Since the Open Game License allows for retroclones, will we ever

4e isn't under the OGL, but that doesn't mean we won't see a game in the same mold being created. It'll just have to be distinct enough from 4e to avoid legal issues. Although, interesting thing? You can't copyright game mechanics. Certain monsters and names would have to be changed, but you could rewrite every single page of 4e rules and republish them 100% legally.

I've talked about a 4e inspired game with my friends quite a few times, taking the good ideas the system had and building on them, perhaps even getting rid of some of the D&D legacy mechanics which didn't really fit with the new direction it was taking. I think it could be really cool.

>>43771733
People have been using the technicality that 3.5 and 5e are using the same nomenclature to release supplements/adventures/etc. for 5e, tho I'm not sure how well thats going to hold up in court.

Anyway, take a look at Strike!, it has most of the elements I like from 4e.

>>43771733
Older editions of D&D aren't under the OGL, yet we have compatible retroclones. I think the OGL cleared up some of the grey areas, since it said you can definitely create your own game with "ability scores", "attack rolls", "armor class", etc.

I suppose we wouldn't have beholders or mind flayers, but I'm wondering if there are any more snags with 4E. Perhaps some power names, maybe a few of the races.

>>43771700
Strike!
4e Trifold.

>>43771700

Some people say 13th Age kind of fills that niche, though I've never played it so I can't comment.

>>43771700
Strike! is a really good 4e retroclone.

>>43771733

Expanding on this, I'd honestly like to see a game make more significant changes than just a Pathfinderesque 4.5 equivalent.

Unfucking the system math and removing things like feat taxes is one thing, but I think 4e's chassis has a lot of potential. I'd like to rethink damage mechanics, skill mechancs, heck perhaps even the core dice system. I enjoy the character construction system and the concepts behind powers and how frequently they can be used, but a lot of the systems around it were D&D legacy stuff that could be improved, stripped out or updated to be a lot better. Then again, I'm unusual in that the bites i like about 4e are the bits that 'Real D&D' players seem to hate.

File: b4693c91f6d71f2af7698fdbf713d063.png (219KB, 500x830px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 500x830px

>>43771856
>>43772122
>>43772194

Those of you with the final release of Strike! may notice that there is a character from the latest "Tales of" game listed as one of the four developers.

>>43772163
It certainly doesn't.
It does take some inspiration from 4e, specifically in power notation and structure, but it's very far from a 4e clone.

>>43772217
There is? Care to share?

>>43772198
Unfucking the system math and feat taxes would be enough to make it a better "fix" than pathfinder was.
As far as radically changing things, I think it'd be best to look at what most 4e fans(and don't listen to folks who disliked 4e of course) want and be a bit conservative with the changes.
If the system is going to be designed to allow 4e fans to keep having support to their games, you don't want to alienate them with niche changes.

>>43772309
Pathfinder fixed everything that needed fixing with the most played RPG in the world.

>>43772324

>This is what Pathfags actually believe

What it actually was is a thin coat of paint on one broken system, ensuring it stayed broken in exactly the same ways along with a few extra ones.

>>43772324
>>43772335
So, everything it needed to fix so people would keep playing.

>>43772309

Depends on your goal, I guess. I can see the logic in making a 4.5, but I think you'd end up with a better game overall if you went further. Still, you have a point about alienating some of the fanbase.

File: D&D4e - Who wants to live forever v7.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>43771700
I've been working on one for a little over a year. I've got a lot of design experience, but life has been kicking me in the nuts so everything I'm working on is in development hell.

It's not in a condition that's fit to post, so instead take the newest version of my 1-page fix pack for 4th edition.

>>43772198
Honestly, at this point all the attempts I have seen at 4e retroclones HAVE tried to something different, and generally managed to not get wat made 4e such a good game.
I do think that 4e had a lot of untapped design space, of which we've seen something in the late cycle of the game. I'd like to see a retroclone that explores this ideas, but the base of the game should be as close to what we have as possible.

>>43772558
What does Strike do wrong?

>>43772507
This is pretty shitty. It's much more sensible to modify player stats than all monster stats, and what happens to characters who WANT to pour resources into defenses, like Iron/Superior Will?

>>43772507
>bounded accuracy

Please no. "Zero to hero" is one of the few things that D&D does uniquely in the RPG market.

>>43772603
I started out by doing it that way: It's nearly impossible to get the math to work out right if you do it from that angle.

Iron Will, etc. are boring mechanical boosts, and I get that some players want to make those kinds of investments, but if I left them alone they would blow practically everything out of the water and be virtually mandatory power wise.

I'm not arguing that remaking huge swaths of replacement content wouldn't be a better approach than a sweeping light-weight patch pack, though.
But once you start doing that, the question becomes "how much stuff are you going to have to re-make before it would've been better to just write a retroclone that's less content hungry"

Which I am currently doing.

>>43772654
Dude there's plenty of scaling. Half level, for a start.

>>43772671
>nearly impossible
The math has been done, repeatedly. Giving expertise and Improved Defenses as bonus feats is good enough of a math fix.

>Iron Will
>blow practically everything out of the water
You're kidding, right?

>>43772198
>>43772309
>>43772507
>>43772603
I'd argue that the math does not need to be "unfucked" as such since it's not really fucked. A competent party at paragon and epic doesn't care about the couple of points in +hit they lag behind the monsters when they got so many tricks to work with. I'm not sure if it was intended since monster math clearly wasn't finished by the time they had to publish the first books but caving in to player whining by introducing expertise feats was a mistake.

The real issues for me are the millions of feats and magic items available that require intensive studying, and the vast differences in power levels between feats. And some sacred cows like ability scores.

>>43772748
Did the math. Even if you include everything, it takes about twice as long for players to kill monsters, and twice as long for monsters to kill players, at level 30.

And that's not even considering that both players and monsters get way more/stronger crowd control effects at higher levels, which also makes combats drag on a bit longer in general.

Some ideas of mine:
1. Ability Scores are now the old ability mod. So instead of Wisdom 16 it is Wisdom +3.

2. +1 to all NAD and attack at lvl 11 and 21, and another +1 to one NAD at 6, 16 and 26. This allows for using the original material without much problem.

Would type more if not on phone.

>>43772779
Those are some shitty players you have.

If you like the item treadmill, then a document about fixing the item treadmill might not be for you.

>>43772748
It's the scaling really. Monsters get more bullet spongy at high levels and their damage become way less threatening. High levels feel more like nerf tag than a dangerous battle.

>>43772748
I for one think those sacred cows should remain.

>>43772829
Aren't they supposed to feel like that? It's why I like 4e. We just have long conversations while fighting the same monster for a few hours.

>>43772832
What do ability scores do really aside from giving their bonus? Aside from ability score damage, the only reason to have them is if you're doing roll under mechanics in basic or 1e. Even then, ability scores are unnecessary complexity and legacy mechanics in even most osr games.

>>43772807
I don't follow. If players were somehow able to create extra damage out of thin air despite being dazed, stunned or dominated more often, and despite the fact that applying crowd control effects to monsters typically reduces the monster's damage more than it improves yours (e.g. you lose more slowly, but you don't really win faster) then experienced players would have a ridiculously easy time at low levels.

But the way things are, fights actually tend to get both longer, easier, and more predictable at higher levels

>>43771700
DESU, there is less of a desperate market need for a 4e clone than there was for a 3e clone. First, 3e was more broken, and as such had a more urgency to be released fixed (granted PF didn't deliver on that promise at all, but the need and the ability to promise it were powerful marketing tools. Secondly, the BIGGEST part of what made the PF 3e clone concept such a marketable idea was the massive outcry against 4e being too much of a big shift from 3e. 5e ISN'T a big shift from 3e, so didn't have as much of an outcry, and those for whom there was an outcry, still have the PDF's and offline builder for 4e, so we don't really are.

Many systems are using ideas from 4e which have become commonplace parts of "modern game design," but a direct copy-paste seems unlikely, because those like myself who who love 4e... still have 4e.

You might ask "why then did people not remain content with still having 3e," and that's largely because the "meat" of the 3e game is heavily dependent on the continued release of new material. 3e is a lot less about playing games, and a lot more about deckbuilding characters; it's a satisfying logic puzzle to optimize a character for a given set of "allowed material." However, almost every permutation is a thoroughly solved and documented logic puzzle until a new book brings new material and new combinations to the table. The FUN part of 3e is trying to build the most powerful character with new material access, and that requires a constant stream of new material. While 4e DOES have a charop community, it's not the meat of the community nor of the game (and if I do say so myself, the Charop community is way too focused on strikers to be considered reliable.)

>>43772877
Don't respond to shitposting ffs.

>>43772846
Have you played a character in late paragon or epic tier?
Because the game already starts out at heroic tier being as slow as you're implying, but it just keeps getting worse from then on.

>>43772896
>Many systems are using ideas from 4e which have become commonplace parts of "modern game design,"
Yeah!

Like uh..
um..

...

>>43772896
I've noticed the biggest 5e supporters were people like my old group. We were really looking forward to pathfinder thinking "It'll be streamlined, less needlessly complex and be more balanced." We hated pathfinder when it came out and ended up playing things like true20 and homebrewed 3.5 until 5e came out. Now those folks like 5e is the second coming of jesus.

>>43772912
Strike!, 13th Age are the ones I know of.

>>43772829
>>43772846
4e encounters were certainly intended to be last longer and in 3e, and probably longer in higher tiers of play. I feel that player skill has a huge effect on encounter length though. Optimized strikers can pump out quite a lot of damage. Experienced players can also complete their turns faster, most of the combat time in my group is spent waiting for a couple of people to decide what they want to do.

>>43772877
>>43772901
As you increase in tier, more and more of the damage is conditional and/or come from encounter powers. As for our fairly unoptimized group, we've moved from level 1 to paragon tier and our kills are getting faster with every level, not slower.

>>43772912
PC and PC obstacles functioning on fundamentally different chassis, creating a genuine atmosphere of PC exceptionalism

Building game-first mechanical bones separate from fluff, and assuming that players will refluff anyway

using narrative-time resource-scaling mechanics, like per-encounter, rather than always having to use hard measurable time.

Not assuming that it's okay to make combat boring, "because people should be roleplaying anyway."

To name a few

>>43772947
13th Age is hardly 4e.

13th Age is loosey-goosey "engaged, nearby, far away" without a grid.

>>43772953
T'was in the designer concept to have combat last 3~5 turns.

>>43772912
Honestly if you play late 3.5 and especially late ogl games, you see a lot of proto-4e ideas used in them.

>>43772982
Is your GM letting you wishlist items?

>>43772896
>3e is a lot less about playing games, and a lot more about deckbuilding characters; it's a satisfying logic puzzle to optimize a character for a given set of "allowed material."

[citation needed]

>>43773013
Kind of, since we can craft items, but strangely, almost none of our damage combos are item-dependent. No one is even using Permafrost or Radiant Mafia.

>>43772982
The estimates that result in roughly doubled survivability actually assume you start using encounter power equivalents roughly every combat round pretty quickly.

Have you actually played at higher levels, or are you basing this on expectations?
If you did, did you do "tricks" like 'combat outs' out of the Square Fireballs blog, where you get to end combats quickly by intimidating, etc.?

The Good - What I want in my 4e clone:

>Over the top action
>Tactical combat
>Teamwork
>Dynamic terrain rules - fighting on collapsing buildings, airships, etc

The Bad - What I don't want in my 4e clone:

>Combat that moves at glacial pace
>Item requirements to stay relevant at higher levels

The Ugly - What I won't bother using in my 4e clone but won't get mad if it's there:

>Skill challenges

>>43773040
Scratch that. NONE of our damage combos are item-dependent.

>>43773000
Do you have a source/link?

>>43772999
Sure, but still took some ideas.

I find Strike! masssively superior for my tastes.

>>43773002
Yeah, 4e didn't really originate anything new. Hell, it barely did anything that wasn't already done in DnD.

>>43773042
>>43772779
Have _you_ actually played on higher levels, or are you basing everything on your own estimations?

>>43772999
13th Age was a love-letter to 4e from the designer, who just wanted to make a game that was like it, but fun to play.

>>43773040
Well, that certainly doesn't line up with the estimates. How far along are you level-wise, and do you generally fight more level-equivalent encounters with more monsters, or smaller encounters with higher-level monsters?

A lot of groups offset the issue by doing the latter.

I've talked a lot with friends about how we'd tinker with 4e while not trying to make it a completely new game. Our main thoughts:

>Remove feats that just add basic number support. Factor that into core progression. Improved Defenses isn't a cool, fun feat but people talk it all the time because it's better numbers. Extra Speed? Access to Rituals? Turning Pushes into Prones? Those are fun feats as they change how you play.
>Fix up the ritual system. Combine rituals, martial practices and some term for a social version. Every skill has some rituals associated with it. If you have that skill trained, you can do it's rituals.
>Divide utilities up into combat/non-combat, give slots for each. So people don't need to pick between a cool non-combat power and a combat power.
>Have magic items tinkered with under the same idea as feats. A +1 sword isn't fun and it's +1 can be factored into the math. A flaming or vorpal sword is fun.

Anything else that people think really needs doing but isn't a complete warping of the system?

>>43773063
On phone, but read it on those preview books of D&D, World of D&D I think. The one about monsters and worlds, back in the day Ki was a power source.

>>43773048
A modular approach would be nice. Of course groups have always been free to ignore skill challenges, but I'd like a 4E clone that takes a leaf from 5E's book: build a solid core game where all the crunchy stuff works, then add specifics (skill challenges, magic items, hell, maybe even powers themselves) as optional rules.

>>43773082
I guess where 4e was new was in that it had actual design principles, like codifying roles, unifying power formats, etc.

>>43773096
Yes, I've GM'ed a campaign that went into early epic and we've played shorter mini-campaigns in mid paragon tier.

>>43773100
I'm sure it's fun to play if your idea of fun is random proc abilities.

>>43773100
>but fun to play
He specifically said that he wanted something actually fun FOR HIM to play, asshole.

>>43773104
That's what that .pdf ITT does tho

>>43773042
Encounter powers are enough for some builds (Rain of Blows, anyone?), though not all. It's entirely possible to keep up in damage from paragon and up. It's just that, after you've taken the "easy" bonuses, you're left with bonuses that are tactically more difficult to obtain. See Headsman's Chop, Sly Hunter, Steady Shooter, and Called Shot (especially Called Shot) for great examples.

I'm basing it on what I've already said, which is the experience from level 1 up to now and the changes between levels.

We always win by reducing all enemies' HP to 0.

>>43773103
It's possible. We fight higher level monsters often, but always in encounters anywhere from +2 to +4 our level.

>>43773104
Skills on 3d6 or something else than a d20. If that's not too radical.

I'm also a bit worried about differences between skill levels growing as levels go up but I'm not sure if that's actually a big issue.

>>43772832
>I for one think those sacred cows should remain.
That's why they are called that after all.
>>43772854
>>43772832
How would you replace them?
>>43771856
>1d6
That won't ever not be mechanically unsound as hell. Not only is the die size terribly small, the "flat" nature of the result makes things way too swingy. Bellcurves, anon. BELLCURVES.

>>43773196
>That won't ever not be mechanically unsound as hell. Not only is the die size terribly small, the "flat" nature of the result makes things way too swingy. Bellcurves, anon. BELLCURVES.

There's optional 2d6 rules included. I recommend using them (one person in my group got really turned off because of all the misses).

>>43773160
Might go against the core mechanic.

Maybe proficiency dice that are different for each skill? Roll a d20 plus the relevant proficiency die. So you might have a d4 in Acrobatics, you later upgrade that to a d6.

>>43773196
Strike! actually goes for swinginess in its rolls. You still hit on a 3-6 and gain accuracy tokens when you DO miss.

>>43773208
Were you using the accuracy token rule? It's core now so you always get more accuracy whenever you miss.

>>43773160
What can happen (and it does happen in 4e core) is that some dude starts auto-succeeding a lot of the rolls that are being thrown at the party, which can often mean for "multi-participant rolls" (and some skills are 90%+ those, just not like Athletics and such,) there's a heavy or total devaluing of most small or mid-level investments - like having training, or a maxed ability score, or a racial for that skill, but not all three.

It doesn't matter that you're an elf with +2 perception and a decent WIS score, because nearly all the perception checks are being aced by another guy who's got way more bonuses than that, even when he makes a single digit d20 roll.

>>43773224
Shit, totally forgot about it.

Fuuuuuuuuuck, we just had the test session. Now I'm afraid I turned her off of the system forever because I'm an incompetent DM.

...

Then again, she was a bitch about "everything just deals 2 damage!" so I guess it was a lost cause.

>>43773224
>accuracy tokens
Oh yeah all that extra tracking is totally worth it and not at all a waste of time and effort for no good reason.

>>43773196
3d6 still has a smaller range than 1d20.
What about a bell curve specifically makes it superior in terms of how it affects gameplay?

>>43773253
Accuracy tokens are a good rule because they let you have a say in what attacks are important for you to land. They also give a reason to NOT blow your encounter attacks at the start.

>>43773278
Less likely to get outliers. This means that most of the time, you 'll perform averagely. Makes +1-2s less likely to get screwed over/made meaningless because of roll distribution.

>>43773281
Sure, but if i understand correctly, it also gives you an interest in attacking harder-to-hit enemies with low accuracy attacks if you've got a good encounter power you want to use against a prime target as quickly as possible.

>>43773223
Fuck the core mechanic. D20 is okay in combat since you're rolling multiple times to resolve but the variance sucks in one-off skills. Proficiency dice seem a bit fiddly and don't really solve the problem any more than static bonuses.

>>43773241
In my current campaign I gave everyone +1 to all stats at 4/8/etc. instead of just two. Don't think it broke anything, though they haven't reached paragon yet.

>>43773278
Smaller variance. It makes investment more worth it since you're more likely to roll average. With a d20 smaller bonuses have less effect on your end result.

>>43773322
There are no harder to hit enemies in Strike.

>>43773278
Nothing. It's just a meme.

Some argue that it makes the rolls more predictable (for example 7 will turn up more often than 3 or 16) but I feel that that's just missing the point. To me it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to reduce the randomness of a mechanic you put into the system precisely to be random (the diceroll).

>>43773336
Anything you have disadv against.

But yeah, was about to point that out as well.

File: 40e5ebb85c6894aeb7c038deec63eec5.jpg (5MB, 2508x3541px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2508x3541px

>>43772243

>Development
>Gabriel Butche, Yuri Kavalerchik, Jacob Saunders, Earth Seraph Edna
>These people checked my work for balance and clarity, contributed ideas, and gave advice when I needed it, which was often.

One of these names is not like the others.

>>43773278
Honestly? It adds addition into the rolling mechanic so that you can slow down the game just that tiny bit more.

>>43773315
You're not checking for a specific number though, you're checking if you roll equal to or higher than a value, which just translates into a percentage chance of success.
"Performing averagely" is irrelevant.

Is there something about rarely rolling outliers that you like?
Is the idea that if you're significantly above a roll you'll get it say 97% of the time but you (and everyone else) still has to waste their time rolling dice, somehow inherently better to you than reaching an auto-success threshold?

Or conversely the idea that if you're significantly below a roll, you'll have to still roll dice even though there's a snowball's chance in hell it'll do anything?

I mean even games like Dungeon World barely use the range of the die because they don't want you to have to waste your time doing bullshit hail Mary rolls for stuff that stretches believably if it succeeds anyway.

>>43773365
You could make like, a d30 with the same distribution, so it's a single roll.

>>43773380
Nah, even d30 wouldn't give you a 1/2 percent chance of an outlier.

I think people who like 3d6 are a little too upset about the idea of criticals/fumbles.

Why not make skills with tiers? Untrained, Trained, Veteran, Expert, Master.
If you have a superior tier than the challenge, you auto success. If same tier, roll as usual. If over one step, roll with penalty. Over two steps, auto fail.

>>43773414
Are you really fine with Strike giving a fumble 1/6 of the time and a crit 1/6 of the time?

>>43773374
Dungeon world is actually a really good example of what a curve is good for, making the +/- 1 and 2 pretty meaningful.

>>43773414
You can increase crit/fumble ranges (I'd even advise doing that, so you can calculate with them happenning with some frequency), but that's not the point of the argument anyway.

>>43773478
If you want small bonuses to be more meaningful, you can just use a smaller single die like a d10 or d8. That's exactly what that does.

I am the only who want something more like Gamma Worlds instead of D&D 4e?

Less levels, less damage escalation, no Feats and other things.

>>43773506
If you want a wider variance but +1s and +2's to be meaningful, then d10 and d8 isn't going to cut it. Yes, +1 means more on a d8 or a d10 but you also have a smaller number range.
I prefer 2d10 though since you get a 2-20 spread and a +4 is going to be in the 14-16 range almost half the time.
Consistency is the real reason folks like bell curves. It gives a different feel to games though. I've seen some folks like bell curves for out of combat skills and d20 for in combat attacks.

>>43773196
>That won't ever not be mechanically unsound as hell. Not only is the die size terribly small, the "flat" nature of the result makes things way too swingy. Bellcurves, anon. BELLCURVES.

Completely, totally irrelevant when Strike has only one or two sources of +/- 1 modifiers in the entire game.

>>43773638
>Consistency is the real reason folks like bell curves.
You were just arguing that you want the common bonuses to have greater variance.
In what sense does a bell curve provide consistency in terms of its effects on gameplay?

>>43773638
1. You are talking with more than 1 anon.

2. In the sense that if you roll 10000000 times with a 3d6, 25% of the values will be 10-11, while with a d20 only 10%. You are more than twice as likely to roll average on a 3d6 than on a d20. How is this hard to get?

>>43773708
The consistency is that the results are most likely to be in the middle of the dice.
A 1d8 with a +1 bonus, everything from 2 to 9 has the same probability of occurring. A 1d10 with a +1 is just as swingy as a 1d20 with a +2.
In a 2d6, the number range is larger so there's a greater amount of possible results. But results near the middle of the bell curve are more likely to happen, so you have consistently more average results.

>>43773787
Meant for >>43773708

>>43771700
>>43771856
>Since the Open Game License allows for retroclones

Copyright allows for retroclones. The OGL just makes it easy since you can use the names of anything under the OGL.

>>43773708

d20 has flat 5% chance of any single number being rolled; 2d6 has a 12.50% chance of rolling 10 or 11. Essentially, it's baking Taking Ten into the rolls: you know you can expect these numbers in 25% of rolls (and will get at least an 11 in 50% of them).

>not 9d6 take middle 3

It's like you WANT your 20 STR barbarian to fail at opening a wooden door.

Strike! is being mentioned all the time here; does anyone have a PDF to share with the unwashed masses?

>>43773831
But what was the legal status of specific game terms before the OGL?

If WotC owns the rights to calling a monster a "beholder" (which is an English-language word), can't they claim they own "ability score" when used in game rules? I think this might be the case for "tapping" cards.

>>43773873

If you check the archives for the last PDF share thread, it was posted there.

>>43773898
Is that the penultimate draft or the final version?

>>43773865
>Not just removing dice all together and making every roll a flat 10.5

>>43773904
Final version (I know because I had the draft as well from a previous share thread)

>>43773891
game rules cant be copywritten in america. only fluff is IP.

>>43773950
Expressions can be, or at least could be (see:tap).

>>43773946
Care to confirm >>43772217?

>>43773873

I'm starting to think the Strike design team hangs out here or something, it seems to pop up in almost every thread lately.

>>43773803
>the results are most likely to be in the middle of the dice.
You're not trying to roll one particular number, you're trying to meet or exceed a value, which just produces a percentage chance exactly the same as if that wasn't the case.
Seeing the same numbers more often has no bearing on gameplay; a 40% chance of success is a 40% chance of success regardless of how you produce it.

You don't have consistently more anything in terms of results.
The system will necessarily be set up around some expected success rate estimates regardless of the dice mechanic.
For example, in 4e D&D, the system is designed such that if you're "evenly matched" against an AC you'll get a roughly 55% chance of success.
That would also be the case if the system used 1000000d6 and the most common result by far was three-million five-hundred-thousand.

The only relevant difference between a bell curve and otherwise, is that for a bell curve, the percentage point value of a bonus or penalty will warp depending on what target value you're comparing a result to.
In a non bell curve system, the percentage point value of a bonus or penalty is always the same (for a d20, it's 5pp each.)

>>43774070

Could just be a fanatic fine.

>makes depressed indivisible noises.

>>43774070
Personally, I was just waiting for that game for a while as a good replacement of a more light 4e, so now that I have the final PDF, I'm a bit hyped.

>>43774107
Lets say your target number is 11.

Both 3d6 and d20 will be rolling it 50% of the time.

If you add a +1, 3d6 will now be rolling it 62 % of the time, d20 55% of the time.

3d6 makes small variables more important. Also allows your game to work with degrees of success. Also doesn't lead to retarded outcomes if you IDK, need to jump repeat an action often (say, do 10 longjumps for the olympics or something).

>>43774032
It's there on page 2.

File: D&D4e - Who wants to live forever v8 again.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>43772603
It seems i misunderstood your original post. I thought you wanted to do everything only on the player characters, including HP and damage, but your argument makes complete sense if you're talking about the to-hit and initiative math only.

I originally chose to apply the to-hit and initiative stuff on monsters to allow for more relaxed encounter setup, and to make it possible to "pre-bake" the bonuses into monsters so you don't have to think about it after you'd done it once.

But I thought some more about it, and that's obviously not necessarily the best way.
Applying it to the monsters like that is a lot more work instead of just having the players do it once upon level-up.
Nobody's going to want to make updated monsters, and not everyone will agree that a wider range of encounter-viable monsters is a good thing.

So instead of clamming up and pretending I didn't make myself look like an idiot, i decided to just update the document. I appreciate the criticism, even if WWTLF might not be for you or whatever.

>>43774198
>makes small variables more important
It makes them less important if you already have a lot of them. It just makes the value of a bonus or penalty warp depending on target value.

>Also allows your game to work with degrees of success
There's nothing about a bell curve that makes it more suited for a nonbinary success system, if that's what you mean. You could, say, replace the 2d6 of dungeon world with like 1d10 or 1d12 or something and there's nothing getting in the way of their partial successes happening on a 7-9 and their full successes happening on 10+

>Also doesn't lead to retarded outcomes if you IDK, need to jump repeat an action often (say, do 10 longjumps for the olympics or something).
Just because you're using a bell curve doesn't mean you necessarily get a higher success rate.
You still have to roll and you still have a chance of failure with each roll.
Take 10-style mechanics are equally possible in both systems.

>>43774545
>There's nothing about a bell curve that makes it more suited for a nonbinary success system, if that's what you mean. You could, say, replace the 2d6 of dungeon world with like 1d10 or 1d12 or something and there's nothing getting in the way of their partial successes happening on a 7-9 and their full successes happening on 10+
2d6 rolls 7-9 ~42% of the time, and 10+ ~17% of the time. Meanwhile, the numbers for 1d12 are 25% and 25%. Do you really not see the difference?

>>43774630
...Are you actually too stupid to understand that the system would just have used the appropriate number ranges if it was actually designed for 1d12?
Was I seriously giving you too much benefit of the doubt here or are you just joshing me?

>>43774665
Well, there's really no telling since you seem to be unable to understand variance so I went with the option where I assume the least of you.

>>43774765
"The only relevant difference between a bell curve and otherwise, is that for a bell curve, the percentage point value of a bonus or penalty will warp depending on what target value you're comparing a result to.
In a non bell curve system, the percentage point value of a bonus or penalty is always the same (for a d20, it's 5pp each.)"

Tell me what's wrong about this.

>>43774630
Could a system perhaps be designed around average rolls? One in which it's assumed that a +1 will place a third of the rolls into a tight range and a +2 into a higher range?

Bell curves work best ime in systems with low bonuses and flat math that don't want to be super swingy while keeping a large number range. Yes you can have a 15 target number and 55% shot of getting it in a d20 or a bell curve system. But in a bell curve system, numbers of 14 and 16 are more likely. You don't have an equivalent chance of barely missing a roll and totally missing a roll.

>>43773100
I did not find 13th age fun to play at all. It felt like final fantasy trading blows back and forth, and hoping for a critical.... pardon me, I mean random-proc rider effect.

I liked what it was trying to do, and respected the concept, but I felt like it failed.

>What do you want to see from a 4e retroclone?
>one thousand posts about bell curves

This does not bode well.

>>43773104
This is essentially what my 4e house-rules do. I can describe them later when there's more room

>>43773145
Kind-of, but it also introduced 5e-inspired "PC's are not heroes" design concepts like bounded accuracy.

>>43774989
You still scale +15 worth just because half level is in there (equivalent to 3.5e medium BAB) and you get a bunch of stuff on top of that like your ability scores which go well beyond 20.

It just takes 7 points of item and feat scaling out of the math, but there's still plenty of scaling left: the difference is if monsters end up at like 45ish in a defence versus 38.

>>43771700
>condenses and fixes some things, like what Pathfinder was to 3.5?
That is not what PF was to 3.5. The addition of traits alone mean that PF is actually worse than 3.5.

As others have stated 4e is not under the OGL. Though as others have also stated that doesn't necessarily mean it wont happen.
It probably comes down to demand. Retroclones came into existence to fulfil a need that wasn't being met. Older editions were long out of print and hard to get. That's not true of 4e, at least not yet.

>>43774989
>5e-inspired "PC's are not heroes" design concepts like bounded accuracy.
This is nonsense.

>>43775204
It really is. Even 5th edition has a shitload of HP/Damage scaling.

It's just that even if you're a BAMF, if you choose to stand in a pack of 5 goblins with knives and do nothing to them as they stab you in the legs, it will eventually become an issue.

>>43775262
I guess it's the fact that your defense never really scales (short of finding very specific, not guaranteed, can not be player crafted magic armor), although obviously your HP does.

You may be Don Kickasso, the godslayer, but you still can't dodge a bumfuck peasant's thrown rock any better than you could 10 levels ago (though you can take the hit better, I guess).

The same is true in 3.5, though you are expected to be decked out in magic gear there.

>>43775421
Name me a single fantasy novel that has protagonists become untouchable demigods solely because of their combat experience.

>>43775477
I dunno, I think "go back and fight guy who I fought at the beginning of novel and now he can't even touch me" is a pretty common trope in swashbuckling fantasy heroes-journey type stuff, but I may be wrong.

I'll admit, I don't really read many fantasy novels, so I don't have a pool to take from.

>>43775421
You do get better, just to a certain limit when it comes to the raw stats stuff.
There's still a +5 difference from 10 to 20.
And there are other things in the game that could help you dodge stuff, like special abilities or features from your class, specialization or feats you choose as you level up.

It might not be muda-muda-muda animoo level hyperdodging at high levels, but there's still likely to be quite a difference by the end.

There's just no scenarios where something can't get past your ultimate defence unless it crits or whatever.

>>43775421

I actually find that a little more realistic for some classes? If you're a frail wizard who relies on intelligence, why would you be any better at dodging than you were when you started your career? You're smarter and know more spells, so you could spend your reaction casting shield or teleporting or whatnot, but frail wizard man isn't suddenly shrugging off knives and rocks like Superman just because he's level 10.

>>43775262
Bounded accuracy just makes monsters viable encounters across a larger level range and makes it easier to make up dc's off the fly since there isn't as much of a skill/DC treadmill effect.
Once players get some levels on them, 5e

>>43775204
>>43775262
In 5e, 4 mooks with swords never cease to be a signifigant threat to a PC no matter how high his level, because of intentionally condensed scaling.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, in-fact it creates a "you're some mook adventurer trying to survive their shitty world through the only avenue of social mobility available to you: raiding death-traps for treasure," type game brilliantly, and that's a type of game that 4e could never run well. It sort of feels like a Westeros-esque setting.

They are two very different games. 4e runes games about HEROES, and 5e runs games about ADVENTURERS. Each does its job well and is rather specialized for it.

>>43775477

You're describing Conan. Conan was born on a battlefield and fought his whole life and it made him an untouchable demigod.

>>43775477
I was going to reply, but
>>43775511
>>43775637
already summed it up perfectly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM7CUc8wSHQ

>>43775637
If there were five men with swords who wanted to kill him, he would still have to murder them. He couldn't just stand still while his enchanted muscles deflected their attacks until their arms got tired.

in 5e, a higher level character has a plenty of damage per round to dish out and that results in more survivability, because when you've killed three guys with swords, there are only two guys with swords left, and they'll still only maybe hit you, and if they do their damage will be pitiful to you.

>>43775626
You're not a mook just because you aren't Kryptonian, okay? Most heroes in fiction, even fantasy fiction, aren't bulletproof. And the ones who are, it's not just because they're experienced.
You don't know what words mean. Protip: hero doesn't mean Mary-Sue.

>>43775511
>I'll admit, I don't really read many fantasy novels
We can tell, because you're talking out of your arse, and should probably stop.
That "trope" is pretty common in Mary-Sue fan fics but not in fantasy novels. Protagonists in any kind of stpry tend to be underdogs. Even characters who become tend to be evening things out, giving themselves a chance against a still more powerful enemy, not becoming untouchable. Because a fight that is easy for the hero is boring.

>>43775637
You are completely wrong. Conan never even approached being an untouchable demigod. Not even close. You should also learn to not talk out of your own arse.

>>43775925
And you're not a Kryptonian just because abstracted HP and Defenses make nameless grunts meaningless... it does make you a hero, or at-least an anti-hero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSf89cghGyQ

>>43771700

I would like to see a dungeon-crawler boardgame ala Descent with mechanics from 4E.

>>43775710
That's not an enemy, that's not the darklord. That's not even a goblin. That's an npc.

>>43775626
>In 5e, 4 mooks with swords never cease to be a signifigant threat to a PC no matter how high his level, because of intentionally condensed scaling.

I keep hearing this but I haven't experienced it.

PCs' hit points go up. The mooks are still dealing 1d6+1 damage.

"He hits you for 4 damage."
"It's okay, I have 30 hit points left."

A regular commoner, guard, or bandit can't get a lucky hit and stab a player character to death. They can hit often, sure, and they can dodge hits often, all that really changes is how many rounds it takes. They're resource-depleting, but not deadly.

>>43776070
this

>>43776210
This. Plus, since hit points aren't meat points, a hit can just as well be a scrape that you mostly dodged, as it can be a proper wound.
In fact, the factor that determines how you should interpret the result is certainly (Damage Dealt)/(Total HP)

File: Ravenloft_Boardgame_Pieces.jpg (952KB, 2400x1671px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 2400x1671px

>>43776129

Isn't that basically what the D&D boardgames are?

>>43776093
Are you trolling, or really this stupid? Hero and superhero are not the same word. Most fantasy heroes are not superheroes. And even most superheroes aren't superman. Especially the ones that are completely normal humans who's only source of power is learned skill. V isn't a normal human.

Again: hero doesn't mean Mary-Sue.

>>43776129
There are like 4 of them already

>>43776342
>>43776281
Are they good?

>>43773359
>>43772217
>crediting a character from the worst tales game.

>>43776324
>Again: hero doesn't mean Mary-Sue.
And having clear tiers of narrative value for heroes vs lieutenants vs mooks doesn't make the heroes mary-sue

Being forever threatened by mooks isn't the only way to not be a mary sue

>>43772324
SKR you're drunk, go home.

They were so afraid of competition they refused to call D&D by name.

>>43776454
If you ever reach a power level where a grown man with a sword can't ever hurt you or even make you tired (HP isn't meat points) then you're some kind of chinese cartoon kawaii uguu bullshit.

>>43776353
They're fun and the minis are nice, but they're not like 4E.

>>43776281
I've always wished there was some hardcore resource management, movement rules, exploration rules, etc. Basically take the dungeon crawling rules form basic and slap the characters and combat from 4e on it.
Then you'd have the best tactical play and the best strategic planning play of any d&d editions. Shit would be the best dungeon crawler.

File: wu-xia-2011-aka-dragon-aka-swordsmen2.jpg (60KB, 520x300px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 520x300px

>>43776525
>chinese cartoon kawaii uguu bullshit.
You mean the Wuxia genre, a genre that 4e runs brilliantly

>>43776538
>the dungeon crawling rules from basic
What are some examples of cool dungeon crawling rules from basic?

Is it just the oldschool approach? Like in that OSR shill pdf that gets posted all the time?

>>43776602
4e also has a shitload of scaling, yes.
That's indeed what I'm saying.

It's completely at home in kung fu movie territory, or in a Japanese annie may.

>>43776602
That one guy in 'Hero' would not have been hilariously pincushioned if his AC had been 4e/3.5e style overcapped compared to the foot archer dudes.

>>43776602
Of course it runs it brilliantly. It's literally got a name for anything you ever want to do. Unfortunately, it completely strips any versatility or creativity from the genre, because your every move is strictly detailed.

>>43776645
The OSR shill thread doesn't really describe why folks should play basic. It's kinda shit since you can play any game like how he describes.

Essentially the rules for how far someone moves, how long their torch lasts, food, how quickly they move, random encounter chances, etc. are all extremely tightly designed. They all interact with each other to make a laser focused game while each rule is pretty simple. A lot of the gameplay is based around long term planning and making quick risk/reward decisions. The rules for movement, dungeon crawling and all those random things are expressed in a very transparent and coherent manner in basic when they've been really coherent in any other edition.
A lot of basic was polished up from od&d and frankly, holmes and moldvay were superior game designers to gygax.

Basic is the only game that competes with 4e for being most well designed d&d. It has the best out of combat rules even if it doesn't have a proper skill system.

Does anyone know of any systems, or have any ideas, that bridge the gap between 4th edition's powers and a more freeform approach?

>>43776842
This is really interesting to me. Is there any way you could be a bit more specific about how some of that stuff works?

I'm probably asking too much but I'm torn since I'm also in a hurry to do a bunch of work so I don't have time to read rulebooks.

>>43776753
>your every move is strictly detailed.
The MECHANICS for every move are detailed. The fluff is all your own, and the DMG specifically encourages creative use of powers and surges as plot-point-like entities.

>>43777007
I think everyone in this thread is aware how it works.

What you don't get with 4e is that more freeform "I want to do THIS THING" style improvisation that certain non-D&D games (and potentially early D&D games, maybe?) are good at letting you do.

>>43775477
The entire Wheel of Time series.
The Drizzt books from Homeland onward.
Actually most DnD books have the PC's be untouchable demigods with the exception of the Eberron books.

>>43776925
Essentially, a lot of the rules interact with each other to laser focus on exploration gameplay.
The amount of random encounters is based on the speed players are traveling at and they're only able to map when traveling at a slow speed. Tightly bunched formations deal better with combat and making chokepoints but leaves the party open to AoE and having the rogue scout ahead puts them in danger but allows quicker mapping. The rogue though incurs more random encounter chances when scouting ahead since they're moving more quickly. Mapping also means the mapper isn't wielding weapons and people carrying torches can't carry shields. A common rule is that if the map is lost or destroyed, the gm physically hides the players map.

Random encounters provide dirt poor xp because theyr'e not carrying treasure with them. Fighting a random encounter is a net drain on player resources.

There's a big emphasis in play on deciding how much further to press on into a dungeon. Losing hp and resources without finding treasure is a net loss but pressing too deep into the dungeon may mean the players won't be able to make it out alive.

With traps and hidden doors, moving slowly makes it easier to find them but moving quickly means the party can take on monsters before they have time to mount a defense.

torches tie into this as they only last a certain amount of turns. So you can run out of torches if you move too slowly and have to sort of judge how far torches will get you. Torches though increase the chance of being surprised by monsters and makes stealth harder. Surprise rounds are brutal and moving slow makes it more likely to be surprised while moving quickly makes it easier to surprise monsters.

>>43777162
They don't sound like very interesting books to me.
Who would want to read a novel about superman exploring and fighting in a dangerous world that he's nigh impervious to?

>>43777465
That would be pretty fun if the superman is a douchebag.

>>43777509
I'll certainly give you that.

>>43777191
That does sound like a lot of fun.
It seems like you'd have to be very meticulous and run the game at a slower pace to make sure you're keeping track of everything properly though.

>>43777465
>They don't sound like very interesting books to me.

The request wasn't 'name me a single fantasy novel that I find interesting that has protagonists become invincible demigods.'

The request was 'name me a single fantasy novel that has the protagonists become untouchable demigods'.

And there are many. Most of the involve those protagonists starting out weak and becoming untouchable demigods as they go through their journey. Some of them are dull as dishwater (Rand al'Thor, Drizzt) some of them are actually interesting (Perrin, Matt Cauthorn). But they exist.

>>43777746
Not that guy, but request aside, what's the point of naming boring shit? They're not good examples of how to run a game when the purpose of a game is having fun.

>>43777746

All of those people would still need to block a sword blow. Drizzt doesn't just laugh and let his abs deflect the blow when people try to attack him.

>>43775477
Overlord

>>43777848
>All of those people would still need to block a sword blow
And a high level 4e character wouldn't?

What do you think the 1/2 level to AC represents if not the character actively trying not to get hit, and being better at it from their combat experience?

>>43777974
Actually I'm with him, the AC represents the attack bouncing off their steel abs.

It makes sense with the insanely high hp too, as each attack does a smaller percentage of your total as you level up.

>>43777607
Not him but in some ways it's more abstract than newer editions. You don't have to worry about the minor details. Everything is conveniently in ten-minute increments. Monster stat blocks are less than one sentence. Items are weighed in coins, encumbrance is actually pretty simple (and in fact an optional rule).

You get to 3.5, 4E, or 5E, and some spell lasts one minute, which is ten rounds, also their torch runs out in 37 minutes (what's that in rounds, again?), and the party travels at 300 feet per minute, so going from room 1A to room 1B should take about...

I thought older editions would be a lot more crunchy and wargamey, but Basic at least hits a good sweet spot. At some point they decided that exploration time has to overlap with short-term combat time, and that's just a horrible thing to inflict on players and DMs.

File: 4e From a tg lover.png (170KB, 1886x1274px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1886x1274px

>>43777007
>being this wrong

>>43777974
Anything that requires effort and could possibly tire you that you're doing to avoid an attack is better represented by HP. Which, as mentioned previously, are not meat points.

File: herb of smugness.png (7KB, 84x108px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 84x108px

>>43778098
>delivering a hot heavy load of opinion as a counterpoint

>>43777778
Because he wanted to know if the shit existed, not if it existed and if he found it fun.

Newsflash: Fun is subjective.

>>43777848
The hell do you think AC represents?
I never made the claim that they don't need to avoid sword blows.

(Though no, Rand al'thor would not need to but he's retarded broken and boring to boot.)

>>43778229
Well then that just means a missed attack wasn't significant enough to make you tired.

HP is a much better representation of "Bouncing off your steel abs" then defenses are, because a missed attack is referred to as just that, a MISS.

In fact, allow me to copy/paste from the 5e PHB "Your Armor Class (AC) represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle."
4e says much the same "Armor Class (AC) measures how hard it is for your enemies to land a significant blow on you with a weapon or a magical effect that works like a weapon. Some characters have a high AC because they are extremely quick or intelligent and able to dodge well, while other characters have a high AC because they wear heavy protective armor that is difficult to penetrate."

Higher AC, in both editions, clearly comes from combat skill, not becoming super man.

>>43778229
>better represented by HP. Which, as mentioned previously, are not meat points.
And AC is not JUST bouncing-off belly power

>>43778596
>>43778229
>>43777848
Guys, guys, neither AC nor HP represent a sword bouncing off of somebody's abs.

Defenses represent blocks, parries, and dodges that have become routine and instinctive due to training.

HP represent a pool of plot-points that turn telling blows into near misses and lucky dodges

>>43778435

Opinions that don't even refute the post he quoted, to boot.

>>43778978
Wait, that page out of the 4e rulebook is an opinion?

What other pages out of the rulebook are opinions?

>>43779133

His interpretation of the page is an opinion, yes.

And the post he was quoting referred to your ability to refluff your powers and how those powers can be used creatively, none of which the image he posted refer to.

Page 42 is about mechanical rules for improvisation (an example from the image itself would be throwing sand in a monster's eyes), not creative use of powers. (Using scorching burst to set a building on fire)

>>43778948
>healing exists
Nope.

>>43778948

A better counter example might be Raistlin Majere, then. Strongest spellcaster to ever walk Krynn, but his AC wouldn't scape because he's still frail and weak. Getting better at your core competency doesn't automatically extend to every branch of adventuring.

And again, casters do get better at defending themselves in 5e, they just do it within the bounds of what they're already best at.

>>43779526
>healing for nearly all of them is inspirational words
Yep.

>>43779580
>nearly all of them
Fuck off. Did you even look at the main leader heals? I'm not even going to get into all the magical healing provided by other sources.

Cleric/Warpriest and Sentinel have Healing Word. Here's the fluff.
>You utter a soothing word that mends wounds of the body and spirit.

Shaman, Runepriest, and Artificer all have magical true healing by flavor.

The leaders that would fall under your argument are Warlord, Bard/Skald, and Ardent. That's four out of fucking ten.

File: grenadier.jpg (43KB, 600x837px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x837px

GRENADIER
Martial Controller
>Using an arsenal of ranged (throw) weaponry, the Grenadier controls the flow of the battlefield

Would this work? Using different kind of thrown weapons and grenades to fulfill the martial controller niche, making throw weapons more important.

I can see smoke grenades, being able to throw potions, ricocheting axes, pinning foes with javelins, caltrops...

>>43780062
>I can't understand abstracted healing

>>43780271
also opium filled toy baloons

>>43780313
>changing the argument
What's abstract about the flavor explicitly stating the power heals wounds?

>HP represent a pool of plot-points that turn telling blows into near misses and lucky dodges
No, you get hit and you get wounded. Healing heals that.

>>43780062
>and spirit

yeah alright

>>43780271

Sounds promising, but you'd have to stretch a bit more for an explanation for why they can't use all their grenades in one fight instead of pacing it out to once a battle.

>>43780455
That it heals mental fatigue has no bearing on the fact that it also heals physical wounds just fine.

>>43780373
>No, you get hit and you get wounded.

Fluff is mutable you know. This game doesn't even have rules for performing worse at low hp (hell, usually monsters get bonuses for being at half or below half) so it's not like it's realistic to be a broken and bloodied pulp when you're at 1 hp and fighting just as well as if you were at full.

>>43780501
It's not JUST meat points. But it's meat points as much as it is anything else.

>>43780473
Maybe the reagents can only the used so many times or must be infused on-the-fly. It won't be as better explanation as why the martials can't do encounters erryday.

>>43780271
>Artificer

>>43776645
>>43776842
>Shill
>Basically every OSR game is online for free
I know 4e players are slow, but what do they think shill even means?

>>43772198
There's a lot of tinkering that can be done. I've not gone through the system as much as I'd like (I'm building completely different systems at the moment), but I've heard/run into some issues.

4E Skills: Personally, I'm fine with the skill selection, but would probably shift change skill challenges to something that involved more player skill.

Levelling: There's a potential issue of essentially "flat" gain across the board. I know 5E designers said this was a trap they wanted to avoid, but I don't think they did. I've heard complaints about new powers not giving more - I'd probably want to keep the maximum amount of powers to be, like, 8, and have those powers become more powerful or versatile as the characters progressed. I do want to throw out feats entirely and bake them into class features or power mechanics, but that's possibly because I'm a neat freak when it comes to system design.

Then I might go hog-wild and do a "pick three from class and race (humans are default)" for starting characters, though that'd mean the maths would have to be retooled a bit.

To me, of course, 4E feels like at its heart a FFT style tabletop with lightweight roleplaying/dungeoneering systems outside of combat. Your particular vision or design goals may vary.

>>43772309
Eh, that's fine if you want a Pathfinder type thing, but I think you could do a lot more interesting system stuff if you don't feel the need to follow the original game design too heavily.

>>43780564

I always explained that as them needing to build hype, or it being too exhausting to spam. 4e was fun but really didn't make sense. The idea that reagents need to be added works, maybe the grenades are just magic enough that they interact with your aura and need to be attuned? That takes care of why not two dailies (they won't both attune, even if you use the original it's still imprinted on your soul so another won't take) and why you couldn't just hand them off to another party member to use.

>>43780373
Could you please never post in threads while you're this fucking new and ignorant about the subject being discussed?

>>43782253
You need to read the post chain for the context before you flame that post.

Anyone have a good offline character builder? My group would love to play 4e again but we don't want to pay for the 4e builder subscription

>>43780271
Here's an idea for how you can do it.
You give them the Alchemy feat and access to a set of alchemy recipes that you create and bundle with the class. (they can be used by others just fine though; they're normal recipes.)

The items in those recipes are kind of shit (like the default ones are) for the action you use to throw/attack with them.

The class encounter/daily powers are all about throwing 'nades with their actions in such a way that it actually IS worth it. So they'll have free/minor/interrupt/reaction based grenade throws, grenade throws that get bonuses to hit rolls as your at-will, and standard action powers that let them throw multiple grenades at once (but you must place them all within a burst 5 or something.)

Perhaps their powers are limited to 'nades with an item level equal to theirs or lower, to control scaling.
Then, based on whatever amount of damage is missing (if any) you can just make higher level grenadier powers throw more 'nades, or add damage bonuses to 'nades thrown if that seems fine to you.

They could also get daily powers that let them super-charge a grenade-type item that they make, but the item will be destroyed after 12 hours.

To make them properly viable, though, you need to help them with their economy:
* A feature that makes them good at scrounging/harvesting/salvaging alchemy reagents from creatures and the environment.
* A feature that lets them make grenade-type alchemy items cheaper. (remember; they're shit when not being thrown by grenadiers so if someone else is using them it's just extra utility, which is great.)
* Dungeoneering training, because it ties in well with their tinkerer/scavenger needs. Maybe they can use dungeoneering for alchemy rituals or something?

If some of that sounds wonky it's 'cause it's a long time since I last played 4e.

>>43782362
The HP discussion is ancient, and settled as fuck.
It's not an open issue in the slightest.
Get bent.

>>43771700
You should definitely try out "Strike!"

>>43782679
Well, I disagree. It's not settled in the way you seem to think it is, and it pops up every now and then. And there's nothing you can do about it.

>>43776403
That would be the English version of Tales of Hearts R.

>>43775477
Gotrek Gurnisson from the "Felix and Gotrek" novels.
He literally fought so hard and so much that the god of fighting said "Damn, dude. You deserve this more than I," and was granted godhood and given the domain of fighting shit.

Also Felix went from "OH FUCK A SINGLE LONE GOBLIN IM DOOOOMED!" to "A horde of shrieking abominations stretching to the horizon? This is like the fourth time this week. AND THIS TEA TASTES TERRIBLE!"

>>43784102
>Not English dub Legendia.
Shirley single-handedly killed that game for me.

>>43782959
Why is everyone shilling Strike?

>>43784263
A single voice actress is nothing compared to a blind idiot translation where every skit contradicts the main story and the dialogue contradicts what's happening on screen.
And they even translated English into English incorrectly.

>>43784317
Because OP asked for games heavily inspired by 4e.... and that very much describes Strike!

>>43775626
>Heavy Armor intensifies

Is there any stats for playing a Centaur in 4e?

I kinda want to make a Centaur Lancer of some sort.

>>43784968
Minotaur would work quite well for a Centaur.

>>43784485
>inspired by 4e
>flat 1d6

>>43785385
>d20 is all there is to 4e
DW uses 2d6, but you can't tell me it isn't inspired by D&D.

>>43784968

They didn't seem to want Large size playable races, but you could refluff one pretty easily like >>43785100 for example.

Though again the Size factor is an issue, but one that could be hammered out with a willing DM.

>>43776727
nat 20 still would've hit him

>>43782383
Check the archive, there was a thread with the builder like 2 days ago.

OK. I've read over the Strike pdf. Yes it is inspired by 4e. the tactical combat is well done and decently balanced, but I still think their could be a better game with some work done. Personally I'd just like to see themes branched out more. perhaps extend them past the heroic tier, and more power sources, along with a return to the standard AWED way of design instead of the lazy essentials we got later on. while on the topic, does anyone have any pdfs or links to full homebrew classes laying around for 4e

>>43788450
I'm trying to think if anything is not covered by the current powersources. Like, it's pretty easy to just refluff everything to work approximate just about any class. Maybe a necromancer path that lets you teleport on kill so you can make fey-pact warlocks, but I cant think of anything else off-hand that'd be hard to do.

>>43782383
https://rogue-elements.obsidianportal.com/wikis/offline-character-builder

>>43788528
I honestly would have preferred them doing the actual work to make the other power sources as they had been described in one of the preview books. Like the Elemental, Ki, or other power sources.

>>43788868

Ki as a variant of Psionic energy does make sense though, preview book promises aside.

>>43788880
Not arguing, just never felt right to me was all. I honestly had hoped that Ki powers would have been added later in a supplement or something to add more things to the Martial power source, sort of how they did shadow, and elemental powers.

>>43785385

Glad I'm not the only person who noticed this, honestly, I thought maybe there were two games named Strike if one's a rules-light d6 game and the other is supposed to be a reasonable replacement for 4e.

>>43788982
It'd be reasonably easy to port d20 into it. Possibly even defenses.

>>43788933

I would have liked to see more Ki characters period, psionic or otherwise.

Maybe an Oriental Adventures type book, Ki coming out of every orifice.

What if there was only two power sources? Might and Magic? And the Themes was what differentiate between learned magic, pact magic, faith magic (and faith by god or nature), born magic.

>>43789137
I wouldn't have minded a power point striker actually. Feels like they made one, then split the powers between battlemind and ardent.

>>43789209
I've seen two versions of a homebrew 4e soulknife which did just that actually. I saved both i think so I can post them if ppl want. Not sure if they're balanced at all, but they looked fun to say the least.

>>43789246
ok sadly I don't have the pdfs anymore, but I did find the link to the one I had.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?235467-Soulknife-%28Psionic-striker%29-Complete-with-Paragon-Paths-amp-Feats

File: players-guide-3dcover.jpg (1MB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 600x900px

>>43784317
Better Question: Why everyone isn't shilling Radiance?

>>43789322
>http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?235467-Soulknife-%28Psionic-striker%29-Complete-with-Paragon-Paths-amp-Feats


Well, that one's pretty shitty. Isn't even using power points and has a terrible striker mechanic.

>>43789513
cause I have no idea what it is anon.

>>43789513
I could maybe shill unchained heroes, but I really dislike the nomenclature they have going.

I get it, you can't call things what they are calling them in 4e, but holy shit it takes some time to get used to.

>>43789513
I actually downloaded this just now, and after a quick glance over this is a d20 heartbreaker, not actually anything 4e related.

>>43790062
Its use lots of thing of 4e, anon. Like the basic math, and traits working like a mix of Feats and Powers.

>>43790159
Sure, but it still doesn't look like it plays like 4e. Seems like a ncie upgrade from 3.PF I guess... aside from the stupid long skill list, comeliness stat (that is racial), rigid class structures, and probably dozens of things I haven't found in my 20 minutes of reading it.

>>43789513
Radiance is the prime example of someone not getting WHY 4e fans like 4e, and just bolting some shit on a d20 framework.

>>43790407
>Bend Bars: You bend poor metal bars on a DC 20 check,
>good bars on DC 25, and masterwork bars on DC 30. If you have
>leverage, the bars are mostly rusty, or you apply acid, lower the DC
>by 5. If the bars are made of mithral or adamantine, or are extra close
>or thick, increase the DC by +5.

This. This is why we can't have nice things.

>>43789137

There was actually a Dragon Magazine for that.

Gave a heap of Oriental themes. They were pretty decent ones too.

I've got a Samurai/Avenger I meant to play some time.

18-20 crit on the first round of an encounter does fantastic things with an Avenger's Oath and a Daikatana (Fullblade)

>>43773114
>>43788868

>preview books

I think I remember these, but I can't find them anywhere.

Does anyone have them?

>>43791477
I got you senpai.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/weuved5bzc30m/Wizards_Presents

>>43780271
Seeker/ Artificer with alchemist theme? This would give:
Weapon based ranged control
1/encounter free consumable grenade
Consumable flavored artificer powers

Can we actually add roleplaying back into the game? That would be my 2nd fix besides not making the math retarded

>>43792739
The only solution is to not play with retards.

Which means your games are out of luck.

File: rollplaying for roleplaying.jpg (172KB, 640x828px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 640x828px

>>43792739
What exactly do you mean by that?

File: gamma_world_box_1_web.jpg (74KB, 864x678px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 864x678px

>>43773119
I've always been of the mind that 4e's problems were mostly of a user experience misstep than a game design misstep.
So less that the unique elements of it are wrong and more that they're presented too dryly and like they're on an entirely separate level of interaction than the characterizing and narrative-driving aspects of the game.

Plus the way it uses unique status effects and cascading classes of status effects can give it a considerable number of distinct operative mechanics in play at once after you get more than a few levels into it. So, accounting for the interesting application of powers or use of other character mechanics on top of that pushes it to the point where either nobody considers it (being preoccupied or assuming the rigidly codified power interactions are the only option) or nobody wants to bother with it if they do.

>>43773104
Aside from the card system muddying the waters a bit, Gamma World 7e (4e's Gamma World, pic related) does a lot of that and is otherwise incredibly straightforward and swift. That said, it's not inherently well suited to a standard Fantasy setting and probably requires some thought and discussion in character building to make it all sit well.

Speaking of refluffing, I've been running a mech game using Gamma World's rules, and it's been a complete blast. Everyone's satisfied and we're all pleasantly surprised at how totally easy it is to mold into just the right thing. It's practically effortless.

My solution is to treat Alpha Mutation cards more-or-less as an element of character growth and have them be static instead of in flux--we call them "Alpha Equipment", as they represent unique hardware or firmware, or even softtware that sets them apart from other mechs, even if they'd be the same make and model.
Conceivably I could have them find (or they could develop) more Alpha Equipment, which would let them customize their mechs granularly before a sortie.

File: 4e has no roleplay.jpg (63KB, 680x583px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 680x583px

>>43792739

>>43792853
As much as I love the joke, they fell thoroughly into the same trap themselves with some of the feats and rituals--as well as pretty much the entire Martial Practices system.

Adjusting your clothes and pack straps for travel is one of those practices. It's retarded.

>>43792923
Gamma World was a great little game and it's not hard to imagine a fantasy version with races and classes instead of mutants.
The only bad thing was the booster model. I know the cards in the base box are enough to play, but they shouldn't have released the additional sets in random boosters. Then again, they tried random boosters even for D&D, and no one remembers those.

>>43792995
Yeah, the booster system was a weird way of monetizing a dripfeed.
It also guaranteed that when the game started to die it would die *fast*.

Going to steal a moment this thread.
About to start a game of 3.5 settled in Eberron (never played there) and I'm going to roll a scout/ranger with a feat called swift hunter, should my first FE be constructs? what about my second (we start at 5th level)?

Thanks.

>>43793230
Why. Just... why. At least make the question in the PF thread or something.

That said, constructs are immune to the bonuses FE gives IIRC. Yeah. Fuck 3.5.

>>43793291
Sorry, I Ctrl+F "3.5" and that was the only thread, didn't think in PF to be honest, sorry again.

Fuck constructs then, Arcane, Undead, Elemental are the ones then.

>>43793333
Undead and elemental are also immune to precision stuff. Arcane is ridiculously good tho, take that one if allowed.

>>43793344
Favored enemy bonuses are untyped. "Precision" damage wasn't even a thing prior to PF.

>>43793291
>No FE constructs
B-but my strong independent women elven archer had Favored Enemy: Patriarchy, so Illusions and Constructs.

>>43793291
>>43793344
>Immune to precision
That's why I'm taking swift hunter, anon, adds skirmish to your FE even if they're immune to skirmish.

>>43792985
I feel this way about skills, especially skill challenges.

The examples in the DM guide seem to go skill first, role-playing second. I get that this suits a certain style of play and it makes sense for the fiction to follow dice rolls, but a more broad "what do you do?" followed by any necessary checks makes more sense to me than:
"Now you can use the History skill to aid in this challenge."
"I'm trained in that!"

>>43793455
Been a while since I've read DMG1, but DMG2 explicitly says you should try not even telling players this is a skill challenge, if that floats with your group better.

>>43792739
Putting the obvious trolling attempt aside, there is actual merit to this line of thought.

The Power system is 4e's greatest strength.
Its implications are its greatest flaw.
The clear and absolute definition of combat actions and the focus thereon have created an even deeper rift between combat and non-combat than usual for D&D.
So, how can we fix that?

Step 1: Integrate non-combat into combat
Improvisation in 4e sucks.
From a design standpoint, this makes sense. If improvisation can reliably produce effects equal to or better than class Powers, they lose meaning, and that's a lot of design work down the drain.
The key to improvisation is situation. We need to make improvisation situationally useful. The best way to go about this is to give DMs guidelines for translating the PCs' attempts at improvising to mechanically undefined but noticeable effects.
One example of this would be influencing an enemy's behavior through coercion.

Step 2: Integrate combat into non-combat
Attack Powers and quite a lot of Utility Powers lose all meaning outside of combat.
This creates an odd situation where the class is the most defining aspect of a PC, but suddenly steps quite far into the background when PCs are not in combat.
Now, going through every Power in every book and coming up with a non-combat benefit for each of them is utter madness, especially since their fluff is supposed to be flexible. Instead we need DM guidelines for interpreting the system-given or player-given fluff for a Power outside the context of combat.

Once we're done with that, we still need to revamp Rituals and Martial Practices, pare down Powers and Feats, touch up the Seeker...
There's a lot to do, really, but by integrating combat with non-combat we're already a lot closer to an ideal 4e.

>>43793390
>>43793372
The Rules Compendium on Precision Damage says that precision damage

>includes sneak attack and other abilities that work like it, such as a ninja’s sudden strike (Complete Adventurer 8) and scout’s skirmish (Complete Adventurer 12). (42)


Sucks to be you.

>>43793544
>Improvisation in 4e sucks.

Not really? It says it should be on par with an Encounter Power. That's pretty damn good.

>>43793480
That was an example from the DMG, I'll have to reread DMG2.

It is an interesting idea, I just feel as though it's a step backwards. But I guess for certain groups, it might actually encourage them to role-play, since they get to look at their character sheet, roll some dice, and then say something.

>>43793544
>Step 1: Integrate non-combat into combat
>Improvisation in 4e sucks.
>From a design standpoint, this makes sense. If improvisation can reliably produce effects equal to or better than class Powers, they lose meaning, and that's a lot of design work down the drain.
>The key to improvisation is situation. We need to make improvisation situationally useful. The best way to go about this is to give DMs guidelines for translating the PCs' attempts at improvising to mechanically undefined but noticeable effects.

Couldn't you just improve the chart on page 42? It's already saying improv actions should be around the same strength as encounter powers (as long as they can't be done willy-nilly).

>>43793567
>>43793597
Oh.
Must've misremembered that.
Well, then it sucks in the opposite direction.
My suggestion stands regardless.

>>43793544
>If improvisation can reliably produce effects equal to or better than class Powers, they lose meaning, and that's a lot of design work down the drain.
>The key to improvisation is situation. We need to make improvisation situationally useful. The best way to go about this is to give DMs guidelines for translating the PCs' attempts at improvising to mechanically undefined but noticeable effects.

You could always make them one-off actions. Shoving someone down a pit, throwing a brazier of hot coals into an enemy's face, etc. These aren't things that can be repeated very easily, unlike powers or pocket sand.

>>43793455
If you are stupid you run skill challnges like this.
If you are not stupid, you set a loose framework for a scene, let players roleplay, and call rolls based on what they say and do.

>>43793624
Well, you can't really limit improvisation mechanically.
I mean, circumventing limits is the whole point of improvisation.

>>43793544
Leaving aside that improvisation in 4e has pretty strong and serviceable guidelines, one of the key features is that encounter design should include dynamic elements. It's hard to improvise if you are in a white room with no features, but if you aren't, combining the page 42 rules and what's around warrants decent results.

>>43793667
But you can limit it with the environment. e.g. you might lead the enemy into a trap you know about, but then that trap has to be reset (like an arrow trap).

If you have an Orb of Infinite Electricity that powers some colossal machine and does 4d10 damage on contact, the rogue with rubber gloves is going to keep throwing it at the enemies for the rest of time.

>>43793557
>Sucks to be you.
Sucks to not be able to read, anon.

Swift.Hunter.Feat.

>>43793720
>encounter design should include dynamic elements
>>43793734
>limit it with the environment

Okay, here's a different problem to solve then:
It's far to easy for inexperienced DMs to arrive at the conclusion that "white featureless room" is the default assumption.
Encounter creation is presented as "pick monsters, pick traps maybe and add one or two rigidly defined details to the environment".

>>43793868
>It's far to easy for inexperienced DMs to arrive at the conclusion that "white featureless room" is the default assumption.

No if he reads the fucking books. The two DMGs are full of fantastic terrain.
A lot of the so-called "4e problems" would be solved if people read the fucking books instead of trying to play it as if it was 3.5.

>>43793557
Still doesn't include the bonus damage from favored enemy. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/ranger.htm

>>43790836

Do you or does anyone else have a PDF or something?

Since this seems to be the 4E thread:

Is a subscription to DDI worth it?

>>43795892
At this moment in time? Not really, I don't even know if you can still do it.
Dragon and Dungeon stopped running years ago, the tools shifted to online only and so on.
You are better off downloading all you need from torrents. The offline builder has everything.

>>43793567
Except that's wrong, faggot.

See:
>>43778098

>>43793615
Nah, he was just changing reality to defend something.

File: Dragon 404.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>43795047
This is Dragon 404 which is the "Asian" Dragon Magazine so I guess it is what you want.

>>43796317
How many Dragons were there containing 4E stuff?

>>43796306
But that screencap is factually wrong.

>Someone saved a screencap from /tg/
>must be THE TRUTH

>>43796330
No clue. I only have like 4 or so and all but one I've picked up from here. There is at least 30+ since I have 374 and 404.

>>43796330
From 364 to 430, but the last ones are relatively light in content.

>>43796306
God that screencap is horrible. Three posts for saying what amounts to "increase the damage for improvised actions", which is not even necessary because it only considers damage as a metric when improvisation is mostly abuout opportunity.

>>43771700

I'll admit, I was secretly hoping that somebody was gonna pick up with 4e and just call it Trailblazer or something.

>>43796519
A big part of why PF was able to do what it did was because the OGL. There was common mechanics and terminology that it lifted whole-sale, as the license allows.

4e's license was way more restrictive, so there's not really a way to do that so directly. Anything following 4e's lead has to do it in careful moderation.

The closest thing that I've played (as far as a spiritual successor) is Strike!, which recycles 4e's power and role mechanics and does a pretty clean job of it, on top of wrapping it in an amicable "fiction first", universal system. I'm pretty enamored with it, despite not caring overmuch about 4e.

>>43796519
>>43796783
You COULD do 4E with OGL changing the names and the power format, but it would be a massive feat of willpower.

>>43773042
>The estimates that result in roughly doubled survivability actually assume you start using encounter power equivalents roughly every combat round pretty quickly
The thread I was in that came to such a conclusion was based on bashing MM3 monster math against itself and using encounter powers (and action points) not at all. I didn't stick around for pc based comparisons because that takes more book collecting and system mastery than I care for. It's something I'd change in my own edition.

File: 1423915374474.jpg (28KB, 278x417px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 278x417px

>>43785385
>1d20 was the defining thing about 4e
>not grid-based combat with heavy emphasis on tactical positioning

>>43797317
But possible. I say go for it

File: 4437dc8d79dbd5533850983f79c9e007.jpg (3MB, 1788x2527px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1788x2527px

Has anyone else considered a retroclone of D&D 4e that directly ports over every single class and all of those class's powers, but rebalances those powers by moving the weaker ones down levels?

Such a process would involving studying the many 4e CharOp handbooks that have been preserved on forums like ENWorld. All of those handbooks use a rating scale of 1 to 5 stars (with 5 stars being "sky blue," and the very rare 6 star power being "gold"), and assume that you will be selecting 5 star powers at every level.

One could read over numerous such guides for a given class, gain a consensus for each power, and then lower the levels of various powers like so:

6 stars (gold): Move UP one step
5 stars (sky blue): Unchanged
4 stars (blue): Move down one step
3 stars (black): Move down two steps
2 stars (purple): Move down three steps
1 star (red): Move down four steps

Encounter Attack: 27 -> 23 -> 17 -> 13 -> 7 -> 3 -> 1
Daily Attack: 29 -> 25 -> 19 -> 15 -> 9 -> 5 -> 1
Utility: 22 -> 16 -> 10 -> 6 -> 2

Thus, a 2 star (purple) rated level 13 encounter power would move down to level 1, thereby making it a top selection just like the level 1 encounter powers that the CharOp community has already deemed to be 5 star (sky blue).

>>43802947
that is a great idea really!

>>43802947
What would you do with powers that get reduced below 1? Revamp them? Eliminate them?

>>43802947
That sounds like it could break something horribly. Also, it wouldn't help with at-will powers or feats. I feel like there should be more care taken with balancing powers, especially with non-standard actions and multiattacks. Reducing the amount of available stacking bonuses overall in the system might also do good.

>>43771700
What's really interesting about D&D 4 is that due to the scaling characters usually have a flat 67%~ to succeed at a level-appropriate task they're good at. This makes it fairly similar to Dungeon World.

>>43771700
I've been mulling arround the idea of a 4e Clone that uses Power Source and Role rather than Classes.

Then based on Power Source and Role you get to pick Powers and also some Augments ala 4e Psionics that every role would have.
So to start you'd pretty much get 1 At Will 3 Encounter and 1 Daily that you toss Augment points at to do cool things with.

File: 210bef44c2058bcb698c045a845dbbe7.jpg (75KB, 1000x625px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1000x625px

>>43803705

I imagine that they would be eliminated; there would already be an abundance of level 1 encounter attack powers and level 1 daily attack powers under such a revamp.

>>43803707

At-will powers would have to be manually revised, upgrading poor powers such as the wizard's Scorching Burst and the fighter's Sure Strike by attaching more riders to them.

My personal 4e house rules grant every character a combined feat/enhancement bonus to damage rolls equal to their level, which is then halved for a character's damage rolls on their turn past their first, and also halved for all off-turn encounter and daily powers.

What do you think of this math fix?

>>43803765

I am actually writing my own retroclone of Strike! (yes, a retroclone of a retroclone) that is mostly classless and allows players to build their own distinct combat styles and build their own unique powers, although it does incorporate niche-setting specialties.

>>43803758
That's why Strike using a d6 isn't actually very weird. You have an average of a 4 in 6 chance of succeeding at something you're good at... or 66.666%.

>>43803765
Again, look at Strike, kinda. Class is independent of role. Picking Striker grants bonus damage, Controller grants marking, etc.
Not every class works well with every roll, but it's a start.

>>43773103
Didn't monster manual 3 and Monster Vaults fixed the whole "Wall of HP" problems?

>>43803798
>My personal 4e house rules grant every character a combined feat/enhancement bonus to damage rolls equal to their level, which is then halved for a character's damage rolls on their turn past their first, and also halved for all off-turn encounter and daily powers.
That sounds interesting, though I can't estimate the effect off-hand. I have also considered having multiattack powers add dice to the damage instead of counting as separate hits. So for example hitting twice with Twin Strike would do 2W+ mods instead of 2W + 2*mods damage.

>>43803830
There was never a wall of HP problem. MM3 and MV monsters have the same amount of hit points as previous ones, except solos who were reduced by 20%, from 5x standard to 4x standard. The later books simply upped monster damage, plus the expertise feats and added stacking options increased PCs powers to kill them.

File: 36f4a4e0d5f05011b7831e72d4fc8ce4.jpg (850KB, 750x1030px) Image search: [Google]

850KB, 750x1030px

>>43803815

I am in the development credits for Strike! and feel reasonably qualified to speak of it.

Virtually every player I have ever run Strike! for or played Strike! has balked at the game's 1d6 dice roll resolution, claiming that it would make the game too "swingy" or "unpredictable."

Since Strike! uses +1s for exactly one effect in the entire game (the archer [sniper]'s passive benefit, which is conditional) and -1s also for exactly one effect (major conditions, which are supposed to be devastating), the flat swinginess of the 1d6 is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. It helps that the "miss tokens" rule is now core, so missing is no more frequent than it is in D&D 4e.

What the flat 1d6 roll *does* do is make critical successes and critical failures much more common, with a ~16.667% chance of either by default. Some players like that, while others do not; it certainly makes for a more gonzo, "anything can happen" game. I can see disliking *that* as a legitimate concern.

The 2d6 variants of Strike! simply are not that well-polished. They remove many of the potential outcomes, it is absolutely absurd to give the player a choice between "success with a cost" or "twist" when the rest of the game places much greater value on the former, and it thrashes the internal balancing of Role Boosts.

I think that a better way to handle a Strike! with less common critical successes and critical failures would be to shift it over to a d12 system, double the ranges of everything, and then have critical failures be only on a 1 and critical successes be only on a 12. It would make Advantage and Disadvantage less potent, however, when the game is balanced around them being strong; how should that be rectified?

>>43773359
Hue. I know that person on Skype. 900% autistic.

>>43797317
Unchained Heroes kinda does it. I have a hard time reading it, but there you go.

>>43803923
A good variant of that idea that I've read on FATE boards to replace FATE dice was d6-d6. You'd need to place the "midpoint" at 0 instead of 3-4, but that's about it.

File: 50f006cfff965b0c55183df97877027b.png (461KB, 612x840px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 612x840px

>>43803990

Good day to you.

>>43804466

Unfortunately, d6-d6 would effectively be a bell curve, which Strike!'s math for advantage, disadvantage, and Role Boosts simply are not equipped to handle.

I had suggested the d12 solely because of it being flat and non-bell-curved.

>>43790836
That's actually what I ended up playing a while back. shit was great. took a dip into monk for a level to get my movement speed up to 10 by epic tier. it was nice being able to shift 5 squares almost every round. combine that with unarmored agility and the armored by faith feat and you basically can build an off tank striker. loved every second of it.

>>43804864
>dip into monk
??????

>>43804875
i can show you the build if you like.

Wataru, level 30
Human, Avenger, Serene Initiate, Destined Scion
Build: Pursuing Avenger
Avenger's Censure: Censure of Pursuit
Epic Heroism: Epic Heroism (Wisdom)
Epic Heroism: Epic Heroism (Dexterity)
Human Power Selection: Heroic Effort
Background: Blademaster (Insight class skill)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 12, Con 14, Dex 26, Int 12, Wis 28, Cha 12.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 12, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 10.


AC: 47 Fort: 41 Reflex: 44 Will: 45
HP: 202 Surges: 9 Surge Value: 50

TRAINED SKILLS
Perception +29, Religion +21, Heal +29, Insight +29, Acrobatics +30, Athletics +21

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +16, Bluff +16, Diplomacy +16, Dungeoneering +24, Endurance +19, History +16, Intimidate +18, Nature +24, Stealth +23, Streetwise +16, Thievery +23

FEATS
Human: Improved Armor of Faith
Feat User Choice: Heavy Blade Expertise
Feat User Choice: Improved Defenses
Level 1: Unarmored Agility
Level 2: Born of the Elements
Level 4: Monastic Disciple
Level 6: Fluid Motion
Level 8: Firedancer
Level 10: Improved Initiative
Level 11: Painful Oath
Level 12: Censure's Grip
Level 14: Eyes in the Back of Your Head
Level 16: Fiery Blood
Level 18: Avenging Resolution
Level 20: Roll with It
Level 21: Hand of Divine Guidance
Level 22: Vengeance Recalled
Level 24: Superior Initiative
Level 26: Vengeful Declaration
Level 28: Irresistible Flame
Level 30: Blind-Fight

>>43804921
Monk feat, not monk dip.

>>43804938
same thing to me.

>>43804921

Looks pretty cool.

I was going to go Wood Elf for the 'Use perception for init'.

It would basically make sure I go first forever.

>>43803923
Is there a community for Strike! somewhere?

Also, I remember you doing some characters that were mobs using some feat, but I couldn't find the feat in the final release, got that somewhere?

File: cf844c884b500f8a80285efa7512f327.jpg (106KB, 1024x1531px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1024x1531px

>>43804921

I would have taken this build in a very different direction. You do not seem to have any Weapon Proficiency or Weapon Focus feat, many of your other feats are of tenuous value at best, and the Serene Initiate a purely middle-of-the-road paragon path (why build for misses on an avenger?) compared to standouts like the Ardent Champion, the Favored Soul, the Morninglord, and the Arbiter of Forgotten Justice.

File: 0985c053468580d2cb15df65dc6a7330.jpg (504KB, 500x706px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 500x706px

>>43805537

>Is there a community for Strike! somewhere?

A dedicated Strike! community? No, unfortunately.

>Also, I remember you doing some characters that were mobs using some feat, but I couldn't find the feat in the final release, got that somewhere?

I eventually realized that the feat was overpowered for melee characters and self-destructive for ranged characters, and then wrote a new version for the author to use. You can find the new version in the kits section under the Boss kit, but the author had altered it from my own version slightly.

A few feats did not make it into the final version, such as the Terrifying Necromancer feat.

>>43805703
>A dedicated Strike! community? No, unfortunately.

Well, just like a forum place where most of the discussion goes on would suffice. Like how mostly everything 4e seems to be on ENworld, from what I gather.

>I eventually realized that the feat was overpowered for melee characters and self-destructive for ranged characters, and then wrote a new version for the author to use. You can find the new version in the kits section under the Boss kit, but the author had altered it from my own version slightly.

Too bad. Do kits even give combat ebenfits? I remember reading mob but don't remember that benefit.

File: 81445472d7e804875899dce672d33045.jpg (516KB, 749x1000px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 749x1000px

>>43805753

There is a thread dedicated to Strike! on Something Awful. Beyond that, you would be out of luck. I doubt that a Strike! general thread on /tg/ would receive an appreciable amount of posters at all.

>Too bad. Do kits even give combat ebenfits? I remember reading mob but don't remember that benefit.

The Gang feat is a suggested feat for the Boss kit, but it is not, in any way, free for the Boss, nor is it restricted to the Boss. (A non-Boss with the feat would have a Gang usable in combat, under whatever justification the player prefers.)

Kit advances generally do not affect combat and cannot be used in combat unless otherwise noted. A few notable exceptions include the Brute's Brush It Off and Unstoppable, the Scholar's Bestiary, the Seer's Danger Sense, and the Favored Enemy general advance.

>>43805596
I tend to build my characters more towards how they develop in game as apposed to what is "better" for them. But on the case of the paragon path you are correct there are better ones, it just didn't fit the character at all. and as far as WP goes i didn't wish to burn a feat for it when my dm basically handed me a free bastard sword on character creation. just gave me a d10 longsword so i was happy.

>>43805843

>I doubt that a Strike! general thread on /tg/ would receive an appreciable amount of posters at all.

It would probably still beat the current modus operandi, where someone asks for a system that can do [thing], someone suggests Strike! and then it just becomes the de facto Strike General.

>>43806224
I tend to look at PPs even more as just bags of features than the classes themselves already are. There's thematically very little value in most abilities they get.

File: 7c0a734927e40e21141c207cc7b52d80.jpg (107KB, 940x1440px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 940x1440px

>>43806287

You are certainly free to create a Strike! general thread. You will at least technically have a developer posting in the thread, even if I am admittedly the one who did the least work on the game by far due to having discovered it only two months before it was supposed to be released and having contacted the author.

>>43806501
I enjoyed serene initiates utility power. pretty much guaranteed damage with every hit against OoE targets for an entire encounter made me happy, and i rarely rolled a miss but looking over the other ones atm, i probably would have gone for relentless slayer instead for the PP