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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Agreed. It does improve it.

One thought on how to basically resolve it is to combine weapon groups with limited specialized functionality.

For example, most general feats/talents could improve a specific area for all weapon groups. A bonus to tripping could work for all weapons that allow trips. Finding a different type of weapon would not lose that bonus as long as it is a tripping capable weapon.

Then, if there were only a few specialized feats/talents, such as something specific to axes, the Fighter could switch from being an Axe guy to a Spear guy as long as there are only a few feats/talents required to be a good Spear guy. It might take him a few levels to accomplish this, but it could be done.

This cannot be done if there are massive Axe (or edged weapon) feat trees and massive Spear (or reach weapon) feat trees and massive Longbow (or ranged weapon) feat trees.

In fact, the thing about fighters specializing more in a weapon is something I don't like that much. D&D 3.x rewards people specializing on a weapon a lot, and in turn this quickly turns out to be a requirement to be a good fighter.

I enjoy playing a fighter with a lot of tactical options (Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Bull Rush, and all these feats). They are pretty cool. But the truth is - If i just took the Weapon Focus route, my fighters would probably have been a lot more efficient and several difficult encounters would have become easier, simply because my Fighter would hit the enemy more often, deal more damage, and thus eliminate it quicker from the combat.

Still, maybe the D&D 4 route isn't so bad. If specialization on a specific weapon isn't just more plus to attack and damage, but allows a character unique tactical options I might get the best of two worlds - cool maneuvers and good numerical bonusses...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Tweaking spell issues -- lots mentioned. They're spending an awful lot of time reworking classes and races, but frankly I don't see the real problems in 3E being class and race design. The biggest issues IMO are in individual stand-alone mechanics down in spells. And we're not hearing much of anything about how those fixes are going.

Rules systems I'd like to see:

- Mass combat
- Better vehicular & mounted combat: horses, wagons, chariots, flying dragons, hippogriffs, etc
- Easier to use flying rules
- Easier to adjudicate vision & illumination
- Simpler environmental effects in an easy to locate portion of the DMG
- Better & expanded familiar/animal companion/mount rules
- Elimination of d%-based mechanics (heck, I'd like to see the d10 ditched, and go back to the 5 platonic solids. Give the d12 more love)

 

[Plane Sailing]

Moderator/

If someone in this thread comes up with an idea (interesting or provocative) which invites further discussion, it would be worth starting a new thread for that discussion and linking to it from here.

That way we can keep this thread on topic about 'things you'd like to see in 4e' and have other equally interesting threads discussing solutions to problems (e.g. hexes vs squares, the usefulness or otherwise of the take20 mechanic, fighter weapon proficiencies etc).

Thanks!

 

[Andor]

I had a thought last night. There has been some confusion about the Rangers role ever since 2nd edition. The 1st edition Ranger was plainly a depiction of Aragorn, but in 2nd they tried to cover broader territory and confusion hasd reigned ever since. In 3rd edition part of the "we're trying to cover multiple bases here" manifested itself as the TWF vs Archery feat tracks that the ranger selected from.

Now in 4ed we know that the ranger is in the striker role and "killed the scout and took his stuff" implying heavily that he will have skirmish damage. Which makes sense for many of the rangers roles, but one of the roles for the ranger that I like is the stealthy hunter and archer, and skishmish damage doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense for him. So what if the ranger could either take skirmish damage or 'sniper damage'? Skirmish damge remaining the bonus precision damage that only applies if you move and sniper damage being just the opposite. So to use your sniper damage you spend a move action to aim and then the damage applies out to the first range increment of your weapon. Then you can have talent trees that allow modification. EG: A talent to let you use it out to the second range increment. A talent to penalize perception checks to spot your position when you fire, etc.

Do people think this is a good idea? Or are you tired of the ranger trying to cover too many bases?

 

[DogBackward]

I think there's a difference between "trying to cover too many bases" and "being able to decide which base you want to cover". I like it, and anything that brings in more character options is something I'd love to see.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I'm very late in returning to this thread but...

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.

As I said, I'd rather use training rules - as incongrous and inconvenient as they are - than have new feats, skills, languages, spells and whatnot appear instantaneously in mid-adventure.

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.

Which merely indicates that training rules would need some leeway and comprehensiveness they never were given before. Just because you haven't had time to train doesn't mean that the PC should EVER be forbidden from earning XP. That is categorically stupid as that example indicates. And that is NOT what I'm after.

What I want to eliminate is having the players bug me to calculate and hand out XP as they clear each room in a dungeon because they are close to levelling - and then when they DO level they leave one room WITHOUT certain capabilities, but when they open the door and walk into the next there is a SIGNIFICANT change in hit points, spells, skills, feats, and so forth. To me, those are changes that require time and opportunity to implement sensibly. I don't care if training time takes place before or after their xp totals cross the threshold - I just don't want to see instant, inexplicable jumps in abilities in crossing from one room to the next. If I don't get it I don't have a problem with that - I'll just institute appropriate rules myself.

And maybe it doesn't have to be training time. Maybe it's just a matter of players being told not to expect XP to be handed out on the fly - but only at such moments in gameplay when the sudden changes in abilities is just a little more EXPLAINABLE.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

And maybe it doesn't have to be training time. Maybe it's just a matter of players being told not to expect XP to be handed out on the fly - but only at such moments in gameplay when the sudden changes in abilities is just a little more EXPLAINABLE.

Then just tell them you give out XP at end of session or when you break for dinner.

That's what we do.

Brad

 

[Lanefan]

As I said, I'd rather use training rules - as incongrous and inconvenient as they are - than have new feats, skills, languages, spells and whatnot appear instantaneously in mid-adventure.

Same here.

Which merely indicates that training rules would need some leeway and comprehensiveness they never were given before. Just because you haven't had time to train doesn't mean that the PC should EVER be forbidden from earning XP.

Absolutely. You keep earning ExP while untrained (perhaps at a reduced rate) but don't get many if any benefits of the new level until you train (we give half of new hit points and full stat increments; everything else waits till training). There would also need to be rules for "self-training" to cover loners etc., but this is easy: you advance at half rate and are considered self-trained at 1/3-way through the new level.

And maybe it doesn't have to be training time. Maybe it's just a matter of players being told not to expect XP to be handed out on the fly - but only at such moments in gameplay when the sudden changes in abilities is just a little more EXPLAINABLE.

Well, there's an old rule (not sure if it's a house rule or if it came out of 1e) that says you don't get ExP until you've rested or slept. That solves some of it right there...if nothing else, it gives a flavour-based rationale for at least *some* new skills appearing out of nowhere -- "Ah, that was a good sleep. You know, I think I've finally figured out how to do that whirlwind attack thing...all that sparring practice must've paid off." -- in a non-training game.

I'd never give new wizard spells without either training or purchase, though. You can't just wake up in the morning and find 2 new spells in your spellbook that weren't there last night...

Lanefan

 

[Mouseferatu]

Then just tell them you give out XP at end of session or when you break for dinner.

That's what we do.

Indeed. I've never known anyone to give XP out encounter after encounter. Every group I've ever played in has made a habit of handing out XP (or leveling, if the group wasn't using XP) at the end of the session. Sometimes it would even be after two sessions, if we had to stop in the middle of a single encounter or short adventure.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'd never give new wizard spells without either training or purchase, though. You can't just wake up in the morning and find 2 new spells in your spellbook that weren't there last night...

No, but you can assume the wizard already had spells in his book--from his apprenticeship, perhaps--that he's only just now figured out (read: gained enough levels) to use.

Requiring training or purchase for new spells seriously screws wizards who gain a level far from civilization.