of the arguably most important aspects of a typical D&D game. And the skill system and the way skill challenges work is also more open than in any previous edition. Finally, a fighter can have important skills, too!

Using a more general concept of roles never really worked well, at least in D&D. To make it work you need to take an approach that is more typical of a storytelling game. I know that there are quite a few groups that use D&D like that, but to me that's like trying to tighten a screw with a hammer: It's way better to use an RPG system that's been designed for that purpose!

 

[Xeviat]

I believe there was an article that showed how status effects related to page 42.

Oh man, I'll have to comb through my insider account.

I suppose as long as you got 1-4 super 42s and 1-4 mega 42s a day ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pemerton]

The simple answer to making 4E a simple game is to only use page 42.

Throw a grenade, why don't you!

 

[steenan]

Have you seen Strike?

It's a game that hit the sweet spot for me at exactly what the OP is trying to achieve. It has 4e-like tactical combat, but is much lighter mechanically in general, has nearly no numeric pluses and minuses, but at the same time has as much (if no more) depth than 4e.

It also splits class (the main source of combat powers), background, tactical role (striker, blaster, defender etc.) and story role (here called "kit": the naive protagonist, the wise mentor, the smart guy etc.). You may mix and match them any way you want, so you may have, for example, a wandering (abilities that focus on travel and knowing places) martial artist who acts as a blaster (many multi-target attacks and crowd control) or a heroic (heart of the team, maturing zero-to-hero) martial artist defender (powers that block enemy movement and pull aggro).

Definitely worth taking a look.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The simple answer to making 4E a simple game is to only use page 42.

If you want characters to function differently, you'd need to do something. e.g. x PC deals low damage normally but when another character is at bloodied HP, x deals mod damage. y PC can deal high damage 3 times before resting, but typical damage is low.

I believe there was an article that showed how status effects related to page 42.

Right, that's your basic core system. Feats and powers just kind of layer on top of that. You could forget about those and use basically 5e-like classes with nothing but class features (and whatever sort of magic system).

You could build your magic system around "you can do these other special effects that nobody else can", perhaps tie character's 'specials' into plot coupons or an expanded HS system. My own hack uses a much expanded 'Vitality Point' concept where you can pay to recharge powers. They also subsume action points into one resource. It works well, but I have retained powers. Frankly I find them to be much more convenient than the large number of class features you need in order to achieve reasonable distinction.

Obviously you could also choose a 2e-esque design in which each class is highly constrained in its options, gaining only specific 'skills', use of specific weapons, armor, and magic items, etc. This gives you strong, distinct, classes, but at the cost of a completely different resource system and largely variant rules for each class. There's little of the more modern ability to mix and match class options together like 3e/4e/5e MCing. 2e can't even really present a unified list of feats, the classes are just too different.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Have you seen Strike?

It's a game that hit the sweet spot for me at exactly what the OP is trying to achieve. It has 4e-like tactical combat, but is much lighter mechanically in general, has nearly no numeric pluses and minuses, but at the same time has as much (if no more) depth than 4e.

It also splits class (the main source of combat powers), background, tactical role (striker, blaster, defender etc.) and story role (here called "kit": the naive protagonist, the wise mentor, the smart guy etc.). You may mix and match them any way you want, so you may have, for example, a wandering (abilities that focus on travel and knowing places) martial artist who acts as a blaster (many multi-target attacks and crowd control) or a heroic (heart of the team, maturing zero-to-hero) martial artist defender (powers that block enemy movement and pull aggro).

Definitely worth taking a look.

I really wasn't sold on the pluggable combat roles. In many ways it IS a nice design. However, its not necessary to go that far afield from 4e mechanics to achieve what they achieved. In my own hack there are NO non-static bonuses whatsoever. You either get advantage or disadvantage (ala 5e). Anything that doesn't qualify as being significant enough for one or the other is simply ignored. I removed almost all durations, everything either lasts to the end of the encounter, or it ends at the end of the target's next turn. No saves, no ongoing effects, nothing. This WORKS, it works WELL, combat encounters are significantly streamlined in terms of mental engagement with the rules systems and the processing of game turns. This leaves more room for true tactical thinking and narrative play. It also has a modest effect on shortening encounter play times, particularly in situations where the opposition (or I suppose the party for that matter) is mostly outclassed in combat terms. I also included morale as an explicit mechanic, which shows a good potential to end time-wasting scenarios more quickly (you could of course eyeball that in 4e, but actually stating it as a mechanic seems to be pleasing to the players, they don't feel so much like encounters are 'staged' affairs).