D&D 4E Simplifying 4E

[Xeviat]

Hey everyone. I took some time away from 4E to play and digest 5E. I'm loving the player side of the game, for the most part, but I'm really not liking monsters. Players have too few hit points. Combats are fast and swingy. It takes a lot of work to build up exciting combats.

In 4E, every combat I ran was exciting. They may have dragged a little in the last couple of rounds, but I think I've learned how to manage that better now (enemies flee and surrender once their goals are unachievable). I want to get back to running 4th, but the edition has a lot of baggage for me. So, I wanted to discuss some changes I wanted to do, and gather some ideas on how to do them.

Parse the Classes
I want to limit the classes to a core set of 12-14 classes. Likely, these will be the 12 5E classes and possibly the Psion and a Soul Knife/Battlemind type friend. The other classes will be merged with their similar friends. Warlords are a fighter subclass, invokers are clerics, avengers are paladins, etc.

Parse the Powers
One thing I didn't like about 4E classes was that reading the classes was boring. I didn't want to read over a giant list of powers to get an idea of the class. Class abilities are far easier to get your head around. Essentials cleaned this up a bit, so I'll be looking there for inspiration. Mostly, I intend to merge a lot of powers and have a Maneuver section and a Spell section. Each class will have their maneuver and/or spell list, but rather than having 8 different level 1 encounter powers for 2[W]+ability mod plus slow, there will be one that many get to choose from.

FSBNNR
Feats should be nice, not required: my mantra during the days of 3E Psionics. I want to recast feats as modifiers, not strict power increases. Feats will remove penalties and add options, they won't strictly raise your power. This means feats to learn new powers without getting new power "slots" (new at-wills, new encounter or daily choices), but nothing like "+2 damage because you're cool". New ability score scaling will cover the missing feat bonuses and balance the math hole.

Class is separate from Role
As the Slayer Fighter, Hunter Ranger, Blackguard Paladin, and Guardian Druid of post essentials 4E showed, classes can be multiple roles. Rolls will be a function of subclass choice, not class choice. A wizard could be a defender (summoner with a big monster), a leader (abjurer with a lot of buffs), striker (evoker), or controller. The "core four" classes will have options for all four roles. Other classes will be more limited. Druids and Bards will have some ability to switch roles (through wild shape and through songs).

What are your thoughts? My intent is to keep the monster math the same, but adjust the player side of things so it's simpler and more classic appearing. Most of my group doesn't like 4E, but their dislike (from their own explanations) doesn't seem insurmountable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jhaelen]

Most of my group doesn't like 4E, but their dislike (from their own explanations) doesn't seem insurmountable.

Have they actually played it or is it a 'theoretical' dislike?
I've found that players of older D&D editions despite their initial objections were easily converted after an introductory 4e session.

 

[Raith5]

Just to be clear are you are porting 4e into 5e - or the other way around?

 

[RedSiegfried]

Sounds to me like you need to play 13th Age. Seriously, I'm not just being trite. I'm a big 4e fan too but 13th Age really scratched a lot of the itches I got from 4e. It addresses each of the concerns you listed plus it's a lot easier to modify if you're so inclined. And did I mention combats go faster too? Check it out.

 

[MwaO]

Yeah, I think that sounds way overcomplicated to fix 4e. I'd do the following:
Make a Wizard build that for every power slot gains two choices. In each instance, can choose which to use, though with Utility powers, once a slot has been used once for encounter/daily, has to keep being used for it. So a Wizard would get to pick 2 level 13 encounter powers and choose which one to use in each encounter. At 17th, could choose to use one of them for the level 17 slot. If they spend an extra hour or 6* more time to cast a ritual(whichever is more), they can greatly reduce the component costs for many rituals 1/day/tier.

Make a Fighter build where they get no encounter or daily attack powers, even if they take a Paragon Path or other option that gives one out. They gain a special Fighter power called Fighter's Strike which is a melee/ranged basic attack that does 1w+stat and either requires Str or Dex, depending on weapon choice. They then also gain a class feature called Double Attack which is where they get to use Fighter's Strike twice in a standard action.

 

[Xeviat]

Have they actually played it or is it a 'theoretical' dislike?
I've found that players of older D&D editions despite their initial objections were easily converted after an introductory 4e session.

They've played it, some more than others. I believe it's largely a theoretical dislike, though, but it comes with unwillingness.

Just to be clear are you are porting 4e into 5e - or the other way around?

Since I want to keep the monsters untouched, I suppose it's injecting 5E into 4E.

Sounds to me like you need to play 13th Age. Seriously, I'm not just being trite. I'm a big 4e fan too but 13th Age really scratched a lot of the itches I got from 4e. It addresses each of the concerns you listed plus it's a lot easier to modify if you're so inclined. And did I mention combats go faster too? Check it out.

Does it? Are the monsters built the same? I thought there were other rules in there that I didn't care for, like the escalation dice. What's different? Is there an SRD?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

Yeah, I think that sounds way overcomplicated to fix 4e. I'd do the following:
Make a Wizard build that for every power slot gains two choices. In each instance, can choose which to use, though with Utility powers, once a slot has been used once for encounter/daily, has to keep being used for it. So a Wizard would get to pick 2 level 13 encounter powers and choose which one to use in each encounter. At 17th, could choose to use one of them for the level 17 slot. If they spend an extra hour or 6* more time to cast a ritual(whichever is more), they can greatly reduce the component costs for many rituals 1/day/tier.

Make a Fighter build where they get no encounter or daily attack powers, even if they take a Paragon Path or other option that gives one out. They gain a special Fighter power called Fighter's Strike which is a melee/ranged basic attack that does 1w+stat and either requires Str or Dex, depending on weapon choice. They then also gain a class feature called Double Attack which is where they get to use Fighter's Strike twice in a standard action.

Actually, I'm rather happy with the essentials Wizard, and plan to build the spellcasters off of it. I just want traditional spell lists, though I'll still have Utilities and Rituals as separate things (possibly with some way to use attacks for utilities for noncombat sessions).

Your fighter sounds a lot like the essentials fighter. My plan is to start there, but have their encounter power chosen by their subclass, and their dailies replaced with static bonuses.

I know it's a lot of work, but 80% of D&D is fiddling for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RedSiegfried]

Does it? Are the monsters built the same? I thought there were other rules in there that I didn't care for, like the escalation dice. What's different? Is there an SRD?

No, monsters are not the same as 4e - it's an entirely different game so the math is not the same; it's much simpler. It is NOT, contrary to popular belief, the 4e Pathfinder. It's a sweet combination of all the best things about 4e and 3e, IMO, with lots of extra opportunities for story telling and roleplaying. And yeah, there are lots of new rules like the Escalation Die, Backgrounds as skills, One Unique Thing and Icon Relationships, but the good news is that these things can be dropped right into a 4e game as houserules if you don't want to switch games entirely (these won't simplify your game own their own though, you would have to switch to the 13th Age game entirely, or almost entirely, to do that).

13th Age FAQ: http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/13th-age-faq/

13th Age SRD: http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/the-archmage-engine-13th-age-srd/

 

[Xeviat]

13th age doesn't look for me from a cursory glance through the basic rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Igwilly]

Well, I believe our games will be quite different, but let me share an idea with you:
I also like the pre-4e idea of spells, but rituals were a favorite of mine.
In my game, I’ll separate between “common” spells and ritual spells. Basically, common spells are fast, need only somatic and verbal components, no material/focus, and obey to memorization or the general spellcasting mechanic.
Ritual spells, on the other hand, function much like in 4e: no way to memorize – outside the common system – need material components/foci, the book in hand, take a long time, and some other preferences of mine. The rest is production secret.

13th Age is actually a great system! And carries a lot of 4e concepts – much more than 5e. However, is very far from it; it doesn’t even have tactical combat. There is a topic about retroclones, and they were some attempts to legally “clone” 4e, but I don’t know if they were successful.