Design Space - What are the biggest gaps in 4th Edition?

[Incenjucar]

As a would-be game designer, I spend a lot of time thinking about where the biggest design spaces are - whether player options, monsters, scenarios, alternative rules, or campaign styles. There are a lot of areas that have been only occasionally touched upon, and areas where further development would be beneficial, but I'm mostly interested in the big yawning gaps that aren't really on WotC's radar, but which aren't stuck in in-house limbo like elemental classes.

Some of the biggest design spaces, as might be expected, are in epic, especially with monsters. Non-fleshy rank-and-file elemental beings like archons all but cease to exist once you hit epic. Explicitly primal creatures are incredibly rare at all tiers. Non-evil aquatic races (merfolk, tritons, sirens, etc) simply don't exist. Epic fey creatures are narrow in scope - mostly just higher level versions of the same humanoid groups you fought in paragon. Non-undead shadow creatures are few and far between, and usually minions of the Raven Queen (though the exceptions are some of the most interesting things in the game).

What major open design spaces (and not just monsters) do you see in the game, particularly those that could be filled through the pages of Dungeon and Dragon?

 

[Zaran]

As a would-be game designer, I spend a lot of time thinking about where the biggest design spaces are - whether player options, monsters, scenarios, alternative rules, or campaign styles. There are a lot of areas that have been only occasionally touched upon, and areas where further development would be beneficial, but I'm mostly interested in the big yawning gaps that aren't really on WotC's radar, but which aren't stuck in in-house limbo like elemental classes.

Some of the biggest design spaces, as might be expected, are in epic, especially with monsters. Non-fleshy rank-and-file elemental beings like archons all but cease to exist once you hit epic. Explicitly primal creatures are incredibly rare at all tiers. Non-evil aquatic races (merfolk, tritons, sirens, etc) simply don't exist. Epic fey creatures are narrow in scope - mostly just higher level versions of the same humanoid groups you fought in paragon. Non-undead shadow creatures are few and far between, and usually minions of the Raven Queen (though the exceptions are some of the most interesting things in the game).

What major open design spaces (and not just monsters) do you see in the game, particularly those that could be filled through the pages of Dungeon and Dragon?

I think biggest thing that 4e can improve on is things to do outside of combat. Professions, Strongholds, Mercantilism, Politics, Kingdom making. Everyone wants to turn these things into Skill Challenges or Hand-Waving and get back to the combat and personally think that there is alot of fun potential in those things.

Excellent GMs can probably run these sort of things for their players as is, but I am not an excellent GM and could use all the help I can get.

We did get an article on Strongholds a few months back. I quickly came to the conclusion that they overpriced everything by a factor of 10. Supposedly we were supposed to get Professions in one of the cancelled books so we should be seeing that sort of thing in a Dragon Article someday.

 

[renau1g]

Professions? I really hope we don't see design space used for that. Adventurers do have a profession, it's adventuring. There's no real need for the 9th level fighter to take the time resting between adventures to pick up his hoe and till the land. Or at least there's no need for a mechanical set of rules. If you want to have a mini-game about haggling over the price of wheat, or tending to the livestock, or hammering out the horseshoes....that's not really D&D... Now... politics and kingdom making are much better as the PC's would likely be embroiled in politics whether they like it or not, they're the most (or amongst the most) powerful people in the realm, so they'd be courted by every faction.

Kingdom making also, so many times the PC's are awarded land and title for their deeds in my games. I've used the Paizo Kingmaker rules but am always interested in others.

In terms of design gaps... I see adventures, especially AP's as a huge whole that Paizo has filled and seems to work excellently for them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd like to see a social combat system designed to be at least a quarter as intricate as martial/spell combat is (since it's currently like 5% if that). While the skill challenge system is fine I suppose to accomplish it... we all know that the math between skills and creature defenses is even more screwed up than in physical combat. The numbers aren't meant to have someone's Intimidate be used against a creature's Will (especially in higher tiers), despite the fact that that makes the most sense in the world.

Rebuilding the system such that you can have social combat where you can use your social skills like Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff etc. against actual character defenses (rather than just arbitrary DCs), with all characters having "emotional hit points" and access to social "maneuvers" would make the whole system more dynamic and interesting for all parties. I don't think it should be an exact replica of current martial/spell combat (since using a grid would be unnecessary obviously), but it could/should be its own interesting combat subset.

And if the system was designed well-enough with the numbers right such that you could actually also do the occasional social skill attack in the midst of martial/spell combat... then so much the better. We've got STR vs Fortitude with the Bull Rush (push enemy 1 square), STR vs Reflex with the Grab (immobilize enemy), we need STR vs Will with the Intimidate (knock enemy prone as it cowers with fear).

 

[Kinneus]

One thing that always stood out to me was how underutilized combat advnatage is as a mechanic. If you don't have a Rogue in the party, it's basically just a bland +2 that doesn't stack with anything.

If you do have a Rogue in the party, every combat suddenly gets a lot more tactically interesting (at least in Heroic tier) as everybody's trying to set up flanks or hit with Dazing powers so the stabby little scrapper can get his big boom. I frankly don't know why WotC hasn't picked up on this, and done more to encourage players to seek out combat advantage.

This might be a good thing, however; I suspect that in Paragon and Epic tier, as Stuns and Dazes and such-and-such becomes more common, getting CA becomes trivial. But I've always wanted to see another Striker that benefits from CA beyond the generic +2. Something like, "If you gain CA against an enemy due to a flank, you can make a melee basic attack as a minor action against that enemy" or something suitably Strikery (although not that in particular, because that's way too strong).

Also, why just Strikers? I'd love to see a Controller with a class feature that said something like "If you hit an enemy that is granting you CA, that enemy is slowed until the end of your next turn." And then, of course, that Controller would have a bunch of feats and powers that capitalize on both CA and the Slowed condition (although World Serpent's Grasp might've made this too powerful, I think you get the idea).

CA: it's not just for Rogues anymore!

 

[WalterKovacs]

One thing that always stood out to me was how underutilized combat advnatage is as a mechanic. If you don't have a Rogue in the party, it's basically just a bland +2 that doesn't stack with anything.

If you do have a Rogue in the party, every combat suddenly gets a lot more tactically interesting (at least in Heroic tier) as everybody's trying to set up flanks or hit with Dazing powers so the stabby little scrapper can get his big boom. I frankly don't know why WotC hasn't picked up on this, and done more to encourage players to seek out combat advantage.

This might be a good thing, however; I suspect that in Paragon and Epic tier, as Stuns and Dazes and such-and-such becomes more common, getting CA becomes trivial. But I've always wanted to see another Striker that benefits from CA beyond the generic +2. Something like, "If you gain CA against an enemy due to a flank, you can make a melee basic attack as a minor action against that enemy" or something suitably Strikery (although not that in particular, because that's way too strong).

Well, the Blackguard does work off combat advatage for (most) of his bonus damage at the very least. And anyone wielding light blades at least gets a minor boost via expertise. [There are also people that use the suprise charge feat which requires c/a as well].

 

[Dausuul]

One thing that always stood out to me was how underutilized combat advnatage is as a mechanic. If you don't have a Rogue in the party, it's basically just a bland +2 that doesn't stack with anything.

If you do have a Rogue in the party, every combat suddenly gets a lot more tactically interesting (at least in Heroic tier) as everybody's trying to set up flanks or hit with Dazing powers so the stabby little scrapper can get his big boom. I frankly don't know why WotC hasn't picked up on this, and done more to encourage players to seek out combat advantage.

This might be a good thing, however; I suspect that in Paragon and Epic tier, as Stuns and Dazes and such-and-such becomes more common, getting CA becomes trivial. But I've always wanted to see another Striker that benefits from CA beyond the generic +2. Something like, "If you gain CA against an enemy due to a flank, you can make a melee basic attack as a minor action against that enemy" or something suitably Strikery (although not that in particular, because that's way too strong).

Also, why just Strikers? I'd love to see a Controller with a class feature that said something like "If you hit an enemy that is granting you CA, that enemy is slowed until the end of your next turn." And then, of course, that Controller would have a bunch of feats and powers that capitalize on both CA and the Slowed condition (although World Serpent's Grasp might've made this too powerful, I think you get the idea).

Excellent idea. I could see this being a big thing for psionic classes and enchanters--you take advantage of an enemy being confused and off guard to worm your way into her mind.

I would even go so far as to have powers which require combat advantage to use. That would cut down on nova-ing, as well as encouraging more tactically interesting fights.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

The disease track. It could be used for lots of other stuff, permanent injuries, etc, or just get more interesting diseases in the game. Cursed items, or magical items in general (it's time to get cracking on making special items, we all know that 4E can accomadate them, just write a sidebar explaining that these items must be used with caution, etc). Rituals. There are many rituals in the game, yet I feel that this is an underappreciated part of the game and the rules for rituals wasn't even included in the Rules Compendium.

 

[Dausuul]

I want to see a mass combat system, including rules for PCs to lead armies and rule dominions once they hit Paragon tier. Nothing too intricate; I'm thinking something along the lines of BECMI's War Machine, a fairly abstract system that just crunches some factors and spits out a result, instead of trying to simulate the battle blow by blow.

Also incorporate rules for the PCs to perform missions to affect the outcome of the battle--challenge the enemy general to single combat, raid enemy supply lines, et cetera.

 

[KidSnide]

I want to see a mass combat system, including rules for PCs to lead armies and rule dominions once they hit Paragon tier. Nothing too intricate; I'm thinking something along the lines of BECMI's War Machine, a fairly abstract system that just crunches some factors and spits out a result, instead of trying to simulate the battle blow by blow.

Also incorporate rules for the PCs to perform missions to affect the outcome of the battle--challenge the enemy general to single combat, raid enemy supply lines, et cetera.

...and I want to see a mass combat system where powerful PCs can have combat scenarios with allied and enemy units. Presumably, each unit would be stated out as a swarm variant. I'd like to see something short of a war game (where the units are more important than the heroes), but robust enough to handle a Bloodstone-style adventure.

-KS