If you could change THREE THINGS about 4E...

[Lago PARANOIA]

What would you change?

Me?

1) Fix the fucking multiclassing system so it isn't some candy-ass dip into another class where you waste feats and don't end up ahead unless you select something out-of-control.

Actually, you know what? I think now is as good of any a time to just get rid of classes altogether. Class features aren't meaningful anymore and powers aren't. Who really fucking cares if a ranger can smite demons and throw fireballs now? 4th Edition sure doesn't, because powers are overall a drop in the bucket. Really, what's the difference in design philosophy for a fighter and a warlord, other than one is a little bit more bashy and the other hands out bullshit bonuses now and again?

4th Edition gives out all of its class powers at level one and gives you nothing but depressingly similar powers for the next 10 levels, then you get to pick an ineffectual paragon class. Then it drops the bullshit pretext anyway and gives you an epic destiny. After 1st level, all your class does is hand you marginally different hit points and what powers you pick from. And since the powers are small and weak, why have classes at all?

2) More powers per encounter and day. Having combat last as long as it does is one thing. I don't like it, but it's understandable. Having combat last this long when a) combat lasts longer when you go up in levels b) you run out of fucking powers faster due to caveat 'a' and c) doing more combats gets more boring because you wasted your dailies/utilities is fucking stupid.

Having to use a power I got 10 levels ago not because it's right for the situation but because that's all I have in the tank is bullshit.

And I think it's just a flat-out terrible way to go. You don't have enough powers right now to consistently hold you through an entire combat. What the fuck are they going to do when they come out with god knows how many splatbooks in the next 8 years and you're still piddling around with 5 encounter powers, two of which haven't changed for the last 5 fucking levels? Who the fuck is going to care about Complete Loincloth or Sword and Whatthefuckery if they're already saturated to the brim on powers? No one gave a fuck about fighter stuff after the time Defenders of the Faith came out because they were already full up except for the crazily decent feats like Karmic Strike and Elusive Target and Shock Trooper. And this was back when fighters were so hard up on feats that you took Whirlwind and liked it. People don't have enough powers out of the gate, so what the fuck WotC?

3) Fix the skill challenge system so it doesn't revolve around the other players sitting out while one retard rolls a die a billion times. Also fix the regular skill system so that some fatass paragon wizard isn't as good as sneaking as a low-level rogue. The pampered evil chancellor being better at finding mushrooms in the forest than his entourage has got to go, too.

Really, I think the easiest way to fix the above is to remove level-based skill bonuses altogether. You either get a bonus from feats or racial bonuses or what the fuck ever or a bonus based off of your stats. From here on out, training in an ability gives you a blanket list of abilities you automatically do. For example, having the 'legdermain' skill automatically lets you hide from non-elite/solo monsters your CR+1 or lower unless they specifically have an ability/skill to counter it while also allowing you to pick pockets and sleight of hand like a motherfucker.

In other words, skills should be like prestidigation, only more power and they let you do stuff like NEW APPLICATION: you can now identify magical items and rituals by observing them. With a DC 15 INT check, you can learn the ritual just by watching it. Or some shit.

[Psychic Robot]

1. Make it more like 3e.
2. Anything else is gravy.

[MartinHarper]

1) More at-will powers.
2) Fixing solos/elites
3) Fixing skill challenges

[rapa-nui]

1. Powers that actually DO shit, that are useable more often. "Powers" includes Feats BTW, which are next to fucking worthless.

2. More material in core books (illusions, summoning, more complete multiclassing, animals/familiars).

3. Better ritual rules, better skill rules (these go together because basically anything that happens outside of combat in the game was not handled well).


Those are the three big things 4e does wrong. Solo/elite HPs can be seen as part of problem 1, since your powers hardly do shit to these fuckers.

[JonSetanta]

1. Make it more like 3e.
2. Anything else is gravy.

This, with bacon bits on top.

[Josh_Kablack]

1. Use the "an optimized character must hit a basic level appropriate monster exactly four times to drop it." Monster HP model as a guideline, not a sacred commandment. It's fucking great that they actually did combat math and balanced things out - but it would be nice if they hadn't balanced it quite so hard or set the numbers to "rather repetitive grind-fest"

2. Put the other parts of the game back on the RNG. Skills are still just as Borked as ever.

3. Redo the power system as the card game it wants to be.

[Voss]

1] Elite/solo monsters
2] uninteresting powers or the skill 'mechanic', full stop.
3] Damage and hit points being on two different scales that aren't even related to each other.

And thats if I stop at 3 (or rather 4). A handful of passable ideas that fail in execution don't make for a game, especially when they are poor copies of shit done by somebody else. Basically the whole thing needs to be torn apart and redone.

Which is kind of a given, since 5th was pretty much pencilled in for roughly 2016-2018.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Fuck...fuck...fuck...

Angry are we?

1] Elite/solo monsters

Care to elaborate?

Personally the only thing that really sticks in my craw about 4e is that alignment is meaningless. Really, if you're going to neuter alignment, don't slice it open, dump its guts out, leave it's smelly ass rotting carcass lying around the game and expect that making a couple of lame ass inconsistent and impotent references to alignment in the cleric and paladin classes are going to keep it relevant. Just because a few dumbass forum-goers obsess and argue over it doesn't mean that 4e gamers with half a brain give a rat's ass about alignment one way or the other now that there are no consequences linked to alignment anymore.

If you leave alignment in the game, which I think would be an awesome idea, make it fucking relevant. No, we don't need to go back to the arbitrary class alignment restrictions, the detect evil bullshit or all the aligned damage abilities that made neutrality the best alignment. But if a hero wants to be dedicated to Good they should be cleaving villains in half rather than making scratches in their armor like any other foe. If an amateur desinger like me can make alignment relevant and balanced, so can the WotC designers. It's not fucking rocket science.

TS

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1. Turn it into a hot chick that has a thing for guys that look like me.

2. Add a fine bottle of Tequila.

3. A lifetime supply of Magnum: Extra Large condoms.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I hate elite/solo monsters because they make PCs look like complete pussies.

C'mon, 4 of you assholes ganging up on one creature and MAYBE beating them after 5 rounds of combat if you go full throttle? What kind of bullshit is that? It would be one thing if said creature was an uber hate dragon, but that kind of gangrape on, say, a troll?

[RandomCasualty2]

1. More meaningful combat choices: Really 4E has only one meaningful choice, and that's resource management. You try to use your encounter powers on the most menacing creature, and you try to save your dailies for the most dangerous encounter. And that's pretty much it. Aside from exploiting some crazy stunlock build, there's not a great deal of tactics or choices. You've got slightly more than a 3.5 fighter, but thats it. 4E needs a lot more power choices and a lot more options in general of powers that do interesting things. Right now, you've got powers that do little things you probably don't care much about, and you've got stunlock powers, which are totally broken.

2. More power interaction: The main problem with 4E is that there isn't much room for powers to counter each other. A mage concentrates on sustaining a flaming sphere? Can you really stop him? Can you shut down the spell? Unfortunately in 4E, the answer is no, not without the totally awesome stunlock powers that are basically the answer to everything. Aside from that, there's really not much you can do besides rush people and hope for the best. Powers really need more tags so they can counter each other better.

3. Rituals that don't suck: 'nuff said.

[fliprushman]

1. Monsters: I hate how the monsters don't follow the same rules as the players and are not able to be scaled up past 5.

2. Options: The game is very limited in choice and flavor. The cleric of Pelor is the same as the cleric of Selune or the Raven Queen. That's just not cool. The feats offer no help in this field nor does racial choice.

3. Miniatures: I don't want to play a miniatures game when I'm roleplaying, I would rather play a roleplaying game with the help of miniatures.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I hate elite/solo monsters because they make PCs look like complete pussies.

C'mon, 4 of you assholes ganging up on one creature and MAYBE beating them after 5 rounds of combat if you go full throttle? What kind of bullshit is that? It would be one thing if said creature was an uber hate dragon, but that kind of gangrape on, say, a troll?

Sooo...what exactly is your criteria for 'it's okay for this monster to make my PCs look like pussies'? Do you have a similar hatred for monsters above the PCs' level?

1. Monsters: I hate how the monsters don't follow the same rules as the players and are not able to be scaled up past 5.

Monsters actually are scalable past 5, despite what the DMG says; you just have to get a little more creative than 'add/subtract from its attacks and defenses equal to its level.'

TS

[Maxus]

Well, I'd change powers.

1) Get more of them; I was a larger number of powers, and I want to be able to use Encounter and Daily-powers more than one per encounter/day.

2) Some powers should be able to affect the world.

3) They should do enough damage that I don't ever have to do this:

[RandomCasualty2]

1. Monsters: I hate how the monsters don't follow the same rules as the players and are not able to be scaled up past 5.

Well, monsters actually do follow the same basic rules as PCs, except for recharge. The mechanics of a monster attack is just +9 vs AC or +10 versus fortitude, which is pretty much exactly how a PC attack works. They use the same area effects and so forth.

The only difference is that monsters aren't built like PCs, and that part I actually agree with a lot. As a PC you've got tons of time to build up a character, and that's cool. As a DM, I want something I can write up quick, which means I want the final numbers first and then the ability to throw on a few abilities.

[K]

1. Monsters: I hate how the monsters don't follow the same rules as the players and are not able to be scaled up past 5.

Well, monsters actually do follow the same basic rules as PCs, except for recharge. The mechanics of a monster attack is just +9 vs AC or +10 versus fortitude, which is pretty much exactly how a PC attack works. They use the same area effects and so forth.

The only difference is that monsters aren't built like PCs, and that part I actually agree with a lot. As a PC you've got tons of time to build up a character, and that's cool. As a DM, I want something I can write up quick, which means I want the final numbers first and then the ability to throw on a few abilities.

I'd argue that monsters aren't even playing the same game as PCs. They get fewer powers, powers with better mechanics than anything PCs can get, and those powers don't follow any metric that PCs use in terms of strength of powers as related to level.

Actually modifying a monster is an exercise in eyeballing because as far as I can tell the template system is nearly non-functional as a kind of object metric of power.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Actually, here's a thought.

Do you think that the game designers intentionally made monsters non-moddable in order to sell more books?

Think about it. If you had all of the templates ever created in 3rd Edition and used monster advancement rules (in both HD and class levels), you really had all of the monsters you ever needed in one book. That's great for the game, piss-poor for sales.

However, making it so that the only way you can really make new balanced monsters is to follow their bullshit elite/solo system OR buy their new fucking books... why, that's practically a license to print money!

[Tequila Sunrise]

Do you think that the game designers intentionally made monsters non-moddable in order to sell more books?

Of course. Stat blocks could just as easily read:

Tier and Role: Epic Solo Controller
Initiative: 1/2 level
AC: 14 + level
Armageddon (standard; recharge 5-6) - Fire
Close blast 10; 3 + level vs. Reflex; 3d10 + level fire damage and the target takes ongoing 15 fire damage.
etc...

Which is actually how I write stat blocks. But instead they make stat blocks that are limited to a single level. It's all about the money, money, money, honey!

TS

[JonSetanta]

Actually, here's a thought.

Do you think that the game designers intentionally made monsters non-moddable in order to sell more books?

Think about it. If you had all of the templates ever created in 3rd Edition and used monster advancement rules (in both HD and class levels), you really had all of the monsters you ever needed in one book. That's great for the game, piss-poor for sales.

However, making it so that the only way you can really make new balanced monsters is to follow their bullshit elite/solo system OR buy their new fucking books... why, that's practically a license to print money!

Yes. I do genuinely believe that. 3e had the chance to completely remodel the monster vs. PC dualism from the AD&D (and earlier) standard that monsters are essentially hermetically sealed statblocks and PCs are modular with class/race combos, but Wizards fucked it up.

By keeping "official" monsters as the ideal standard for whatever passes for encounter balance, without revealing the exact process for making monsters at first in 3.0 (although it turned out there was no science to it), the designers have been viewed as the only official source by far too many gamers.
If a monster is made by a fan it's brushed off by a majority of the D&D gaming population as lesser just for lacking that stamp of approval.

Perhaps the general preference for pre-made monster statblocks comes not from a lack of creativity but simply sheer laziness as usual.

Still, that official stamp: Good for business, bad for the game.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, at least 3rd Edition TRIED to give the playerbase insight into the design of monsters and tried to hand over their own tools.

The monster creation system was fucked, but that's because the game was fucked. But the attempt was still ambitious and insightful.

This right here is a giant step backwards. Fucking 4th Ed.

[JonSetanta]

Well, at least 3rd Edition TRIED to give the playerbase insight into the design of monsters and tried to hand over their own tools.

The monster creation system was fucked, but that's because the game was fucked. But the attempt was still ambitious and insightful.

This right here is a giant step backwards. Fucking 4th Ed.

Agreed there. The suggestion for making 4e simply classless, with a universal HD type and access to all powers, might help in making both monsters and PCs.
Everyone would be on the same page be they controlled by DM or player. That's very important for balance and allows for better player options.
If a player says "I want to be an ogre" you don't have to do arcane statblock calculations to remove the Giant HD as in 3e; one would simply grab all ogre-themed and size increasing options up to the appropriate level, and stomp off.

For simplicity if a DM wants "a series of simple stat blocks for encounters" they would pick less powers, maybe 3-4 at most, and load up on the options such as more HP and other static defenses.

We can still save it but I won't be swimming in that cesspool just yet. Perhaps in a month after the first massive 4e errata surge, at least.

[Username17]

It is a basically bad idea for a level based system to allow for less options & higher numbers. Such a character, be they monster or PC, behaves as a higher level character for a number of rounds until they run out of options, and then behaves as a much much lower level character.

The numbers can change from one archetype to another (moar strength vs. moar magic for example), but they shouldn't be allowed to shift on a slider between bigger and smaller. Not for anything. Weapon Focus is very bad for the game.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

I'd argue that monsters aren't even playing the same game as PCs. They get fewer powers, powers with better mechanics than anything PCs can get, and those powers don't follow any metric that PCs use in terms of strength of powers as related to level.

Well, monsters really aren't playing the same game as PCs. Most monsters fight one encounter per day, and die in that encounter. Daily powers for monsters don't really make a heck of a lot of sense, because monsters don't have to play the resource management game or anything.

As for strength of the powers, the entire game is exception based design, so nothing really has any base power guidelines, except for being relative to other things. And really, the monster powers don't seem that crazy awesome, except for elites or solos, where this is understandable since once elite = 2 PCs, and one solo = 5 PCs.

Actually modifying a monster is an exercise in eyeballing because as far as I can tell the template system is nearly non-functional as a kind of object metric of power.

Yeah pretty much. But you get decent base numbers. Monster abilities are always going to be an exercise in eyeballing. But to be honest I don't want to change that. Any kind of crazy point system just takes too long, so I'd rather have loose guidelines instead of a rigid system, because anything that makes preparation time too long is absolutely useless to me, because I'm not going to use it.

[Tequila Sunrise]

This right here is a giant step backwards. Fucking 4th Ed.

ILMAO

...Sorry, I just couldn't keep a straight face after reading that. The 4e DMG's monster creation guidelines are far from perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than 3e's guidelines. Monster creation guidelines in 3e were an afterthought; they had a guideline for monster AB, but no mention of equally important stats like how much damage a monster should deal or how high the DCs should be for major spells/abilities.

4e at least gives you guidelines for all the important monster stats, even if the designers themselves didn't follow them exactly.

TS

[MartinHarper]

Do you think that the game designers intentionally made monsters non-moddable in order to sell more books?

I think the general plan is to sell books to players, because there are more players than DMs. There are rules and guidelines in the DMG to encourage homebrewed monsters and NPCs.

They make stat blocks that are limited to a single level.

Well: that level plus or minus about five, using the DMG. You can't make a single stat block that works over thirty levels, because of things like flight.