D&D 4E What 'new' rules would you like to see in 4e?

[Kzach]

Heh, I never realized how many rules I'd like to see until reading this thread!

So, I'll just parrot some others with my list:

1) Chase rules: considering how often it comes up in games, I'm always disappointed that I have to create my own house-rules to accommodate it.

2) 3D Combat: even in low-level games, this can happen often due simply to terrain or surrounding objects like houses.

3) Stunts: who *doesn't* try some sort of stun in combat? If anything, I felt 3.x killed off stunts with AoO. In previous editions, a player would try anything and you'd just shove a random modifier on an ability check or attack roll. Having actual rules for stunts, though, would be cool.

4) Fighting styles: classic example in fiction is that of Bronn the Sellsword in A Song of Ice & Fire where he takes on Ser Vardis Egen, a knight in full plate and heavy sword, with leather armour, a longsword and a wooden shield... and wins.

 

[Gloombunny]

4) Fighting styles: classic example in fiction is that of Bronn the Sellsword in A Song of Ice & Fire where he takes on Ser Vardis Egen, a knight in full plate and heavy sword, with leather armour, a longsword and a wooden shield... and wins.

Yes.

Although I'm also reminded of Oberyn's fight with Gregor Clegane...

 

[Kzach]

How could I forget that! The advantage of reach in that situation and his movement gave him an edge for long enough that he could poison The Mountain. Man... Dance of Dragons can't come soon enough

 

[Steely Dan]

God yeah. Another terrible copy + paste job from previous editions.

I'd simplify it further. There are really only two kinds of flyers - those that can hover in place like insects and hummingbirds and those that can't. You don't need to distinguish between manticores and pegasi. Those that can hover have the feat Hover. Flyers that lack this feat have to spend at least a move action flying each round they want to remain airborne. That's it. Bin turn modes and anything else.

I'll be using this, thank you very much.

 

[Steely Dan]

-Climbing on big creatures.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

God yeah. Another terrible copy + paste job from previous editions.

I'd simplify it further. There are really only two kinds of flyers - those that can hover in place like insects and hummingbirds and those that can't. You don't need to distinguish between manticores and pegasi. Those that can hover have the feat Hover. Flyers that lack this feat have to spend at least a move action flying each round they want to remain airborne. That's it. Bin turn modes and anything else.

I think it would be okay to have 3 types of maneuverability:
- fly straight line only (turns only between rounds).
- take one move action to remain aloft.
- can hover
If you want to replicate the maneuverability rates with feats, the second type requires "Wingover", the third type requires "Hover".

 

[howandwhy99]

New new? Maybe some pseudo-economy rules. Not like ones to simulate an economy for world building, but sort of the crafting games they have in MMORPGs now. I think those might entice new players to see the game as more than an adventuring game. It's rough though as real economies are actually in some MMOs. Maybe something that would allow wild diversity that the software designers couldn't incorporate?

 

[Greg K]

It's hard to balance and not min-max a flaws/qualities system.

Just do it like in Mutants and Masterminds. You get an extra action point (or something similar) when the DM brings the flaw into play.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Just do it like in Mutants and Masterminds. You get an extra action point (or something similar) when the DM brings the flaw into play.

I like the WoD method of giving an experience point whenever a flaw hurts you in play. Action points would be a good way of making it work, too.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

A rules-lite or "basic" version of the game that's just as balanced and well-integrated, such that published modules can be run rules-lite or rules-heavy and still be 4e either way.

Actually, I'll take this one step further. I'd like to be able to run a 4e game where one player can run a rules-lite character (whose character sheet fits on an index card, let's say) and another player can run a rules-heavy character (with a detailed multi-page character sheet replete with fiddly bits), and they'd both be balanced to each other and to the module.

Not that I'd ever do that, per se, but I think that's a good test of integration for a basic vs. advanced RPG system.

I suppose having DDM stats for monsters is a step in the right direction. Has anyone here used DDM stat cards for monsters in a 3.5 game? Were they easier to run and still balanced?