D&D 4E Things You'd Like to See in 4e that haven't been mentioned yet

Virtually my entire list has already been mentioned, but...
  • Chases
    Definitely. It's overdue. The encounter and adventure possibilities would really open up for me personally if there were a built-in, halfway decent chunk of chase rules.
  • Mass Combat
    This one, I think will really depend on a more precise understanding of what 4E will be. The problem here, as I have seen it since 1E, is that D&D and Massed Combat are inherently incompatible. D&D is and always has been designed specifically for FEW PC's to take on MANY and VERY powerful opponents. It is designed for application to PC's quite specifically to be... Uber. That IMMEDIATELY breaks down and creates problems when the system intended for application only to PC's is applied to EVERYTHING. I'd LIKE it - but I hold no real hope that it might EVER work. Still, there's always the vague possibility.
  • Dungeon/Adventure Design Paradigms/advice
    One of 3E's few genuine failures is this. 3E dungeon and adventure design did NOT change to appropriately fit the paradigms suggested by the rules themselves. First they tried to simply follow the old 1E/2E standards and I personally had "issues" with the results immediately. Then they slid to a penchant for MEGA dungeons and full-blown campaign settings that were merely masquerading as single adventures/dungeons. Never really bothered with them as the results perpetrated upon inserting such into a "normal" campaign would have been clearly disastrous and effectively REPLACING that campaign with the single "adventure" until it could simply be stomached no more by players/DMs wanting the REAL campaign to show itself again.

    4E designers need to look hard at this - to THINK about what the new system will REALLY suggest about how and why adventures and dungeons should be designed - and then communicate those observations to DM's to facilitate their adaptation to adventures that work WITH the system, not in spite of it.
  • Guns
    Well, _I_ like the idea of a little bit of musketry in my D&D. I don't think it needs to be part and parcel of the new edition, but it would be nice to have some simple gunpowder weapons that are available for us afficionados already dialed into the system so we won't have to completely kludge them on later.
  • Vehicle combat
    Frankly this rather goes hand in hand with CHASES. With VERY few exceptions vehicle combat involves one chasing another - NOT tanks just bludgeoning each other until one crumbles.
  • Naval Combat and Adventuring
    Ships can effectively be vehicles depending on their size so this might need to tie in with vehicle combat. However, Naval ADVENTURING is a rather different, even specialized beast. It can effectively alter the way the ENTIRE campaign is run. The differences can be so dramatic that it really does scream for its own supplement - but with rules BUILT into the system from the start, not kludged on.
  • Flying combat (esp. air-to-ground attacking)
    I think I can count the number of air-to-air combats I've EVER run in D&D on half of one hand. The reason is that flying combat rules were so lifeless, dull, tedious, banal, whatever. HOWEVER, the number of times that I've wanted ready rules to cover bombardment of PC's and castles with rocks, spears, and so forth from significant heights I couldn't really count. Many, even most of those times I avoided such encounters entirely rather than try to make such attacks work sensibly. I think both aspects really need attention.
  • Baronies
    This one DEFINITELY belongs in its own supplement. EVERY player I know always got the biggest kicks out of the old 1E thing of, "Well, now my PC is name level and it's time to go out and BUILD that base of power for him to operate from for his future." Not GIVEN to him, not won as treasure of some kind, but an official indication by the game that your PC was now given tacit approval and some basic rules for refocusing his goals upon making himself a permanent fixture, a modification/addition to the DM's campaign.

    Players would have the idea of building that little tower, temple, or scrappy barony as THE single over-arching goal for their character. Even with the vague, pathetic rules that 1E provided I saw it TIME after TIME being used as a driving force in a characters development and choices. It's more than just constructing towers and castles, or calling followers, or collecting your own taxes - there was a very special cachet about a Fighter Lord founding that first speck of a hamlet of what they always hoped would become a new, powerful NATION as the campaign rolled on; a High Priest founding a new temple that could become the most influential center of religion in the world; or even a Master Thief founding the first vestiges of a Guild that would come to control a great city, or become a secret influence the world over.

    It's worth thinking about, but again, needs to be more than just an afterthought.
  • No magical "Ding!" levelling up
    I CANNOT emphasize how destructive this particular little thing is to my verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief. This, possibly more than every other factor COMBINED, is responsible for the not entirely undeserved accusations of the system being "video-gamey".

    Now, maybe some of this will go away with the new level spreads and such, but I ABHOR it. I honestly feel that the game would be better off assuming training time and expenses for levelling up as the default and the instant "Ding!" approach as the DECIDEDLY optional one. I'd rather structure the game around the incongruity and inconvenience of training time with each level (as I used to) than swallow that again.
  • Death and Resurrection magic
    Maybe this is being addressed in some specific way in 4E I haven't yet taken note of (I do vaguely recall seeing it mentioned), but it's a biggie for me. I don't much care how you do it, but try SOMETHING to put this in its place. Resurrection magic exists for PLAYER use - not CHARACTER use. I believe that heart and soul. It is problematic, even openly disruptive when DM's and players then naturally assume it MUST be applied equally to all NPC's thorughout the campaign.

That about covers it for me right now.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Quote:
- Rules for handling baronies, kingdoms, etc...



Oooh, I like this one. It would be nice to have some quick and dirty economic rules for when you have followers and castles and the like. Nothing too fancy, just five or six pages of goodies. Maybe something along the lines of "If you do X, you get Y percent profit - see modifiers on Table Z for profit percentages calculation".

This will be one of my submissions. I have recently written and extensive, but quite simplified rules-set for running and 'area' like a character. Unfortunately I did this for levels 1-20 and now we are going to 30, so I am holding off to find out more before I submit it.

At the moment basically you can use the system for a 'realm' that is anything from a hamlet to and empire...or even a forest, etc.

Have very simplified economic rules and stuff.

In essence I use it to 'play out' a region for a little while prior to starting a campaign and then use it during the campaign to se what happens around the PCs.

I really like this sort of stuff and want to adapt it to the 4E ruleset if there is enough interest. (Already use a skill system like Saga SW).

C
 

No magical "Ding!" levelling up
I CANNOT emphasize how destructive this particular little thing is to my verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief. This, possibly more than every other factor COMBINED, is responsible for the not entirely undeserved accusations of the system being "video-gamey".

Now, maybe some of this will go away with the new level spreads and such, but I ABHOR it. I honestly feel that the game would be better off assuming training time and expenses for levelling up as the default and the instant "Ding!" approach as the DECIDEDLY optional one. I'd rather structure the game around the incongruity and inconvenience of training time with each level (as I used to) than swallow that again.

I don't understand. How is this different from before? Are you suggesting we return to training rules? Now that would be something I'd rather not see.
 

Hussar said:
I don't understand. How is this different from before? Are you suggesting we return to training rules? Now that would be something I'd rather not see.
Agreed.

Reminds me of a letter in Dragon I read. DM required training before people levelled up. Training took about a week. The PCs couldn't beat the BBEG without leveling, and they were on a time crunch; he was going to destroy a town in three days. The only thing that could stop him was in a dungeon, but they weren't going to go in to get the Item because they wouldn't get any XP for it until they trained.

Personally, I think that leveling is less like Ding and more like hitting a new power mid-combat. Like, the sorcerer is up against a wall, and he just tries something different in desperation and POW, it's a new spell of a new level and it saves the day.

But then, rarely is this supported by the story. Players see their class abilities as a toolbelt, rather than new powers.
 


KarinsDad said:
True, but with the tidbits we have so far about fighter types becoming specialists with a specific type of weapon, it might become more of an issue.


Two words. Weapon. Groups.



We can hope.
 

Hussar said:
Things You'd Like to See in 4e that haven't been mentioned yet

I'd like sensible rules for poisons. It looks like nowadays poisons are just an extra weapon for battle, but I think this is exactly the opposite of what poisons are in tales and movies: a device to AVOID battle. Where is the dread feeling of discovering being poisoned and going to die slowly, perhaps in days, until you find an antidote in time (see LotR, Crouching Tiger etc.)? No wonder that people cannot see why shouldn't a paladin or righteous hero use poison... D&D poisons are not evil nor coward by any means :\

I'd also like it better if battles were 50%-100% longer. At least because in 3rd edition there isn't much time to actually assess the encounter's difficulty.
 

Merlion said:
Two words. Weapon. Groups.

Weapon Groups does not resolve the issue.

If they keep Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization for Weapon Groups as opposed to for a specific weapon, for example, being specialized with an Axe still does nothing for a Spear.
 


I'd also like them to address the klunkiness of their square grid game mechanics.

For example:

AEE
EXE
EEB

If A and B are flanking X (and E are empty squares), X can withdraw through the E square in the upper right or lower left without provoking an AoO.

EEE
AXB
EEE

In this case, there are no safe squares for X to withdraw through, even though he is still merely flanked.


Ditto for reach issues. A monster X with 10 feet of reach threatens square Z, even though that is considered 15 feet away with the movement rules. So, there is no direction A can withdraw safely through.

TTTTZ
TTTAT
TTXTT

This fixes the "hole in the corner" problem, but it does so by having different rules for movement and reach.


Hexes, of course, fixes these types of problems while having consistent reach, movement, and area of effect rules, but I suspect WotC will not go to a hex system (although that would resolve some of the complexity of area of effect issues as well). For some reason, WotC thinks that the average gamer is smart enough to handle drawing irregular shaped rooms on a square grid, but not smart enough to handle drawing a square room on hexes.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that TacTiles cannot be manufactured with hexes (at least, that is what the TacTile folk claim) and WotC employees love using TacTiles.


Oh, and I think they should go to 3 squares for 10 feet instead of 2 and measure distance in squares (i.e. meters) instead of feet. Small rooms can be a pain in the butt for combat.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top