So, I figure that enough time has gone by, and enough people have played this game extensively enough by now, that this thread can make sense to ask about.

If there was one single rule or mechanic in 4e D&D that you would either alter or get rid of entirely, which would it be?
And why?

RPGPundit

I'd make action points into "Focus"...  Either you are focused or you aren't.  Spend your focus to X, regain your focus by Y, and so on.

There's a lot of other clutter I'd shift, but that's the fastest 'one rule'.

Not really a rule, but more of a cosmetic change:

Hard coding challenges to level.

I have a number of complaints concerning this singular issue, but I'm not coherent enough to put together a half decent post about it right now.

Haven't played it or read the books but have read alot about it before and after it's release.  If I had to pick just one thing based on what I know about it, I would completely remove the reliance on using mini's.

  I would change alot more than that but that's the big one for me ( and why I won't buy it or play it ).

I would remove the casting cost of most rituals.

I'm seriously considering introducing fixed, maximum damage across the board for fasterm, deadlier fights. It has the benefit of making the damage disparity between powers more transparent as well as reducing in-game dice rolling significantly.

Crits would do max damage x 1.5, btw.

Reduce hitpoints by two-thirds.

I haven't played it enough yet. Too busy with school.

Quote from: jswa;264818Not really a rule, but more of a cosmetic change:

Hard coding challenges to level.

Huh? what do you mean by this?

RPGPundit

If you miss on an attack roll with a Encounter or Daily Power, then the power is not wasted.

Quote from: Drohem;264917If you miss on an attack roll with a Encounter or Daily Power, then the power is not wasted.

That's a good one. Give all powers the 'Reliable' tag, and give those that already have it some additional benefit (e.g the power is not considered spent on a critical).

Residuum. I don't really like any aspect of it.

Seanchai

I alter the skill challenges.  Instead of max Failures = 50% of min Successes, I decide the ratio depending on the challenge.   My general preference for a minor challenge is one success per player at the table and make the event a race between successes and failures.  AKA, if there are 4 players, the challenge is decided by whether the failure tally or the success tally is first to reach four.  Also, in regards to skill challenges, I prefer to break them into sub-challenges and work in stages toward the main goal.

Third the making of all encounter and daily powers reliable and second the decoupling of DCs to character level.

Quote from: RPGPundit;264905Huh? what do you mean by this?

RPGPundit

First, I'd change the core assumption that the PCs will never run into a combat challenge that that can't handle.

I'd also mess around with the monsters in the MM. They're scaled the way they are simply to account for PC level; to give the PCs something specific and concrete to face at every step. I doubt there's any alternate reason for some of them to have, for example, the loads and loads of hitpoints that they have.

Like I said, it's mostly a cosmetics/playstyle thing. I like it when the PCs actually notice a valid difference in their competence as the campaign progresses.

When monsters (some of them barely different from lower level ones) are scaled to level, it sort of takes that away. To me, anyhow.

Which is ironic, considering 4e's "you will always be awesome" stance.