D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[pemerton]

As a general question what things from 4e would you (general you) have liked to have seen improved, explored more in depth, or expanded?

I'll focus my comments on PC building.

A pretty easy thing to do would be to have more scaling powers, thereby reducing bloat and making options clearer. CaGI/Warrior's Urging is the obvious poster child for this, but it's not the only one.

The next step would be to adopt a more "Essentials" approach to certain classes and their powers - ie group availability under some larger headings. I think some utility powers might particularly lend themselves to this - and perhaps some rogue utility powers should really be skill powers.

This requires some relabelling of options, but nothing fundamental.

The fundamental change I would make in PC building, but it would be very dramatic, is to drop stat as a component of attack. (Leave it damage only.) All attacks could then be put on a uniform base. You could build enhancement bonuses for items into this too (so, again, they would contribute only to damage), and expertise feat bonuses.

The final step in this process would be to bring attack bonuses and skill bonuses into rough alignment, so that the combat and non-combat systems integrate more smoothly (which they clearly fail to do by the upper levels of Heroic - MV had to change the grapple escape DCs in recognition of this!).

Cleaning out redundant feats and systematising magic items would be obvious housekeeping as part of this project, but sorting out the maths would be at the heart of it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'll focus my comments on PC building.

A pretty easy thing to do would be to have more scaling powers, thereby reducing bloat and making options clearer. CaGI/Warrior's Urging is the obvious poster child for this, but it's not the only one.

The next step would be to adopt a more "Essentials" approach to certain classes and their powers - ie group availability under some larger headings. I think some utility powers might particularly lend themselves to this - and perhaps some rogue utility powers should really be skill powers.

This requires some relabelling of options, but nothing fundamental.

The fundamental change I would make in PC building, but it would be very dramatic, is to drop stat as a component of attack. (Leave it damage only.) All attacks could then be put on a uniform base. You could build enhancement bonuses for items into this too (so, again, they would contribute only to damage), and expertise feat bonuses.

The final step in this process would be to bring attack bonuses and skill bonuses into rough alignment, so that the combat and non-combat systems integrate more smoothly (which they clearly fail to do by the upper levels of Heroic - MV had to change the grapple escape DCs in recognition of this!).

Cleaning out redundant feats and systematising magic items would be obvious housekeeping as part of this project, but sorting out the maths would be at the heart of it.

My solution was to just treat attacks and skill uses as the same thing. If you are proficient in a weapon, you're trained in it, so proficiency = skill. Now, as to whether training/proficiency gives you +5 or not is another question (and note that this blows away the built-in per-weapon proficiency bonus, you could replace this with an 'accurate' keyword that gives a weapon a +1 to-hit, make it 'when used by a proficient user' if you really want, though it hardly matters). This would bring all the attack and skill math into parity and allow things like using a skill in lieu of a defense or attack feasible.

 

[Imaro]

In AD&D this extended on to many other things, like "no, you're a wizard, a cosmic vortex will open up if you swing a sword!" It was just not an acceptable approach to RPG rules to a lot of us, never has been.

Ok I failed my save... what is the difference between the above and... a cosmic vortex will open up if you perform specific maneuvers more than once in a day? I guess I'm asking why is one acceptable but the other is not for you?

 

[pemerton]

Imagine yourself in a mine with some equipment, you could probably determine if a passage sloped, maybe not with great reliability, but you'd have a CHANCE of it

In AD&D we're often talking about passages dropping a dungeon level (say, 15 to 20') in distances of fewer than 40 10' squares (given the typical size of a sheet of graph paper, or of a module cover). Which is to say, inclines of 1/20 or steeper.

Imagine a large-ish room in a house (ie 20' long) in which the floor drops 1' from one end to the other. I think I would definitely have a chance of at least noticing that, even though I'm not a dwarf (nor a gnome or halfling)!

 

[pemerton]

My solution was to just treat attacks and skill uses as the same thing. If you are proficient in a weapon, you're trained in it, so proficiency = skill. Now, as to whether training/proficiency gives you +5 or not is another question (and note that this blows away the built-in per-weapon proficiency bonus, you could replace this with an 'accurate' keyword that gives a weapon a +1 to-hit, make it 'when used by a proficient user' if you really want, though it hardly matters). This would bring all the attack and skill math into parity and allow things like using a skill in lieu of a defense or attack feasible.

You'd have to adjust the defence maths, presumably?

(Also - yes, you would want to have "accurate" weapons.)

The biggest issue I see for this is that non-proficient attacks, which would include unarmed attacks, would be noticeably worse than they are currently (at least if you stick to any decent proficiency/training bonus).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok I failed my save... what is the difference between the above and... a cosmic vortex will open up if you perform specific maneuvers more than once in a day? I guess I'm asking why is one acceptable but the other is not for you?

Well, first of all you are getting to do the thing, and its a LOT less obvious and big a thing than "entire classes of everyday objects simply cannot be utilized by certain people". Its a fairly large thing, whereas "the fighter only manages to pull off 'Come and Get It' once a day" is a bit less egregious wouldn't you think? There are many explanations for it, its a hard thing to do, you get tired, you just don't find that many opportunities to do it, etc. It really doesn't come up that often, and if its any sort of power that isn't purely a mundane exercise of skill and prowess then no explanation is required.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You'd have to adjust the defence maths, presumably?

(Also - yes, you would want to have "accurate" weapons.)

The biggest issue I see for this is that non-proficient attacks, which would include unarmed attacks, would be noticeably worse than they are currently (at least if you stick to any decent proficiency/training bonus).

Correct on both counts. My hack fixes both issues, by (at least potentially) making training/proficiency worth 3 instead of 5. That does pretty much mandate a 'focus' be available to get the +5 again if you really want, and then you have the good old 'Taxpertise' problem, but it can be mitigated by giving people focus in a weapon to start with. Perhaps only fighters get this, in lieu of the current +1 they get from their class feature. As for defense, just get rid of AC entirely. For one thing, it doesn't vary enough to worry about, and its an awkward thing to deal with. Just give armor a small DR value. People will still wear it, but it will be less super critical. Melee attacks can target fort, maybe some target ref, ranged attacks can target ref, and maybe the odd martial attack goes for will, but not many.

It all works fairly well, and I don't actually think there's any great need or justification for accurate weapons, though its certainly an option that is easy to add. Frankly I've removed all but the most basic differentiations from weapons so that they can return to their ur-design of being mostly color plus a little bit of situational differentiation (IE you can set a spear, or throw it, you can actively defend with a sword/rapier, you can use a dagger even when constrained, you can make a super mighty chop with a battleaxe, etc. If you cut back to the really significant weapon variations instead of having a dozen shades of sword, etc then it all actually works quite well. You don't even need to have different sized damage dice. In fact I've been contemplating moving the weapon damage dice to class as an attribute. My thinking is that I can greatly loosen up the sorts of things characters can select, but not many fighters will hanker for spells or items that make magical attacks when they're dishing d10's with their weapon attacks and d4's with Magic Missile.

 

[Imaro]

Well, first of all you are getting to do the thing, and its a LOT less obvious and big a thing than "entire classes of everyday objects simply cannot be utilized by certain people". Its a fairly large thing, whereas "the fighter only manages to pull off 'Come and Get It' once a day" is a bit less egregious wouldn't you think? There are many explanations for it, its a hard thing to do, you get tired, you just don't find that many opportunities to do it, etc. It really doesn't come up that often, and if its any sort of power that isn't purely a mundane exercise of skill and prowess then no explanation is required.

Yeah but you could, if you wanted to, come up with justification for wizards not using swords... I'm not really seeing a difference here... maybe in scope but the fundamental idea of being restricted from doing something...just because is present in both instances.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah but you could, if you wanted to, come up with justification for wizards not using swords... I'm not really seeing a difference here... maybe in scope but the fundamental idea of being restricted from doing something...just because is present in both instances.

Name three. Name three justifications for wizards not being able to pick up a sword and use it. Note, I didn't say use it well, or even with proficiency. But, being able to use it at all. After all, a wizard can use a dagger. A dagger is about 6 inches long. A short short sword is 7 inches long. One inch makes that much of a difference?

Or, why can't a wizard use armour and cast spells that have no somatic component? There are several in all editions of D&D.

Or why can't a cleric use a sword?

Why does picking up a fifth magic weapon make my paladin stop being a paladin?

These are all 100% gamist elements. Which, true, is why you can't use daily powers more often as well. But, the difference being, you CAN use daily elements once a day each. Outside of the five out of three HUNDRED martial powers in the PHB, all of them are completely tied to the fiction and easily narrated. You can't Crack the Shell (Fighter daily) more than once per day, because the opportunity just doesn't come up that often - any more than you can guarantee that you will critical hit when you want to. The only difference is, in 4e, it grants the player the option of declaring a given attack to be a critical hit.

 

[Imaro]

Name three. Name three justifications for wizards not being able to pick up a sword and use it. Note, I didn't say use it well, or even with proficiency. But, being able to use it at all. After all, a wizard can use a dagger. A dagger is about 6 inches long. A short short sword is 7 inches long. One inch makes that much of a difference?

Or, why can't a wizard use armour and cast spells that have no somatic component? There are several in all editions of D&D.

Or why can't a cleric use a sword?

Why does picking up a fifth magic weapon make my paladin stop being a paladin?

These are all 100% gamist elements. Which, true, is why you can't use daily powers more often as well. But, the difference being, you CAN use daily elements once a day each. Outside of the five out of three HUNDRED martial powers in the PHB, all of them are completely tied to the fiction and easily narrated. You can't Crack the Shell (Fighter daily) more than once per day, because the opportunity just doesn't come up that often - any more than you can guarantee that you will critical hit when you want to. The only difference is, in 4e, it grants the player the option of declaring a given attack to be a critical hit.

So again it's scope... which, at least according to some of the arguments I've seen you posit is incoherent on the part of [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]... correct? If not why not? I mean why does a wizard not being able to use a sword bother him but a maneuver only ever useable 1x per day by a skilled and trained warrior (sometimes mythological in his prowess) doesn't? The original point was that he didn't like being told he couldn't do something for gamist reasons... you've already acknowledged these are both instances of gamist restrictions with nothing to differentiate them except scope... so why isn't this incoherent?