D&D 4E Three Moves to Fix/Change 4E

[Nemesis Destiny]

1 - Grab 3E and update it to 4E, being particularly careful in the slaying of any sacred cows.
2 - Get people who love a specific class to play-test it. For example the original 4E Paladin was not tested vigorously enough by people who love the class.
3 - Have fully self contained core rules bound in 3 books.

With some hesitation I did not include artwork, I would have gone for a realistic medieval touched with fantasy look myself. But I'm certain I'm in an extreme minority.

I'm with you on the art, and I get what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree with your example in #2.

I generally don't like Paladins (in any edition), but I love the original 4e Paladin. I think that designers should both pay attention to people who like a given class, but perhaps also have an eye toward expanding its appeal.

I would also hesitate before suggesting that anyone go resurrect 3.x by "updating" it into 4th edition standards/rules. I think that would do two things - 1) alienate people who moved to 4th because they didn't like 3.x, and 2) fail to impress people who like 3.x/PF and didn't move to 4th because of what it is. Seems like a lose-lose to me. Just my opinion, of course.

Totally with you on the art though.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I generally don't like Paladins (in any edition), but I love the original 4e Paladin.

Heh, this illustrates my point though.

The original paladin suffered from:
- excessive MAD (str, wis, cha + usual con & dex), which in turn led to
- unusual specializations (str/cha, str/wis or cha/wis) each with a glaring hole in the build
- the loss of iconic features such as the mount or aura of courage, which were replaced with
- the original level 2 utilities...
- and then we've got a mish/mash of strikes and smites with barely a consistent theme throughout them
- and topping the lot there's a divine challenge that clashes with the basic combat option of charging
- I haven't mentioned the absence of the lance

Regarding the 3 to 4 edition being an update or a new game, who can tell? There clearly is a schism with 4E being a new game, but would it have been more successful by 4E being an update of 3E? Well WotC put their money on it being a new game. They can probably guess by now if the move was the best, but even if it wasn't wholly optimal they've sunk a lot of capital (not just $ I'm talking about) into the 4E we have and I imagine there needs to be a minimum edition life cycle before they can go back to the same customers and sell a new rule-set.

5E will illustrate what were right & wrong moves to extent, I say extent because the needs of new players and game development will have shifted the goal posts and tilted the playing field beyond what we're currently discussing.

But for the record and without any research to back me up, I'm for 4E being an update.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Could we please skip 3.5 and go back to ADnD If we don´t want to slay sacred cows?

Don´t get me wrong... D&D 3.5 was great, but it already sloughtered a lot of cows...
So going to 3.0 would yield better results... or better back to ADnD because 3.0 was very carefully not to slay any cows... (and you may decide which 3.x version was better...)

and here we are at essentials: Actually classes in essentials are more careful about slaying cows. Classes and class structure are feeling more like older D&D right out of the book and from reading through them.

 

[Dausuul]

With some hesitation I did not include artwork, I would have gone for a realistic medieval touched with fantasy look myself. But I'm certain I'm in an extreme minority.

You're not the only one. I would love a shift to a more realistic, less cartoony artistic style. I think it could do a tremendous amount to evoke the "points of light" flavor. In fact, I might swap that in for one of my three changes.

Unfortunately, we do seem to be outnumbered by the Wayne Reynolds fans. Frank Frazetta, where are you when we need you?

 

[TwoSix]

1) Change stat incrementation to +1 to three stats at X4 and X8, +1 at 11, +2 at 21. Stat incrementation right now is really boring; you bump your primary and your secondary, that's it. Add a 3rd option so that you can increase that 3rd NAD, or a different multiclass power, or a skill you really like. +2 at epic so that end-game point buy is just a little more complicated.

2) Revamp powers.
- 1 power a level. (attacks at odd, utilities at even)
- Roll feats into utility powers. (Model is feats like Master at Arms, with both an active use and a passive bonus).

3) Less classes, more subclasses.
When I was building a cavalier the other day, I really liked how all of the blackguard powers were suddenly there to expand my options. Then I thought how cool it would have been if runepriest, warpriest, avenger, and invoker (for example) had all been subclasses of cleric, with different progressions and class abilities, but a shared pool of prayers they could all access.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1. Skill system that scales better with level so that skill vs defense actually works (instead of skill vs seemlingly arbitrary DC) Skill bonuses are a function of class and level. Skill training only as the icing of the cake. Feats that are restricted to non-combat (see point 3)

2. More use of subclasses. (Seems to work quite well in practise)

3. Feats categorized in combat and non-combat (like weapon proficiencies and non weapon proficiencies.)
Every class gets at least one expertise feat to train in a weapon and in an implement if needed.)
Think of weapon proficiencies as allowed weapons of ADnD and Expertise as weapon proficiency. I don´t really like that you are equally good at every class weapon per default.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Heh, this illustrates my point though.

The original paladin suffered from:
- excessive MAD (str, wis, cha + usual con & dex), which in turn led to
- unusual specializations (str/cha, str/wis or cha/wis) each with a glaring hole in the build
- the loss of iconic features such as the mount or aura of courage, which were replaced with
- the original level 2 utilities...
- and then we've got a mish/mash of strikes and smites with barely a consistent theme throughout them
- and topping the lot there's a divine challenge that clashes with the basic combat option of charging
- I haven't mentioned the absence of the lance

I fail to see how on Oerth anything I said validates your point.

Paladins are only MAD if you try to pick powers from both Str and Cha attacks. If you don't, no problem. Besides, Str + Cha is a valid and powerful build.

Paladins have no incentive to make use of either stat that will boost reflex defence. That seems pretty iconic to me. They've never been known for either Dexterity or Intelligence. Even a Cha + Wis paladin still has good incentive to shore up Fort by having good Con.

Paladin Auras in previous editions were a little broken. I agree that they could have taken more effort to give them aura abilities, but most of the utilities and some of the encounter powers make up for it, IMHO. As for the mount, thanks to the cavalier, that feature is back. I never missed it in the first place, as the holy mount is a holy pain in the butt - you can't take it into a dungeon or cave, and it isn't even useful to be mounted unless you have a LOT of room to move around.

The lack of theme with the "mishmash of strikes and smites" is so that you can build your paladin to any number of different themes instead of being pigeonholed into one or two by the game designers. Feature, not a bug.

I fail to see how Divine Challenge is in any way incompatible with charging. You DC a target, then charge it, or charge, then DC it. Or, you use Ardent Strike (which is usable on a charge) to mark with Divine Sanction, and DC another adjacent target.

There is no pointy weapon that gives you a damage multiplier when you charge because that would be broken as hell. You can take any spear and call it a lance. Longspear or Greatspear would probably work best. If you want bonus damage when you charge, slot Spear Expertise, and that other feat that boosts your charge speed and damage and you're done.

5E will illustrate what were right & wrong moves to extent, I say extent because the needs of new players and game development will have shifted the goal posts and tilted the playing field beyond what we're currently discussing.

But for the record and without any research to back me up, I'm for 4E being an update.

If 5E illustrates anything, it will be what the designers and WotC as a company think the market wants, not necessarily which moves were right and wrong as far as game design are concerned. If they think people want a less balanced game, that's what we'll get, even if that's not what a lot of [other] players want.

 

[Fifth Element]

I would reduce first-level hit points a bit, and probably reduce the number of surges a character gets a bit as well. I'd consider some sort of limit on the number of surges a single character can use in an encounter.

There should be a natural 20 rule where something awesome always happens on a natural 20. In combat you get a crit, but in a skill challenge you get nothing.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I fail to see how on Oerth anything I said validates your point.

Dude, you said you don't like or play paladins and that the original paladin is fine. However the original paladin that came out was definitely not fine. In my view that's not a position that can reasonably be defended.

(I guess if you're talking about the paladin post Complete Divine then you've got some ground, although the fixes in that book made the paladin feel like a kludge.)

My point was that a person that loves playing a class (paladin in this case) would be among the best people to playtest a class. Your comment shows at least why someone who doesn't like or play a class shouldn't be involved in it's playtest.

I mean seriously, look at the intro art for the paladin in the players handbook. What serious fan of the class would have chosen that?

 

[Fifth Element]

I mean seriously, look at the intro art for the paladin in the players handbook. What serious fan of the class would have chosen that?

I think you have something of a point, but this has No True Scotsman written all over it.