4e Books That Should Have Been

My PHB has a Warlord in it ... nuff said. 

Mine too.

I would also like one with the errata that I can point new players toward.

Sure (though right now C4 isnt bad as far as that goes)

WOTC can be heavy handed or even backwards with their errata at times... they seemed inclined to nerf 2 things instead of enhance one OR they enhance something over-powered so that it now also has more flavor. Somewhere in there something went wrong.

At low levels the numbers start out so you are really 2 or 3 higher than the monsters so that the DM can use more than 1 level of monster.. then over the course of levels that fades ... doesnt sound like an error to me. At high level arguably you dont want the characters to only be fighting the very highest bad guys (a very restricted cast eh)

Garthanos wrote:

(snip)At low levels the numbers start out so you are really 2 or 3 higher than the monsters so that the DM can use more than 1 level of monster.. then over the course of levels that fades ... doesnt sound like an error to me. At high level arguably you dont want the characters to only be fighting the very highest bad guys (a very restricted cast eh)

Those are some really good points.

Scrivener of Doom wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

(snip)At low levels the numbers start out so you are really 2 or 3 higher than the monsters so that the DM can use more than 1 level of monster.. then over the course of levels that fades ... doesnt sound like an error to me. At high level arguably you dont want the characters to only be fighting the very highest bad guys (a very restricted cast eh)

Those are some really good points.

Indeed they are. One thing that kind of helps point out this strategy is that in the first Monster Manual, the highest level standard monster is level 26. A level 26's attacks and defenses are, obviously, about 4 points behind a level 30 monster... not coincidentally the exact same attack shortfall as players from the PHB1 (i.e. no expertise feats) would have over the course of leveling up to 30 (i.e. +15 level, +5 stat bumps, +6 weapon = +26). A level 26 would also have fewer hit points and so would drop faster (i.e. less 'padded sumo').

So really, the 'math problem' wasn't so much of a problem, they just explained how high level encounters should be built really badly (the presumption of using equal level foes as at lower levels doesn't carry through to high levels) and screwed up the elites and solos by initially also giving them improved defenses and giving solos way too many hit points.

Chris24601 wrote:

Scrivener of Doom wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

(snip)At low levels the numbers start out so you are really 2 or 3 higher than the monsters so that the DM can use more than 1 level of monster.. then over the course of levels that fades ... doesnt sound like an error to me. At high level arguably you dont want the characters to only be fighting the very highest bad guys (a very restricted cast eh)

Those are some really good points.

Indeed they are. One thing that kind of helps point out this strategy is that in the first Monster Manual, the highest level standard monster is level 26. A level 26's attacks and defenses are, obviously, about 4 points behind a level 30 monster... not coincidentally the exact same attack shortfall as players from the PHB1 (i.e. no expertise feats) would have over the course of leveling up to 30 (i.e. +15 level, +5 stat bumps, +6 weapon = +26). A level 26 would also have fewer hit points and so would drop faster (i.e. less 'padded sumo').

So really, the 'math problem' wasn't so much of a problem, they just explained how high level encounters should be built really badly (the presumption of using equal level foes as at lower levels doesn't carry through to high levels) and screwed up the elites and solos by initially also giving them improved defenses and giving solos way too many hit points.

Perhaps giving solos insufficient capability of dealing with being frozen out by conditions belongs in there.

Garthanos wrote:

Perhaps giving solos insufficient capability of dealing with being frozen out by conditions belongs in there.

A part of me wonders if the improved defenses (which in previous editions would have corresponded to improved saves vs. conditions) weren't a part of the original mitigation plan that just didn't work as intended because it made everything harder to hit which, combined with hit point bloat, led to smacking big sacks of ineffective hit points.

So yes, I think that was definitely an issue as well.

If your big bad can perform several standard actions or make more than one move.. loosing one of them is less of a deal. (require slightly different wording in various areas)

A PHB with errata.... Well, we can all dream.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

A PHB with errata.... Well, we can all dream.

Oh I admit I would be tempted to buy such a thing, even though I consider a lot of the errata a bit heavy handed.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

A PHB with errata.... Well, we can all dream.

It would be nice....but I like my first edition, day one, copies of my 4e books.

I'd have loved a DMG3, focusing on epic play, as the OP mentioned.
A 'Heroes of the Astral Sea' (If for nothing else that to finish the 'Heroes of...' series).
I would have also loved a book focused on rituals.
I wanted them to do more 'Power 2' books...They made a Martial Power 2, but no psionic 2, arcane 2, etc.
Lastly, another Monster Vault with the cardboard tokens would have been something I'd have bought on release date.

As this is my first post, I'd like to say "Hi" and I'm glad I found this forum...I hope it's active, and stays active for years. Some of you here my recognize my name from WotC's forums. If so, cool. Then you probably already hate me.

Wow. This is one of the best things I've seen in a while:  A Flumph emoticon.

EDIT: I cannot believe I forgot this...A 4e Unearthed Arcana! That would have been great...

Ritual Book could indeed be fun and welcome... they lack the hiding under chair emoticon but maybe we wont need it.

Welcome, seti, and, yes, Unearthed Arcana 4E would have been cool... especially with Character Builder support for those of us not smart enough to get CBLoader to work....

Garthanos wrote:

Ritual Book could indeed be fun and welcome... they lack the hiding under chair emoticon but maybe we wont need it.

It will be done.

 

heh

seti wrote:

I'd have loved a DMG3, focusing on epic play, as the OP mentioned.
A 'Heroes of the Astral Sea' (If for nothing else that to finish the 'Heroes of...' series).
I would have also loved a book focused on rituals.
I wanted them to do more 'Power 2' books...They made a Martial Power 2, but no psionic 2, arcane 2, etc.
Lastly, another Monster Vault with the cardboard tokens would have been something I'd have bought on release date.

As this is my first post, I'd like to say "Hi" and I'm glad I found this forum...I hope it's active, and stays active for years. Some of you here my recognize my name from WotC's forums. If so, cool. Then you probably already hate me.

Wow. This is one of the best things I've seen in a while:  A Flumph emoticon.

EDIT: I cannot believe I forgot this...A 4e Unearthed Arcana! That would have been great...

Welcome to the forum Seti! And yes, a Unearthed Arcana and more power books would have been cool. Thought the wizards got kinda bloated later on down the line I could have done more rituals and utility spells in a Arcane Power 2.

Garthanos wrote:

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

A PHB with errata.... Well, we can all dream.

Oh I admit I would be tempted to buy such a thing, even though I consider a lot of the errata a bit heavy handed.

True a lot of the errata was just pointless rewording. That's one of the reasons I get kinda flustered when people bash 4e for having so much errata. Most of it is pointless. And lets not forget 3.0 had so much it got reprinted as 3.5.

Garthanos wrote:

If your big bad can perform several standard actions or make more than one move.. loosing one of them is less of a deal. (require slightly different wording in various areas)

My custom solos get two turns around and all conditions end at the end of its turn (no matter the duration).

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

A PHB with errata.... Well, we can all dream.

Oh I admit I would be tempted to buy such a thing, even though I consider a lot of the errata a bit heavy handed.

True a lot of the errata was just pointless rewording. That's one of the reasons I get kinda flustered when people bash 4e for having so much errata. Most of it is pointless. And lets not forget 3.0 had so much it got reprinted as 3.5.

Pointless rewording is something a bit different - sometimes it very much felt like you have 5 abilities three of which are powerful enough people always take them and not the other 2 ...lets nerf 3 out of five instead of shoring up the ones with questionable value.

Or instead of making subtle changes to a powers potency without changing its implied flavor (Battlerager Vigor) lets totally invert it. OK - BRV is more defendery the new way and it inspired me to come up with Feats that allowed one to gain the BRV different ways like When your allies were harmed.

Fjw70 wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

If your big bad can perform several standard actions or make more than one move.. loosing one of them is less of a deal. (require slightly different wording in various areas)

My custom solos get two turns around and all conditions end at the end of its turn (no matter the duration).

Nods I really really like that there is no expectation that monsters will be built via the same rules as PCs - a fundamental feature.

Yes. I found that with 3e monsters can become fairly predictable at times and even arguable. Some players like to think that the monster can't do what the book doesn't provide. I much prefer 4e's and 13th Age's monster creation rules.

I would have liked a full book of Utility powers...and a change to Utility powers in general. I love the idea of Utility Powers but in practice, I find myself taking ones that are combat oriented. My current Warlock (Order Adept Theme) took Shield, Caiphon's Leap, and Life Siphon. All of these are immediate interrupts that make combat easier and, while cool, man I wish I could take Utility powers without worrying about them helping combat.

Take the "skill" powers idea and just GIVE each class like four for free. Most of them aren't that game changing and actually make Skills far more interesting then what we currently have.

cyvaris wrote:

Take the "skill" powers idea and just GIVE each class like four for free. Most of them aren't that game changing and actually make Skills far more interesting then what we currently have.

I think the reason skill powers were mostly combat oriented was because skill use in combat is an area where precision use is valuable.... ie defining a power makes some sense. I think more detailed out of combat elements for those who like it were being put forward in Martial Practices. As that wasnt ever developed very far and it was restricted to martial classes it falls short.