For me it would be returning iconic spells to their previous status. Spells like fireball have become uselss and some spells, like polymorph, simply no longer exist. I do like the ritual system alot to make up for some of the iconic spells that just aren't combat relative (like knock or tongues) but I wish they would have kept the names of some of the old iconic D&D spells for some of the rituals which have essentially those effects. I have never seen a fireball or a lightning bolt cast in 4e and I've never seen a druid really change the weather in some cool large encompassing way. Sorcerers I think are my biggest dissapointment in this regard as they used to be, effectively, wizards in 3rd, so they kept none of their original iconic spells. I also would have liked if they kept more (wizards name) spell. They still have the bigby's hands spells but like Evard's Black Tendrils just became Black Tendrils and Melf's Acid Arrow just became acid arrow. Those names were as big a part to the iconic spells of D&D to me as what the spells actually did. I really do like 4e but it's hard to find iconic powers amongst the literally thousands that exist, there are some here and there but most of them are at-wills or belongs to classes that previously didn't exist or that didn't get special powers. I really like the power system it would have just been nice if they had given more thought to making it really feel like it had always been a part of D&D.
Alternatively smacking the person who suggested item rarity, but everyone's kinda ignored that anyway, so all's well that ends well.
Probably get rid of dailies.
I agree. I would definitely have preferred an encounter-based paradigm with no daily-frequency effects.
Alternatively smacking the person who suggested item rarity, but everyone's kinda ignored that anyway, so all's well that ends well.
In the words of a wise man, "Rarity is a solution looking for a problem."
Myself, I'd be happy if the math were fixed. Get rid of feat taxes, fix the few builds that don't scale properly, tweak inherent bonuses and make it default, and replace masterwork armor with something else while we're at it.
I'd prefer dailies to have a recharge effect, or to be endlessly-usable, but only one daily could be used per encounter, than to be removed.
Recharge effects for dailies, yes please. I'm right there with ya!
The result would have easier bookkeeping, more interesting choices, and less 'powergame buff stacking' potential.
Power Strike to work with ranged attack.
Prevent characters from making more than one damage roll per round per target (outside of action points) - have all multiattacks, minor action attacks, immediate action attacks to deal fixed damage or to somehow roll damage without adding any modifiers. Integrating vulnerabilities into this (i.e. 1 vulnerability trigger/round) would also be nice.
Once damage scales at the same, predictable rate for all characters, add whatever static bonuses are needed to adjust the (monster HP/ PC damage) ratio to the desired values for strikers and non-strikers.
I'd prefer dailies to have a recharge effect, or to be endlessly-usable, but only one daily could be used per encounter, than to be removed.
i have seen a group that used an optional rule that during a short rest you can spend a action point to re gain use of a dailie power.
i think somthing like that would be nicer for players then the randomness of recharge.
ps dailies rule
Prevent characters from making more than one damage roll per round per target (outside of action points) - have all multiattacks, minor action attacks, immediate action attacks to deal fixed damage or to somehow roll damage without adding any modifiers. Integrating vulnerabilities into this (i.e. 1 vulnerability trigger/round) would also be nice.
+1. I have a somewhat clunky house rule to deal with this stuff, because there's no simple and effective way to fix it without rewriting a lot of powers. So I think this is a worthy endeavor of the designers.
Give every single bonus a typed bonus. You could even add a new type or two, but no more endless stacking.
No expertise or improved defense feats and add in masterwork neck items and weapons.
And leave dailies in, although I might make more of them have encounter long impacts. They are some of the best parts of the game, particularly with classes like clerics, wardens, and barbarians who have encounter long effects with them. They really change the feel of one encounter to the next and encourage longer work days for PCs who can have 4 (possibly 5 or 6 depending on build) different attack ones to go through by epic.
I do like some out of turn actions though, but they'd be encounter powers.
I like Daily powers to an extent. They're great for casters, but feel odd to me on melee type classes, EXCEPT when it's an encounter-long effect, like a stance or a a Barbarian's Rage.
A Daily should be one big, awesome spell or effect.
I'd also severely limit the number of feats available. There's just so many of them out there and so many which are just meh. Feats to just boost damage feel munchkin-y to me, yet I often take them as a player because the other choices don't fit the flavor.
However, I love Themes, and I really enjoy the Theme Utilities and Racial Utilities. I've considered houseruling in that my players can add a racial or theme utility for free at level 2, 6 and 10. 2 Utility powers at those levels, but can't take 2 skill utility powers or 2 class utility powers at the same level. Gives the players more versatility without being too gamebreaking.
I'd like to see a basic list of powers for classes to choose from, but have keywords affect the power's riders. There are several powers that are like Footwork Lure: Make an Weapon attack STR vs AC, does 1W+STR damge and push enemy one square. You shift into the square the enemy left. The same goes for some Leader powers: CHA vs AC, 1W +CHA dmg, a nearby Ally gains CHA mod temp HP- which is nearly the same as an Ardent at-will.
Why do we need multiple versions of the same power? What if your theme or feats added on to the basic attack- Martial could choose to slow, or to push and shift, or with a theme and feat additive riders, to prone. Another power source could do the same, or open the mob up to some vulnerability, or de-buff the mob.
This may be much tougher to balance across classes though, I haven't fleshed it out enough to be certain.
So, that's way more than one thing to change. If I could only choose one- Simplify Action economy by eliminating many out of turn actions.
Wizards and other arcane classes would get 1 at-will, many daily powers, and no encounter powers.
Fighters and other martial classes would get 4 or 5 at-wills (or very flexible at-wills), and few daily or encounter powers.
Divine PCs would have more encounter powers and less at-will and daily powers.
Psionic PCs would use old school power point systems, not fake power point systems that are basically the same as every other class.
You can still balance the game while making these changes.
I also support the idea of bringing back all of the classic spells that we knew from prior editions and giving them some of their old oomph.
I'd differentiate the classes/power sources a bit more by removing the consistency in structure.
Dear Ceiling Cat, no. Unifying the class structure was one of the best things 4e did.
I'd differentiate the classes/power sources a bit more by removing the consistency in structure.
Dear Ceiling Cat, no. Unifying the class structure was one of the best things 4e did.
I disagree.
I'm okay with immediate interrupts and reactions as long as they don't require rolling dice.
- A consistent effect that lasts an entire encounter. Some sustain effects might be added to accomplish this, if the effect would be too powerful without eating into the action economy.
- An annoying "either or" for saves. For an example, a cleric's Avenging Flame, which the target may only make a save against ongoing damage if it doesn't attack on its turn. Basically reinforcing the more deadly nature of save effects attached to dailies.
- A recharge of the daily. Not attached to all dailies, and possibly only attached to certain classes, I'm not sure.
Off turn attacks have got to go. They are slowing the game down and confusing the players (wait a sec, who's turn is it anyways?). Try playing epic tier where every character has a number of off turn attacks and combine that with a warlord and a few off turn attack granting items. Play slows down to an absolute crawl. A monster makes one attack roll and gets three attacks back in return. This would also go a long way towards solving the problem of challenging players at high level. I've seen epic level parties that a lot more damage on off turn attacks than during their own turns.
I'm okay with immediate interrupts and reactions as long as they don't require rolling dice.
thats why i pause for immediate actions and if you miss them, we dont go back
I think that most people like the 'game-changer' facet of dailies, but find it difficult to decide when to use them and often end up taking an extended rest just to get them back.
Off turn attacks have got to go. They are slowing the game down and confusing the players (wait a sec, who's turn is it anyways?). Try playing epic tier where every character has a number of off turn attacks and combine that with a warlord and a few off turn attack granting items. Play slows down to an absolute crawl. A monster makes one attack roll and gets three attacks back in return. This would also go a long way towards solving the problem of challenging players at high level. I've seen epic level parties that a lot more damage on off turn attacks than during their own turns.
I'm okay with immediate interrupts and reactions as long as they don't require rolling dice.
I think a big part of this is the imbalance of multiattack vs all most (all?) other sources of damage. In particular it's the fact that an encounter power that adds an attack with a damage roll does so much more extra damage than any other encounter power (generally the same issue on dailies as well) that it's the obvious way to powergame.
I guess maybe that's what I'd change.. make a number of damage bonuses move to 1/rd and a bunch of others move to 1/[W] (or damage die for non-weapon powers). For example Weapon/Implement Focus would be +1/die (no other scaling). So when the Ranger busts out his seven 1[W] attacks and the Barbarian busts out his 7[W] attack they're in the same ballpark. Also, late game going from +5 to +6 weapon makes a notable difference on damage, and going from 1[W] to 2[W] at-wills makes a notable difference, etc.
I'd differentiate the classes/power sources a bit more by removing the consistency in structure.
Dear Ceiling Cat, no. Unifying the class structure was one of the best things 4e did.
I disagree.
I disagree.
Pretend for a moment that you think 4e is the perfect role playing system for you. Maybe not the best ever, but it does everything you want out of a roleplaying system. Now pretend that there is just one thing about 4e you would liked changed, and only one thing. What would that be?
Tough call. It would either be the half-level bonus (I still don't get why having skills and DCs, and attacks and defenses all scale is better than scaling none of them and saving a lot of work) or dailies (I really don't like that every character is a Vancian caster now; part of why I'm so fond of a lot of the Essentials classes). Probably the former.
For me it would be returning iconic spells to their previous status. Spells like fireball have become uselss and some spells, like polymorph, simply no longer exist. I do like the ritual system alot to make up for some of the iconic spells that just aren't combat relative (like knock or tongues) but I wish they would have kept the names of some of the old iconic D&D spells for some of the rituals which have essentially those effects. I have never seen a fireball or a lightning bolt cast in 4e and I've never seen a druid really change the weather in some cool large encompassing way. Sorcerers I think are my biggest dissapointment in this regard as they used to be, effectively, wizards in 3rd, so they kept none of their original iconic spells. I also would have liked if they kept more (wizards name) spell. They still have the bigby's hands spells but like Evard's Black Tendrils just became Black Tendrils and Melf's Acid Arrow just became acid arrow. Those names were as big a part to the iconic spells of D&D to me as what the spells actually did. I really do like 4e but it's hard to find iconic powers amongst the literally thousands that exist, there are some here and there but most of them are at-wills or belongs to classes that previously didn't exist or that didn't get special powers. I really like the power system it would have just been nice if they had given more thought to making it really feel like it had always been a part of D&D.
I can't comment on this part because, like several people I know in real life and at least a dozen I've met online, I can't read it because my eyes get lost on walls of text – especially on screens. As much as I love Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, some of his nearly page-long paragraphs give me eye strain when I read my well-loved deadtree copy. I couldn't read it all off my laptop screen.
If anyone has ever wondered, that's why I tend to use more paragraph breaks than are strictly necessary: I might end up having difficulty reading my own posts if I didn't.
I'd differentiate the classes/power sources a bit more by removing the consistency in structure.
Dear Ceiling Cat, no. Unifying the class structure was one of the best things 4e did.
I disagree.
Even though that's what almost every RPG does post-2000, and rarely are characters judged to be the same?
I'd differentiate the classes/power sources a bit more by removing the consistency in structure.
Dear Ceiling Cat, no. Unifying the class structure was one of the best things 4e did.
I disagree.
Even though that's what almost every RPG does post-2000, and rarely are characters judged to be the same?
We are talking about D&D4. Are you assuming that I like it for other RPGs and I don not like it for D&D4?
Anyway, it could be good for a system and it could be bad for another system.
I do not know if you play videogames, but a good example is Warcraft (1 or 2), where humans and orcs were the same, so they were perfectly balanced. And Starcraft where humans, protoss and zergs are different, but almost perfectly balanced. In D&D4 each class has their own characteristics and power differences (strike, control, etc.), but in my opinion these differences are not enough, at least compared with past editions of D&D.
I'd differentiate the classes/power sources a bit more by removing the consistency in structure.
Dear Ceiling Cat, no. Unifying the class structure was one of the best things 4e did.
I disagree.
Even though that's what almost every RPG does post-2000, and rarely are characters judged to be the same?
We are talking about D&D4. Are you assuming that I like it for other RPGs and I don not like it for D&D4?
Anyway, it could be good for a system and it could be bad for another system.
I do not know if you play videogames, but a good example is Warcraft (1 or 2), where humans and orcs were the same, so they were perfectly balanced. And Starcraft where humans, protoss and zergs are different, but almost perfectly balanced. In D&D4 each class has their own characteristics and power differences (strike, control, etc.), but in my opinion these differences are not enough, at least compared with past editions of D&D.
And I can't see why, to be honest. Casters FEEL like casters. I mean, when I play my wizard, I'm in the back casting at ranging, throwing down blasts or using abilities that daze/stun enemies. If I'm my Warlord, I'm up front, either giving attacks or focusing on a single enemy. They are completely different characters based on the same system.
Considering the only difference in mechanics for Casters to Martial was resource management, I don't see the problem with removing that if it makes for better, longer game play. Then again, I question the need for resource management any more, but that's just me.
I'd differentiate the classes/power sources a bit more by removing the consistency in structure.
Dear Ceiling Cat, no. Unifying the class structure was one of the best things 4e did.
I disagree.
Even though that's what almost every RPG does post-2000, and rarely are characters judged to be the same?
We are talking about D&D4. Are you assuming that I like it for other RPGs and I don not like it for D&D4?
Anyway, it could be good for a system and it could be bad for another system.
I do not know if you play videogames, but a good example is Warcraft (1 or 2), where humans and orcs were the same, so they were perfectly balanced. And Starcraft where humans, protoss and zergs are different, but almost perfectly balanced. In D&D4 each class has their own characteristics and power differences (strike, control, etc.), but in my opinion these differences are not enough, at least compared with past editions of D&D.
And I can't see why, to be honest. Casters FEEL like casters. I mean, when I play my wizard, I'm in the back casting at ranging, throwing down blasts or using abilities that daze/stun enemies. If I'm my Warlord, I'm up front, either giving attacks or focusing on a single enemy. They are completely different characters based on the same system.
Considering the only difference in mechanics for Casters to Martial was resource management, I don't see the problem with removing that if it makes for better, longer game play. Then again, I question the need for resource management any more, but that's just me.
Am I talking about casters? Why are you assuming things I do not say? For me casters do not feel like previous editions casters. Bards do not feel like previous editions bards. Paladins do not feel like previous editions paladins. Thiefs do not feel like previous editions bards. Fighters do not feel like previous edition fighters. For me, maybe clerics feel a bit like previous editions clerics.
For D&D4 I do not like that feeling, so I agree with Ceiling Cat.
I'd differentiate the classes/power sources a bit more by removing the consistency in structure.
Dear Ceiling Cat, no. Unifying the class structure was one of the best things 4e did.
I disagree.
Even though that's what almost every RPG does post-2000, and rarely are characters judged to be the same?
We are talking about D&D4. Are you assuming that I like it for other RPGs and I don not like it for D&D4?
Anyway, it could be good for a system and it could be bad for another system.
I do not know if you play videogames, but a good example is Warcraft (1 or 2), where humans and orcs were the same, so they were perfectly balanced. And Starcraft where humans, protoss and zergs are different, but almost perfectly balanced. In D&D4 each class has their own characteristics and power differences (strike, control, etc.), but in my opinion these differences are not enough, at least compared with past editions of D&D.
And I can't see why, to be honest. Casters FEEL like casters. I mean, when I play my wizard, I'm in the back casting at ranging, throwing down blasts or using abilities that daze/stun enemies. If I'm my Warlord, I'm up front, either giving attacks or focusing on a single enemy. They are completely different characters based on the same system.
Considering the only difference in mechanics for Casters to Martial was resource management, I don't see the problem with removing that if it makes for better, longer game play. Then again, I question the need for resource management any more, but that's just me.
Am I talking about casters? Why are you assuming things I do not say? For me casters do not feel like previous editions casters. Bards do not feel like previous editions bards. Paladins do not feel like previous editions paladins. Thiefs do not feel like previous editions bards. Fighters do not feel like previous edition fighters. For me, maybe clerics feel a bit like previous editions clerics.
For D&D4 I do not like that feeling, so I agree with Ceiling Cat.
I was just mentions ways that the classes feel different, as that seemed to be why you didn't want symetrical classes. If you hold previous edition "feel" in such why regard, why choose newer editions that may never give that again?
I was just mentions ways that the classes feel different, as that seemed to be why you didn't want symetrical classes. If you hold previous edition "feel" in such why regard, why choose newer editions that may never give that again?
A newer edition could have things that are better and could have things that are worse. If the improvements exceed the worsenings, why not to choose a new edition?
A newer edition could have things that are better and could have things that are worse. If the improvements exceed the worsenings, why not to choose a new edition?
Investment. Are the improvements so much better then the worsenings that it's worth buying the new books?
If it is, you are entirely correct that there's no real reason not to choose a new edition. I think it's mostly those three factors: how much did it get better, how much did it get worse, and how much is the investment going to be (it'll involve learning new rules, buying new books, and losing old rulesbooks)
Of course, for each of the three groups, the value differ from group to group, and even within a group, so it'll be a personal choice for every group. That's what makes it so annoying
A wizard is an intelligent spellcaster, the master of magic, casting spells to confound and destroy his foes. D&D 4E wizards feel like that.
Do they feel like 3E wizards? Does it matter? This is a role-playing game. Playing a wizard feels like playing a wizard. Using magic to dominate combat.
Hell, one of my biggest complaints about AD&D and 3E was how very little low level wizards felt like magic users. They cast maybe one spell and then sat there and shot things with a crossbow/sling. Could you visualize a mage, a master of the arcane arts... chucking sling bullets at people?
Wizards don't feel like they did in past editions because 4E wizards use magic. They don't have the following curve:
Levels 1-4: Dunderheads with slings who occasionally do something cool
Levels 5-6: OMG Fireball, they're reasonably balanced
Levels 7+: Why are you playing a fighter you poor fool
A newer edition could have things that are better and could have things that are worse. If the improvements exceed the worsenings, why not to choose a new edition?
Investment. Are the improvements so much better then the worsenings that it's worth buying the new books?
If it is, you are entirely correct that there's no real reason not to choose a new edition. I think it's mostly those three factors: how much did it get better, how much did it get worse, and how much is the investment going to be (it'll involve learning new rules, buying new books, and losing old rulesbooks)
Of course, for each of the three groups, the value differ from group to group, and even within a group, so it'll be a personal choice for every group. That's what makes it so annoying
I agree with you.
Offtopic to the little derail going on - The Rules and mechanics are not what should be what governs the feel of D&D. in fact, I'd say you're balls to the wall crazy if you think that's what owes to the feel of a particular class or race, and what the qualities should be derived from as opposed to the thematics.
4th edition did have it right when they made such drastic changes because NOBODY should have bought 4th edition like it was another 3.5 suppliment. Being virtually a new game in its own right was the best design decision ever. I didn't need stuff compatible with 3.5 because I have 50+ books covering every freaking angle and subsystem that could be dreamed of from tome of magic, Magic of incarnum, Expanded psionics and the Tome of Battle. a new game that captured all the thematics and flavor in a new, rebalanced chassis that had polish and room to expand in new ways was rules design nirvana for me, Much like Dresden Files FATE has been for a new angle on storytelling systems.
It'd also be grand to do away with the bad math/feat tax situation, and I'd happily choose that next if given the chance. But Essentials tops the list, as I see it. It's an unnecessary quagmire that has diluted, rather than refined, 4th edition.
In particular it really confounds me that 4E seems to emphasize the ability to create and use a home brew campaign world and yet it is completely impossible for me to use my own Gods or Cosmology.
At the very least it should be possible to take the 4E Domains for the Gods and allow them to be individually picked in the character builder. In other words give an option for 'custom god' and then allow the players to choose from a list of all the 4E domains. If that was available it'd be pretty easy for a home brew campaign to have its own list of custom Gods.
The current design team, or at least get them to look forwards rather than being stuck in the past with rose coloured glasses.
such a simple yet pervasive impact answer...