I am making some headway in my Microlite-ish 4E clone project. I've decided to compile my notes here so that if anything is terribly unplayable, someone will catch it before any major design decisions hinge on something irredeemably flawed.
So here is what I have for the game so far, starting with the core system skeleton and eventually detailing the extraneous bits like races and classes.
My opinion on 4E as a whole, is that the game had a lot of laudable design goals and very good ideas, but the actual implementation of these things leaves a lot to be desired. The overall impression that I get is that the game was committed to print before these things were sufficiently tested at the actual table, and with the constant stream of errata, updates and direction changes, 4E is more like a beta test version of what will eventually be 5th edition.
The best ideas of 4E:
The math "just works"
The designers of 4E wanted the math to scale in such a way that higher levels became as playable as lower levels, challenges were easier to gauge for DM's, and everyone had a good indication of how the game's engine worked. All around a worthy design goal.
- The problem: Well....no it doesn't "just work". Monster stats and skill DC's (initially) scale at a faster rate than character numbers, meaning that as a character gains more experience, their efficacy against level appropriate threats actually decreases. Without the feat tax fixes like expertise feats, character's experience an overall loss of efficacy of about 20% over the course of their careers.
My fix: Remove enhancement bonuses from magic items and the game math, while limiting stat increases to levels 11 and 21. Give monsters the same 1/2 level scale as PC's, so that characters actually get better as they gain experience.
Skill DC's are no longer level dependent. There is just one hard scale for DC's, so that as characters level, it simply becomes more likely that they will be able to perform superhuman feats of prowess.
Dynamic Combat
Combat is a major feature of D&D. It is an action and adventure game about medieval superheroes tackling monsters of Godzilla-esque proportions. The designers of 4E wanted combat to be exciting and dynamic, with lots of terrain features, traps, combatants and interesting tactical decisions for every character, so that all players could contribute equally well.
- The problem: Well, there's a lot to do in 4E combat, but that doesn't necessarily make it "exciting". Characters all having special combat options to call upon was a good idea in theory, but in practice the game became a slow grind because of option paralysis and poor rules interactions.
It's not that I think that 4E combat lasts too long in terms of rounds...I don't care if the average combat lasts 10 rounds as opposed to 4E's 5, as long as those rounds go by fairly quickly, and interesting things actually happen in each round. The problem, I think, is that individual turns last too long. Each character gets 3 actions per round, each of these having their own special mechanics. Add to this Immediate Actions and the sheer amount of niggling little modifiers here and there, and combat becomes a slow process that climbs along at a snail's speed.
The other problem is that powers aren't all that interesting. I don't think that this is a problem with the way the powers themselves are written, even though they are mostly modular cocktails of standardized effects. I think that the main problem here is that the powers react poorly with the core system and with the game world. A power that simply does a push or slide effect COULD be tactically interesting if it could manage to interrupt something the target was doing. Also, a power that simply does Fire damage and nothing else COULD be interesting, if there were actual guidelines about how said power would interact with the environment as opposed to just enemy combatants.
My fix: Condense the action economy into 2 actions, essentially an attack action and a support action. Support actions are used for moving, and also for activating and maintaining certain support powers. Now, characters have to choose whether or not to sustain a power or run away from the lumbering brute who wants to cave their head in with a morningstar. Also, since moving and sustaining a fighting stance take the same action...pushing an enemy combatant away from the squishy characters now has more tactical weight.
Limiting Immediate Actions to one per round, per character and condensing modifiers is another way to keep things on track and make bookkeeping easier.
Bumping up the danger quotient a bit will keep combat feeling perilous and exciting. Monsters now draw their offensive and support powers from the same pool that player's get, so they are still on a relatively even playing field (PC's still get tactical options that monsters don't) and keeps the game world feeling more consistent.
Tactical resource management is now randomized, so players will have to change up their game each round according to the options available to them, and this also helps limit the bookkeeping aspect of the game.
Skill Challenges
The idea of a general system to support and reward out of combat challenges in such a way that all players could participate, and therefore wouldn't immediately turn to the "kill 'em all" approach to overcoming obstacles was a good one.
- The problem: DC progression aside, the major problem with skill challenges is that they fail to be inclusive or exciting. Skill challenges are written in such a way that the one character rolls his/her skill until they get enough successes, and other characters sit it out because rolling a subpar skill would be detrimental to the party. They fail to work as intended primarily because there is absolutely no adverse effect to relying on only one character for them, and skill challenges do not do enough to foster player input.
My fix: Instead of having to get X number of successes before Y failures, skill challenges now require X number of successes within Y narrative rounds. Also, skill rolls effect the DC's of the challenge, adding a strategic element to challenges. GM's also have the opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the works, in order to keep things interesting.
Rituals have also been tied into the Skill Challenge system, so that spellcasters still get their story powers, but other characters can participate as well. In addition, instead of simply costing money, rituals now cost valuable strategic resources, so there will be a compelling choice of whether or not to magic your way out of a problem, or to rely on more mundane solutions and talents to overcome challenges.
Action Points, Feats, Milestones and Healing Surges
I don't know how good of an idea these things were in general, but FATE point-like mechanics that represent the "special-ness" of PC's and give them a competitive edge over the opposition are a good idea in general, especially when used as a resource for a number of things.
- The problem: In 4E, these are all disparate bookkeeping widgets that add unnecessary complexity, when they could have been consolidated into a single resource that accomplishes a number of different tasks, and provides a lot more design space.
My fix: I've borrowed the "Heroism" concept from microlite20, which is an ultra-condensed version of feats. Essentially these are a limited resource that allow player's to boost attacks, saves, damage, etc.
My version of Heroism replaces all of these little widgets. It still bolsters regular actions, but Heroism has been expanded to fuel healing, rituals, magic item powers and racial abilities as well.
Magic item dependency and the Nova/Rest/Repeat phenomena have been pretty widely complained about aspects of prior editions. It was an all around good idea to make magic items a special cool little toy rather than a "must-have" and to have per encounter abilities so that characters could still function after blowing their "power-wad", so the adventure could keep moving forward.
- The problem: Neither of these actually worked in practice. Character's still need magic Weapon/Armor/Neck Item to keep up with the game math, and characters are still going nova and resting right afterward, just as they will always do as long as there are daily resources in the game.
My fix: No more enhancement bonuses from weapons. The game math shouldn't require them. Now magic items simply have powers or situational bonuses and that's it. This way they are still desirable things to have, but campaigns will function without them just fine.
Also, no more daily resources. Tactical powers are largely randomized, and Heroism is a per adventure (or mission) resource, meaning that the characters need to accomplish something before Heroism can be recovered fully.
All in all, it was a pretty good idea, given the highly tactical nature of 4E, to explicitly detail what each class is good at, and also a good idea to give monsters different tactical roles and powers to confound players.
- The problem: The player roles aren't varied enough, and some roles are poorly explained or executed. What exactly makes a Controller controller-y? How is "damage" a role? What is the point of a damage role wherein one damage character inherently does more damage than another damage character?
Also, monster roles don't actually have any inherent mechanics to support what they are supposed to be good at. Soldiers can mark, but not as well or as effectively as defenders.
My fix: PC roles now reflect monster roles, and each has rules to support the role's intended function.
As an aside, powers are no longer limited by power source or class, so now it's up to each player how their character functions in their role.
Heavy Rules Support for Maps and Minis.
A lot of gamers love tactical games that support the use of battle maps, minis, markers, etc.
- The problem: Not every gamer does, however. Many like to play the game within their own headspace rather than on a table with lots of gimmicks and accessories.
My fix: None. I'm too lazy to come up with a tactical system that supports abstract movement.