|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 3:33AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
... what do you think is wrong with it? What things don't work, what would you have changed? Let's for a moment play with the idea, that D&DN was based on the 4E framework. What things would you do away with, what do you find lacking and would like to add to its next iteration? Note, this is meant for people who genuinely like and prefer the fourth edition, so no need to post "no powers, less mmo" - kind of stuff, thank you.
DISCLAIMER: I'm absolutely not trying to start an edition war here, I'm just curious. I personally prefer the earlier ones, but I can still instantly come up with at least two dozen things I would like changed in them.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 3:53AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Basically? Write a decent version of the skill challenge mechanic (which can be run well, if you do it correctly). Go through the Rules Compendium errata suggestions from the last two years; implement the vast majority of them (notably, something general to prevent infinite looping, something general to limit zones to once per turn or round (depending on which interpretation is favoured). An overall look at feats and items, in particular, and a mass removal of obsolete elements (cf Barreling Charge). A genericised Weapons Training feat giving proficiency and non-scaling bonus to damage with one superior weapon of the user's choice. A better suite of damage-type enhancements (given that Radiant, Cold and Lightning/Thunder are the only ones with really good stuff at the moment). Kill alignment with fire. Ideally, though it would be a fairly major system rewrite, kill ability-score-based attacking with fire - go to a level-based system, possibly with variation depending on the choice of a specialist or generalist array/point buy - thus meaning that not all people who want to use the Fighter's mechanics, need to use STR to do so. Kill class skill lists with fire, and make the base number of trained skills higher for all classes. Rework the class system to include subclasses as a default, rather than a tacked-on addition - thus allowing things which thematically ought to share support, to share support (Seeker as a Ranger subclass, Swordmage, Artificer and maybe Bard as Wizard subclasses etc etc). Ditto for Themes - and allow the use of these, as seems to work well in Next, to alter or define role.
In general, take the good bits that 4e did, and do them more, take the terrible bits and kill them with fire, then innovate to fill up the burned areas - or leave them burned to fertilise imagination.
4e is nearly a really good system. It would be lovely if it were to get a real chance to be so.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 4:12AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
Slightly different progression for all classes (like gaining different powers at different levels depending on your class. Thespaceinvader said all the things that anyone would love to be changed.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
Show
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales." "see sig" redirects here
Show
Oblivious troll is Oblivious PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important.
There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level.
Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition. You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 4:20AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2012
|
If I were tweaking 4e, I would drop the racial restrictions from pretty much everything, patch the base damage math up so that the striker role doesn't demand optimization to exist, and remove 90% of all the feats and magic items for being counterproductive. A rule that doesn't do something appreciably useful is just eating design space, which means it's merely trapping players who don't know the system well and stopping a future rule from being printed that might not suck. Split feats into combat and non-combat, better integrate the theme and hybrid mechanics, publicize the fact that the game is based around high heroic and paragon tier levels and you aren't expected to start characters at 1. Rework the skill system to not scale directly by stat. Consider removing daily powers and spells from everyone in favor of milestone recharges, and, uhm... various other things.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 4:25AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2008
|
Changes to 4E? Oh, there's plenty.
Clean up and tweak Skill Challenges, so they are smooth, and it is better understood that they are run in the background, to aid roleplaying, not as another encounter type. This includes skill challenges within encounters, or across multiple encounters, without the players actually knowing it.
Eliminate level-based bonuses altogether. Flatten it all out.
With that, all monsters are pulled back as well, into a lean machine of monster entries that last from level 1-30 per entry, remaining a threat throughout your entire adventuring career.
Eliminate the replacement of powers, instead allowing characters to continue to have more powers, not capped at 4 daily attacks, encounters, etc.
More at-wills. Seriously, a lot more at-wills across the board.
Codify the powers by power source, and spread them out, instead of unique names all over. If, for example, Tide of Iron fits in 4 classes, put it in all four classes, not clones of it elsewhere.
Make the save mechanic more meaningful, with more lasting repercussions. Three save types, Fort/Refl/Will saves to go with those defenses, and have a lot of save effects be a one-and-done (but save or dies, on the very, very rare occasions they are used, MUST be a series of failed saves over successive turns, not just one failed save and you're screwed). Saves get bonuses based on stats, and are hitting a DC, not a flat 10 plus rare bonuses/penalties.
Clean up rituals, big time. Lower the costs and especially the casting times for a whole helluva lot of them, such that they actually have limited combat utility (i.e. your wizard has 5 turns to complete this ritual to save the day; protect him during that time, or face the consequences).
I'm sure I can think of a lot more, but I'll add them later.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 4:27AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2003
|
I'm a big fan of 4e, but I'd say the fundamental flaws are as follows:
-Scaling of PC vs. monster math. PC attacks/defenses scale by half-level, while monsters scale by level. This means that you need stat bumps, enhancement bonuses (either in the form of magic items or inherent bonuses), and feat taxes to fill the gap. The need for feat taxes is especially annoying. Note that even with these flaws, 4e is still the most mathematically balanced edition of D&D that has ever been printed. What is especially nice is how transparent it is, which makes it easy to fix.
-Skills and skill challenges. The three-failures-and-you're-hosed default skill challenge mechanic discourages experimentation and encourages spamming whatever skill you're best at...and with all the modifiers you can stack onto skills, the range between your best and worst skills ends up being larger than the d20.
-Having the same pool for combat and non-combat feats. This increases the likelihood of mismatches between party members, as well as between parties and encounters. Utility powers also have the same problem of using the same pool for combat and non-combat powers.
-Bloat. Too many useless feats, powers, and items to sift through.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 4:27AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
So I actually like the essentials line, and those are the only books I own for 4e. I also don't have a DDI subscription.
I really liked essentials, and I wish they had more classes, and I wish they would put more classes into single books.
As for the rest of 4e itself, I never bought into it, because I didn't like how I felt they were milking me to buy books, that I really didn't want or need. (They did this by making half the book useful, and half the book not so useful.)
However, what I think they did wrong with 4e (essentials included) was choice and option overload. There were just too many options during leveling and charachter creation to pick from, and many of them not really of equal value.
As others have said nicely, you had the choice between a feat which added a bonus to a skill check, competeing for the same resources as a huge bonus to combat. You had a feat option which gave you a +1 to damage, plus some neat thing, competeing with a feat that gave a +1 to damage and nothing else. It just didn't make much sense.
Another major flaw was the magic item system, which they improved in essentials, but then they didn't give enough magic items per level.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 4:35AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2010
|
So many things already said so I'll just tack on:
Language. Wording can be very clumsy in a lot of places and really needs someone to go through everything and standardized the language. Similar powers that are written completely different, different powers that seem the same, things that seem to function very differently depending on how you read it.
I know it's not everyone's forte, but they need to hire someone whose sole job is to be certain that what is written is what wil be read. And this goes beyond 4th, it should be done for everything, nothing should ever be unclear.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 4:36AM
#9
|
|
|
I believe there is a word for such a person, something like editor?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 01, 2012 - 4:37AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Mostly what others said.
Plus
1) the low base accuracy. A character should hit with 70% success with a starting score of 14. Missing at what you are good at frequently is bad for the game.
2) every class if power source should have received their own method of recovering encounter and daily power. Martials rest. Divines pray. Wizards read their books. Warlocks spend healing surges. Druid tap a primal leyline. Removes a lot of the "sameness".
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
