D&D 4e General

>>48865239
>this much bait
Oh, I do so hope you are being ironic here. The last two give me that hope.

On topic though, I do love me some 4e. Lazylords are still the most fun.

I play AD&D or 5e

>>48865239
1e AD&D is your cure

>>48865239
You can't.
You can't.
You can't.
You can't.
Disallowing vampires.
You can't.

Glad we had this talk.

Why do all 4e classes play the same?

I find 4e more fun to optimize for than 3.5

3.5 has a wider breadth of options and can do crazier things with them. But the divide between caster and martial makes it feel like I'm either cheating, or making up for overwhelming weakness.

>>48865259

Lazylords are the best class of anything ever.

Let those others roll dice and do that plebian shit.

Imma sit on my couch and chill.

>>48865239

You don't have to

>>48865386

They don't, it's a dumb meme perpetuated by people who read the books and got confused by the idea of consistent formatting.

>>48866102
>I find 4e more fun to optimize for than 3.5


Sooo true. I also feel that I'll get a character to such an optimal state that I'll feel more comfortable taking "unoptimal" niche choices to help fill out party weaknesses more.

File: 1454684857895.jpg (97KB, 437x700px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 437x700px

>>48865239
>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
Reduce the number of classes and give each of them a core gimmick that applies to how they interface with the AEDU system. For example:
- Fighters have -Reliable- maneuvers; if they miss with an Encounter or Daily power it's not expended, and their At-Will attacks might (perhaps) let them recharge their Encounter powers on a hit or something
- Rogues have -Flexible- maneuvers; they can declare what maneuver they're using AFTER they attack, but it has to fulfill certain conditions (see 13th Age for examples). Maybe their At-Will attacks build Momentum if they hit and their maneuvers have a bonus effect if they have momentum (again, see 13th Age)
- Mages have -Versatile- spells; they can use each of their spells in a variety of ways, such as making a fire spell into a single-target blast, a cone of flame, or an explosion around them
- Priests have -Enduring- spells; each power has a lasting effect that can only be partially removed with a Saving Throw, and buffs have an immediate large bonus and a lasting smaller bonus
- Psions have -Augmentable- powers; they get a reserve of Power Points they can spend to boost their At-Wills, just like they do in normal 4E.

>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
You've got a false premise here, sir. There are rules for social encounters and exploration, they're just less detailed because the game focuses on

>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
Don't let them play vampires.

>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
Evaluate the specific benefits of Str and Con compared to other attributes and, if you find them to be superior, remove some of those benefits. Test until your players are satisfied.

File: 1454682362701.png (2MB, 1500x1019px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x1019px

>>48866336
>because the game focuses on
Apologies for the unfinished sentence. I meant to say that the game focuses on tactical combat, for better or worse. Personally I would prefer more rules for 'social combat' and stuff like building settlements, managing estates, and otherwise becoming land-owners and people of note rather than just assuming the characters are murder-hobos.

I also recommend going with the Intrinsic Bonuses option instead of the 'magic item treadmill' that the core game introduces. Make magic items optional and powerful relics and tell players they'll have to earn them. That way they become a much more enjoyable reward, and you can build whole adventures around getting something as ordinarily 'commonplace' as a +1 Flaming Longsword.

Oh, and use the Monster Manual 3 math for monster creation, it's far superior.

>>48866336
>reliable, flexible, versatile, enduring, augmentable

Not that I want to bump a 4E thread, but this is very cool and some of the best advice i've seen about the game.

>>48866128
The only problem with lazylords is that they aren't bravura.

So ignoring the troll OP, I'm going to be running a game soon for some friends of mine, and one of them is stuck on hybrids. Is there anyway to break down hybridizing for someone new to 4e in general?

>>48866878

Hybrids really aren't worth it unless you're aiming for a very specific combo of some description. I've seen people do decent things with the rules, but overall it's just way more trouble than it's worth.

>>48866878
Hybrids should not be played by new players

It is far too easy to fuck it up and end up with something far weaker than the sum of it's parts. Sometimes unplayably weak if they do something stupid like rogue/wizard

>>48866897

It's not really in an optimizing sense, the player wants to make a warlord who also keeps the faith of a dead god alive as one of the few clerics of that god. I'm just wondering if there's like a 'quick guide to hybriding' floating around like the MM3 math card.

>>48866930

They're a lot better off going Warlord multiclass Paladin or Cleric, maybe taking a divine theme like Knight Hospitalier alongside.

I can understand the attraction of Hybrid, but what >>48866912 said is accurate

>>48866930
Don't hybrid, just take a multiclass feat

Multiclassing into cleric from warlord is hardly optimal, it recquires you to be a wis-based warlord, which requires giving up most of the warlord's feat support, but it's not a debilitating option. Especially considering how strong warlords are inherently

>>48866912
Sounds like a challenge to me!

>>48866930
Warlord/cleric is actually a pretty good hybrid, mostly because clerics hybrids can get Battle cleric's lore.

Buuuut, as a beginner he's probably still better off grabbing a few multiclass feats, maybe play a half elf to dilettante some Cleric stuff.

>>48866950
>>48866912
>>48866957


I'll bring it up with the player, from what I recall she wanted to be a hybrid archer/lazylord and then most direct offensive powers would be cleric spells. It was either that or only taking STR warlord powers and STR cleric spells.

File: 1452247366321.jpg (237KB, 800x651px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 800x651px

>>48865239
>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
I wouldn't since it feels more like a Tactics game than an MMO.
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
They don't already. They have overarching ideas but all of them play differently.
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
Except I never got that vibe from them. Sure, both have their daily, encounter and at-wills but they feel different enough that one can't confuse them.
>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
By, um, roleplaying? Do you need anything more than an outline and not the stupid skill encounters rules?
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
By banning it from your table.
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
Don't, since I've never seen the issue myself.

Anyone here try Strike! yes?

>>48867242
I did.

I think it's pretty good. A bit rough around the edges, but I even kinda like the non-combat module.

Is there a trove anywhere of 4e books to mine conversion content for 5e? I want to see some of these things people liked about warlords straight from the source.

>>48867242
Yeah I did

The non-combat stuff is basically FATE but worse, and operates so separately from the combat stuff that I'm confused why they've been lumped together into one game.

Meanwhile the combat stuff screams in agony at being forced to use a single d6 when a dice pool mechanic would fit much better

>>48867275me
>>48867367
Couldn't disagree more.

The out of combat is more like *World games than FATE (or maybe a mix, if you consider it has skills instead of stats). The results for the d6 roll are the same for both skills and attacks, so they are definitely the same game both in and out of combat.

I am interested in what you mean by dicepool mechanic tho.

>>48865239
>mmo on tabletop.
For the most part I'd more compare it to disgaea.

But if you wanted to drop the MMO feel, it's going to take a bit of doing.

>Abilities
4e has a wide variety of limited use abilities, all with their own individual resource pool, and a refresh after combat mechanic that feels a *lot* like an mmo cooldown.

You'd have to rework that. Maybe move everything to a single fatigue system, and have the refresh require like, 5-10 min of rest.

That's the biggest part.

>Aggro Mechanics
These are super MMOy

You'd want to drop the aggro/mechanics entirely. If you want to stop someone from going after your friends, you'll need to either a) be the bigger threat, or b) use a combination of positioning and perhaps some sort of short distance reactive move abilities to block their path. Adding in AoOs would also help.

>Rigid party roles by class
This is also super mmoy.

I'm not sure what the best approach for this would be, but allowing people to more fluidly be in multiple roles would help get rid of the mmo style party roles feel.

Those would be the main things.

As I said, it would take some doing.

>>48867618

Except none of that is actually new to 4e. 4e just stated it explicitly rather than leaving it implicit, and made most of it, y'know, actually work, rather than leaving large chunks of it completely worthless, boring, or both.

>>48867618
>If you want to stop someone from going after your friends, you'll need to either a) be the bigger threat, or b) use a combination of positioning and perhaps some sort of short distance reactive move abilities to block their path. Adding in AoOs would also help.

This is literally how Defenders already work.
All marking does is give an enemy a -2 to hit if they don't hit you and every defender has an ability that punishes marked targets for not hitting them in some fashion.

Fighters literally stop people from moving with their AoO's.

Why do so many people in dnd edition threads not read the books?

>>48867618
>all with their own individual resource pool, and a refresh after combat mechanic that feels a *lot* like an mmo cooldown.
>You'd have to rework that. Maybe move everything to a single fatigue system, and have the refresh require like, 5-10 min of rest.

Literally how encounter abilities refresh already in 4e.

>>48867618
>Maybe move everything to a single fatigue system, and have the refresh require like, 5-10 min of rest.

Encounter powers already refresh on a 5-10 min rest.

There are essentials classes that only get multiple single encounter powers.

The thing you are looking for is already the game.

>>48867640
Most of it isn't new or exclusive to 4e, but some of it is, and the refresh mechanics are one of the things people often complain about from bo9s.

But they are the elements that give it an "mmo" vibe, and if you're wanting to get rid of that, they're the things you'd want to be different.

Character role isn't nearly so strict in 3.x as it is in 4e, for instance.

>>48867656
>-2 to hit people besides you.
>ability to punish targets for not hitting you.
Right. Those are the aggro mechanics I'm suggesting be reworked/dropped if you're looking to ditch the mmo vibe.

Fighter aoos are the basic idea. I'm suggesting they'd be the only means of aggro management.

And I've read the 4e books and played 4e for about a year before I stopped playing it. I just haven't looked at 4e since around 2012.

>>48867673
Not so. I'm suggesting all your encounter/daily powers using a single shared fatigue/strain system. Which means you could use the same encounter power more than 1/fight , and the same daily more than 1/day.

>>48867680
Yeah, again, I'm talking a shadowrun style fatigue system or mp, with some number of points recovering with a short rest.

>>48867884
>Played for a year before i stopped
Just wasn't my thing. I like tactical skirmish games, what I didn't really enjoy was the mmo feeling mechanics. No they're not exclusive to 4e, they just took the resource mechanic I don't like from 3.x and brought it from "widespread" to "omnipresent", gave most things mmo style cooldowns, and reduced the fluidity of character role which I liked, by class.

>>48867884
>Character role isn't nearly so strict in 3.x as it is in 4e, for instance.

And yet the ideal party had been Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue (Fighting man/Magic User/Cleric/Thief) since OD&D. Roles had been in the game, they just adjusted over time.

Plus, 3rd was actually supposed to have roles, it was the shitty execution that led to some characters not being able to cover any, and others being able to cover all. This is also the basis for the fucking tier system.

>Right. Those are the aggro mechanics I'm suggesting be reworked/dropped if you're looking to ditch the mmo vibe.

You probably don't even play MMOs, because that's not what a fucking aggro mechanic is.

Cooldowns also don't work like in 4e (you actually get to reuse your abilities on a cooldown in MMOs in the same fight, for one).

But of course you don't care, because anything reminding you of vidya must be bad.

>Yeah, again, I'm talking a shadowrun style fatigue system or mp, with some number of points recovering with a short rest.

It's functionally the same as Slayer or Thief having a re-usable, adjustable encounter power.

Essentially, what you are vying for is just obfuscation.

>>48868015
>because anything reminding you of vidya must be bad.

You do realise that he talks about ways to reduce MMO-feel which is what OP (however baity that is) asked?

>>48868150
And the way to reduce the MMO feel is >obfuscation.

Or paying a WoW subscription for >>48867884 so he can actually try a fucking MMO.

>>48868186
Don't overreact, the idea behind punishing for not hitting is to concentrate fire on defender. Which is what taunting in MMO does. The idea is the same, the execution is different.

I played WoW. Cooldowns for powerful abilities in WoW can be pretty long and some fights can be pretty short. Not exactly AEDU but once again, the idea is there, not specific execution.

>>48868015
>roles were already present
Sure. But by 3.x they're less forced.
And yes, 3.x had lots of problems. Pathfinder may be my favorite d&d, but I'd still rather play a different game, like shadowrun or gurps.

>aggro mechanic
It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy, for largely incomprehensible reasons.
The punishing people for attacking others thing is especially mmo gamey, and reminds me strongly of the log horizon tank classes.

>probably don't play mmos.
I've played a few, but you're right that i realized i didnt really like them in 2009 or so, and no longer try to pick them up anymore.

>cooldowns
Yes I'm aware that a timer based cooldown is different from an encounter based cooldown. Similar though. And everything still has per-ability resource pool.

>anything reminding me of vidya is bad.
Nah. Just not what I'm generally looking for from an rpg.

>functionally the same as slayer or thief powers
Reading heroes of fallen lands now. Doesn't seem like they have a single resource pool. But even if they did, I'm referring to making something like that as the *standard* resource pool for powers, used for *all* limited resource powers.

>obfuscation!
Naw, that's just you strawmanning real hard.

>>48868150
Also this.

>>48868186
Played wow. Didn't care for it. I've tried it three times, and canceled my subscription within 4 months each time.

>>48868304
Exactly.

>>48866715

Nah, that's a bonus.

Bravura work to hard.

Implying I didn't grab moves from both

>>48868304
>Which is what taunting in MMO does

No. Taunting in MMO tells the AI to attack the fighter. Marking is an incentive to attack the fighter, but doesn't force it.

Removing the -2 for attacking others doesn't change this. It just changes the incentive from "you are less accurate, and fighter gets to smack you in your face" to "fighter gets to smack you in the face".

How would that remove the idea?

>>48868326
>It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy, for largely incomprehensible reasons.

How the fuck is "the fighter is trained in messing up your attack/face if you don't focus on him" incomprehensible?

What mechanic would you use to allow someone to defend their partymates without such tools?

>>48867884
>Not so. I'm suggesting all your encounter/daily powers using a single shared fatigue/strain system. Which means you could use the same encounter power more than 1/fight , and the same daily more than 1/day.

Essentials does this

>>48867884
>Right. Those are the aggro mechanics I'm suggesting be reworked/dropped if you're looking to ditch the mmo vibe.
>Fighter aoos are the basic idea. I'm suggesting they'd be the only means of aggro management.

MMO aggro works nothing like the marking system and every defender having to work off the Fighter's AoO-centric style would -actually- make the classes more same-ey in a negative sense.

I'd like to keep my Swordmage's ability to telesmack anyone who tries to sneak past me, thanks.

>>48868496
>how else could you represent training in defending others without marking/punishing effects?
Physically blocking their path to your ally with a "step up" type mechanic to intercept enemies during their move, maybe something to let you stick your arm out and provide your shield bonus to an ally in spaces behind you, perhaps something to allow you to physically leap in front of your ally to take a hit for them. Plus aoos for attacking distracted opponents.
One with magical abilities might repertory and swap places with their ally (i think there's a wizard power for that).
But largely it would involve reactive abilities they use on enemy turns.

>>48868605
>Physically blocking their path to your ally with a "step up" type mechanic to intercept enemies during their move
That how certain swordmage, battlemind and warden builds work

>>48867242
>>48867275
>>48867367
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

>>48867538
Uh, the way the noncombat stuff works and the design ideas Jimbozig straight sharked from Fate/Fudge and PBTA to get there have nothing at all to do with the 4e heartbreaker design points of the combat system. They might as well be different games with the same dice mechanics because they literally are different games with the same dice mechanic.

>>48868605
>Physically blocking their path to your ally with a "step up" type mechanic to intercept enemies during their move, maybe something to let you stick your arm out and provide your shield bonus to an ally in spaces behind you, perhaps something to allow you to physically leap in front of your ally to take a hit for them. Plus aoos for attacking distracted opponents.

There's a fighter power for all of these.

>One with magical abilities might repertory and swap places with their ally

There are like four swordmage spells that do this

What you want literally exists in the system, your only problem seems to be marking because the ability to do this sort of thing at-will is bad for some reason.

>>48868605
>Physically blocking their path to your ally with a "step up" type mechanic to intercept enemies during their move, maybe something to let you stick your arm out and provide your shield bonus to an ally in spaces behind you, perhaps something to allow you to physically leap in front of your ally to take a hit for them.

Soooo, it encouraging the enemy to attack you and discouraging him from attacking everybody else? Also, most of those are existing fighter powers.

Actually, wait

>It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy, for largely incomprehensible reasons.

I misread this.
>and discourages them from attacking the enemy

Do you mean the enemy attacking your allies, or your allies attacking the enemy?

>>48868701
Because we hate you and want to drive you to suicide.

>>48868605
Those already exist and are also "MMO" abilities. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>48868326
>It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy, for largely incomprehensible reasons.

'Don't ignore the big guy with the sword who is a master of using said sword or he'll stab you' seems pretty comprehensible to me.

>>48865239
>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
It doesn't
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
They don't
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
They don't
>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
Why do you need written rules for roleplaying ? Do you need the game to tell you how to play pretend ?
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
Never had this problem
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
They aren't

>>48868520
>in essentials, instead of individual resource pools, all your powers run off of a single resource, so for instance, you could theoretically use the same power every turn until either the fight ends or you run out of juice.
I was not aware of this. When i played 4e everyone in the group didn't like essentials and i was told not to use it by the gm. I was under the impression that essentials characters just had encounter posts instead of encounter +daily.

>mmo implementation is different!
Okay. Same idea though. Not all of the defender powers make a ton of sense, and marking is crazy abstracted and just incentivizes attacking you instead, "just because". Even if it's not identical, it's still very aggro-y. And again, discussion stems from me responding to the op question of "how could you cut down on the mmo feel of 4e?".

A reactive teleport smack would still be a good fit for the other approach of makimg defender types as i mention here
>>48868605

>>48868689
>some builds already do this thing you're suggesting.
Granted. Okay. Point?

How does "some builds do it this way already" mean "all builds do it this way"?

>>48868759
The problem isnt the at-will aspect of marking, it's the abstracted incentive to attack you and unexplicably making them worse at attacking anyone else, which is what makes it very much like building up more aggro/taunting in an mmo.

The degree of abstraction is the issue, not that is "at-will".

>>48868766
I mean discourages them from attacking your friends. Sorry for the confusion.

Again, the "for abstracted unexplained reasons" and "game the math directly to encourage the behavior you want" is what makes it feel like taunting/aggro.

>>48868887
I just do't get it how it's unexplicable. They are your mark. You are harrying them. They can't fight as well while they also have to deal with you.

I mean, even sports have this, right? Isn't that where the term "marking" comes from? Non native speaker here, I may be wrong.

>>48868887
>I was not aware of this. When i played 4e everyone in the group didn't like essentials and i was told not to use it by the gm. I was under the impression that essentials characters just had encounter posts instead of encounter +daily.

Essentials characters (Most of them, the mage and cleric were exceptions because Essentials attempted to capture the '3.5' feel) had one encounter power that they could modify with different options but they could use it multiple times an encounter, instead of each encounter power being expended individually.

>Okay. Same idea though

No. MMO mechanics focus on keeping all the monster's attention on one target, and the monsters can't choose to ignore the 'tank'. 4e Defenders do not work this way. In fact if a Defender is the exclusive target of every creature in a fight that Defender is probably dead. A Defender's job is to actively fuck up creature's attempts to harm his compatriots. He can't force their attention, but he will punish them for ignoring him.

>and marking is crazy abstracted
The whole idea of 4e was abstracted mechanics because of how stupid WoTC's attempts at being simulationist in 3.5 were.

>just incentivizes attacking you instead, "just because"
Swordmage puts a magical sigil on an enemy that lets them teleport to the target, Paladin threatens an enemy with divine wrath, Fighter marks everyone he hits because it's immediately obvious how badly he'll fuck you up if you ignore his mark (and mechanically its true, Fighter is terrifying), Battlemind literally psionically compels a target, Warden is surrounded in nature spirits that mark everyone close to him and drag foes that try to escape, etc.
Repeating an incorrect claim does not make it true.

>discussion stems from me responding to the op question of "how could you cut down on the mmo feel of 4e?".

The OP's question was a bad question because 4e doesn't function like an MMO. If it functions like any video game it functions like FFT.

>>48868926
It may be a sports thing. Im not really into following sports, and have never been into team sports.

But as for them harrying me, i dont need to be within reach for them to do it. You can't harry me with your costs from across a football/rugby field. If you're on the opposite end of the field you're not a threat to me.

>>48868887
>unexplicably making them worse at attacking anyone else

Because there is an angry man threatening them with a large piece of metal that he's very good at hurting people with/A magical sigil seared onto your body that a swordmage can use to teleport his sword into your orifices/The divine will of a god-imbued warrior pressing down on you/Actual psionic compulsion/nature spirits that are keeping the enemy distracted.

'Marked' is a condition that covers a variety of effects, like combat advantage (Or disadvantage in 5e). It means you have trouble concentrating on fighting other foes because someone has done (pick one of the above) to you and you are actively being distracted.

>>48869036
>i dont need to be within reach for them to do it.

Okay, this is a fair point... for the fighter. Buuuut the only way the fighter can mark you is making an attack against you, so you have to be within his reach (or at least start your turn there, which should be enough to mess you up for then).

>>48869036
>But as for them harrying me, i dont need to be within reach for them to do it. You can't harry me with your costs from across a football/rugby field. If you're on the opposite end of the field you're not a threat to me.

Which is why the Fighter, the only defender without some sort of supernatural ability, can only mark someone within his reach.

Now, granted, that reach can vary with certain powers (Come and Get It), but for the most part the Fighter is only marking someone he's actively swinging at.

Which is a lot more realistic and less abstract than the 3.5 Knight's Challenge, which let you 'mark' someone from a distance with words.

>>48869036
With your fists*

>essentials characters have one power they can modify with several uses rather than a ton of individual 1 use powers.
Ah. Then yeah, having everything be sortof like that is the general idea. An mp pool/fatigue system would just allow you to have your stronger abilities (things comparable to dailies) cost more points, but still be available.

>>48869024
Yeah, I'm familiar with fft. It's one of my favorite games.
What I've seen of 4e, not quite close enough to run an fft game I'd be happy with. But that's definitely the same kind of game, for sure.

>mmo they can't ignore aggro. A defender can't take his like a wow tank.
Fair enough, it's a bit different, at least compared to wow.

>is not "just because!"
>swordmage teleport
Sure.
>battlemind compulsion
Sure.
>warden spirits literally prevent you from leaving
Sure.

>Paladin wrath, fighter threat.
Does this work if I go far away? If yes, why am i so distracted by the paladin/fighter who could be like 90 feet down while i fight his wizard friend in the air?

>>48869112
>3.x has some mechanics that make even less sense than the one you're criticizing!
Yep. There's a lot of dumb mechanics people have made in a lot of games, unfortunately.

>>48869231
>Does this work if I go far away?

For the fighter, no. They're marked until the end of the fighter's next turn, which effectively means if he stops being able to swing at them and threaten them, they stop being marked.

Paladin is different because paladin mark is a ranged radiant blast of divine will. But it only works within 25 feet.

>>48869250

That's a cute strawman but what I was saying was that the previous edition's mechanic makes zero sense while this one's makes perfect sense (in the Fighter's case, at least, I feel Warden is the weirdest even if its effective.)

>>48869231
>Then yeah, having everything be sortof like that is the general idea.

Fuck no
Everyone having to work like Essentials is just as awful as no one being able to. If you like that sort of thing, just pick an Essentials class and let the people who want to play base 4e classes continue to do so.

>>48869333
>For the fighter, no. They're marked until the end of the fighter's next turn, which effectively means if he stops being able to swing at them and threaten them, they stop being marked.

Technically, you could be an archery fighter...but then you are threatening with a bow so...

Also worth noting that getting away from the fighter short of literally teleporting is actually pretty hard.

>>48869542

Well yeah, true, you could be a bow fighter...but why when Ranger exists?

And yes if you can't teleport good luck getting away. If a fighter smacks you with an AoO you stop moving.

>>48869606
>Well yeah, true, you could be a bow fighter...but why when Ranger exists?

Well, cause you want to mark at range with a fighter. I mean, you are probably better off with throwing weapons, but still.

>>48869447
If I'm trying to run a game without multiple unrelated single-power resource pools because that's part of what I'm looking to run as the gm, only having some of the characters "follow the laws of physics" while the other ones just choose to build characters incapable of getting tired, simply isn't going to work.

And again, this is continuing the "how would you houserule 4e to achieve a specific and different feel". The answer is to make changes that make that specific feel be a thing.

>>48869683
>only having some of the characters "follow the laws of physics" while the other ones just choose to build characters incapable of getting tired, simply isn't going to work.

What the fuck are you even talking about here. Every character with encounter powers has to take a short rest to get them back, whether they're Essentials or not. No one breaks the laws of physics or doesn't ever get tired.

Seriously if you want to houserule 4e your first step might be actually reading the books.

>>48869683
>And again, this is continuing the "how would you houserule 4e to achieve a specific and different feel". The answer is to make changes that make that specific feel be a thing.

And again, what you want already exists, and its called Essentials. Of course you'll have to remove wizards and clerics and never play any other edition of DnD ever, but sure if you're players are all okay with it, whatever.

>>48869683
>If I'm trying to run a game without multiple unrelated single-power resource pools because that's part of what I'm looking to run as the gm, only having some of the characters "follow the laws of physics" while the other ones just choose to build characters incapable of getting tired, simply isn't going to work.

What.

The way powers recharge (or what pool you use to use them) has nothing to do with physics either way. If a guy had a stamina pool he could use to fly by helicoptering with his schlong by spinning it really fats that would be a "martial style" pool but would have nothing to do with physics... which is fine because why the fuck you'd leave out the martials (a single power source) from breaking physics when everyone else can?

>>48869795
>which is fine because why the fuck you'd leave out the martials (a single power source) from breaking physics when everyone else can?

3eaboos and 5e players.

>>48869784
In a game where you want the inability to do a power to be because of a solid reason, like "too fucking exhausted to do anything strenuous", the guy who instead has a list of "i can only do this trick once, just because" powers strains credulity.

But that was plain as day the first time, which makes me think you're just pretending the past didn't make sense in order to be obnoxious.

>>48867618
>You'd want to drop the aggro/mechanics entirely.
I just checked my books and it looks like someone already did!

>>48870164
>In a game where you want the inability to do a power to be because of a solid reason, like "too fucking exhausted to do anything strenuous", the guy who instead has a list of "i can only do this trick once, just because" powers strains credulity.

Except all of them fall into the 'too fucking exhausted to do anything strenuous' after using up all of their encounter powers/their uses of their single encounter power/their power point pool.

Like if you were complaining about how Vancian casting strained credulity in another edition, sure, yeah, what you're saying would make sense.

>>48870164
>which makes me think you're just pretending the past didn't make sense in order to be obnoxious.

That's ironic, because at this point I think you really need to just read the books, because everything you've been arguing for since the beginning is an already existing thing.

>>48870276
And once again theres a big difference between "want to run a game where things work like___" and "run a game where a few of the things work like ___".

For example, If i wanted to run a 3.x game where everyone's gets access to 6th level spells or better, telling me to allow spellless martials without any houserules is worthless advice, even if you say it over and over 50 different ways.

Likewise, if i want a game where *all* powers run out of a single pool (or where there's no pools at all but you have to make rolls to not start accumulating strain when you use your powers based on how good they are and your level and the like (like shadowrun), and "dailies" simply take up more points/have a higher difficulty on the roll, the advice of "it already exists in these limited circumstances there's nothing to change" isn't helpful in the least.

>>48870471
>For example, If i wanted to run a 3.x game where everyone's gets access to 6th level spells or better, telling me to allow spellless martials without any houserules is worthless advice, even if you say it over and over 50 different ways.

But spelless martials are useless in 3.5 compared to 6th level casters, while Essentials characters and psionic characters work just fine alongside other characters. (Discounting the vampire, of course).

>Likewise, if i want a game where *all* powers run out of a single pool

Make an essentials and psionics only game, done.


>the advice of "it already exists in these limited circumstances there's nothing to change" isn't helpful in the least.

But the advice isn't that it already exists in limited circumstances, it's that 'it already exists in about seven books worth of material and is balanced to run alongside everything else.'

There is, quite literally nothing to change, because telling someone you're homebrewing their fighter to function like the essentials fighter that already exists is dumb.

>>48870581
>essentials and psionics only
Is there actually an essentials version of literally everything, or just the most commonly chosen stuff?
Can you incorporate/allow daily powers on an essentials character, such that you could make use of all the existing powers in a character with a unified resource pool?

And again, most of the discussion I've been talking about shadowrun style strain rather than an mp system, i only tangented into mp because thats what everyone else kept bringing up.

Though i suppose the essentials system would make an easier staying point to balance against.

>>48866541
Thank you! I'm working on integrating it into some of my own works, so that martial characters and casters actually feel different.

If that kind of thing interests you, I recommend 13th Age. The Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger classes are pretty terrible (relying on passive abilities mostly) but the others are all quite interesting and feel distinct.

>>48870773
>Is there actually an essentials version of literally everything,

Almost everything, yeah. Assassin, rogue, barbarian, fighter, sorcerer, wizard, cleric, paladin, fighter again, warlock, two different flavors of ranger, wizard again, wizard again, druid, blackguard, vampire (avoid this, literally the only bad 4e class)...

The only things that come to mind that DON'T have an essentials variants are the warden, the phb3 classes, and the warlord, because warlord doesn't really work without the encounter/daily/at-will split.

>>48870773
>Can you incorporate/allow daily powers on an essentials character

Depends on the class. Most of the 'casters' (cleric and wizard) keep daily spells/prayers and seperate encounter spells but that's why I said ban them earlier. I THINK Sha'ir wizard doesn't use dailies but if it does just use Elementalist sorcerer. No dailies there.

>such that you could make use of all the existing powers in a character with a unified resource pool?

Almost every Essentials class (see above) has a single encounter power that they can use multiple times. Slayer fighter, for example, just has a bunch of at-will stances and a single encounter ability. Where other 4e classes gain powers as they level until they reach a maximum of 4 encounter powers (after getting a paragon path), the essentials Slayer gets 4 uses of his single encounter power.

Psionics, on the other hand, buffs their at-will powers using Power Points, and tend to have certain effects happen when they're out of power points. The exception is the monk, which works differently to psionic and regular classes.

>most of the discussion I've been talking about shadowrun style strain rather than an mp system, i only tangented into mp because thats what everyone else kept bringing up.

Strain works for shadowrun but not for most other places and certainly not for 4e. An mp (actually two mp) style resource system already exists in 4e without removing everyone else's 'classic' option.

File: d2419f28c756e8b73f08f05a6c43d423.jpg (260KB, 800x823px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 800x823px

Don't essentials classes scale like shit starting from, like, level 3?

>>48870934
Isn't there a warlord essentials called marshal? Also, the non-martial essentials classes are rather traditional in their power setups.

>>48870965
They have ups and downs. They definitely fall off for a bit after 3-ish, then rise back up at 11, then a bit of a falloff again... depending on class. The non essential versions are usually better, but the essentials ones can really optimize things like basic attacks.

There are also some essentials only classes that are really freaking cool, Like the Eladrin Knight. Coolest fucking shit ever.

>>48870965

Naw.
They're perfectly functional, they just have less options than their counterparts (by design because a lot of martial options were what made people reee in the first place.)

With the exception of the Slayer, they start to fall off numerically around level 15, but that's just by comparison. They can still make it to epic tier (though personally I couldn't play essentials for 30 levels, I have a friend who can and is playing vampire. Again.)

>>48871059
>Isn't there a warlord essentials called marshal?

Fuck me you might be right. I never got that Neverwinter sourcebook and they added more Essentials classes in that, didn't they?

>>48871090
I looked it up. It's actually just an errata'd, updated version of the core Warlord. Like "Weapon Master" fighter is just the core fighter.

>>48871131

Ah okay. I was about to kick myself cuz I was sure there wasn't an essentials version.

>>48871071
>They're perfectly functional, they just have less options than their counterparts

And this is why they lag in power.

>>48871163

Yes, exactly. But if you embrace a core design as flawed as 'cool stuff for casters only' you're going to lag as a consequence.

They're not as powerful as their core counterparts, but I never claimed that they were, just that they existed and could function alongside their compatriots just fine, which is true.

With the exception of the vampire, which is terrible unless you hybridize it and even then.

>>48870934
>literally the only bad 4e class
>forgetting Seeker
Oh, how I wish the Seeker was good. I really love the idea behind it and the way it's few good powers play, but it is just shafted so hard....

>>48871293
>>forgetting Seeker

By design, anon
We all wish we could forget Seeker.

>>48871334
It is actually pretty passable if you hybrid it with Ranger as it doesn't actually have any features to lose and there are only a few (really good, Feywild Jaunt, Biting Swarm) powers you want.

File: 1460355809533.jpg (309KB, 1054x1240px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1054x1240px

>>48871194
I think this is relevant.

https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/47343473/#47422558

You'll need to read 2hu's other posts there for context.

>>48871412
>https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/47343473/#47422558

>2hufag

Not with a rented dick.
He thinks the MM1 is entirely unusable because some of the monsters have daze, despite MM3 card existing.

>>48871437
Shush you.

MM1 IS fucking unplayable. That's why they made the Monster Vault.

>>48871437
It's not the daze on low level monsters, it's the STUN/dominate/constant dazing.

>>48871450

MM1 can be fixed without a lot of effort, 2hu's just too autistic for it. Though MV is better.

>>48871412

Also
>Good but slides down
So literally exactly what I claimed then?

I mean ignoring the fact that 2hu is only discussing how to hardcore optimize (because he's a powergaming autist) and we're discussing if something is just playable...lagging behind is exactly what I said they do.

>>48871470

>Remove stun and make daze effects end on next turn
>Replace dominates with free action attack of monster's choice at end of target's turn

Don't get me wrong, the MM1 is fucking terrible but it's certainly fixable if you apply MV and MM3 design + math.

>>48870934
>most essentials classes get a single encounter power they can use multiple times.
Gotcha, as i said, I'm not too familiar with those since I was told I couldn't use them when I played.

Is there much that gives you a selection of encounter powers with a shared resource pool? That would be more of a "all classes use mp" type thing.

So like, youd still eventually get your 4 fighter encounter powers plus 4 dailies, but you share uses between them all, with some sort of conversion such that dailies take more points, maybe lower level powers you haven't updated take less or something like that.

>>48871412
What is aedu

>>48871568
At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility.

It's just shorthand for 'the Powers system'

>>48871528
>Gotcha, as i said, I'm not too familiar with those since I was told I couldn't use them when I played.

I allow both in my games, but I would discourage them in most places unless the player in question is HUGE on the 'muh feels like DnD' thing.


>Is there much that gives you a selection of encounter powers with a shared resource pool? That would be more of a "all classes use mp" type thing.
>So like, youd still eventually get your 4 fighter encounter powers plus 4 dailies, but you share uses between them all, with some sort of conversion such that dailies take more points, maybe lower level powers you haven't updated take less or something like that.

Psionic classes (aside from the monk) KIND of work this way. They select a large variety of at-will powers and they have a pool of power points. They can augment their at-wills with power points, and each point spent (or each two-three points depending on the level of the power) adds an effect and eventually damage to the power.
So you can have multiple psionic disciplines but a finite pool of power points that make them have that 'encounter' effect.
The reason I say it's only 'kind of' is because psionic dailies work the same as everyone else's.

Power points are also things you can use on feats, a racial power or two, etc.

Elementalist (Essentials Sorcerer) also sort of works this way in that they have a large selection of at-will powers that they empower and modfiy using a single resource, the Elemental Escalation power. (Although I could be wrong on this one because it might only work on elemental bolt, I never played essentials sorcerer)

>>48871609
So when someone says a class didn't get proper aedu, they just mean it has shit options for powers?

>>48865239
>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
By playing the game as written, obviously

>>48871642

They mean it doesn't have the core spread of 4e powers. So it's an essentials class with a single encounter power with multiple uses and/or no dailies.

But yeah, it doesn't have as many powers.

>>48871615
>Psionic is a variety of at will, with upgrades via power points.
Hmm. That doesn't sound very similar to me.
Can you still use them if you're out of pp?

But yeah, not really the same as "keep using whatever powers you want, from a reasonable selection of them, until you run out of energy, then you can't because you're out of energy".

>>48871777
>Can you still use them if you're out of pp?

Not with encounter effects, but yes, you can use at-wills at will.

>>48871777
>not really the same as "keep using whatever powers you want, from a reasonable selection of them, until you run out of energy, then you can't because you're out of energy".

Nobody in 4e, including essentials, just falls over and can no longer do -anything- when they're out of power points/uses/encounter powers. They still have at-wills and basic attacks. It would be stupid otherwise.

>>48871815
You misunderstand.

I'm suggesting still having your at-wills and a pool of points you use at varying costs to power different /more powerful abilities, which would be the equivalents of encounter/daily powers (but not just modifications of your at-wills).
So you'd still actually end up with a reasonable number of choices, but none of your choices would be 1-use, unless they are granted by some sort of consumable item. If you can still avoid to use your strongest ability, then you could also still afford every weaker ability you know.

>>48871928
>and a pool of points you use at varying costs to power different /more powerful abilities, which would be the equivalents of encounter/daily powers (but not just modifications of your at-wills).

With the exception of the daily thing, this is pretty much how psionics works. A 2 PP Mind Thrust is pretty much a different discipline compared to the baseline version in effect.

>So you'd still actually end up with a reasonable number of choices, but none of your choices would be 1-use, unless they are granted by some sort of consumable item. If you can still avoid to use your strongest ability, then you could also still afford every weaker ability you know.

I don't like this for non-psionic classes. Having living nightmares of rogues spamming 4 Low Slashes every encounter or Come and Get It over and over.

>>48865386
They don't.

>>48871928
That is somewhat like how power points work.

As long as you have PPs, you can power up your basic abilities to be stronger. You can use them in any combination, and they have 2 levels of powering up (so every at will is essentially 3 powers; the un-powered version, the medium and the high powered ones). So yes, as long as you can afford the high power ones, you can afford the lesser powered ones...

However, IIRC psionic classes still get dailies on top of that, so not exactly perfect for your needs I guess.

>>48871477
>>48871508
Why not dump the MM1 completely and just use the MV/MM3/MM1 updates?

>>48872062

For the most part I do, but the MM1 updates and MV have some things that are missing. MM still has a few entries (Archon types and Azers come to mind) that I've used as a framework to build monsters with the new math and design.

Throwing out the MM1 consigns too many monsters to oblivion for me.

>>48872122
Dude, archons and azers have MM3 math versions in the Compendium.

You literally don't need the MM1 for anything.

>>48871979
>Classes could spam abilities that are way too good to be allowed to spam!
Hmm.

If that was the case, i could see how you might want to adjust point costs upward for the more powerful ones, to limit their use more. But fair enough.

Yeah, 4e isn't ideally set up for such a thing by default, it would take some effort.

First you'd need to figure out how many Es are worth a D, and how many Us are worth an E. Convert those to points such that a U is worth like 2 pts. E+D+U in points gives you the base size of the pool. Then youd need to determine what % of points you should cut since they get this increased versatility.

Then, if a power is proving more/less powerful than the other powers with the same point cost, adjust it up/down.

But once you had it figured you could slap it on all of the non-essentials, non-psionic classes and there you go.

>>48872216

I mean things like Ice Archon Frostshapers and Fire Archon Blazesteels
The MV has a regular bog standard version of four archon types and that's great and all, but if I want to represent a squad of fire archons with different roles than I need to convert the MM1.

Same for Azers.

>>48872269
>If that was the case, i could see how you might want to adjust point costs upward for the more powerful ones, to limit their use more

You also have to take into account that a power's...power isn't tied to level. Low Slash and Come and Get It are both level 7 powers.

>First you'd need to figure out how many Es are worth a D, and how many Us are worth an E

None of these will translate in any way approaching smoothly, from class to class, let alone from book to book with different powers for each class.

>But once you had it figured you could slap it on all of the non-essentials, non-psionic classes and there you go.

But why go through all that effort? You'd literally just be removing a huge swathe of options in order to turn the core classes into psionics classes when essentials and psionics already exist.

I've weirdly been having an itch to play 4E again. It was my first ever RPG dystem and though I ended up realising how bad it was and switching to Pathfinder while dabbling in other systems. Still it has a special place in my heart and some of my earlier players wont touch anything else still.

I'd really like to play a combat focussed West Marches style game in it. Just a massive sprawling hex crawl of variable combats , epic dungeons and brutal encounters in an all encompassing quest for loot and glory. I can make all my rolls in the open as the DM and play entirely as whatever the monsters would do. Players can min-max to their hearts content and roleplay can be very much a side thing. I think 4E with its huge focus on tactical combat and the sheer resilience of the ccharacters would be the ideal kind of system for this type of game as you could throw hydras at the level 1 players and not feel bad at all.

>>48872357
>I've weirdly been having an itch to play 4E again. It was my first ever RPG dystem and though I ended up realising how bad it was and switching to Pathfinder while dabbling in other systems.

What are you doing here nega-me.
Go back to the negative universe.

>>48865239
I made the system work to making no throwaway combat. Every combat was to save an entire village or in a demonic tomb against an ancient threat. High fantasy as fuck, basically was metal as shit

File: 1378950023454.png (52KB, 256x185px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 256x185px

>>48872357
>think 4E with its huge focus on tactical combat and the sheer resilience of the ccharacters would be the ideal kind of system for this type of game as you could throw hydras at the level 1 players and not feel bad at all.

>>48872357
If wanted to empasize brutality of the world in a West Marches game, I'd use something like BECMI instead

4e works best, I found, for plot-driven games, not sandboxes

>>48872326
>removing a huge swathe of options
The point would be to have single unified pools on your classes without having to say "only psionic /essentials", plus, as you guys explained, while you initially said psionics/essentials is what i was talking about, essentials isn't even close, and psionics is closer, but still pretty far from the target.

>>48872469
Yeah, that's a dubious statement.
Also, how in hell are 4e characters resilient? That guy's DM must've been wearing kiddie gloves the whole time

>>48872450
This. Set use large piece battles, interesting terrain, smart monster tactics and the game sings

>>48868326
>But by 3.x they're less forced.
Which is an extremely bad thing because it completely fucked up the game. Do you honestly think CoDzilla and Wizards who could do anything with very little downside was a good thing?

>>48872487
>The point would be to have single unified pools on your classes without having to say "only psionic /essentials",

But you're removing the option for players who DON'T want to play with this unified pool system to do so instead of letting them choose between psionics/essentials and AEDU.

>>48872535

It also increases the amount of book keeping in game.

I'd rather have my toolbox of 6 or so powers and go from there.

File: ddd1869388c65151a3e8536b5686932a.jpg (95KB, 600x818px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x818px

>>48872273

All of the following archons, azers, and hell hounds employ Monster Manual 3 math:

• Earth Archon, level 12 standard brute, Monster Vault
• Earth Archon Ground Rager, level 14 standard monster, Dungeon Magazine #198
• Earth Archon Rumbler, level 17 standard brute, Dungeon Magazine #200
• Fire Archon, level 13 standard skirmisher, Monster Vault
• Fire Archon Sentinel, level 19 standard skirmisher
• Ice Archon, level 13 standard soldier, Monster Vault
• Ice Archon Hailscourge, level 16 standard artillery, Dungeon Magazine #199
• Magma Archon, level 13 standard soldier (leader), Dungeon Magazine #183
• Water Archon, level 14 standard controller, Monster Vault
• Water Archon Shoal Reaver, level 13 standard brute, Dungeon Magazine #183
• Water Archon Tide Strider, level 15 standard skirmisher, Dungeon Magazine #204

• Azer Blackguard, level 17 standard soldier, Dungeon Magazine #200
• Azer Fireweaver, level 18 standard controller, Dungeon Magazine #200
• Azer Hall Warden, level 17 minion soldier, Dungeon Magazine #200
• Azer Pyromancer, level 18 standard artillery (leader), Dungeon Magazine #200
• Azer Servant, level 17 minion skirmisher, Dungeon Magazine #200
• Firebred Hell Hound, level 17 standard brute, Dungeon Magazine #200
• Firebred Hell Hound Alpha, level 20 standard brute, Dungeon Magazine #200
• Hunting Hell Hound, level 18 minion brute, Dungeon Magazine #200

Surely, these should be enough elemental foes to pit the party against? The various Monster Manual 3-math books and Dungeon Magazine issues offer many other elemental enemies, including:
• Air, earth, fire, magma, silt, and water elementals
• Avalanche, blizzard, earthquake, tornado, typhoon, volcanic, and wildfire catastrophic dragons
• Fire, frost, and stone giants of many varieties
• Galeb duhrs of many varieties
• Minions of Cryonax, Imix, Ogrémoch, Olhydra, Yan-C-Bin, and the archomentals themselves

>>48872496
Because players start off with like 20-30 hp + and can take five minutes to autoheal their wounds before even touching a potion or looking at a healer and have a myriad of hugely powerful abilities from level 1 not to mention hugely inflated stats and broken racial abilities that allow the likes of teleporting. Then even if one of the fuckers by some miracle dies its 500 gols to come back to life. Level 1 4E are insane demigod like beings.

>>48872709
Level 1 characters in 4E have a nightmarish time with orcs and are expected to be fighting scrubs like kobolds, goblins, and petty thugs.

Level 1 characters in basically any other edition can make orcs their bitch.

>>48872535
Ah.

Yes. Because in a circumstance where I wanted to do that I'd just run 4e out of the box.

But if i wanted, say, something thematically different but mechanically compatible, like a sort of 4e based FFT type thing, and I wantes more of an FFT feel for the campaign, this would get me closer to it.

Or basically:
>If you make large houserules, then someone who wants to play without them, can't!
That's house rules for you. You might also complain about the inability to play warforged in a campaign where they don't exist, or the inability to play wizards in a campaign where the only magic is psionics.
Sometimes you don't play in an "all published options (and only published options) are available" campaign. I've run all kinds of campaigns in other games with a different assortment of races and classes being available, including pf where the only "core" race available was human, and the other races were all homebrewed, and there were no alchemists or gunslingers. The game still worked just fine.

>>48872709
>Because players start off with like 20-30 hp

Monsters do increased damage to compensate.

>and can take five minutes to autoheal their wounds before even touching a potion or looking at a healer

But healing surges exist to limit healing, not to grant it where no healer exists. No surges = no healing from any source, unlike the 'wand of cure light wounds' situation previous.

>hugely powerful abilities from level 1 not to mention hugely inflated stats and broken racial abilities that allow the likes of teleporting.

Stats scale different in 4e and level 1 isn't 'broken' by any means. You-

>Then even if one of the fuckers by some miracle dies its 500 gols to come back to life. Level 1 4E are insane demigod like beings.

Yeah you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Raise Dead is a level 8 ritual and it gets harder and harder to use as characters progress.

The weakest hydra in the game would wipe the floor with multiple parties of level 1 4e characters without taking damage.

>>48872684
>Surely, these should be enough elemental foes to pit the party against?

Actually, no.
If I want to run a squad of Fire Archons, for example, I only have two to work with and no Blazesteel, Ash Disciple, or Ash Disciple. Ice Archons are in a similar position (though less so since the Rimehammer literally just hits dudes with a hammer.)

I need the MM1 for Death Giants, fire bats, the various Elemental Chaos versions of wildlife, etc.

>>48872751
I've also done "this is the nine hells. We're starting at level 8. Pick a devil type and I'll convert it into something playable that will combine with your classes".

And this is an elven military campaign. You're all Elves of one of these three types. I will also allow half Elves, but that will limit your military/political career advancement.

As well as "You're Drow, in Menzoberranzan. And you all worship Vhaeraun".

And again, they worked just fine. They wouldn't have if i had just told them "go build level x characters I'll see you next week"

>>48872751
>But if i wanted, say, something thematically different but mechanically compatible, like a sort of 4e based FFT type thing, and I wantes more of an FFT feel for the campaign, this would get me closer to it.

I'm saying mechanically you would have problems.


>If you make large houserules, then someone who wants to play without them, can't!

Dude if you're going to straw man you don't need me for this conversation. If your players want to play with an mp-like system you can do that fine with essentials + psionics and have the option to not do so without houserules.

If you and your group want to houserule something that already exists go ahead, it's not my table. I'm just pointing out that you're spending a lot of time and effort trying to make something that won't be mechanically sound and already exists in the system.

>>48865239
Does anyone know where I can find offline copies of the the Encounter Builder and the Rules Compendium?
These are pretty much essential to managing a game without spending hours doing them by hand.
But since Insider went down, their gone from the internet.

>>48872684
>>48872838

Also, don't take my reply as a rude dismissal, I'm simply saying I like a wide variety of options in things to throw against my players, and having to do some work updating old stuff doesn't daunt me.

In fact, I'm grateful, as I wasn't aware of those dark sun magma elementals. That's actually perfect for my needs right now.

>>48872838
Anon, it's not that hard to update creatures to the new math at all.
Be a gm, do a little work, and resolve your needless bitching.

>>48873003
>Anon, it's not that hard to update creatures to the new math at all.
>Be a gm, do a little work, and resolve your needless bitching.

That's...exactly what I'm arguing in favor of doing, anon. Can you read?

>>48872876
>Already exists
Essentials, based on your description, isn't even close. The characters lack any real versatility. Thats a far cry from characters who (fft style) have a good arsenal of abilities to choose from, with mp as a limiter per-encounter.

Psionics, is a little closer but still not very, and your options would be fairly small if (to avoid houseruling) said "only psionics classes" in order to get something even close to approaching the goal, and even then, again, only sortof approaching it.

You keep saying it already exists and no house ruling need be done, but the more you've explained what you think as the reason its already done, the less like what is be looking for it sounds.

You may well be right about the approach of converting existing classes to do what we would want to do having too many issues to work cleanly. Ill think on it, and if i agree with you on that, either just give up on the campaign premise, or if determined enough, write custom classes, perhaps slotting in existing powers and assigning them point costs one at a time.

But, reviewing the psionic and essentials classes through this discussion, and hearing more and more where they fall short of the target, even if i did use them, it would take a whole bunch of brewing before they would be close enough to fit the bill.

>>48873018
He's been saying "i need my mm1, with conversions, to fill gaps not filled in other sources" in response to "ignore everything in mm1 and just use the other sources!"

>>48873143

I'm arguing in favor of updating the mm1 monsters with the new math in response to 'ignore everything in mm1 and just use the other sources'.

In fact it's something I said early on, right >>48871477
>>48871508
here.

So telling me to do what I've already been saying I'm doing is odd, to say the least.

>>48873115
>Essentials, based on your description, isn't even close. The characters lack any real versatility. Thats a far cry from characters who (fft style) have a good arsenal of abilities to choose from, with mp as a limiter per-encounter.
>Psionics, is a little closer but still not very, and your options would be fairly small if (to avoid houseruling) said "only psionics classes" in order to get something even close to approaching the goal, and even then, again, only sortof approaching it.
>You keep saying it already exists and no house ruling need be done, but the more you've explained what you think as the reason its already done, the less like what is be looking for it sounds.
>You may well be right about the approach of converting existing classes to do what we would want to do having too many issues to work cleanly. Ill think on it, and if i agree with you on that, either just give up on the campaign premise, or if determined enough, write custom classes, perhaps slotting in existing powers and assigning them point costs one at a time.

Honestly custom classes and updating yourself with the sourcebooks in general sound like your best bet. Take that old avatar homebrew book for inspiration, if you need it.

Because the aedu classes are designed to function with their core power mechanic, just how psionics and essentials are designed to function with theirs. (Though this is all broad generalization because the assassin works his powers different than the slayer, etc.)

Speaking of homebrew. Does anyone know of any good 4e homebrew.

>>48872984
No, sorry

>>48873513

I personally really like the Avatar homebrew, but I'm the guy who sucks the dick of anything with the 'elemental' adjective on it, so yeah.

IIRC the classes weren't -amazing- in it, either.

Also a fan of Sly Flourish before it switched to 'why you shouldn't worry about a level 4 TPK in 5e' articles.

>>48871293
Assassin ain't great, either.

>>48871361
Don't forget Feyjump Shot. Also, "shifting as a minor action" kinda kicked ass.

Poor Seeker.

>>48873692
Yea ive got that and I love those two, but im always starved for 4e hpmebrew. Tried my hand at it for and OA update but im not that great at it. Also really wanted the ki power source to be a thing instead of gettin folded into psionic

>>48874303

Most of my homebrew is just monsters, which isn't too hard because of how easy that is to do.

>>48873513
Has anybody worked out what the damage scaling of powers by level is?

I assume that's a pattern to it, there generally is.

The "forget your old powers, theyll soon be useless anyways" aspect of 4e has always bothered me, and I'd like it if a power I choose at level 1 could still be a passable choice at 30, but that would require damage that scales up more than it does by default.

Does anyone wish to make a trove for the 4e material. I'm almost certain i've got every book they released on pdf as well as the collection of dungeon and dragon mags, as well as a couple of homebrew items.

>>48874748
Only if you've got the digital builders too, their invaluable to actually run a game.

>>48874757
I actually do have the digital builders. I know I have the Character builder, though monster builder I think I'm lacking atm

>>48874748
I'd appreciate it, personally.

My 4e collection is very lacking.

>>48874810
Well here's a link to CBloader for the character builder.

http://cbloader.software.informer.com/1.3/

And here's the instuctions on how to get it to work.

http://rogue-elements.obsidianportal.com/wikis/offline-character-builder

>>48874779
The encounter builder and rules compendium are the one I'm looking for, everyone and their mother seems to have the character builder.
Which probably reflects the player to DM ratio.

>>48874933
It's more the fact that the monster builder doesn't have the updated math patch so that's a problem, and the rules compendium never got a software release it was always payment locked

>>48875030
Damn

>>48875040
That being said. This program might help you. It's not gonna be as good as the MB that Wizards put out, but itll do the job as long as you know your math and what you want to do with the creature.

http://www.asmor.com/programs/monstermaker/index.php

File: 1433984717183.gif (299KB, 294x266px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 294x266px

>>48865239
>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
By having a DM capable of qualitative judgement and improvisation rather than a computer, also by including out of combat role-play segments that are better than what an MMO can provide.
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
By actually playing and getting used to the differences. Sure the difference between a Fighter and a Wizard aren't as extreme in 4e as they are in 3e, but they can also be included in the same party without there being a balance problem. If you compare the full 4e roster to a single play-tier of another game, 4e's breadth is actually wider.
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
Rules are for combat. Role-play is for role-play. For a game that has only been good at combat simulation for over two decades, going full tilt and making an amazing combat simulator that can operate completely independent of home-brew/diceless role-play is a very strong choice, and one of the reasons I love 4e. I do allow healing surges and daily powers to be spent narratively to make things happen, sort of like dramatic editing in ADVENTURE!: Tales of The Aeon Society.
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
I don't, they aren't
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
I don't, they aren't

File: longinus_poe.png (610KB, 1224x792px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1224x792px

>>48873513
I'm working on one. I still have to do a major rewrite to do.
I'm basically cloning 4E with kind of a Dark Souls/Darkest Dungeons/Berserk/Kingdom Death sort of dark fantasy aesthetic with elements borrowed from Japanese roleplaying games like Alshard and Log Horizon.

It won't be a straight clone. For one thing, I'm doing stuff like scaling weapon damage dice as you gain levels, and basing the NADS on averages of ability scores instead of higher-of-two.

Would you guys mind if I pick your brains a bit?
First up, I want to have twelve character classes in my core book. Which twelve classes from 4E (or any edition of D&D, for that matter) would you most like to see represented in a 4E clone?

>>48865386
The power system doesn't really differ much between classes, so it can feel like the only differences between classes is the powers tree they get access to.

>>48875285

Damn sir that sounds awesome

and for my choices that is rather difficult to say since all of the classes were just so awesome imo. But if I had to pick

Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Warlock, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Avenger, Swordmage, and Psion one extra

>>48875338
Why are all the classes in 4e so damage-focused?

You don't see too many characters highly focused on status effects (good or bad) in 4e, or options for damaging things other than hp (such as str, or dex, or what have you). Why is that?

>>48875427
because everything in some form or another does damage as part of an attack power anon. Though the divine classes actually had some powers that only did status effects.

>>48875040
Fear not anon after a bit of digging I found a working copy of the offline adventurers tools for download. It still won't be MM3 math, but you can work with it if you know how to.

http://www.4shared.com/postDownload/Uf5Jcl_B/Adventure_Tools.html

>>48875483
Thanks

>>48875285
Pf player who occasionally 4es here.

Heres some pf stuff id like to see used as inspiration for your 4e clone classes.
Witch, Magus, Summoner, Cavalier, Monk, Slayer, Ranger, Wizard, Soulknife, PoW Mystic, PoW Zealot, Druid.
Id like to see cleric/domains be a template that can be slapped on amy class, so instead of all clerics being like, healadin clerics by default, theyll be more to do with their particular god.

Well abilities scale up with your level rather than being to be constantly replaced? I'd love for that to happen.

>>48875415
Thanks.

I should mention that I am putting weird twists on all the classes.
See, I am a big fan of reskinning, and I want my game to encourage that. And the great thing about reskinning is that any starting point will suffice; whatever the classes fluff might have started out as doesn't matter as long as you can get the mechanics to fit your character concept. So I don't have to make my game's core classes generic, I can make them as weird as I want.
One problem I've been having though is that I've been letting my classes stray way too far from anything recognizable, and I feel that I need to rear things back for this next rewrite.

A few mechanical quirks I should mention:
Hybrid-classing is the assumed default, and the game supports triple-hybrid classing (so instead of choosing one class, you choose up to three classes and fuse them all together.)

Roles are more flexible. Each class has a 'position' available to it such as Defense, Control, and Support. At the beginning of combat, you choose your character's starting position from among those available to you, and you can change your position during combat as a major action. If there are two or fewer conscious party members in play, you can select two positions (to help deal with TPK-spiral). You get different features depending on your choice of position.

>>48875461
Why is nearly everything attack powers? Why not more status effects?

And why no ability damage?
Attack their attack stat, reduce their damage!

File: 1412573077953.jpg (68KB, 719x689px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 719x689px

>>48875427
They aren't actually. In many previous editions, you had to chose between doing damage, and doing "stuff" which inevitably made one of them the "correct" choice. In 4e, everyone can do damage AND stuff in the same turn, without a significant action-economy opportunity-cost. That way well optimized battles don't devolve into either nothing but bland damage exchange, or bland save-vs-fight-ending-effect exchange as other editions are prone to doing.

>>48875581

Powers do scale with level in Dragon Forest. That's one of the things that annoyed me about 4E, was that powers didn't scale. It created a great deal of redundancy that ate up a lot of page count.

>>48875581
>>48875581
>Witch, Magus, Summoner, Cavalier, Monk, Slayer, Ranger, Wizard, Soulknife, PoW Mystic, PoW Zealot, Druid.

most of these already exist in one way or another in 4e
Warlock=Witch, Magus=Swordmage/Bladesinger,Summoner=Summoner Wizard, Cavalier already exists (though it sucks), 4e Monk is vastly superior to PF Monk.
Slayer, Mystic, and Zealot I would love to see done in 4e though.

Druid is honestly fine as is though imo

And Domain spells were feats in 4e though I would have like to see more of them fleshed out in AWED form for the Warpriest (Cleric)

>>48875629
Could you share the math behind your scaling? Like, a spreadsheet of a table, or a graph?

>>48875619
Because most of the powers were to be used in combat encounters anon, where powers used outside of actual combat encounters were left up to the DM for use and purpose.

>>48875665
Yes, the flavor exists in 4e. I'm talking about considering the actual mechanics, and bringing over the more interesting parts.

Also interested in stuff relating to the archetypes thereof. Like synthesist summoner.

I built a mystic with the playtest material. Tried to use it to build a pow monk. Was pretty cool.

>>48875692
How in the world would reducing the enemy's str to 0 be a noncombat power?

>>48875705
I suppose archetypes could be filled by themes in 4e. Also playtested the mystic. It's now my favorite class if PF it literally does everything I have always wanted a class to do.

>>48875427
Not sure, but personally I'm of the opinion that they tried to emulate WoW a little to try and tap into 4e video games (as the 3/3.5 based video games were a pretty nice hit).

>>48875724
>How could sapping someone's strength be used outside of combat
What? Do you have no imagination?

>>48875724
Anon, Not quite sure how exactly to explain it to you other than for 4e's design it wouldn't have made a difference. Things like cutting an enemies strength to 0 weren't in the design ideas since from what I could tell the focus was on heroic fantasy combat.

>>48875795
Didnt ask how it could be used out of com at, i asked how you could think its not useful in-combat.

Why do people compare 4E to an MMO? I never understood this meme.

>>48875668
Well, I'm trying to achieve similar averages to 4E (even if I go about them in a slightly different way.)

The gist of it is that characters at level 1 should deal 9 points of damage on average, and that average damage should increase by one at every level.

One thing I did not like about 4E was the narrow variance in damage rolls, especially at higher levels. The lack of variance is caused by modifiers being weighted more heavily than dice. So I've been looking for ways to increase variance while keeping averages more or less the same by reducing the roll of modifiers and emphasizing dice.

One solution I'm working with is that you almost always roll two dice for damage instead of one.
2d8 gives you an average of 9, putting it on par for a 1st level character.
You can increase the average by 1 (and the maximum by 2) by stepping up one of the dice.

DICE_____AVERAGE
2d6__________7
1d8+1d6______8
2d8__________9
1d10+1d8____10
2d10________11
1d12+1d10___12
2d12________13

You can also increase the average with certain dice tricks like the Brutal property on weapons, and increase variance with mechanics like exploding dice.

To be continued...

>>48867618
>You'd have to rework that. Maybe move everything to a single fatigue system, and have the refresh require like, 5-10 min of rest.

You mean like Mana in an MMO?

>>48868926

Yeah, Marking is a term for interfering with another player by getting up in thier face and making it harder for them to get around.

It happens a lot in basketball/volleyball.

>>48875866

So, here's what I'm thinking:

When wielding two weapons, you roll
+one die of Adroit damage for your main-hand weapon
+one die of Gauche damage for your off-hand weapon
+half level

At every odd-numbered level you have the option to step up either your Adroit die or your Gauche die.

Two-handed weapons usually deal two Adroit dice of damage.
Unarmed strikes usually deal your Gauche dice in damage stepped down by one.
Shields count as off-hand weapons and deal Guache dice damage.

Magical attacks work in much the same way except that they deal Arcane + Elemental dice damage.

But I'm still working it out. The last version of my rules was a bit messy and unclear. I'm hoping to streamline it in the rewrite.

>>48875896
Mana is in all kinds of games. Most non-mmo games lack cooldowns.

>>48875866
>8+level
Wait . Really? Is it really that simple?

What about variance by role?

>>48876044

Yeah, like that D&D 3.5 game with all it's 1d4 turn cooldowns on breath weapons.

Both mana and cooldown systems exist in non-mmos.

>>48876065

Variance by role is accomplished by class features and powers.
Rogue's sneak attack damage
Warlock's curse damage
Ranger's twin strike
Avenger's increased accuracy and doubled chances of critical hits from oath of emnity

My approach to strikers in Dragon Forest is that all characters in the offense position essentially get their own version of the ranger's twin strike power with different twists and subject to different restrictions.

File: tg - why play 4e differently than 3e_1.jpg (126KB, 1213x255px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1213x255px

>>48865239

I stop injecting pure memes from /tg/ into my bloodstream.

>>48876132
I wish that Wizards would have fleshed out the Oriental Adventures stuff a bit more or had released it back during the early days of 4e. That's just my weeb talking though.

>>48868326
>Sure. But by 3.x they're less forced.
Only in the sense that casters can do literally all the roles so only one role is needed and the rest of the party is just along for the ride.

>It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy
But then the monsters would have no reason to attack the fighters and just walk around them to nom the squishier more threatening characters. This was a huge problem with older editions of D&D unless the DM just played monsters as retards for no reason.

>Yes I'm aware that a timer based cooldown is different from an encounter based cooldown. Similar though
You are now aware that "per day" cooldowns as have been used in D&D since the 70s are more like MMOs than anything 4e did.

This is bait, but I can't run the risk of some uninformed pleb reading this topic and mistakenly thinking you're not an idiot.

>>48876320

I understand that Player's Handbook 3 started out as an Oriental Adventures book with a 'ki' power source earlier in development.
The Runepriest and Seeker may very well have been Asian-themed classes at some point in their development.

>>48876132
So then whats 8+Lvl? Is that the expected 'W'?

What's the expected average damage of a power by level?

>>48876652
8+Lvl is the expected average damage per at-will attack power for a non-striker character.
Strikers deal that plus additional damage from their class features.

>>48876646
yea the Runepriest actually got a few powers from Dragon 404 with that exact intent as well. Just really wish they had done more with it. Like I know it's basically the ASIAN power source but I think they could have made it a bunch of swap out powers for any character to take, but have it heavily favored towards Martial Power Source. Then a few paragon paths, and an epic destiny or two that would have been nice. Instead of the paltry few themes we got along with the essentials assassin (ninja) we got. aggravated me to no end. Especially since, besided the monk, none of the psionic classes felt like they were influenced by chi or eastern ideas at all.

>>48876830
Pretty sure Ardent, Battlemind and Psion were Psionic to begin with and Seeker, Runepriest and Monk started out as Ki

>>48876717
What is the expected damage bump per level for a striker?

What is the expected damage bump for an E or D power?

Inquiring mind wants to know.

>>48876830

Yeah, I sort of get the impression they were going for a Taoism 'yin and yang' thing earlier on.

You know, I'm thinking of including a class inspired by the Runepriest in Dragon Forest.
You guys got any gripes about the Runepriest you would like me to fix in my version?

>>48876922
Would be nice, for purposes of designing homebrew scaling attack powers.

>>48876922
Strikers deal +50% damage.

Encounter powers deal +50% damage (mostly from half-damage-on-a-miss effects).

Daily powers deal +100% damage (part of that comes from half-damage-on-a-miss effects).

>>48876880
That would have been nice honestly. The Seeker would have been pretty damn awesome as a Ki power sourced class. Though still would have liked to see a good Chi based Defender, cause I can't stand the Battlemind in flavor.

I Would have liked a book with a list of Ki Themed powers, with paragon paths for Samurai, Shugenja, Ninja, and Wu Jen, and Sohei. With 2 to 4 epic destinies. That would have been it for me. A list of powers with prerequisite that any class could take.

>>48877019

We already had Samurai as a Theme. A really good one for Avengers if you want to get your Toshiro Mifune on.

Sohei is also a theme.

I don't think there is a need a heap of classes for 'X but Japanese'. There was't really a need for Ninja when Rogues exist and have an entire build for 'Being a mobile guy who pops in and out of stealth in combat'

>>48877019

The issue is that Ki and Psionic are...basically the same thing. Any areas there Ki doesn't overlap with Psionic, it overlaps with Martial as Martial is the power type for 'Yes, I am just that good'

>>48876973
>Strikers deal +50% damage.
You might want to tone that down a little. Dealing damage is almost always the best option in 4E and games with similar numbers (like Gamma World 7E) so dealing 50% more seems like an extremely powerful advantage to have. I'm not sure how rigorously you've been testing your work (in actual sessions, not just crunching the numbers) but you might want to try out a 20% increase instead.

Also not sure if you've considered this, but you should considered whether that bonus damage is additive or multiplicative. If it's the latter, you might find Striker Encounter and Daily powers being stronger than you anticipated.

>>48877148
Yeah, you're right. I had a brain fart.
25% would be more like it, I think.

I haven't gotten to test my game in a playtest yet. The thing about playtests is that they aren't really as useful as a lot of people think. Playtesting won't fix bad organization and communication, for example; you need to just hire a good editor for that.
And playtesting won't fix bad math; you need to just crunch numbers for that.

But yeah, 20~25% would be more appropriate for at-will striker damage.

Bonus damage usually comes either from additional damage for from half-damage-on-a-miss effects. The latter is additive. The latter is subtractive, but still increases your average damage-per-attack when we take accuracy into consideration.

>>48877074
>>48877104

Not arguing any of these facts. I understand we already got these. I'm just wishing they had fleshed it out more is all instead of the cop out. I love the Avenger with the Samurai Theme trust me. You can mix it with one level of monk and basically be all over the place with an AC level nearly equal if not equal to most Defender classes.

>>48865239
Easy answer to all of those questions.

Play 5e or 3.5e

>>48875285

Warlord. Always warlord.

>>48876973
>>48877148
Are you just eyeballing these %, or did you punch in a bunch of preexisting powers and run the numbers?

How closely do your number guidelines match up to the 4e published ones?

>>48877254
>You can mix it with one level of monk and basically be all over the place with an AC level nearly equal if not equal to most Defender classes.

>One level of monk

Wait...what? Do you mean the Monk multiclass feat?

>>48875427
>You don't see too many characters highly focused on status effects (good or bad) in 4e

There is literally an entire role for giving enemies negative status effect and every leader in the game has positive status effects to give to their party.
The artificer, especially, is the buffmaster.

File: mm3businessfront.gif (7KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 350x200px

>>48877363
I'm using MM3 on a business card as a general guideline.
Hmmm... But yeah, ignore this post:
>>48876973
Brain fart. Sleepy.

>>48877377
yup sorry i've been up for almost over 24 hrs straight now and words are startin to blend

>>48875705
>Yes, the flavor exists in 4e. I'm talking about considering the actual mechanics, and bringing over the more interesting parts.

You'll need to define "more interesting parts".

Witch has a mix of at-will powers, powers that may as well be encounter powers, and dailies. Book-familiar is a feat I'm pretty sure. It's basically a 4e control wizard or warlock with a control bent.

Magus is "I can sword and fight" guy. Spellsinger is the same. You literally get to sword someone and then also punch him in the face with a spell, Magus style right from level one. You also get wizard spells and get to combine them with punching face.

Summoner is a tougher one. "mass of summones" summoner won't ever be ported because it's a broken shit. Eidolon based version of summoner is just anyone with the Feytamer background. Synth summoner is just a refluffed wildshape druid.

Cavalier is Cavalier, Monk is monk. Slayer is effectively indistinguishable from a 4e Rogue or possibly Ranger (it's what the 3.5 rogue should have been in the first place), or you could hybrid it I guess.

PoW stuff, yeah, I'll give you that (mostly because I don't know them).

The main point of content for spellcasters (Magus, Witch) is that the ridiculously bonkers spells, and the ability to hoard a fuckton of them you can change each day, that lets you do basically anything is just not something 4e does (or at least not to the same degree, since wizard spellbooks do exist).

>>48878743
A magus can be replicated with a damage-focused assault swordmage. Since the main appeal of Magus is shitting out tons of elemental damage while being simultaneously unhittable

I wouldn't go spellsinger in general, because they're shit

File: 9Mw8oJZ.gif (2MB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x188px

>>48865239
>would really love to play 4e again
>looking through 20ish books is a pain
>character builder is dead
>offline character builder never installs correctly for some reason out of my 10+ attempts

Just fuck my life up

>>48878934
What kinda of character you wanting to play?

>>48878934
>tfw same
>tfw I am afraid my pdfs are outdated
>tfw can't really find an errata or good source for books.

>>48879080
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6X_cqKj7796Q0FTZ3E0elpPeU0/view?usp=sharing

>>48879070
Dunno. I used to poke around in the builder for hours but since it shut down I just don't have that freedom anymore

I really wish they exported the builder for offline use

File: Happy Ork.jpg (227KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 700x700px

>>48879098
Are you a god?

>>48879127
People with no lives you meet online can act as your builder

>>48879133
I've got all the books if you want them.

>>48879098
>>48878934
>offline character builder never installs correctly for some reason out of my 10+ attempts

There was a fully updated builder with files already installed up somewhere...

File: MkPAH.gif (490KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 320x240px

>>48879165
PLEASE

File: n2rS7j4[1].png (5KB, 340x185px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 340x185px

>>48879152
Anon, I already have 2 folders inside my 4e folder, because I don't know which one is the more updated.

>>48879165
I may have it, but I'd like to see if it's different, better one.

>>48877426
You're just *assuming* the pattern is the same for players as it is for monsters then?

>>48879210
>>48879172
I'll upload my own when I get home... which will be like, 15 hours from now at best. +/- sleep.

>>48878743
>3.x spell s3lection isnt a thing in 4e.
Im aware, but you could skim a spell list for ideas for 4e powers, no?

>>48879292
Well I'm heading to bed, so hopefully I can find it in the next 4e general or this one if it's still around. Thanks in advance anon

File: Extremely worried ork.jpg (25KB, 216x282px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 216x282px

>>48879292
>15 hours from now at best. +/- sleep.
>thread is at 234 replies.

Oh boy.

>>48879294
>Im aware, but you could skim a spell list for ideas for 4e powers, no?

Right, the problem isn't power ideas but the fact that 4e casters just don't have the breadth of options a 3.x has.

Like, a Magus has access buff spells, both for himself and allies, AoE blast spells, debuff spells, single target damage spells and all kinds of utility stuff. You could make a Magus based around turning himself into a 4 armed gargoyle with like 7 natural attacks, or be a buffer who also gets to full attack in the same turn.

A 4e class will most likely only have one slice of that pie instead of having the entire cake.

>>48875427
>You don't see too many characters highly focused on status effects (good or bad) in 4e, or options for damaging things other than hp (such as str, or dex, or what have you). Why is that?

Several reasons for several different questions.

>Ability damage
D&D characters are very complex. If you lose a point of con, there is a maddening cascade of effects to calculate - did you just lose your armor feat (which has a con requirement) did your Fortitude go down, did your Hit Points total go down - and did that have a cascade effect on your Bloodied value and your Healing Surge value etc. etc. etc.

You had the same problem in 3E, which is why they knew they had to fix it for 4E. You technically also had this problem in 2E but very few things in 2E caused ability damage.

And it is, frankly, too much of a god damn bother. If a vampire drains your blood, impose "Dazed" condition, take ten damage and move on to the next player.

>Status Effects 1
I'm going to divide these into long term and short term, and contrast with 3E

Imagine a spell in 3E that gives a long-term penalty - e.g. Caster Level Days. Imagine a different spell, same level, that gives a short-term penalty - e.g. Caster Level Minutes. You're sent to kill Count Von Fuckface. In the combat, do you use on him Lesser Geas (days) or on him AND all his bodyguards Crushing Despair (minutes) both of which are 4th level Enchantment spells? Despair. It is way better in combat.*

So in 4E, all the combat magic is short term and all the long duration magic is non-combat.

*Actual answer: Black Tentacles, but we're comparing Enchantment spells here only.

>Status Effects 2
3E "Slay Living" is bad spell design. According to d20srd:
>your hit points measure how hard you are to kill.

>>>Continued

>>48879444
Ah.

Okay. I understand what youre saying, namely:

>there's less variety in playstyle with 4e builds

And

>not a good idea to bringthat variety to a 4e class.

I cant help but wonder, why not? You still have your limited list of powers known, so what is it that makes you need to more tightly restrict the powers list?

Is it something more than just 'roles'?

>>48879491
>>>>Continued

>Status Effects 2
3E "Slay Living" is bad spell design. According to d20srd:
>your hit points measure how hard you are to kill.
except that is a god damn lie if Slay Living is in the game.

4E takes this a bit further: Your hit points measure how hard you are to defeat. Any spell that would defeat you (slay living, dominate monster, imprisonment) must deal with your HP first.

But a status effect that ISN'T an instant defeat, you can impose with a spell. So you get spells like

>Hit: Target takes 5d6 Psychic Damage and is Dominated (Save Ends).
>Miss: Target takes half damage and is dazed until the end of its next turn.

Additionally, the Player's Handbook says "When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it." and a Dragon article expanded that into "you can do whatever the fuck you want, so long as it makes sense." So if you use a 5d6+Dominate effect to reduce somebody to 0 HP, they're out of battle and because they are now defeated, you can decide to more permanently dominate them.

>>48866878
>So ignoring the troll OP, I'm going to be running a game soon for some friends of mine, and one of them is stuck on hybrids. Is there anyway to break down hybridizing for someone new to 4e in general?

Yes: "Don't do it."

Alternatively: "Sure, go for it but I'm not gonna help you figure out the rules because I sure as fuck don't know them myself."

Also basically everything you can build with a hybrid, flavor-wise, you can build without a hybrid too.

>>48879506
>there's less variety in playstyle with 4e builds
True while speaking about inside a class (and even then, depends on class), but false when talking about between classes.

The same builds I mentioned with the magus? A (3.PF) wizard/cleric/druid could pull them off too, just slightly differently. It's true that both the Wizard and the Magus have many builds, but many of their builds can and will overlap.

>not a good idea to bringthat variety to a 4e class.

It's not a bad idea to bring variety to a class, but it's best done by adding sub-classes that change the secondary focus of the class instead of just dumping a fuckload of spells on everyone without any support for that playstyle.

>Is it something more than just 'roles'?

Like, if you give Haste (or a Haste-like spells) to all arcane casters, what makes the Bard with Haste unique? Powers are part of the class's identity, and giving everyone a lot dilutes that. And yeah, there's also role protection.

I'm not against getting the spells from 3rd, but they need to be parceled out amongst the classes according to role and theme. After that, you can just multiclass to pick up the ones you want (I'm also not against making multiclassing, and especially multiclassing between the same power sources better).

>>48867618
>You'd want to drop the aggro/mechanics entirely. If you want to stop someone from going after your friends, you'll need to either a) be the bigger threat, or b) use a combination of positioning and perhaps some sort of short distance reactive move abilities to block their path. Adding in AoOs would also help.

>Here's my suggestions for making somebody seem less like an MMO
>[Insert RAW 4E Fighter]
>t. random idiot

>>48879491
>Attribute damage simply involves too much book keeping.
Hmm.

What if instead of attacking something with several cascading effects, you attacked the calculated scores?

Like, damage their innate attack bonus, or their innate ac? Then there's no cascading math involved.

>>48867884
>Character role isn't nearly so strict in 3.x as it is in 4e, for instance.

I find Character role is waaaaaaaaay stricter in 3E than in 4E.

Maybe your words mean something different when you write them than they do when I'm reading them.

>>48879626
Yep, that's what 4e does.

Adds -2 to attacks by X, or adds +2 to attacks against X.

>>48871642
>So when someone says a class didn't get proper aedu, they just mean it has shit options for powers?

Or no options. Sometimes you get a permanent bonus instead.

Compare two hypothetical first level wizards bragging in a bar:

>Outside of battle, I can turn invisible (with a U)
>So can I

>In battle, every round, I can hit somebody with a bolt of ice (with an A)
>So can I

>In every battle, I can release a bigger blast of ice that slows people (with an E)
>So can I

>And once per day, I can freeze people in their place entirely (With a D)
>I cannot, but all day, every time I ever hit somebody with my ice magic, it deals a little extra damage (with a permanent bonus)

The first wizard is an AEDU wizard. The second one doesn't get proper AEDU (because there's no D)

>>48879638
I mean more

Standard Action
Ranged 5
Target: 1 creature
Attack:__x__ vs __y__
Hit: 1d4 AC/Fort/Ref/Will/Attack damage.

Actual, cumulative damage, not a debuff.

>>48872709
>Because players start off with like 20-30 hp + and can take five minutes to autoheal their wounds before even touching a potion or looking at a healer and have a myriad of hugely powerful abilities from level 1 not to mention hugely inflated stats and broken racial abilities that allow the likes of teleporting. Then even if one of the fuckers by some miracle dies its 500 gols to come back to life. Level 1 4E are insane demigod like beings.

>players start off with hit points balanced by the increased difficulty of the encounters they face, have their healing abilities sharply curtailed and have abilities way less powerful than what a 1st level 3E wizard can pull off, not to mention stats that are balanced for the new rules set and racial abilities that are way less powerful than what a 1st level 3E wizard can pull off but rustle my jimmies because race is finally relevant.

I'll back you on Raise Dead and that is the ONLY thing that you said that wasn't retarded.

>>48874684
>The "forget your old powers, theyll soon be useless anyways" aspect of 4e has always bothered me, and I'd like it if a power I choose at level 1 could still be a passable choice at 30, but that would require damage that scales up more than it does by default.

I never felt this.

Yeah, some powers do get some upgrades that are strict improvements, but that's typically after you've had them and used them for ten levels - and they're still good, you just now get options that are better.

>>48877254
>Not arguing any of these facts. I understand we already got these. I'm just wishing they had fleshed it out more is all instead of the cop out. I love the Avenger with the Samurai Theme trust me. You can mix it with one level of monk and basically be all over the place with an AC level nearly equal if not equal to most Defender classes.

My favorite build is a Brawler fighter with the multiclass Monk feat. SO GOOD. I mean, not rules-wise because the monk attack is just a longsword so you wasted a feat, but flavor wise.

>>48879785
Yeah, i dunno.

I very much felt the "not keeping pace" if i decided to keep an old power because it didn't have an upgrade.

I also wasn't really a fan of either having to choose slight iterations on the same power again and again (ie not learning any new powers), or having to mysteriously forget powers I already learned.

Found out quite frustrating.

>>48866715
>bravura
Wannabe fighters

>>48875829
When the enemy attacks use any other stat.

>>48879754

Except for the d4, that's already in there.

E.g. let's say a necromancer hits you with some kind of withering ray. In 3E you'd maybe lose Constitution (So: damage and lower Fortitude save)

In 4E, it would be maybe
Hit: 3d6 and the target grants combat advantage (save ends). (So: damage and lower fort, ref, will and ac.)

>>48879901

Wait, I missed your line
>Actual, cumulative damage, not a debuff.

Yeah that's not in there. I dunno. Design decision?

File: e13f9c81831fdaa00aa83cfc0f3dfba4.png (358KB, 500x650px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 500x650px

>>48866715

The real issue with "lazy" warlords is a lack of good encounter and daily attack powers. This is truly quite a serious downfall of theirs.

>>48879853

Brawler Style fighters do have a use for the Master of the Fist monk multiclass feat: consistently grabbing two enemies at a time while still maintaining a high damage output.

That said, I do not think Brawler Style is all that effective mechanically, and I believe a Tempest Technique fighter with a ki focus would make even better use of Master of the Fist, especially once they enter the Shock Trooper paragon path.

>>48879754
>>48879906

Stacking debuffs (especially if they are at will) can essentially take a target out of the fight without, well, a fight.

Like, imagine a target getting hit by that twice. Bam, -5 attack. It's basically neutralized (if there's someone else giving a debuff as well it may as well be not there).

>>48879754
Of course, I say this as someone who really likes this kind of non-hp attack.

It doesn't make us win directly, but it *does* reduce the threat and/or make it easier for my teammates to beat it, adding another layer of depth to the game's tactics.

Obviously not good for mooks, so you wouldn't want to only have attribute damaging abilities, but against bosses and tougher creatures you can't take out in 1-2 hits.

>>48866912
It's really hard to fuck up a hybrid as long as you avoid striker/striker and make sure you pick two classes that share (at least) a primary stat.

>>48879929
Hmm. I can see that. I feel like that would be a matter of calibration.

Like, for instance, -5 to attack is a better debuff than -5 to one of their defenses. Both are obviously quite good though.

Maybe a d3, or even d2 would be better. The d4 was just an example.

But the idea would be to have it not be overwhelmingly better than damage, but instead be a different tactical option, which is *sometimes* (but not always) the better choice.

File: 492bc5df1f84b960372c70aedee10eb2.jpg (406KB, 1170x1624px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1170x1624px

>>48879989
>avoid striker/striker

While it is nowhere on par with hybrid Battle Cleric's Lore clerics, hybrid druids (sentinel), hybrid paladins (cavalier), and the like, a single specific hybrid striker|striker can work reasonably well: a ranger|rogue with Spiked Chain Training.

Six trained skills is useful enough, and being able to double-tap Hunter's Quarry and Sneak Attack damage in a single turn via Low Slash can make for a decent nova.

>>48880055
While most hybrids are pretty meh, I honestly like tinkering with them. I especially like defender/striker hybrids using the "defender" side for extra damage should the character get ignored, and the "striker" side for extra mobility. Some themes and PPs like Gladiator/vigilante/ Blade Bravo seem to built to facilitate this but I'm not sure how good they are.

>>48880004
the problem with that is that even if its just -1 stacking, theres a way to abuse it

warlords have a daily power that apply a stacking bonus to damage against a target that increases every time the target is hit (save ends). when timed right, an entire party can throw attacks at the guy getting 100+ damage for free easily before the save. Imagine if each PC had a power like that.

if you allow stacking debuffs, then theres no reason for entire parties not to use those
you're a striker? half elf, dilettante, grab that shit and throw it at your enemy for one round, gain a 5% increase in your average damage
you're a defender? half elf, dilettante, grab that shit and throw it at your strikers target, give him another 5%
leader? give out free 5% damage
you're another striker? same thing

after one or two rounds, everyone always hits and suddendly there's no point in even rolling toHit

The only way to have stacking penalties work is to have them (save ends), and even that can be abused.

If you want an example in current 4e, look at orbizards.
Attack enemy, dazed/weakened/dominated/whatever (save ends)
Have -10 or more from feats/items/whatever to saves against your spells
the encounter is won, the enemy now works for you and is your little bitch.

>>48877363
I am >>48877148 and I'm just eyeballing the 20% increase. However, I'm basing that suggestion on the damage bonus Strikers got in 4E, and then reducing it somewhat because Strikers were a little too good in 4E. A lot of the complaints with that system revolve around damage being king and defenders being too sticky.

>>48879277
Not that guy but:

For AC and Attack bonuses it's the same progression, +1/level. But there's a caveat: That's with Expertise feats. Before those were made you were supposed to compensate for the resulting 1/tier bonus gap by making use of gimmick feats like "+1 to hit when you stand on your head and whistle a tune" and with bonuses from your Leader(s) and from teamwork.

>>48875724
Str, or any other attribute, doesn't do ANYTHING (except for skill checks) for NPCs. All their stats are derived from level instead

>>48875427

Controllers shit debuffs like they had a taco bell meal full of minus signs and leaders love to hand out the boosts.

>>48881442
>Controllers shit debuffs like they had a taco bell meal full of minus signs
Thanks.

>>48865239
Essentials solves the first 3 to a degree by changing how classes work, so fighters don't have encounter or daily powers, just different stances.
I'm not sure why you'd need rules for roleplaying - I think it's better when the players just roleplay. Can't really talk about the last two - I don't know all the ins and outs of the system.

>>48879989
>>48880055
executioner is a great class to hybrid with other strikers. It's rather shit on it's own, like most essentials classes

>>48875427
Warden's entire shtick is being a walking wall of disabling effects. Warlock is the striker that grows up to be the best single target controller in the game. Even rogue has a good selection of debuff to slap onto people.

Really if your powers aren't inflicting some kind of efect beyond shaving off hp, you probably had to purposefully avoid them every level. Or you're playing a ranger

>>48875619
>ability damage
That's a dark road we turned away from. You want to reduce their damage, pick a power that does exactly that. Or be a shielding swordmage.

File: f8019f6c59e5e81c741377a81eb7b759.jpg (6MB, 4310x6084px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 4310x6084px

>>48882463

Ah, yes, I had nearly forgotten about the assassin (executioner).

You are only partially correct, however. The hybrid assassin (executioner)'s Attack Finesse applies only to basic attacks, assassin powers, and assassin paragon path powers.

Thus, the only truly effective assassin (executioner)|striker build would be an assassin (executioner)|warlock who spams Eldritch Strike to double-tap both Attack Finesse damage and Warlock's Curse damage. Such a character should ideally be a pixie with a rapier and Streak of Light. Unfortunately, this build is extremely one-trick-pony and can do nothing else aside from barrel into enemies with massive at-will damage.

An assassin (executioner)|rogue would probably be worse than a pure-classed rogue (scoundrel).

It is quite irksome that the pure-classed assassin (executioner) has five trained skills, but its hybrid counterpart has only three.

>>48865239
>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
Don't make them grind, have fights with objectives other than 'kill those guys'
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
Let the party discuss tactics ooc before they make their characters, then they'll play off each other.
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
Understand that the level of abstraction is slightly higher than in other rpgs, let the players create their own fluff. Consumables, mana, a warforged having to rewind a key before reusing a power... they'll find a way.
>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
Always include combat in your skill challenges, and let the players responsably freeform out-of-combat.
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
Vampires are underpowered, what are you talking about?
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
Dex/Con is best, possibly Dex/Wis. What's your beef with beefy Str?

>>48865239
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
Oh I get it, it's an opposite day thread

>>48882540
You could use power of skill on avenger|executioner to get a basic attack with both class effects

>>48865239
Can I have some help?
I'm looking for powers that could trigger Agile Opportunist in an area.
Right now, the Bard's Shout of Triumph is the best (blast, slides allies without needing to hit or dealing damage, but it's an encounter power, and there aren't any others like it at other levels), then there are a number of at-wills, the Wizard's Howling Wall (easier targeting, no damage, but needs to hit), the Elementalist's Howling Zephir (can become a big area, targeting won't be hard, but has to hit and deals the sorcerer's bonus damage too) and the Druid's Chill Wind (small area, has to hit, but deals low damage).
I can't find any more, can anybody help finding more, especially among the at-wills?

>>48879875
Play a rogue

You get low slash at level 3, and will never get rid of it because it remains one of your best encounter powers forever. On top of that, you get knockout at level 9, and will also keep that forever.

Similarly, try sorcerer, flame spiral at level 3, better than pretty much all of your epic level encounter powers

>>48875619
>Attack their attack stat, reduce their damage!

This would only work Monster to Player side. Monster attacks are removed from their ability scores. Only Con and Dex are of any value in the monster creation process for something other than skills, and even then only Wis matters for the sake of if they have a decent Perception or Insight or not. For attacking and damaging players, they run off a different system that's level based.

So, it's either bring Ability Damage back, which does little than shit to the monsters and royally fucks with players from top to bottom, or remove it. Good judgment prevailed in the end.

So, if I wanted to try out 4th Edition, which books should I use? I hear a lot about Essentials? Is that a remake?

>>48883679
As many as you can aside from MM1 and 2

For starting quickly though, without reading through everything. The rules compendium is the most important book

>>48883679
Essentials is sort of the training wheels for what 4e brought to the table. It looks and progresses closer to old 3.5 classes but still plays exactly like a regular 4e character. That said, most of them are overshadowed by the base classes for the most part.

For starting, stick with Player's Handbooks 1 and 2 unless someone really wants to play a Monk (PH3), Swordmage (Forgotten Realms PG) or Artificer. (Eberron PG). You can add those in as you like if so. Grab MM3 and the Monster Vault for critters, and the Rule's Compendium for basic system guides. The Dungeon Masters's Guides can be helpful at times, but for the most part aren't as necessary if you have an idea of what you're doing.

Past that, whatever you guys feel like adding in to start with will work fine, though this is all I can think that you would need to really get your feet wet with the system and see if it's for you.

>>48883758
>>48883885
Thanks guys. Monster Vault has reworked MM1+2 monsters I assume?

>>48884175
Most of the MM1 and a few from MM2. Some items from MM1 are noticeably missing in it, but it shouldn't be too much of an issue if you're giving the system a try. There's always more you can grab later down the road after all.

>>48865239
>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
Present players with decisions that cannot be solved with powers.
Award activities that are not based on powers/skills.
Temporarily remove certain pieces of equipment/powers.

>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
They only play exactly the same way if the player doesn't know what to do.

>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
I read the powers.

>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
I include skill challenges and Drama Cards. Beyond that, it's not really necessary to include rules.

>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
Vampire hunters.

>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
They're already underpowered.

>>48865239
>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
By playing 4e and not 3e
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
By playing 4e and not Maid
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
By playing 4e and not 3e with Tome of Battle
>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
By playing 4e and not 3e
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
By playing 4e and not 3e
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
By playing... nevermind

>>48880819
Gotcha.

What do you mean sticky ?

>>48883637
Or, as i suggested upthread, have ability damage target the calculated numbers, attack bonus, AC , Fort , Ref, and Will.

>>48871059
>>48871090
>>48871131
>>48871156
They probably renamed it Marshal just in case they made an Essentials version.

>>48871470
Don't forget the Close burst 2 autohit daze at-will.

>>48885917
Giving penalties for a couple of rounds or until saved works better with the numbers.
If you impose a permanent -4 to hit on someone, you can ignore them until it's clean-up time, with a penalty they are shut down only for a round or two.

>>48886151
How many rounds should a 4e combat last? Typically?

What if there are fairly common powers for shaking off some or all stat damage of a particular type?

>>48886209
I think 4-6 was the expected length?

>>48886209
If the pcs are doing a proper job, 4 or 5 rounds for a decent fight. 6 if a bit low on their damage rolls. For a good solo, 7 or 8, maybe less depending on how many helpers they have.

Temp penalties are deadly enough on their own, and saving throws happen as a natural item at the end of each turn a creature takes with or without extras from powers. Making such penalties permanent isn't really going to help in any way, and it can even make the combat time slower in the case of the players.

>>48865239
The answers to 1, 2, 3, and 4, is to describe the action in detail. When the fighter uses "Villains Menace" it feels a lot less like a spell when the fighter describes themselves beating the tar out of the enemy until they actually get shakes and cry at the thought of getting hit by them again.
Same to roleplay. If their characters engage in conversation, and are willing to talk, then not every encounter need be a combat one.
>Vampires
Don't let your players play them if you think that is the case.
>Str/Con
Make sure they can't carry the game alone. Many of them lack necessary skills, or have holes in their combat. Theres no two ways about it, Str/Con characters are combat monsters, but they cant fill all roles. Its not 3.5 Wizards/clerics bro.

You sound like a faggot who doesn't even like 4th edition based on your wording though.

I jumped to 5th edition but 4th edition is a perfectly playable game, doubly so when you know its weaknesses and account for them.

>>48886209
4-6, unless the DM does something cute.
With a party of 4, that's 16 to 24 player turns.
Minions get cleaned out in 1 turn, or even part of a turn, normal/elite/solo monsters take more turns.
If you let players impose a big enough, to a wide enough area, and permanent enough, penalty, it will make those solos into minions - dispatched within part of a turn.
Think about the Psion's Dishearthen. Great power, wide area, big penalty, but it only lasts as long as the player keeps using his resources, his standard actions and his power points, to 'refresh' it every round.
If you make it permanent you either have to make it single target (and then you're fucking solos, that will need those counter abilities, and then it becomes a metagame thing, but if the best use of the ability gets always countered the players will avoid it), or make the penalty very small, a -1 at most, and that's fiddly, after 3 or 4 rounds who's tracking which monster suffers from what? at least for now the penalites expire!

>>48879899
0 strength removes your ability to move doesn't it?
no more somatic components. No more escaping.

>>48886468
But that's what HPs are for, the timing mechanic that tells you how long until the enemy stops enemying.

>>48886416
>is too much bookkeeping if you do it right, otherwise it's just awful all around.
Hmm.

Fair enough. It is a lot of bookkeeping, to track 6 changing numbers per enemy instead of 1.

Okay.

New Question: hypothetically, what "level" of enemy has about a 50/50 shot against a single pc?

>>48886513
Enemies are complex things much like characters (usually something slightly less so.)

Why cant there be more than one way to skin a cat?

>>48887000
They really aren't.
They are resource drains linked to a timer for how fast they can drain, and a timer for how long they last.
Everything else, it's your DM putting the wool over your eyes, as he should.

>>48886939
Same level, for the to-hit math, but will need ad-hoc hps and damage to be a good fight against 1 pc.
If you need it quick and dirty, go with same level solo, but it won't be right.

>>48882540
How about human executioner/blackguard who picks up valorous strike as his human bonus power?

>>48887591
*virtous strike

>>48887360
So what's actually close then, level +1 solo?

Tangentially related: if i want the pcs to fight a recent /former party member (with player stats), what is that worth in xp?

File: 81bca7394fb38dddcbe2280b6c6004bf.jpg (616KB, 693x984px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 693x984px

>>48882665

While you are eligible for a decent damage increase via Attack Finesse, you would be limited to using only one-handed weapons. This would rule out using a fullblade, an execution axe, a mordenkrad, or a gouge. A versatile weapon would not help here; as per page 270 of the Rules Compendium, "creatures can use them two-handed," so wielding a longsword in both hands would render it ineligible for Attack Finesse.

Compared to a pure-classed avenger, your durability takes a hit (no Armor of Faith short of Hybrid Talent, back to medium HP, 1 less NAD), and you lose out on a Censure, Channel Divinity, and a trained skill. Having no Censure by default is a non-negligible loss for an avenger.

Despite the somewhat lower damage output, I think that the pure-classed avenger would works better in this case, though there is no doubt that assassin (executioner)|avenger is solid.

>>48887591
>>48887848

This, on the other hand, could work out better than either of its component classes on its own. You would not even need to be a human; you could simply choose Virtuous Strike, select the hybrid Spirit of Fury, be a pixie or a draconian dragonborn, take Charisma 18+2 at level 1, pick up Hybrid Talent (Paladin Armor Proficiency), wield a rapier, and enjoy your extremely Charisma SAD-based striker with plate armor and a heavy shield. As a pixie, you could even guarantee combat advantage on a charge with Streak of Light by level 2.

Unfortunately, like a regular paladin (blackguard), this build drops off by the paragon tier due to poor scaling of extra damage features. Still, you will certainly be a high-damage, high-durability striker all throughout the heroic tier.

The only issue I see here is being rather one-trick pony and attack-spam-focused, much like an assassin (executioner)|warlock with Eldritch Strike.

Thank you for pointing out this hybrid combination; I am quite metaphorically rusty when it comes to 4e, and I never would have thought of it myself.