Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rechan" data-source="post: 5655369" data-attributes="member: 54846">I love 4e but I dislike several elements of it. Such as The Math, Class design, and various things like magical items.Let's take The Math. They had to add in Expertise feats just to make it work. They made magical items necessary so The Math worked. That should never have happened. It should have been seamless, without needing feat tax patches and heavy reliance on equipment just to break even - those should have been, at least, additional layers on top of the fundamental framework that could have gone. A 20th level fighter with armed with a garbage can lid and a crowbar should be able to take on a dragon. Removing the necessity of magical items allows them to become COOL, Unique, and Rare, rather   than "+1 sword that does +d6 fire damage on a daily". I'd be happy if   folks only had 1-3 magical items their entire career - and clung to   them. Magical items are not in the economy. On that math topic, I dislike how your class/build hangs  so important on a primary ability score, and that ability score needs to  be huge. This makes multi-classing out of your primary score a pain, and gives huge incentive to play a race with the boost to that  primary score, as well as having low stats except for your  primary/secondary score or else "the maths" doesn't work. This leads to weird combinations of class/race that have no in-world reasoning but work due to Math (see: Halfling Chaos and Storm sorcerers - that just doesn't jive with their racial fluff).  D&D will always be a game with classes. But I think the class system needs a Change. That change might move towards a more modular idea of class - not freeform like GURPs, but permitting a plug-and-play notion.The thing that makes a class most distinct, to me, is the class features. In 3e that was the stuff on the right hand side of the class's advancement chart. In 4e, it's less the powers, and more the features they get, the 'build' that you choose on character creation. The problem with both of these is that it's also very stifling. It wasn't until Martial Power 2 where we got a Warlord who could do his thing with a bow. It takes WotC a year to make more classes (or more builds for the same class). It would be easier if they just created more class features.This is true within a class (different fighter variants) and between classes (the fighter vs. paladin vs. swordmage's marking effects). What I think is that they should detach the class feature package, so you can for instance play a Rogue but pick up the Assassin's 'wait several rounds and then make a single decisive strike' trick, as opposed to the sneak attack trick. This would be fixed so you can't just grab ANY class feature package, but choose from within a menu.Next, tie combat powers/class features to the Combat Role, but create a    separate Out of Combat Role and tie skills to that. Something like    'Scholar' 'Tracker' 'Sneak' 'Socialite' 'Tough Guy' 'Athlete'. Each of    these comes with a package of skills. This way, your Fighter is a    Defender, but he can also be a Scholar (and have knowledge skills rather    than physical ones), a Cleric can be a Sneak (stealthy and thiefy)  and  a  Wizard can be a socialite (with social skills instead of  knowledge). The Non-Combat role should come with powers which are of  course, for out-of-combat. Your Charm Person would be an example.Therefore Class becomes: Class Feature + Combat Role + Non-Combat Role. You have a lot of potential combinations. People complained that for instance, all Strikers or Controllers felt alike. Well now you're picking a non-combat role, and a class feature of your choice, and various powers that emphasize what you want. It would need to be finagled so that you can't get the best of all options, but it's a step in a more "I can build any character" direction. Themes are a great example of this. It's a layer you can plug and play on any character.I almost want to see the system look like lego blocks; you can plug a   piece in or leave it out, and it doesn't effect the Game's functionality. Leaving the economy out, leaving magical weapons out, or leaving   COMBAT OUT is purely OK - you can assemble and run a game without one of   the other parts. This way the game doesn't have to run one specific way, because you can add or leave out the subsystems as you see fit. On the topic of subsystems:Abstract the economy and integrate favors, boons, resources (Keeps et al) as part of it. I think those alt. reward powers from the DMG2 should be expanded on. Revitalize skill challenges; they don't go far enough. Instead, model them after combat, with various options.  For instance social combat (whittling away resolve/putting conditions)  instead of just "Bluff/intimidate/diplomacy vs. DC".One last thing I'd love to see is, from the get-go, having easier ways to implement or instruct how to make <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/241614-creative-combat-objectives-other-than-kill-em-all.html" target="_blank">objective-based encounters</a> that work. Oh. And the designers figuring out what is going on, what works, before a year after the game's been published.Those are my big desires. Fiddly bits like conditions/marks, the way Solos end up getting nuked by round 3, the breaking down of high levels, etc etc, that sort of thing is really small potatoes. I'm more interested in the groundwork.From <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274027-where-do-you-see-want-5-0-go.html#post5132667" target="_blank">the last time</a> we had this discussion.</blockquote>

Verification