• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

So, in an attempt to actually talk about 4E design, asking this question specifically to folks who actually enjoyed the system:
In a hypothetical second edition of 4E, what changes would you primarily want to make? For me, I'm not a big fan of number bloat, so I would reduce (not eliminate) the level bonus and hit points per level (adjusting damage accordingly). Makes monster stat blocks stay viable for longer, too.

Expand on Rituals (I love the idea that, in a magical world, anybody who knows the steps can perform ritual magic).

If I wanted to get really spicy, I'd swap out the six attribute scores for Shadow of the Demon Lord's attribute spread [Strength Agility Intelligence Willpower], but I think that's still too sacred cow for most folks.
Numerical Bonuses
I would probably ditch the 1/2 level bonus. I did this for my Star Wars and Arcana Evolved hacks. I am considering cutting the hit point bonuses at higher levels, for similar reasons- extending the usability of monsters, and also to make the power level differences between 1st and 30th level a lot less. You might still be able to overwhelm a level 20 fighter or wizard with a bunch of archers (though expect a lot of them to die before you can fell them)

Items
I'd also ditch +x items. You don't have a +3 Longsword, but you might have a Longsword with 3 enchantments, say, deal extra fire damage on crit, can be thrown and returns to your hand, and can shed bright light in a 30ft radius. Or you outright have a Flametongue Sword that has a bunch of fire-based powers you can unlock over time.

Class Design
For utility powers, I would probably silo off non-combat abilities from combat-abilities and design all classes to have both.
With the Star Wars one, I gave every class talents that helped define their non-combat / story / narrative purposes more. Like Fringers get talents to help them deal with travel hazards, or barterers, scoundrels beinng good at infiltration or false identities, Nobles get talents for good education and good contacts, or can start with wealth or a luxury space craft, soldiers can become particularly good with explosives, heavy vehicles or interrogation, scouts are good hunters and help a group travel faster, Technicians get gear modifications and are better at dealing with droids and computers. Most of this has little to no effect on combat situations.

Action Management
I haven't really figured out how to do it, but I would like to reduce the amount of triggers for immediate actions to be a bit easier to manage. I don't want to remove them, I think out of turn actions are a cool game feature that enriches gameplay and also helps deal a bit with the artificial nature of turn-based combat. But it can become overwhelming.

Power Management
I've also experimented with the rules on how you "pay" powers. I might ditch dailies all together and just make them "more" expensive powers, basically you might need to spend 2 "encounter power points" to use one daily. Powers being usable more than once per turn means balancing them can be harder, but during my Star Wars campaign, I changed the rule to allow people to use their encounter or daily power uses on any encounter or daily power they knew, respectively, allowing them to reuse them. Of course, in a small campaign with people you know, this isn't going to be a big deal, it might be harder to manage if you try to make a fair system for a highly diverse audience.

In addition, I'd probably ditch the different levels of powers, and only have levels based on tier and frequency - so you get heroic tier, paragon and epic tier powers.
In my Star Wars game, I only had at-will, encounter and daily powers,and no class lists. There was a generic list of powers and Force Sensitive had access to force powers. My game had Jedi and Sith classes that you can only enter at Level 6+. (Multiclassing worked by letting you swith your class at 6th level and every 5 levels thereafter).
For my Arcana Evolved system, I have at-will, advanced, masterful, paragon and epic abilities and they are seperated into spells and exploits (I don't really care for singling out divine/primal and the like).
I am not sure this is the best approach, though - class-only powers might also be easier to be balanced and also allow better interaction with class-specific actions. And all those riders are definitely unwieldly and not beginner-friendly.

There are also some power archetypes I think 4E didn't have, or didn't have enough of.
  • Augments: If you hit, you can add a bonus effect (as encounter or daily). Like the Essential's "Power Strike" ability.
  • Charge-Ups: Particularly for spells, I like the idea of charging magical energies (mana or whatever) to eventually cast a more powerful spell. Something like a Delayed Blast Fireball that deals more damage and has a wider radius the longer you delayed.
  • Passive Benefit + Trigger Ability: Just knowing some powers might give you a small benefit, but you also get an active ability to use occassionally, the active ability being a bit weaker because you have an always-on benefit.

Class Options
Make simple options for at least some classes in each major role or power source. Something like the Essential classes like the Slayer or whatever. There needs to be a simple fighter and a simple wizard at the minimum in my opinion, because both are strong archetypes that appeal to many people, even if they aren't interested in highly complex stuff. But I want no class to be locked into this style.

For my Star Wars game, the classes didn't have roles, the player chose a role (and I only had Controller, Leader and Defender roles. I ditched the Striker role,, because I felt it might end up being too seductive) and each role has some fixed role abilites, and powers had riders based on your role.

For my Arcana Evolved approach, the classes do not have a fixed role: instead, you choose a path inside that class that has a role. Magisters can be Sophists (Strikers), Arbiters (Controllers) or Instructors (Leaders), Mage Blades can be following the Conquering Blade (Striker) or the Shielding Blade (Defender) path, Akashics can focus on Secret Memories (Strikers) or Guiding Memories (Leaders), Warmains may be Avengers (Striker), Caretakers (Defenders) or Overseers (Leaders). This might lead to less classes and some classes being turned into class specializations. Of course, in this scenario, I also use generic power lists.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

@Mustrum_Ridcully : I do like most of those suggestions wholesale. Forgot to mention +X magic item bonuses, I've hated those since shortly after I started playing RPGs, haha. Built a whole subsystem to strip them out of 3.5 (that ended up looking very similar to the later Pathfinder 1E alternate rule that did the same thing).
I really like the idea of compressing powers into their respective tiers instead of having distinct levels.
And yeah, finding small ways to improve the speed of combat feels necessary, but figuring out how to do that without robbing it of the unique tactical feel that 4E has would be challenging.
 

Not for the first time, I'm going to point out that this product marketed itself as the "Diablo II Edition" of D&D. I'm fairly confident it sold fewer copies than even OD&D. Consider: If we all agree to hate on this as definitively the worst-selling edition,

But Echohawk, you are not comparing Diablo 11 edition properly to 4e. See, you have to take demographics into account, plus the fact that at the time the print version of Diablo Dos Equis would’ve been competing with the video game version of Diablo Part Deux. Thus whatever its sales numbers were, that doesn’t matter, because people knew in the year 2000 that eight years later they would need another edition to belittle.

Ergo 4e is still the worst selling edition, and therefor also objectively the worst edition, and to argue otherwise means you are a terrible person and likely also a [word censored by new forum software].
 

Re: the other conversation about game improvements. I’ll say what I always say. Combat length is not a problem. It is a feature. Or the analogy I usually make, it’s like intimate time: if everyone is enjoying it, the length is just fine. (Pun intended.)

Most of what causes combat to run “too long” at the table is player and GM inefficiency, that would occur regardless of rulesets. (I have seen players make games with the simplest action resolution possible a complete slog. It’s a person thing, not a rules thing.)

Too much change to the 4e mechanics and it would lose that 4e feel.
 

Re: the other conversation about game improvements. I’ll say what I always say. Combat length is not a problem. It is a feature. Or the analogy I usually make, it’s like intimate time: if everyone is enjoying it, the length is just fine. (Pun intended.)

Most of what causes combat to run “too long” at the table is player and GM inefficiency, that would occur regardless of rulesets. (I have seen players make games with the simplest action resolution possible a complete slog. It’s a person thing, not a rules thing.)

Too much change to the 4e mechanics and it would lose that 4e feel.
I agree with all of this. Some of our 4e sessions were essentially just one, long, complicated battle scene and just as enjoyable as the sessions that weren't. However, there did tend to be one or two players who designed their characters expressly to maximize their opportunity to have out-of-turn actions. That meant those players tended to get an unfair share of the focus each game, compared to players with less interrupty characters. That wasn't so much fun for the players of those less action-optimized characters. I think there is probably some middle ground that keeps the tactical complexity but give all characters a slightly less lopsided share of the attention.
 

True. Proper 4e combat optimization requires that you leave as few boxes empty as possible in a grid of type vs. frequency. (See below) So if it were me I’d ensure all characters have as many types as they want, but an alternative would be to reduce the number of fills you can do.

I will note that in ANY game, some players will optimize harder than others and thereby claim more combat spotlight. That is not a problem with the combat rules.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2823.png
    IMG_2823.png
    710.1 KB · Views: 33

Not for the first time, I'm going to point out that this product marketed itself as the "Diablo II Edition" of D&D. I'm fairly confident it sold fewer copies than even OD&D. Consider: If we all agree to hate on this as definitively the worst-selling edition, we needn't have this debate again. Surely there can't be anyone who wants to leap to its defense? :LOL:

View attachment 394329
To be fair, Diablo II is one of my favorite video games.
 



It was a very late (1999) 2e mutation with some Diabloesque oddities like mana-based spellcasting and an equipment slot system. Now that I pull it off the shelf to look at it again, it is nowhere as dreadful as I remember it being.

But the quality isn't the point, given that we're trying to find a edition that we can all agree was definitively the worst selling. Unfortunately, I've just discovered that copies of this were included in 70,000 Diablo II Collector's Edition sets published by Blizzard, as well as being sold separately by WotC. I can't immediately find a source for the number of OD&D sets sold, but I'm no longer sure that this was definitely the worst selling edition :(

I've seen 40k mentioned for OD&D. That was a while ago though.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top