D&D 4e General

For people who do like 4e- What is your least favourite thing about the system? The thing you'd most like to see changed, improved or expanded upon?

>>49138334
Least?
The entirety of the Essentials line and the gross change in design philosophy AND power creep that came with it
I have decided for a new campaign to offer the free feats that are commonly bandied about.
But I sorta forgot which ones are the most common.
The party consists so far Thaneborn barbarian, blaster cleric, wizard, avenger, warlock (maybe) and the last is undecided. Game is going to start at levels 1 and 4.
>Level 1 for the rookies to get used to the game
>time skip forward to level 4

File: 2951ef92fe5712ccd58ee28b362e7a46.jpg (917KB, 744x1052px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 744x1052px

>>49138183

Any class that uses the arcane, divine, elemental, primal, psionic, or shadow keyword is a magical class. Therefore, any weapon-using character with powers of those keywords is a "gish" or a "spellsword." Disregading hybrids and multiclasses, this leaves you with precisely two dozen options:

• Ardent
• Artificer
• Assassin (Dragon Magazine version)
• Avenger
• Barbarian, because this is a primal magic-using class
• Barbarian (berserker)
• Bard
• Bard (skald)
• Cleric (templar)
• Cleric (warpriest)
• Druid (sentinel)
• Monk, which is a weapon-using psionic class for all intents and purposes
• Paladin
• Paladin (blackguard)
• Paladin (cavalier)
• Ranger (hunter)
• Ranger (scout)
• Runepriest
• Seeker
• Swordmage
• Warden
• Warlock
• Warlock (hexblade)
• Wizard (bladesinger)

"Gishes" are, in fact, the most common type of class in 4e, and every single one of them has magical powers that accompany weapon attacks.

Is there anything specific you are looking for in a "gish" or "spellsword"?

>>49138258

A pure-classed swordmage can be a very capable defender, although it takes a specific build and playstyle. Aegis of Assault and Aegis of Ensnarement are rubbish for a non-hybrid swordmage, so you are essentially locked into Aegis of Shielding.

The swordmage's specialty as a defender is its ability to mark opponent, run away, and then engage other opponents. If you try to play a swordmage as an "arcane fighter" or an "arcane paladin," you will fail tremendously, because the swordmage is terribly non-threatening as a traditional defender.

The warlock (hexblade) is quite poor aside from low/mid-heroic builds involving the Gloom Pact and Flail Expertise, which is probably the strongest hexblade build. If you do not expect your game to go past level 8, then by all means, play a Gloom Pact warlock (hexblade).

>>49138334

For one, 4e's feat taxes are a major, extant issue that were never solved by errata.

>>49138426
Player is looking for the traditional gish, as in it's original connotation: capable melee combatant with some skill in "arcane" arts.
>they's new to the fantasy thing, so they are going very pop basic
Bard is actually looking like a decent contender. My experience with them has shown them very capable at all of the above.

4th ed best ed. Just giving this thread a friendly bump because I like to read about 4E.

>>49138290
>How do you use the Feywild in your games, whether as a player creating backstories or a world-building DM? What are your favorite aspects of the Heroes of the Feywild book? How much do you like the stranger fey races, such as hengeyokai, pixies (one of 4e's strongest out-of-the-box races), hamadryads, satyrs, and wilden?

I like the Feywild as a place that is scary as the Shadowfell but in a less obvious way. It's the wildcard plane. You could run into horrible flesh-eating lamias or genuinely friendly hag grandmothers.

I encourage players to play Feywild races (with the exception of pixies) because I genuinely enjoy using that plane in stories.

File: 266b045979e0557d0237c14d5ba484dd.jpg (246KB, 1476x2031px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1476x2031px

>>49138557

What will the character's starting level be, and how high a level are they expected to reach?

>Bard is actually looking like a decent contender. My experience with them has shown them very capable at all of the above.
The Virtue of Valor bard is a good choice. Chainmail proficiency is offset by Constitution as a secondary score and a light shield, and Shout of Triumph is one of the strongest level 1 encounter attack powers in the entire game. The War Chanter paragon path has an amazingly potent action point feature and solid level 11 and 12 powers.

A Virtue of Valor bard should almost certainly be a draconian for flight and Dragonfear. Remember that one need not take all racial variant features; one can mix and match.

File: 3f62590d1304ee4e003a31ad96893f66.png (713KB, 1000x619px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1000x619px

>>49138334

Also, as much as the class balance in D&D 4e is leaps ahead of that of D&D 3.X/Pathfinder and D&D 5e, it... still is not that good.

There are simply *so many* class builds in 4e that are inexplicably weaker than the rest for no good game design reason. Just to name a few as a non-exhaustive list:

• Assassins in general, seekers, and vampires. Too weak and undertuned all-around.

• Avengers at the heroic tier. This can be mitigated with charge-heavy builds, but without those and without Painful Oath, avengers cannot put out reliable damage from levels 1 to 10. I would be wary of the avenger in >>49138419 for this precise reason.

• Barbarians who are neither hybrids nor Whirling Slayers. They are too fragile in the defenses the department, they do not have any outstanding class features, and they are essentially worthless outside of combat. The vast majority of barbarian builds can be improved by being a hybrid. This goes out to >>49138419 as well.

• Battleminds before they receive Lightning Rush at level 7. Their abilities as defenders are tenuous, and they are arbitrarily taxed with post-errata Melee Training at level 1. Lightning Rush (and at level 13, Brutal Barrage) are the only saving graces of this entire class.

• Clerics of pacifist healer builds. These were initially strong, but then completely gutted by errata and then further made obsolete by Monster Manual 3 math.

• Monks of the Stone Fist tradition. Stone Fist Flurry of Blows is garbage.

• Rogues of the Artful Dodger build. They still want to avoid opportunity attacks anyway, so the Artful Dodger class feature is doing nothing for them. They are obsolete in the face of Brutal Scoundrel rogues.

File: a9a49e4ac52cc0c86525dfe700e8d6a7.jpg (386KB, 1125x800px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1125x800px

>>49139152

• Warlocks who are not hybrids and who do not have the Sorcerer-King Pact. They do not have good potential as strikers without Mindbite Scorn, and their single-target control is middling at best.

• Any Strength/Constitution, Dexterity/Intelligence, or Wisdom/Charisma character who is not a paladin. The game completely screws over the defenses of all of these characters for no good reason, and there are *many* of these builds. Mantle of Clarity ardents, Virtue of Prescience bards, and ranged clerics are bad enough, but then we have Strength/Constitution defenders who fold in the face of Reflex- and Will-targeting attacks.

• Any defender other than a barbarian (berserker) who uses a two-handed weapon that is not a polearm. There is no point in doing this whatsoever, and yet the game suggests this is possible.

• A large portion of the Essentials classes other than the cleric (warpriest) and the wizard (mage). While they start off quite solid at levels 1-2, many of these classes begin a downward slide from level 3 onwards due to poor scaling and awful upgrades. Some of them receive a minor resurgence at levels 11-12 thanks to paragon-tier feats like Deft Blade and Impaling Spear, then fall back into their downward slide.

Again, all of this is non-exhaustive. 4e has so much more instances of "things that should be nice, but are not nice due to poor design."

>>49138419

This party composition is particularly concerning. The barbarian and the cleric are guaranteed to be frail simply because of poor game design. The avenger will be mediocre as a striker unless they optimize for charging, and the warlock will likewise be a shabby striker unless they are a Sorcerer-King Pact warlock with Mindbite Scorn.

Your party just so happens to have run head-first into 4e's failings in the "class design that makes all characters equally competent, just in different ways" department.

File: 12b44b8789095982acfa4f194573eced.jpg (2MB, 1200x2200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x2200px

>>49138419

Now, if I were you, I would fix up this party as follows:

1. House rule that all characters receive a free Expertise feat *and* free pre-errata Melee Training. The latter is particularly important for a low-heroic avenger.

2. Have the avenger be a githzerai with Githzerai Blade Master and a fullblade. When rebuilding them at level 4, ensure that they take up a charging build, replete with a Vanguard Fullblade +1 as their level 3 item.

3. House rule that a barbarian can use their Constitution or Charisma modifier in place of their Dexterity or Intelligence modifier when determining their AC when not in heavy armor. The barbarian will be needing this.

4. House rule that clerics can use their Charisma modifier in place of their Dexterity or Intelligence modifier when determining their AC when not in heavy armor, and in place of their Strength or Constitution modifier when determining their Fortitude. The cleric will thank you.

5. Have the warlock be a Sorcerer-King Pact warlock with Mindbite Scorn. Refer to the sidebar in page 6 of Dragon Magazine #390 concerning the Sorcerer-King Pact in non-Athasian settings.

What, in your opinion, are the best twelve character classes in 4E D&D, and the best twenty feats?

File: 524bdc0445fa085f0af0e9a187543ab2.jpg (560KB, 1471x696px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1471x696px

>>49140229

Define "best."

Even if we say "most powerful," determining this for feats would be nearly impossible due to different classes valuing different feats. Of course, everyone will spring for an Expertise feat early on, and then Essentials defense feats by level 11 or earlier.

>>49140229

I don't think I can hit twelve classes, but I can list the ones I really like

Warlord, particularly Bravura, was my first and remains my favourite. Just so much damn fun.

Swordmage in second, as I've only ever seen a little of what they can do but it's a really inventive and cool twist on the defender.

Third is Runepriest, which I'm hoping to play some day despite their rather limited power selection because the multiple states mechanic is neat.

Artificer for fourth, I'm in a game with one at the moment and they're a really curious and unique sort of leader, we keep discovering cool ability interactions which makes every battle novel in some way.

Beyond that I don't feel like I have any particularly strong opinions. I'm playing a Warlock at the moment, and it's fun, but the class doesn't have anything particularly unique about how it's designed.

>>49139152
Rageblood barbarians that go str-primary, dex-secondary are pretty good

>>49138334
Feat taxes are probably the biggest flaw, but are incredibly easily fixed, just give expertise and improved defenses out for free

I think, as someone who came into 4e from 3.5, my least favourite thing is the comparative lack of material. Especially in terms of classes and races.

There is only one race in the whole game that can get +strength and +intelligence at the same time, yet there are three classes that can run str/int builds. That is kind of stupid

File: 27abc470f4adf578464baf7085bdcf90.png (603KB, 812x1200px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 812x1200px

>>49140663

>Warlord, particularly Bravura, was my first and remains my favourite. Just so much damn fun.

Note that the Bravura Presence warlord suffers from some shoddy design on two counts.

Firstly, its action point class feature does not actually help the entire party, unlike Resourceful Presence or Tactical Presence (the two best presences all-around both for their action point features and their Intelligence builds). Not every party member will have a strong basic attack, and having to settle for a move action is underwhelming.

Secondly, Brash Assault is perhaps the worst warlord at-will power RAW because it leaves the choice to the enemy. If it is advantageous for the enemy to take the swing, then it will do so. Otherwise, it will simply refuse. This is bad, and it is *actually worse than the warlord making a regular, basic attack* if you think about it closely.

The Harlequin Style feat from Dragon Magazine #373 can salvage Brash Assault for a bit, but even then, you are spending a whole feat to transform one of your at-will powers into a narrow defense-raiser. It would be strong for a hybrid defender|warlord, but otherwise, it is just better for any warlord to avoid Brash Assault altogether.

>>49141058

At that point, you may as well be playing a hybrid barbarian. Any barbarian who intends on being a Rageblood, a Thaneborn, or a Thunderborn is substantially better off as a hybrid. Good hybrid choices include:
• Barbarian|cleric for Battle Cleric's Lore.
• Barbarian|paladin (cavalier) for Defender Aura, Spirit of Sacrifice, and Hybrid Talent (Paladin Armor Proficiency).
• Barbarian|warden for marking and Wildblood Frenzy.

>>49141154

Constitution/Intelligence is also one of the rarest racial ability score bonus pairs, available only to genasi, warforged, and the completely unsupported githyanki. The artificer, swordmage, warlock, and wizard, all of which are coincidentally arcane, have Constitution/Intelligence builds.

>>49141356

>Secondly, Brash Assault is perhaps the worst warlord at-will power RAW because it leaves the choice to the enemy. If it is advantageous for the enemy to take the swing, then it will do so. Otherwise, it will simply refuse. This is bad, and it is *actually worse than the warlord making a regular, basic attack* if you think about it closely.

This seems like a bit of an assumption on your part, although one necessary for theorycrafting, that doesn't always hold up in actual play. My GM has enemies act appropriately to their in game situation, so I can often bait them into taking the swing even if it would be disadvantageous, while sufficiently dumb creatures do so as a matter of course unless they're in full retreat.

It's fair to comment that it's a power quite reliant on your GM to play fair, but that doesn't mean it's bad, just that it's only appropriate if you've got a GM of the right disposition.

File: e89839f4cae86828015422c34899e22a.jpg (609KB, 958x1007px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 958x1007px

>>49141395

Player's Handbook 1, page 57:
>Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin.

Therefore, a creature that has been targeted with Brash Assault knows precisely the deal it has been given.

"The DM can have enemies act stupidly" is no excuse for a power being poor, because by that very logic, the entirety of the defender role and its premises of improving stickiness and mark enforcement are completely unnecessary because "the DM can have enemies act stupidly."

4e already has defenders who force enemies into lose-lose situations, so Brash Assault letting an enemy gain an advantage by simply picking whatever is most advantageous to it is deplorable.

A power that is good only if "the DM has enemies act stupidly" is garbage. The moment the DM has enemies start responding to it intelligently, every usage of the power will be strictly worse than making a plain, basic attack. Why not keep to a warlord at-will power that actually works out-of-the-box unconditionally?

File: Dragonborn Fighter.jpg (516KB, 927x1200px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 927x1200px

I really wanna give 4th ed. a shot, but my players are already having problems with the 5th ed. So what you guys would recommend to me to make the game simpler?

Is there a way to remove or at least reduce the amount of feats?

The essentials line seems simpler, but I want to know what you think about it, I have the impression it removes some elements that make 4th ed what it is

>>49141670

It's pure personal experience, but I found 4e a lot easier to get into than other editions of D&D. Abilities all being logically laid out helps a lot, as does the character builder.

>>49141670
Essentials was 1-2 writers' efforts to return 4e to 3.5-style classes, with fixed features and abilities. It was supposed to make it simpler to get into the ruleset for new players, but generally turned off experienced ones because it ran so counter to the game's prior design philosophy.

If you wanted to remove the feat choice paralysis, you'd have to adjust a lot of monster math downward to compensate, since so much of the feat support is geared toward keeping you alive and kicking against ever more imposing threats.

That being said--

As >>49141699 said, I found 4e easy enough to get into. Partly that's because I'd been playing since late AD&D 2e, but partly because it IS simpler.

If you have the time, maybe sit down with your players and go through the handbooks for classes that google brings up. Or instruct them to go look themselves, if you can't do it physically. Sure, there are a lot of words, but most of them that I've read at least try to explain WHY Choice X is mechanically more viable than Choice Y.

File: 0d881e0d2bbe4c0bf931fa816ad54afe.jpg (1MB, 868x1228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 868x1228px

>>49141670

*Most* essentials classes other than the cleric (warpriest) and the wizard (mage) are perfectly fine if your party will only ever play at levels 1-2. Past then, they run into serious scaling issues. I cannot vouch for the pure-classed paladin (cavalier) or the warlock (binder) though, as those are awful even from the beginning.

You could perhaps give the players premade, pre-optimized characters with a full suite of power cards.

>>49141670
4e is more complicated and board gamey than 5th edition, but less vague (has much clearer wordings in its rules and content,) has better balance, and has a stronger emphasis on fun tactical gameplay.

4th edition all but requires a battlemap; wheras 5e plays very well in theatre of the mind, 4e does not.

What this has resulted in for my group was that we stopped playing 4e, but only because our foreverGM simply didn't want to spend the time and effort to create well laid-out battle maps with interesting environment features, etc.

But the reason why we felt we "had to", as opposed to just coming up with simple "white rooms" with maybe one gimmick, on the fly, is because we actually did try playing on interesting battle maps for a while, and we just couldn't face going back.

4e on a grid (the best way to play it as far as I'm concerned) takes more than twice as much DM prep work, as 5e in theatre of the mind (the best way to play it as far as I'm concerned.)

So now we play 5e. We just bitch about shitty spell wordings and rangers being underpowered a lot.

What's the key to the PDFs? Also I agree with feat tax being the big problem. That and errata.

>>49141503

How does that even apply?

Most Int 3 monsters won't even be able to understand it, even if they're somehow 'aware of it. And the most intelligent humans aren't purely rational creatures. Knowing that an opponent might be feinting but thinking you might have a chance to hurt them doesn't seem at all preposterous to me, and saying that it'd never be effective just seems silly.

>>49141699
>>49141769
Thanks, I might give it a shot the way it is to see how my players feel about it. I thought mos important feats were related with attack bonus, so I could just give them the bonuses. Or I could just ask the class/race of each player and use some premade character.
>>49141793
Thats interesting to know, thanks for the tips.
>>49141879
>We just bitch about shitty spell wordings and rangers being underpowered a lot.
Thats what I do too, especially about the wording, people just cant get to a consensus

File: Katanaphil.jpg (66KB, 418x480px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 418x480px

I'm actually about to start a 4e campaign soon with a friend GMing. Thankfully he has a lot of experience.

Setting is going to be Points of Light, and I'm planning on running a Monk. I've been reading up, and found a few guides online. Any points and tips to someone who is very new to tabletop gaming?

>>49142188
>That pic, the guy holding it with both hands
Lol

File: a39b6d006d5ca82047cd32ccdbaf48e8.png (2MB, 1344x756px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1344x756px

>>49141984

Essentially, if played under the Player's Handbook 1's assumptions that monsters can always make informed decisions, Brash Assault will always give the enemy the advantage by letting them make the best choice in any given situation.

>>49142086

Hand all characters a free Expertise feat, and possibly pre-errata Melee Training as well.

>>49142188

Optimal monks in D&D 4e are *not* unarmed characters save for level 1 monks. They are weapon-using melee psionicists. A monk has very little reason to *not* use a weapon in 4e.

What is your character's starting level, and what bonus feats are you entitled to?

File: 3854d3837fad3c4e28a61e6ae4c4fad0.png (1MB, 709x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 709x1000px

>>49142249

To expound:

The Iron Soul monk is easily the most efficacious of the monks due to having Constitution as a secondary score, an unconditional +1 bonus to AC, and the ability to prevent enemies from shifting. The lattermost benefit locks down enemies adjacent to the monk, thereby keeping them targetable by close attacks such as Five Storms, and also allowing the Iron Soul monk to make use of their naturally high AC (with Unarmored Agility) and Constitution.

The Desert Wind monk is a good runner-up to the Iron Soul monk, but only due to its ability to gain a quick burst of damage via its Blistering Flourish at-will, which increases the damage of Desert Wind Flurry of Blows due to the Rules Compendium's definition of "attack." However, such a monk instantaneously becomes near-worthless when faced with any enemies with fire resistance, such as all demons (variable resistance) and all devils. Charisma is a reasonably useful ability score.

The Centered Breath monk comes third. Sliding enemies with a flurry is always useful, particularly with the Deadly Draw feat. Wisdom is a very useful ability score to have. This is the "middle of the pack" monk build.

Far, far below the Centered Breath monk are the Eternal Tide and Stone Fist monks, both of which are coincidentally Strength-based. Strength is not an especially useful ability score since it only really affects Athletics checks in practice. Which one is worth depends on your level. At heroic, Eternal Tide is worse than Stone Fist since it deals the lowest damage and you will wind up trying to "pull" an enemy already adjacent to you, but at paragon and epic, it is better than Stone Fist because it can cluster up enemies for close attacks and trigger Deadly Draw. It is still not very good, however. Stone Fist's problem comes from its base flurry being nothing more than 3 + Strength modifier damage, which makes it dreck compared to other flurries in the long term.

tl;dr = The best monk is the Iron Soul monk.

>character builds

>gotta optimize to win

>muh autistic class analysis

this is why modern D&D is bad and why 4e is the worst edition

>>49138334

I have a modest list.

>If players aren't used to playing tactical RPGs, combat is *excruciatingly* tedious.
>Essentials is OP
>Feats are a choice between "pick cool stuff or pick the thing which makes you good"
>Some legitimate class fantasies are just hot garbage mechanically

>>49142320

Nope. While what THF says is technically true, all but the worst class options still work fine in a low to moderate optimization game. I've never played in a high op game, and I never intend to. I much prefer going for powers that are interesting and fun instead of always going for the absolute best.

>>49142320
What are doing in the 4th edition general then?

>>49142320

>Tohoufag = all of 4e DnD

This is as dumb as thinking SKR is all of Pathfinder.

File: 57914e8faa265223cd0fc079fb917cc8.jpg (356KB, 600x812px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 600x812px

>>49142364

>Essentials is OP
Some of the feats, like Staff Expertise, yes. Most of the classes, not so much.

>Some legitimate class fantasies are just hot garbage mechanically
This is true, as I point out in my non-exhaustive list in >>49139152.

>>49141879
>4e on a grid takes more than twice as much DM prep work, as 5e in theatre of the mind
While that's true, it's still faster than 3.X.
Also, unlike 5e, 3MM monster math and Encounter budget system actually work properly

>>49142320
No, that's just 2hu's inability to not optimize. As long as you allow for some imprecision of balance (much less than in any other edition) 4e works just fine out of the box

How the fuck do you pronounce Svirfneblin?

>>49142621
Yeah, 4e makes optimising easy, but it also makes competency easy.

Basically, comparing to 3e, let's say you need to reach '100% efficiency' to meet level appropriate threats.

3e, unoptimised character: 60% - 110% efficiency, depending on class
3e, optimised character: 300%+ efficiency

4e, unoptimised character: 80% - 120% efficiency
4e, optimised character: 150% efficiency

>>49143064
I've always pronounced it more or less as it looks...

Sverf (rhymes with smurf) - *neb* - lin (emphasis on the second syllable)

File: image.png (190KB, 1022x800px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1022x800px

>>49138290
Is there any so 5e/4e hybrid out there?

Something that carries over be streamlined character creation and combat well still offering in depth tactical options and class interactions?

File: 13thagecover.jpg (191KB, 500x655px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 500x655px

>>49143522
Your choices are as following:
Strike: DnD4e's grid attached to a super-light skill system.

13th Age: Basically DnD5e, but actually achieving the design goals of DnD5e without being stuck in outdated game design. If the game was literally released as "DnD 5e" and the actual 5e didn't exist, you wouldn't notice.

Shadow of the Demon Lord: Like 13th Age, but with a taste of Warhammer on the gritty side.

Unity: Not actually out yet, but it looks good I guess.

>>49143611
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

File: fetish.jpg (69KB, 456x430px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 456x430px

>>49143630
this is the worst forced meme since fefe and Milhouse

>>49143611
Is strike! worth looking at or hot garbage?

File: 1451322283590-4.jpg (536KB, 724x851px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 724x851px

>>49143729
Agreed
>>49144970
It is, though I will warn you that it definitely reads like a "this is the first edition of this game" game. Check it out.

>>49145063
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

>>49144970
It's... okay, I suppose.

1) Its combat and non-combat systems are completely separate. I don't believe there's any overlap.
2) Its combat system is a very precise and tactical combat engine. Grid, roles, classes, the whole shebang.
3) Its non-combat system is an extremely lightweight concoction inspired by something like Fate or Burning Wheel. Essentially, you have skills and some ways of acquiring new skills... and that's it.

So, it's worth a look as long as you can stomach its non-combat part. Then again, due to it being separate, it's really easy to throw it away and use something else.

File: 86bd83b7cb6fe9e39769270d7b9ac3e1.jpg (7MB, 6000x4242px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 6000x4242px

>>49145154

>1) Its combat and non-combat systems are completely separate. I don't believe there's any overlap.

There are actually minor instances of overlap between the combat and noncombat sides of Strike!, such as Conditions, skill rolls in combat, and the non-variant version of the archer's Trick Shot. Still, crossover between the two halves.

I am listed in the development credits of Strike!, although I had a negligible, minor role due to having contacted the main author very late. I do not even make any money off sales. I did have a hand in its conception nevertheless, and I would like to say that its noncombat side is wholly worthless rubbish that nobody should have to suffer through.

Still, Strike! at least has a sporadic stream of player material. There is now a psion class, a rogue class, and, in playtest, a smorgasbord of new player options here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/87648110/StrikeExpansionPlaytestMaterial.pdf

File: 1471079050909.png (81KB, 624x628px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 624x628px

>>49142370
>>49142382
>>49142529
>>49142621

>>49145266
2hu please go.

>>49144970
Look no further than the skill check mechanics. It's the hottest possible garbage.

>>49145299
It's combat mechanics meanwhile are fine

>>49145333
The merits of a game, from the perspective of whether to actually buy/play it or not, are only as good as its worst unavoidable component.

The argument that the combat mechanics are fine may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant unless you're talking about whether to pirate it, rip out the combat section, and then splice it onto something else, or homebrew the rest on your own.

>>49145215
>>49145154
Apparently it's based around the single D6 roll

I'm all for simply but that sounds insanely small number range.

>>49145299
How can you fuck up skill checks? Like seriously how?

>>49145440
By oversimplifying them to the point where they can't comfortably represent anything usefully.

>>49144970
>hot garbage

>>49145353
>to pirate it, rip out the combat section, and then splice it onto something else, or homebrew the rest on your own.
That wouldn't be a wrong course of action

>>49144970
About a truckload of extra-stinky Limburger tossed into an active volcano.

>>49145532
I wholeheartedly concur.

>>49145440
It's the same probability range as DnD4e, just turned into a d6.
"Average 70% chance to succeed at things you are good at" turned into "66% chance to succeed at things you are good at."

>>49141356
I consider the first two of those hybrid choices to basically be cheating

Battle Cleric's Lore is so far and away superior to healer's lore on clerics alone, on classes that are normally using hide armor it's just rediculous.

And Cavalier hybrids are just dumb, like all essentials hybrids, you get 90% of the class features when you should only be getting 50%

>>49138897
Starting at 1, skipping to 3 after a prequel adventure.
I plan on at least reaching level 12, then a pause, then 21.

File: 788c5748fd3a69c2a810d46f5266f085.png (628KB, 840x850px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 840x850px

>>49146432

Since you are looking for a melee arcane class and hybrid classes are off the metaphorical table, you want either a Charisma/Constitution-based Virtue of Valor bard or an Intelligence/Constitution-based Aegis of Shielding swordmage. As the former, the optimal race for you will be draconian due to pixie-style flight, while as the latter, eladrin should be the prime race option due to Fey Step and Eladrin Weapon Training.

I would *not* recommend a bard (skald) due to that being obsolete in the face of a Virtue of Valor bard.

This comes down to whether you prefer to be a leader and a skill monkey with rituals, or a defender with less skills and no rituals.

Will the GM at least hand you a free Expertise feat and/or free Melee Training? Both the Virtue of Valor bard and the swordmage can benefit greatly from free Melee Training.

>>49139632
The avenger will likely be human, all told. The rest are small things I can work with.

>>49143611
I recommend 13th Age or Gamma World 7E (which uses a modified 4E ruleset). Strike! is a mediocre game with horrible formatting and terrible non-combat rules.

File: e06419e6abe7b98edee02fde26d3baad.jpg (3MB, 2507x3541px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2507x3541px

>>49146914

Allow the human to take Githzerai Blade Master anyway, but only as an avenger.

>>49146914
Take everything 2hu says with a grain salt or a few. While he does indeed know the system inside and out, the differences between builds aren't at all as grievous as you might conclude from reading his posts. See: >>49143473

And when your whole party is at (as that post puts it) 90%-100% efficiency, there's no real need to nudge the balance

>>49146978
>13th Age over Strike!
kek
Enjoy your shitty paladin smite damage at level 10 while wizards and clerics teleport across the world.

>>49146527
>Will the GM
I AM the GM.
The Expertise, I'm alright with. The pre errata melee training less so.

>>49147080
It's actually only worthwhile pre errata and doesn't break anything. After... let's just say it was nerfed because of excesses of Essentials classes

>>49147114
Explain what it was before, after, and what got it nerfed, and you got yourself a look.
>i'd do it myself, but I'm feasting on a 2lb london broil steak, medium even

>feat tax
If I'm already implementing Inherent Bonuses*, can't I just give +1 per tier at, say, X4th levels?
And change Expertise feats to only give their side effects

*best things since sliced bread as far as I'm concerned

>>49147141
Actually, on second review, the difference isn't that great for a casual game, I was remembering it wrong.

Original:
>Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon you are proficient with, you can use that ability instead of Strength for the attack roll and the damage roll.

Errata'd:
>Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use
half of that ability’s modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, for the damage roll.

Excesses I was referring to are the fact that normal game's Warlord allows you to make additional basic attacks out of turn. Essential classes boost basic attacks to the level of At-Wills or sometimes Encounter powers. You can see the problem?

>>49147141
Different guy, but here you go

>Pre nerf:
Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage roll.

>Post nerf
Choose an ability other than Strength. When you make a melee basic attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can use the chosen ability instead of Strength for the attack roll. In addition, you can use half of that ability’s modifier, instead of your Strength modifier, for the damage roll.

What got it nerfed was new essentials classes like the knight and slayer, which are supposed to be strength-primary, but the only reason they're strength-primary is because everything they do is a melee basic attack, and the devs wanted them to be strength primary, so they nerfed melee training to make it so

It didn't work, the correct way to play either slayer or knight is to find whatever methods possible to get MBAs that aren't strength-based.


My personal opinion on the matter is that strength is inherently the weakest stat in the game, and giving melee training for free just makes it even weaker. Don't give it out for free, but do use the pre-nerf version of it for people to take as a feat

File: 27831d24e91f46afae82df503375bb1a.jpg (468KB, 1427x1016px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1427x1016px

>>49138426

This list is missing the battlemind, now that I consider it.

>>49147080
>>49147114
>>49147141
>>49147222

The Melee Training feat gives an ardent, a melee artificer, a Dragon Magazine assassin, an avenger, a Virtue of Valor bard, a battlemind, a cleric (warpriest), a monk, an Artful Dodger rogue, or a swordmage a viable melee basic attack. This is important for opportunity attacks and charges.

Melee Training was downgraded immediately before Heroes of the Fallen Lands (the first Essentials book) was released, solely to discourage the new fighter (knight) and fighter (slayer) from using it to dump Strength and focus solely on Constitution or Dexterity.

That is it. That was the only reason Melee Training was downgraded. The other classes mentioned above all suffered for it. The avenger and the swordmage were left unscathed due to Power of Skill and Intelligent Blademaster respectively. The ardent, the melee artificer, the Dragon Magazine assassin, the Virtue of Valor bard, the battlemind, the cleric (warpriest), the monk, and the Artful Dodger rogue all took a hit to their melee basic attack damage for no reason at all. That is insulting.

Handing out Melee Training, preferably pre-errata Melee Training, is important for a game that starts out at level 1, because otherwise, characters like Virtue of Valor bards and battleminds will have to burn their level 1 feat just to gain a vaguely viable melee basic attack.

This is not the only instance of nonsensical errata during the Essentials era. Before Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms was released, they published an errata that removed the "divine" keyword from the cleric's Healing Word. This arbitrarily caused it to lose plenty of support for divine powers and divine healing powers.
Why? Because the new druid (sentinel) happened to have a power called Healing Word, and that class was primal, not divine. They could have called the druid's healing power something else... but no, they took the nuclear option.

>>49147307
Clerics have Sonnlinor's Hammer (at-will that can be used as an MBA), Avengers have Overwhelming strike combined with power of skill(at-will and a feat that lets them use said at-will as an MBA), Swordmages have intelligent blademaster (basically pre-nerf melee training, but for swordmages only and only for intelligence)

File: 695c2278b62dd0b63e80d568427606d0.jpg (2MB, 1380x1840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1380x1840px

>>49147284

>It didn't work, the correct way to play either slayer or knight is to find whatever methods possible to get MBAs that aren't strength-based.
Note that this is only really practical as an eladrin fighter (knight) with Intelligent Blademaster, or as a level 11+ half-elf fighter (knight) or fighter (slayer) with Versatile Master.

>My personal opinion on the matter is that strength is inherently the weakest stat in the game, and giving melee training for free just makes it even weaker.
This is faulty logic. Even with post-errata Melee Training and no free Melee Training, characters whose class build does not use Strength will *never* raise their Strength past 13 at the very most.

What you should be worried about is those characters who need a good melee basic attack yet are screwed out of one. A battlemind is pigeonholed into selecting Melee Training as their first feat, and a swordmage is likewise forced to take Intelligent Blademaster as their first feat.

This would not be so bad in a game starting at level 6 or 8 or so, but for a game starting at level 1, it is incredibly annoying to have to spend the character's *only* feat on a blatant tax feat and math fix.

>>49147350

I have already mentioned Power of Skill and Intelligent Blademaster in the post you are quoting. The important part about them is that they still have to be taken just to satisfy a silly feat tax. They are clumsy band-aids to a problem.

Sonnlinor's Hammer is highly inconvenient for a cleric (warpriest) to take, because Charisma is a dump score for them, so Sonnlinor's Hammer's rider is completely useless for them.

>>49147394
The feat slot price is what you pay in order to use a better main stat

Battleminds pay it to have fucktons of healing surges and hit points, swordmages pay it in access to sage of ages and arcana training as a viable thing, rogues and monks pay it with their naturally high initiative scores, often higher than other classes even with improved initiative.

Granted poor ardents and bards pay the price pretty hard without much of a reward in exchange, but giving it to them for free is fair, it's not like it matters as much for them anyway, no one is going to be granting them free MBAs when they could be giving free MBAs to a striker or fighter.

I would also recommend starting at level 2, the extra feat and utility power helps a lot with character individuality, and reduces the pain of having to spend your level 1 feat slot on a tax

>>49147156
>If I'm already implementing Inherent Bonuses*, can't I just give +1 per tier at, say, X4th levels?
>And change Expertise feats to only give their side effects
That's functionally the same as giving out Versatile Expertise for free. I've never seen anyone interested in swapping primary weapon types.
>*best things since sliced bread as far as I'm concerned
Agreed.

File: 06457d053351ee5d91edd72e09d01ae8.jpg (161KB, 550x831px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 550x831px

>>49147481

>Battleminds pay it to have fucktons of healing surges and hit points
Disregarding Essentials classes, the battlemind is also the worst defender class in the system from levels 1-6 due to its shoddy mark enforcement. Even when it picks up Lightning Rush at level 7 and actually becomes good, the battlemind simply bumps itself up to the level of the fighter and the paladin. There is no need for the class to be taxed into taking Melee Training.

>swordmages pay it in access to sage of ages and arcana training as a viable thing
The swordmage is not exactly a stellar defender on par with the fighter and the paladin. It is a *decent* defender class, yes, but only if built as an Aegis of Shielding hit-and-run kiter or as a hybrid swordmage|warlock with a melee basic attack in the form of Eldritch Strike anyway. Even with such builds, it is still only on the level of the fighter and the paladin.

>rogues and monks pay it with their naturally high initiative scores
The rogues who need Melee Training the most are the ones who are the worst rogues (i.e. anything other than a Brutal Scoundrel), so they could absolutely benefit from being handed it as a free feat. You have a point regarding monks since they are already very capable all-around, the two Strength monks are the worst of the monk builds, and Internalize the Basic Kata can vaguely justify going unarmed at the lower levels... so I would probably hold off from giving free Melee Training to monks.

>>49145806
>I'm all for simply but that sounds insanely small number range.

Well, the small number range is a problem because it's less granular, so bonuses and penalties hit really hard in Strike! (which is why there aren't many in it).

It also necessitates a bunch of design decisions (like miss tokens). Overall, I'd have been happier with a larger die like d10 on d12 to base the game around, but the fighting part is pretty good either way.

>>49147773
>fighting part is good
>1d6 for combat
lel

>>49138290
>PDFs for 4e books
Not even a 4e player but bless you all for having a trove I can use to convert neat stuff to 5e.

>>49147797
What's the problem as long as probabilities work out?

>>49147829
The probabilities NEVER work out with 1d6.

I want to mine some Warlord and Dragonborn content for 5e conversion. I figured the 4e PHB is a good start, but are there other sources with noteworthy material for those? I'm not too familiar with 4e.

>>49147846
Nice claim you have there

>>49147887
Warlord stuff is in PHB and Martial Power
Dragonborn had a small supplement of their own. Player's Handbook Races - Dragonborn.

>>49147912
Thanks anon.

>>49143611
The 13 age has a lot of good ideas, but it completely drops, the tactical combat element. Which love it or hate made 4e 4e.

File: image.png (39KB, 235x150px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 235x150px

>>49148279
Speaking of which what's the good synonymous term for charge attack? It's too easy to be confused with charged attack.

I saw one comment the other day on 4chan about an "eladrin knight" being a really fun and good class.
Can anybody tell me more?

>>49148332
Rushdown, maybe?

>>49148482
That was my first idea but it's too similar to Bullrush.

Dash Attack?

From what I remember it was just a pladain subtype.

>>49148482
Eladrin knights are certainly more fun than ordinary knights, but I'd generally say ordinary knights are the most boring class in the game, and eladrin knights aren't a gigantic leap up from ordinary knights.

Basically it boils down to the discussion about melee training above, combined with a unique knight stance an opportunity attack for eladrin, which let you teleport around your enemies constantly.

With post-nerf melee training, you use these abilities in combination with swordmage multiclassing and the intelligent blademaster feat. If you're using pre-nerf melee training, you can instead multiclass into warlock and take the evermeet warlock paragon path, which is insane in this case, because it turns you into an invisible defender, and invisible defenders are seriously hard to deal with

>>49147895
>d20, 5% increments.
>d6, 16.66% increments.

>>49148683
What strike does is put you at like, 66% of affecting an enemy every time you attack (3, 4, 5, 6 all do something). This is because the d6 attack table are the exact same results (4-5 are always "do damage, and do effect"), and there's no +1s to hit, or whatever.

This is about (65% or 70% - I forget which exactly) 4e assumes you have, except 4e scales the numbers ever higher and lets people accumulate modifiers to gently nudge that in various directions.

It's just cutting out all the stuff surrounding the to-hit roll and says "this is what it will be more or less anyways"

>>49148717
Yes, but the variability means there's more room for optimization, both in character-creation and in-game

A gentle nudge in one direction or the other can have a big impact on the results, and Strike does away with the subtle play of to-hit bonuses in order to use a d6, which removes one of the major strategic points of the game

After all, without the variance in to-hit bonus/penalties regarding positioning, there's almost no reason to use a grid-based system. Look at any grid-based turn-based video game for an example. They all utilize this

>>49148767
>After all, without the variance in to-hit bonus/penalties regarding positioning, there's almost no reason to use a grid-based system

Flanking gets you Advantage, bub. If anything, it's even more important in Strike! since advantage is better than the +2 that CA gave you in 4e (although of course CA also had rider effects).

>>49148657
>evermeet
>not feytouched or long night scion for teleporting AoE slashing

Also, I was probably the who who recommended Eladrin Knight, but it's mostly because I have a boner for short range teleporting fighting style.

>>49148816
Flanking is only part of it

There's also cover and concealment

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the Strike! rulebook on this computer and I can not remember how Strike! handles such things, but I'm pretty sure it's with much less delicacy

File: 1d6s.png (9KB, 924x409px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 924x409px

Yeah, Strike handles most things through advantage/disadvantage. Advantage being 2d6 take highest, Disad 2d6 take lowest. Unfortunately by default it uses 5es inane method of "any amount of 1 cancels out all amount of the other" but meh.

There's still definite mechanical advantages to using smoke, cover, flanking, etc.

>>49148862
You turn invisible to adjacent enemies every time you teleport

This means adjacent enemies take a -5 penalty to attacking you, and a -2 penalty to attacking your allies, and if they attack your allies you hit them.

It's an amazing catch-22 situation, far more valuable to a defender than a bit of extra damage. Although long night scion's slowing effect is probably comparable, especially when combined with world serpent's grasp

>>49148866
IIRC half-cover is merely a disadvantage on the attack, but there are optional cover rules where cover either halves damage or gives a -1-2 to the attack. I'll check in a moment but my food is burning.

>>49138334
As much as I appreciate what 4e tries to do in cleaning up after 3.x, I think its fanbase during its peak was the worst thing about it. Expectations were set too high; I remember how many assured over and over again that it was a great first rpg for new GMs.

Bullshit.

I have suffered through a newbie trying desperately to follow the rules as written, which always meant pain as soon as a skill challenge came along. Which happened far too often. These were not fun games, but a hint of experience and willingness to bend the rules would have made it so much better. But since 4e was all about balance--holy, divine balance, according to its fans--he was terrified of ever making a single deviation. Again, due to the stupid culture surrounding the game rather than 4e itself.

>>49149026
The funny thing about this is that the first time I ever played 4e, my DM was completely new to RPGs as a whole

And he completely forgot skill challenges were a thing, remembered everything else, just forgot skill challenges

The game went really well, and I think the DM forgetting that skill challenges were a thing is a big part of why it went so well

>>49149077
To be fair here, SCs are awfully explained (and so are some other parts of the system). Approach to them noted in OP seems to be the best one to me.

File: 1467675557084.jpg (632KB, 1200x849px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1200x849px

>>49147532
>It is a *decent* defender class, yes, but only if built as an Aegis of Shielding hit-and-run kiter or as a hybrid swordmage|warlock with a melee basic attack in the form of Eldritch Strike anyway
How much of a bad choice would that make an Assault Swordmage? Are we talking 'subpar but still servicable' or 'please for the love of your party pick something else'?

>>49149146
It's pretty good, but most strength riders aren't worth it, so you'll probably end up building int/con or int/wis anyway

Unless you're building a striker-swordmage, which is viable, but you probably shouldn't play one unless you're the fifth man of the party

File: noaydqdAc61yxkgo2400.gif (106KB, 400x261px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 400x261px

>>49149171
>unless you're the fifth man of the party
Jackpot.

>>49149077
>>49149096
I do think skill challenges are definitely the worst aspect of 4e as a system. But the ritual system also annoyed me. I get the reason for limiting magic after 3.x, but there have to be better ways than "pay a shit ton of money for some minor magical effect that can be accomplished just as easily by a mundane skill roll." It took one issue of 3.x and just flipped it around instead of really solving it.

>>49149420
It's really only the very low level ones that could be solved with a skill roll

The higher level ones are much more useful. But most people abandon the concept of using rituals by then, because the early level ones are so bad

I've never gotten to play 4E even though I have the Essentials books. I can only ever seem to find Pathfinder games. They all shit on 4E as being a combat-centric MMO simulator but EVERY 3.PF game I've ever played in has been exactly that: combat after combat after combat either read from a book or simply railroaded by "circumstance".

What compels people who already run combat-centric campaigns to shit on 4E as being combat-centric?

>>49149595
I think at least some of it was because 4e's rulebook either streamlined or took out a lot of non-combat rules that 3/3.5 had, like crafting/profession-skills and rules for donning armor in x amount of time, heavily segregated noncombat spells (into utility-powers and rituals) and dropped a lot of class-features like Detect Evil and the such.

People looked at the PHB and saw how the bulk of a class' section was dedicated to thirty levels of attacks and assumed 4e was entirely about fighting and not much else, I s'pose.

>>49149595
>What compels people who already run combat-centric campaigns to shit on 4E as being combat-centric?

Memes.

How "balanced" are Fort/Ref/Will? Like, are they generally equally called upon, or is Reflex more used and Will less, etc?
As comparison in 5e Int saves do dick, but Con is used a lot more.

I decided to scrape the compendium for the people that dont have access to it anymore

for some reason google is being really slow at indexing everything, but until that's done ill leave a link at the top so you can search it yourself.

funin.space or
funin.space/compendium/

>>49149815
Most attacks that cause stun/daze/(dominate) target will, so that's generally the best save to boost. Especially with the feat that allows you to save at the start of your turn. Slow and immobilize are mean for a melee character, I think those are mostly reflex.

>>49149420
Rituals as written require a bit of work but I love them as a narrative device.
I once had my players go on a quest for components for, essentially, a radiant nuke

Inherent bonuses allow you to get off the magic item treadmill and to throw away wealth by level expectations, which combined frees up a lot of money for potential ritual expenditures.
I de-emphasize residuum and require materail components for rituals more stringently, but in return it allows players to pick potential ritual components as they adventure. You have a ritual that requires a copper hammer and you see one in a ransacked goldsmithy? Pick it up, sure.
For lower level ones you can sometimes replace money with surges

Case by case basis, of course

>>49150043
Will-targeting attacks tend to do the least damage but have the most debilitating effects

Reflex-targeting attacks tend to do the most damage, but have the least debilitating effects

Fort-targeting attacks tend to swing either way

Overall I'd say Will is the most important by itself

>>49149926
nice, thanks

File: 1464737630301.jpg (331KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 1920x1080px

How big is a fullblade compared to a greatsword? Is it just a few more inches in length, or are we talking Dragonslayer levels of huge/chunky?

>>49152301
Both and everything inbetween.
A fullblade is any sword larger than a greatsword.
DBC is a fullblade. Moonlight is a fullblade.

>>49149420
Arcane Eye saved my group repeatedly.
Plopping it on the other side of a door or wall and using it to scout for ambushes (my dm loved them) got us out of so much shit.

>>49153161
DBC?

>>49149815
Will has the fewest attacks that target it in the monster manuals, but it's the most debilitating when it is targeted. See >>49150273

Fortitude tends to mostly be melee and close attacks, so it's really important if you're going to be up close.

Reflex is pretty common, but it's typically just raw damage, so relatively easy to deal with.

MM1 is a BITCH for fucking with your action economy. Daze as far as the eye can see.

>>49153512

>using MMS
>ever
>not making your own unique encounters using MM3 math

File: 3ac78c0343580a09b73509cdcd91adbd.jpg (835KB, 1000x1414px) Image search: [Google]

835KB, 1000x1414px

>>49149146

A pure-classed, non-hybrid Aegis of Assault swordmage is probably at the bottom of the barrel as far as defender classes are concerned, even if you build it as Intelligence/Constitution or as Intelligence/Wisdom (for the Wandering Swordmage).

This is because the Aegis of Assault itself is completely counter to the swordmage's playstyle. A swordmage wants to flee *away* from their marked opponent, so why in the world would you ever want to teleport back to your opponent's side just for a middling melee basic attack that could very well miss? It is not as though it is a Shield Pushing fighter attack.

This is the same reason why the Aegis of Ensnarement is rubbish: it runs counter to the swordmage's playstyle by bringing the enemy right back towards you.

Also, Sword of Sigils and Dimensional Vortex are, without contest, the best level 1 and 3 swordmage encounter attack powers. Both of them have Aegis of Shielding-exclusive riders, so they are yet another reason to take the Aegis of Shielding and never look back.

File: f241689bc98e6b482ad59d6e448f0881.jpg (680KB, 637x883px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 637x883px

>>49149171

There is no good mechanical reason whatsoever to try to turn a pure-classed swordmage into a striker.

The practical way to go about this is to use a generic hybrid swordmage|warlock build, taking Mindbite Scorn at level 1 and Hybrid Talent (Swordmage Warding) at level 2. Since Eldritch Strike can be Constitution- or Charisma-based, you can create this as a Constitution/Intelligence build with a genasi or a warforged, or as an Intelligence/Charisma build with a race of your choice, such as pixie if you wish to flit around the battlefield with ease.

File: 1467417757543.jpg (14KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x365px

>>49153948
>>49154012
Well shit, and I liked the concept so much too.

File: f146b6a514fca84fb1ca6a964f70ccaf.jpg (458KB, 750x1100px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 750x1100px

>>49154053

I do not see why you could not just be a hybrid swordmage|warlock, reflavored appropriately. It is one of the most well-known hybrid builds and single-handed manages to redeem the Aegis of Assault.

Consider that your Eldritch Strike is eligible for 1/turn (not 1/round) Warlock's Curse damage, which is 2d6 at the heroic tier with Mindbite Scorn and 2d8 with Killing Curse.

The two main weaknesses of the swordmage|warlock are its feat-intensivity and its minor action economy crisis. You will definitely have trouble early in an encounter as you try to lay down Aegises and Curses, and the cycle will repeat itself as your enemies fall. This can be alleviated with Quickcurse Rods and methods of spreading your Curse around.

>>49154100
That could be something worth looking into, but aren't hybrid classes substantially more powerful? Far as I know, none of the people I'm playing with are using hybrids and I wouldn't want to create a party imbalance.

>>49153289
DragonBone Crusher.

>>49149926
Amazing, thank you. So much less clunky than the compendium itself.

File: c0e5cfaf5c5b0316df68582113461b0b.jpg (264KB, 895x1089px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 895x1089px

>>49154165

>aren't hybrid classes substantially more powerful

Some of them certainly are. The hybrid cleric with Battle Cleric's Lore, the hybrid druid (sentinel), and the hybrid paladin (cavalier) are all infamous for granting far better a deal than what most other hybrid classes hand out.

>>49154346
>>49150308

:3

>>49154472
Hey 2hf is there anything in 4e that operates at all like Strike's Evoker (in the latest playtest doc)? Combining elements to do a bunch of different cool stuff?

File: e4875a4161be39ba147b7f19961e0323.jpg (1001KB, 1324x909px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 1324x909px

>>49154649

In terms of "mix-and-match" powers akin to the 3.5 warlock's blast essences and blast invocations, no. 4e simply does not have anything of the sort.

>>49149926
YOU ARE AWESOME THANK YOU

Evil Drow Rogue specializing dagger and hand crossbow, what would be the best Paragon Path and Epic Destiny?

>>49155164
Daggermaster is still pretty much the champ for Rogues imho, but the Dread Fang racial paragon has some pretty lush features too.

As for epic destiny, Deadly Trickster and Demigod are your prime picks, Demigod especially because everyone loves dem attribute bonuses.

>>49155835
How about Godhunter? I sorta like the idea of him hating the gods (particularly Lolth) and seeking to take them down. Might not have any innate ability score increases but it seems solid otherwise.

>>49155893
Godhunter is a very solid pick if you want to focus on single-target novas as much as humanly possible.

It's got kind of a magikarp deal to it though in that the reliability of its utility and features really comes into play as you enter the later 20s, where at that point almost everything you face will be higher level than you are. If you're patient enough for the investment though, and you don't mind your features being gimped when facing creatures your level or lower, then you'll have an ED that will drastically speed up fights against solo monsters.

>>49156026
Sounds good. Then again that is going to be a long, long time down the road. character might not even get that high in level, who knows?

>>49156182
It's worth keeping some things planned in advance just in case they last that far. If nothing else, it means less time spent making decisions when you get a level.

File: 19a8af97d5584b0288fa770241e1533b.jpg (576KB, 1000x1315px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1000x1315px

>>49155164

The Daggermaster is unquestionably your best option for a paragon path, since the 18-20 critical range will be clutch for a Two-Fisted Shooter + Drow Fighting Style critical hit fishing build.

I disagree with >>49155835 on the Deadly Trickster and the Demigod, however, and the Godhunter mentioned here >>49156026 is not too great in my opinion either. The three epic destinies I would recommend are:

1. Destined Scion. Boring, but nobody can complain about +2 to two ability scores at level 21, and then unconditional +1 bonus to attack rolls and +2 bonus to saving throws at level 24.

2. Keeper of the Everflow. The level 21 feature should net you +2 Dexterity and a very effective auxiliary benefit, while the level 24 feature is one of the better revival benefits amongst epic destinies since it allows you to selectively clear away effects. It is objectively superior to the Demigod's by leagues.

3. The Thief of Legend. The usual +2 to two ability scores at level 21, but level 24 allows you to do something that most other characters cannot: distort the narrative by manipulating intangible concepts. It is highly DM-dependent though, so do not take this epic destiny if you think your GM will be strict on what you can pilfer.

4. The Hordemaster's level 24 feature might be fluffy yet mechanically underwhelming, but from levels 21-23, you will definitely be thankful for its level 21 feature. Not only does it grant the usual +2 to two ability scores, but it helps you and your allies flank enemies.

For what it is worth, the most powerful all-around epic destiny in the entire system is probably the Topaz Crusader, but it is only really a good choice for ardents and battleminds. Still, it gives them a tremendous set of benefits at levels 21-30 that no other epic destiny can match.

File: +5 Flame Burst Longsword.webm (3MB, 1328x718px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1328x718px

>>49156329
Hmm, good food for thought.

Has anyone ever played into Epic levels? How well does it play anyway? My last game only went to the very earliest levels of Paragon...

>>49154053
Keep in mind that everything Touhoufag says is true, but only relevant at the highest level of optimization. The rest of your party likely isn't nearly as highly optimized as his builds.

File: 9c6ce52a9f72200971872d6fc2beb41b.jpg (1MB, 1153x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1153x1600px

>>49158230

I do not even operate at "the highest level of optimization." If 4e optimization is on a scale of 1 to 10, I would normally operate and give advice on a 6 or a 7 on the scale.

I do not recommend "frostcheese," "radiant mafia," critical hit recursions, or teleportation abuse unless the player is absolutely seeking a top-end character.

Teleportation abuse can be rather amusing, however. Did you know that two Evermeet Warlocks can teleport each other across the world with a single Ethereal Sidestep?

>Mastery of Passage (16th level): When you
teleport 10 squares or less, you can take one adjacent ally with you. Your ally appears in any square of your choice adjacent to your ending location.

If you would like to see other examples of truly top-end optimization, you can read of them here:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User:Sigma_7/Broken_(4e)

>>49149189

What are the other four members of the party?

I really like to hybrid the swordmage with one of the other Int-classes, which are leaders or controllers. If your party has strikers with good basic attacks and doesn't have a worlord already then a swordmage/lazylord then you'll be able to do a lot of damage by using the strikers as your weapon, as well as being able to take a 20 Int. And if you don't have a controller in the party the swordmage/wizard is great at it.

>>49156551
I played a level 30 oneshot once

We optimized like mad and killed Tiamat in a single round. About a month later errata came out that nerfed the method we used to do so

It was very fun though

Looking through the 4e mega, there were a few books that I saw missing (that or I'm an idiot, you decide).

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/klm0bpiej0ejw/4e

So, here ya go.

Thinking about getting Strike! (inb4 "Stop shilling Strike!") and converting some adventures over to it. How hard is it to convert 4e adventures to it?

>>49142320
It was only prevalent in 4e for the entirety of its run because people were already powergamers in 3.5.

>>49160001
True, but me and my group never "powergamed" we just took the shit as it came at us. Then again it was usually only 2 players and 1 DM (at our height we had 3 players and 1 DM...) so who knows?

>>49160098
It had more to do with internet forum culture than the edition itself, so if you weren't exposed to that during 3.5/PF/4e, count it as a blessing.

File: ClassPortCleric.png (163KB, 305x278px)

163KB, 305x278px

>>49160142
I know the DM was exposed to it (dude's first character was a Feylock who focused so heavily on teleporting that it was ridiculous) but me and the other two (then just one) players? Nope, we just showed up and played. We all used my account so we could used the character builder but that was about the closest we could get to "making builds".

Reading Races & Classes right now.

Turns out 4E humans were supposed to be while the most adaptable, also to most corruptible race, both psychologically and metaphysically. Whoda thunk

File: Eladrin_Character_Concept_by_momarkmagic.jpg (114KB, 900x632px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 900x632px

>>49160219
I can see it. Many of the villains if memory serve were humans, at least in the adventures I remember (them and tieflings).

Then again, the setting I played in played up the Arkhosian Dragonborn empire being in a cold war with the Bael Turath Tiefling empire (Dragonborn were a large land empire while the Tieflings were set on a massive island chain) where humans were generally slaves and all of the elves and eladrin fucked off to their own demiplanes while some weird small nation had that worlds equivalent to the H-Bomb and threatened to use it if people used trans-planar teleportations for some weird belief it was eroding all of existence (no proof, just some belief).

>>49159736
I'm doing it right now. Not hard at all.

>>49160219
Several human feats have a theme of risk and reward, so that sounds right.

Somebody *other* than touhoufag:
hybrid (brawler) fighter|vampire, vampiric heritage, go Bloodknight for pp?

Do we Slampire now?

>>49162957
What is your plan here exactly?

Bloodknight has some pretty sweet abilities. But taking the vampire hybrid feels kinda pointless.

>>49162957
It's... alright i guess

There are far worse hybrid options out there

>>49163264
Have a humor-centric mini campaign coming up next month. Wanted to play a vampire, saw they were ass. Noticed that hybrids could be Dex primary with a fairly powerful mba, and that lined up with brawler style secondary. That and I find that the more ways I have of interacting with my healing surges, the more fun I have.

File: foxboy shaman.png (1MB, 1000x1359px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1359px

Would you waifu/husbando a fox hengeyokai?

>>49163562
The problem I see with it that the rest of your (fighter) powers are still going to be STR based.

STR/DEX isn't a bad place to be, admittedly.

>>49160219
More stuff:
> For instance, I put together the tiefling racial ability progression (and several other races) during an early phase of the writing of the third draft of Orcus. That particular progression doesn’t even have any meaning with the way races now work, months later, but here is how I designed tieflings.
> In my conception, each tiefling character would choose one strange ability they would accrue from a list as their character advanced through various levels. Depending on the particular strange physical trait they chose at a particular level, the tiefling would gain some minor ability. Plus, each physical trait chosen opened up a small suite of feats that only a tiefling with that trait could gain.
> But after several refinements by at least three other writers, the tiefling of the current draft recalls only echoes of my original, overly complicated planetouched humanoid.

Also, I find it interesting that not only dwarves and elves now have their own terrain (mountains and forests, respectively). Humans were assigned plains (and predilection for horses, Mongolian-style), halfling are riverfolk (though they're also fond of roaming others' lands, tielfings come from a fallen archipelago empire, and Arkhosia of the dragonborn used to lie in deserts

>>49163562
Consider taking the dhampir feat, or playing a vryloka

There's many ways to be a vampire in 4e without playing that terribly designed class

>>49165269
4e gets a lot of flak for lacking fluff, but i think the generic 4e setting is actually really interesting

>>49165277
To be fair to him, if he wants to play around with healing surges, Vampire does machinate them the most (even if he does it in a way that generally leaves you worse off than not being a vamp).

>>49165309
I agree entirely. Though part of this no-fluff reputation stems from first MM lacking in descriptions

Is the 4e errata in the trove of OP or still hosted by Wizards?

File: UpdateCompiled.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49165860
Even if it's still somewhere on their site, you won't find it.
Here's the latest one, I believe.

>>49166096
Is this everything from all the base books?

>>49166126
I think so, yes

>>49165103
No, but me and my party killed one...

Twice...

>>49166438
The same one?

File: 88ea00909957a229ab20c2bb6f8498e5dcdc3b3b.png (604KB, 700x759px)

604KB, 700x759px

>>49166438
But were they cute?

>>49166477
Not that anon, but I'd wager on it.

>>49145353
>>49145532
Comvat system of strike+non conbat of one ring system
Y or n?

>>49166632
You could just go for what it was going for and just steal the Burning Wheel skill system flat, probably simplifying the skill list significantly.
I have no idea on The One Ring works. You'll also need ways to generate action points (as the Tac-Combat section uses them to Rally) and at least pay attention to Conditions and other things, as the Tac-Combat uses them a bit but they are part of the non-tac-combat area.

You would also be better off making a Strike thread if you want to discuss ways to re-do its noncombat system in any depth.

>>49138334
Id have liked of there were *good* rules for domain/faction management domain/faction membership benefits, and mass combat.

>>49166522
>Four ears.
Objectively bad taste.

>>49138334
Probably not what you're looking for, but the things I like least about 4e is:

The AEDU/AE framework, and the fact that's the number of classes under a particular different paradigm aren't really numerous enough to say "only psionics classes allowed in this campaign" or the like, without the players having very few remaining options to choose from.

>>49138334
Poor multiclassing options.

>>49167814
Hybrids.

>>49167848
They're the poor options i was referring to, yes, what of it?

I want level to level multiclassing.

>>49167871
For what purpose?

>>49167871
Dragon Magazine has variant rules to that effect. #421.

I can't speak for quality, since I've never used them.

>>49167916
Changing class mid campaign, dabbling (without deciding to do so at level 1), builds that cover a concept in anonstandard way.

It allows for lots of things

>>49167953
Huh. Didn't know about those. Will have to check it out.

>>49167966
>Changing class mid campaign
Rebuild as hybrid.
> dabbling (without deciding to do so at level 1)
Multiclass feats
> builds that cover a concept in anonstandard way.

Hybrids already do this. In fact, base classes already do this. There are so many options built in you get a lot of non-standard ways to do shit.

>>49168001
I'm aware some of the things i was looking for could be achieved other ways.

>mc feats
Knew about those.

>hybrid
Aren't you limited to 2 classes in hybrid? That works the first time, but if you're looking to grab bits from 3 or 4 different classes, that doesn't really do it.

>cover a concept in a nonstandard way.
Admittedly I'm thinking like "build users 3 classes combined to get a similar flavor to class Y but with a list of abilities that class Y never gets".

Like when someone would show up to my table for a 3.x game with a weird build for a " monk" that draws class features from like, 4 classes, none of which are monk, and while the monk has a weird set of abilities, mechanically it still very much feels like a monk.

>>49168114
So give us a few ideas and let's see if we can't find a good equivalent in 4e.

I mean, if you just want to do complicated builds for the sake of doing complicated builds, then 4e can't deliver, but as far as character concepts go, 4e can cover a very broad range with Hybrids and Multiclass Feats.

File: 8620998b4d842cffd66b3a6fe2ffc5ee.jpg (75KB, 600x833px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x833px

>>49167953
>>49167983

The freeform multiclassing rules in Dragon Magazine #421 are completely broken and allow any class to have any powers as long as they are of the appropriate level, which wholly shatters the already tenuous balance of 4e.

>>49168114
>but if you're looking to grab bits from 3 or 4 different classes
Fun fact: You can take a multiclass feat as a hybrid class. So you could, for example, hybrid Fighter|Barbarian and take a Ranger multiclass feat. Not that I'm suggesting that particular combination, it's just an example.

>>49168280
You could also have Bard as one of your hybrids and take as many multiclass feats as you want.

>>49168278
Right, 4e is just not made to deal with his shit. Even 3.5 style multiclassing (but probably like, only getting hybrid features for your second class, if even that) you'd have a bunch of really strong dips, like Rogue for Low Slash.

>>49168280
And Bards can freely multiclass anyway.

I remember some comments from the designers (don't ask me for a source, I don't remember) that nothing really breaks if you remove the one-multiclass-limit, except for non-hybrid Bards crying a little inside. Same for the number of Level 1 At-wills, with Humans crying instead of Bards.

>>49168359
>You could also have Bard as one of your hybrids and take as many multiclass feats as you want.
I'm afraid not. Unless it was errataed, Hybrid Bards cannot get Multiclass Versatility.

>>49138334
That "feat tax" was an issue.

Honestly, I liked the vast majority of it and what it really needed with stronger "editorial control". They needed a clearer plan in the beginning and needed a "top guy" to oversee the whole thing and keep it on course.

Other than that it needed a revision, a lot of classes followed a strong theme (A class has a primary stat, then a secondary depending on your kinda "subclass"), but the original PHB classes kinda didn't (Rangers, Paladins and Clerics kinda fuck this up).

Also the maths needed to be cleaned up, really, an aggressive 4.5e with a good head behind it would have possibly been my favorite RPG ever.

On a more personal preference note: I would have liked the "power source" stuff to be more meaningful and defined.

This sounds like a lot, but a bunch is just more labor intensive tweaks than massive mechanical revision like previous versions needed.

>>49168384
>I'm afraid not. Unless it was errataed, Hybrid Bards cannot get Multiclass Versatility.

I checked and you are correct. My bad.

>>49168158
I am saying i enjoyed seeing players show up with weird builds i had never thought of. Not that i need help with a particular concept.

>>49141793
A slayer optimized with the charge package and a few multi hit attacks poached from fighter and barb can put out absurd numbers. I dont know what the best thing a striker can be doing at various stages in the game, but thats not the worst. Its just a bit boring

>>49168726
Yes, and I'm saying weird builds are still very much possible in 4e, just not in the exact same way 3.PF does them.
I know you don't need help with concepts.

>>49168500
>Also the maths needed to be cleaned up, really, an aggressive 4.5e with a good head behind it would have possibly been my favorite RPG ever.
Seconded. And thirded for good measure.
A properly cleaned-up 4e would be the greatest thing since sliced bread for me.
Too bad there's little to no chance of that ever happening.

>>49166477
Yeah.

Party was tasked with taking some prince to some bum-fuck town to administer it for a year before he could join court. Dude turns out to be a dick who just randomly orders deaths and shit. Hengeyokai PC was his bodyguard (and the player was a powergamer) and when push came to shove, me and the rest of the party decided it was time to kill the prince. Hengeyokai PC flips shit and starts attacking, phasing, go ethereal and all sorts of shit to make it hard to hit. Wizard and my character (elf ranger) team up to take him down in the battle while the Pixie Paladin shot off for the prince. Hengeyokai dies but we are all sorts of fucked up so we flee before we could get the prince.

Fast forward several sessions and the pixie paladin is in some tree getting sloshed off of fey wine and they see the hengeyokai (not an NPC the DM is running) and smites his ass, calling out to me (not an eladrin warlord because elf ranger is being trained by witches or some shit) and the wizard and we show up and kill his ass again. Wizard does a mumbo-jumbo spell and learns that the hengeyokai was raised so obviously the prince has something on him and requires him to be around but once more we have to flee because now a fucking contingent of the royal army is on our ass for treason.

So yeah, killed him twice and we can guess he's back from the dead now but the issue is is that that 4e game collapsed faster than one could imagine...

File: 479ec45582b4a396bb75769e6376b60e.png (712KB, 1000x1414px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 1000x1414px

>>49168803

The issue there is that the fighter (slayer) peaks at level ~3 or so, when it can have both Rain of Blows and some measure of charging optimization.

The fighter (slayer) is absolutely incredible at that point, but it has hit a plateau and will slowly start to find itself obsolete in favor of more varied striker novas and round-by-round DPR. It experiences a resurgence at level 11 with Impaling Spear, but past then, it begins its downward slide once more.

>>49168878
A huge issue with the game was that there really was no structure. Same DM who ran an epic 2 year campaign too, not sure what the fuck was up with this last go.

Still, could have been worse I guess.

Oh, wait, it did when the DM stepped down and let one of the players step up as DM for a few sessions and it became the single most railroaded game ever.
>"You all are now in the underdark."
"we don't want to be in the underdark, we're going to go back up now."
>"Rocks fall, it would take weeks to get through all the rubble. Looks like you need to go forward."
"Alright, we're looking around for side-passages. Surely there is another way up."
>"Umm... You all are now fighting a dragon, but it's an aberrant dragon that looks kinda like the xenomorphs from Alien."
"The fuck? We killed it. What are we doing down here again?"
>"Umm... You're in the underdark..."
"Can we leave? I thought we needed to go to that one city..."
>"You all step out of the caves and you're now in the Feywild."
"Fuck..."

>>49168822
>>>49168500
>>Also the maths needed to be cleaned up, really, an aggressive 4.5e with a good head behind it would have possibly been my favorite RPG ever.
>Seconded. And thirded for good measure.
>A properly cleaned-up 4e would be the greatest thing since sliced bread for me.
>Too bad there's little to no chance of that ever happening.

After WotC eventually shuts down the Digital Tools we may see someone attempt an actual retro-clone rather than a different system with 4e-like combat.

And add me to the list of people wanting a properly rebuilt 4.5e.

4e has the feeling that you get sometimes from vidya games or movies, that the executives fucked with it too much and had no clue what they were doing.

File: 1463063616079.png (737KB, 700x990px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 700x990px

Do the rules for upgrading magic items in the Adventurer's Vault allow a False Blood Amulet to be Enchant Magic Item'd from +2 to +3?

Need a RAW answer here.

>>49169174
What are you on about? 4E was a great game. Very few trap options, almost perfectly balanced classes/races and a clear design goal. The issues came from many of their promises not stacking, misreading and/or not understanding certain rules and an early HP bloat on monsters. Most everything else was awesome!

>>49169295
He means the management and the higher ups not getting it; it's unrelated to the whole "4e is a vidya!" memery.

And it's true it was pushed out way too early.

>>49169295
Mostly what >>49169312 said.

4e is a good game, but it was stopped from being better due to political meddling it seems. There were several things that needed more testing and ironing out before release as well as a stronger roadmap of the future.

Things like:

"Should Wizards have access to Psychic damage and mind control effects if we're going to release a Psion class later?"

"What will be the difference between Elemental-source and Magic-source heroes?"

"Why are we making a Battlerage Fighter when we're going to have a Barbarian?"

"Should we sit down and decide what Leaders we will have in the foreseeable future and what will separate them mechanically?"

"Should we have a Striker, Leader, Controller and Defender of each power source even if it means overlap? If so how to we avoid overlap?"

>>49149926
>funin.space
You are a goddamn hero.

File: 1453684598750.jpg (23KB, 300x476px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x476px

>>49169429
>>49169312
I think the only major drawback to it was a lack of adventures and failing to realize their online digital suite (damn murder-suicides...) as well as making sure the compendium and character builder were behind a paywall (still no clue why they still are, it is an unsupported system...)

>>49170474
because of the url or the backup?

backup guy here, entire compendium now downloadable in case you want you own backup/my site goes down/i stop hosting/whatever

http://funin.space/compendium.tar.gz

current indexing status: 16.969/26.175

File: 1460473101624.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>49170733
>>49170967
Both, you glorious bastard.
Have some delicious tanlines for your effort.

>>49171608
praise me more, I'm lovin it :3

I really am, other people thought my url was stupid

File: 1460516468516.webm (3MB, 924x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 924x720px

>>49171721
Tanlines for Funanon!
Tell'em to smoke cocks in hell, I've been waiting for something like this for literally years.
On this note, does anyone have a link to the pirated CB that works?
Had one, but uninstalled it because it never worked for me.

File: 1472242843279.webm (3MB, 494x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 494x720px

>>49171721
Are any modules decent at presenting the PoL setting's more unusual aspects?

>>49171873
http://rogue-elements.obsidianportal.com/wikis/offline-character-builder http://www-personal.umich.edu/~macmog/DnD4E/

>>49149926

How do we use this?

>>49173181
I figured it was simply a database of everything from the CB.

bumo

What should a first level character's total attack bonus and defenses look like at 1st level? To be considered a competently built if not optimized.

File: 63c76ea002f543a88e39c3157257549d.jpg (88KB, 700x495px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 700x495px

>>49176100

Attack bonus and defenses are 100% class-dependent. Just as a few examples for attack bonuses:

Generic dagger rogue (scoundrel): 5 Dexterity modifier + 3 proficiency + 1 Expertise = +9 for weapon

Generic Weapon Talent fighter: 4 Strength modifier + 3 proficiency + 1 Expertise = +8 for weapon

Generic warlord: 4 Strength modifier + 3 proficiency + 1 Expertise = +8 for weapon

Generic archer ranger: 5 Dexterity modifier + 2 proficiency + 1 Expertise = +8 for weapon

Generic artificer, psion, or wizard: 5 Intelligence modifier + 1 Expertise = +6 for implement

Generic warlock: 4 Constitution or Charisma modifier + 1 Expertise = +5 for implement

Generic Virtue of Cunning bard: 4 Charisma modifier + 1 Expertise = +5 for implement

Defenses are likewise highly variable. Defenders tend to have the highest AC, but there are outliers such as avengers, monks, and paladins (blackguard). Strength/Constitution, Dexterity/Intelligence, and Wisdom/Charisma characters will always have the worst non-AC defenses.

Page 30 of the Dungeon Master's Guide 2 contains a list of "expected" PC math by level:
Attack bonus: Level + 5, plus proficiency if applicable
Non-AC defenses: Level + 13
Controller AC: Level + 13
Leader and striker AC: Level + 15
Defender AC: Level + 17

>>49176262
As someone who didn't play 4E since 2012:
Why don't implements get proficiency? Are they compensated for the resulting 10-15 % gap in some way?

File: ec928e4e38c33eb115dced1e0caa0ad9.png (4MB, 2037x3508px)

4MB, 2037x3508px

>>49176921

Implement attacks almost always target non-AC defenses: Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. Implement-users can take Superior Implement Training in an Accurate implement for a +1 bonus to implement attack rolls, effectively placing them on par with wielders of +3 proficiency bonus weapons.

>>49176921
The compensation is that all implement attacks target NADs, whereas the vast, vast majority of weapon attacks target AC

>>49177273
>>49177288
Okay, makes sense. Forgot that NADs are lower

>>49169295
The math really only starts falling apart mid-paragon tier, where feat taxes become absolutely mandatory and HP bloat turns combat into a slog. The first eleven levels work pretty well.

They just needed to do more late game play testing. I'd venture a guess that "But everyone starts at level 1!" was something uttered at least once during development, by a confirmed moron.

>>49149926
>funin.space or
>funin.space/compendium/

you are my fucking hero, I mean it.
I had given up on ever running 4e with the people I know so had let my sub die. Now I have a group and have been kicking myself for not having it anymore while trying to help them out.
Thank you so very much, you made this Anons day.

>>49170967

Blessed is the backup guy, for he will inherit the Earth,

>>49179053
>The math really only starts falling apart mid-paragon tier, where feat taxes become absolutely mandatory and HP bloat turns combat into a slog. The first eleven levels work pretty well.

In my experience mid-paragon is where the fights start becoming quicker, not a slog: the PCs have paragon paths, multiple paragon feats and from level 13 the first of the paragon level class encounter powers which are usually pretty good.

>>49179053
Mid-paragon is when things start to speed up. You have your paragon feats, your paragon path passives, encounter power and utility power, and your level 13 encounter and 15 daily

Combat tends to zoom past in mid-paragon because it's the golden time for nova-focused characters

bump for backupanon

>>49183483
is there a problem?

>>49183504
Naw, making sure people see the archive.
Honestly, the link should be added to the OP, I can't think of anyone that plays this game that wouldn't want it.

>>49183561
as long as people dont spread it all over, thats fine with me

More amusing stuff from Races & Classes:

> As with all 4th Edition character classes, fighters have three categories of powers: at-will, per-encounter, and per-day. At-will powers are relatively simple attacks that the fighter simply knows how to do. For example, one defensive strike is a simple attack that deals normal damage, but if you hit, you get a bonus to your Armor Class against the foe you hit. Your attack leaves you in a good defensive stance against your foe, and he’ll have a hard time striking back at you.
> Per-encounter powers are special weapon tricks, surprise attacks, or advanced tactics that can only be used one time per fight. The fighter doesn’t “forget” a power once he uses it, nor does a power deplete any innate reserve of magical energy. He can’t use it again because it simply isn’t effective more than once per battle. If an enemy has already seen your dance of steel maneuver, he won’t be taken in by it a second time. Because you can use one of these powers once per battle, the challenge is to find the exact right moment to use each one for maximum effect.
> The fighter’s per-day powers represent a single act of incredible strength, endurance, and heroism; the fighter digs down deep and finds what he needs to make the ultimate effort. For example, the great surge power allows you to make a devastating melee attack and also call on your reserves of healing. When the battle looks grim, the fighter finds a little more strength to shrug off his injuries and strike a crippling blow. Because you can only use each of these powers once per day, the trick is to decide which combat during your adventure deserves the use of such a precious resource—and then exactly when during that battle your exploit will have the greatest effect.

>>49184975
As an aside: Races & Classes and Worlds & Monsters were released before PHB and therefore before all the crazy edition wars

>>49169126
My fantasy is writing a 4e hack that get rids of ability scores for combat, and has +1/level scaling getting rid of most bonus optimization. Mostly so I can use existing monsters without having to adjust the math. It's not actually that much work for a baseline but there are probably unintended consequences with my method I haven't thought of.

>>49185226
You mean Strike!?

>>49185235
Strike! technically doesn't have scaling (although giving +1 per level difference like, I think, LotFP does would work easy.)

>>49185235
Stop shilling etc.

But no. Strike doesn't use a d20 or work with the Monster Vault as far as I know.

>>49185299
>>49185308
Strike has completely different math expectations than 4e, what with it using d6s. Also, on such a scale every single +1 is A LOT

>>49185235
>>49185334
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

>>49169126
I tried making one for a Warcraft game

Still use bits of it occasionally in 4e. Like removing the binds between skills and stats. So when you roll a skill roll, you roll skill + stat + half-level, but which stat rolled is not tied to the skill.

For instance, breaking a padlock with a crowbar would be thievery + strength, and plotting a hidden path through back-streets would be stealth + intelligence

Is there anyway to turn the vampire into a playable class without hybridizing? The idea of you becoming a more and more powerful monster appeals greatly to me, fixing it and not being able to add more classes like it is the main reason im sad that 4e got shit and tossed in a ditch

>>49185644
Love that approach but I think it requires some changes to the skill list. For example, it makes Athletics, Acrobatics and (arguably) Endurance redundant

>>49185802
When I do that, I remove endurance as a skill entirely, letting endurance checks take the form of other skill + constitution

Then I combine athletics and acrobatics into just "athletics"

>>49185850
>letting endurance checks take the form of other skill + constitution
Never saw it that way. That's real nice

>>49185447
>Stop memeing Meme!

>Why meme /tg/ meme Meme?!

>>49185949
Don't talk to that faggot

>>49185850
I'd personally fuse Strength and constitution since they are otherwise pretty shitty stats, as far as flexibility goes.

Of course that throws the whole 6 stat/3 defenses setup out the window.

>>49186254
STR + CON = Body / Vigor => Fort defence
INT + DEX = Mind / Wits => Reflex defence
CHA + WIS = Spirit / ??? => Will defence

>>49186254
>>49186336
If you're fusing STR and CON, and athletics and acrobatics, you could consider throwing DEX into the mix for one Physique stat, and approximate skill parity with all stats.

>>49186394
This whole talk started from unbinding skills and attributes

File: 1468438338871.jpg (30KB, 420x280px)

30KB, 420x280px

If the vast majority of 4e generals now and from months ago are all about fixing 4e or replacing it with a new system, isn't that plain evidence that 4e is shit?

>>49186632
No, it only evidences that there are problems within the system that could be fixed.
Each and every single one of them is much smaller than the problems in the ever popular mess that is 3.X

And, spoiler alert, there are no systems without problems

>>49186707
But most of /5eg/ and /pfg/ AREN'T about totally replacing the system with something else.

>>49186731
Because
PFG is full of people used to eating shit and smiling
5E is about published adventures, builds and houserules

And it's not like this thread isn't half-full of builds. Most courtesy of 2hu, of course

>>49186707
>Responding to a blatant troll post.
Anon, please.

>>49186773
>PFG is full of people used to eating shit and smiling

And it's actually about replacing everything with DSP stuff.

>>49186773
>5E is about published adventures, builds and houserules

This is what 4e general threads are about, but they're not.

>And it's not like this thread isn't half-full of builds. Most courtesy of 2hu, of course

I see no builds and just people whining about "Don't listen to 2hu."

>>49186788
And complaining about DSP because it threatens the status quo.

>>49186836
>This is what 4e general threads are about, but they're not.
You might want to rephrase that one

>I see no builds and just people whining about "Don't listen to 2hu."
What you call whining, I call warning people to take his statements with a grain of salt

>>49186871
>I call warning people to take his statements with a grain of salt
"Don't listen to 2hu," got it.

>>49186990
Nice twisting of words there, champ
Touhoufag knows the system inside and out. It's just that his expectations of mathematical rigour don't necessarily match what a casually playing group might need. If you're all optimizers, his advice is damn great

>>49187048
Nope. >>49158346

"Don't listen to 2hu," got it.

>>49187095
Okay. Go fuck yourself with a cactus then

File: picard-double-facepalm.jpg (7KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 480x360px

>>49186871
>>49187048
>>49187105
See >>49186782

>>49142275

I used to play a stone-fist monk.

I had fun with it.

>>49143611
>If the game was literally released as "DnD 5e" and the actual 5e didn't exist, you wouldn't notice.

I mean. If actual 5e didn't exist and 13th Age were 5e, then yeah, I guess we wouldn't notice, because there'd be nothing to notice. What's your point?

>>49188357
As stated, 2hu's advice assumes you're going for maximum optimization without employing blatant cheese. (Ex. Frost Cheese, Radiant Mafia)

It's information that can be helpful, but for the average group that level of optimization is unnecessary.

>>49142529

Didn't SKR get canned and them admit that he actually didn't agree with any defenses he made of the system, but did it anyway 'cause that was his job?

>>49143064

Smurfgoblin.

>>49188589
>maximum optimization
>without employing blatant cheese
Good oxymoron you have there.

>>49188862
Blatant cheese as in 'Shit the DM will veto on sight, so don't bother.'

>>49189005
Eh, neither frost cheese nor radiant maffia is in that category. That kind of cheese got errata'd (like the eladrin charger). Frostcheese got an errata as well that made it slightly less great.

>>49189048
Frostcheese is still super fucking strong after errata.

>>49169126

Been trying to work on a 4.5e called "Dragon Forest", but I'm such an undisciplined designer that I keep veering off into weird territory.

>>49170967
Fuck yeah, you`re the best m8

bu

> If you think you’ve seen the idea of per-encounter powers for fighters before, you’re right. Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords built a system of maneuvers for martial characters that presaged many of the nonspellcaster powers coming up in 4th Edition D&D.
> At one point in our power design, we examined the idea of whether or not character powers could be constructed more or less like a card-game model. In other words, all the power choices available to you would
be your “hand,” and when you used a power in a fight, you’d “discard” it. In fact, you might even have important “draw” or “refresh” mechanics to return discarded powers to your hand. One of the most aggressive ideas of this sort was the notion of a character who drew his hand randomly as the fight progressed. So, to test the acceptability of these changes to our audience, we adopted the classes in Book of Nine Swords to use an execute, discard, and refresh system for their maneuvers.
> While the Nine Swords classes actually work fine with the system (even the crusader!), we eventually moved away from the idea of maneuvers refreshing in an encounter. We decided that we didn’t want to make the players play a game of managing their “hands” at the same time they were playing a game of defeating the monsters. But we learned a tremendous amount from watching D&D fans play with the rules in Book of Nine Swords. And heck, they were fun enough that most of our D&D games around the office saw plenty of Nine Swords characters enter the dungeon.

>>49195440
>they were fun but we cut them anyways
>all classes had to operate the same so you couldn't have a unique class doing unique things (until psions and shit?
)
wow ok

>>49195486

Well, I guess that's one thing that will have to be added when someone finally makes that 4.5E everybody keeps talking about.

How about psionics, then?
How should we fix that?
Base it off of 3.5 psionics, except with power points as an encounter resource?

>>49196119
What's the problem with psionics?

>>49196717

There's little incentive to take higher level powers. The at-will powers you get at level 1 scale just fine and work better at higher levels due to the lower power point cost to augment them.

>>49196866
You know, upgrading powers might be what theoretical 4.5 needs more than constant replacement by the same power with bigger numbers.
Sure, their text is slightly longer, but not by much. And if upgradability is a new standard, there could conceivably be a concise format.

>>49197692
That's quite a popular fix.
There may be problems with either analysis paralysis in character creation or a much smaller variety of powers though.

>>49195486
It didn't feel enough like D&D before AEDU, you know.

How are Invokers and Starlocks?

>>49199453
Decent but not the best in my opinion. It's super late where I am and I'm heading to bed but others may comment more on it.

>>49199453
Isn't there a way to turn divine bolts or hand of radiance into something compatible with rapid shot?

That might be worth a look? Been WAY too long to remember the details

>>49186336

Str+Con = Strengthitution
Int+Dex = Dextelligence
Wis+Cha = Wisma

Or, for a more Swords and Sorcery feel:

Str + Con: Thews!
Int+Dex: Cunning!
Wis+Cha: Will!

Insider subs have been mentioned a few times, and I didn't see an answer so I thought I'd ask.

I thought the tools had been discontinued. I let my sub lapse a while back. Can I still get access to the character builder if I reup?

>>49188862
Not really. That's mostly what I do in 4E, if only because I want to CharOp within a defined character concept/build (examples: a pure Paladin that could only be hit on a natural 20; or a "magic user" [Sorcerer/Wizard/Warlock] that set things on fire every combat). You can squeak out more optimization if you're willing to go a little crazier with builds, but not everyone wants to do that. Most of the other guys I played with didn't optimize even as much as I did, so more would've been inappropriate.

>PCs living up to being murderhobos
>attacked by kids in alley, win fight, slaughter the defenseless unconscious ones, lament an 11-year old girl getting away alive
>get first quest, to sneak into a house and steal a magic ring
>sneak in, get ring, wait around until owner gets home, kill her for no loot/XP, THEN leave
>get back to questgiver, beat him up and interrogate him
>I'm getting very aware of their tendency to just start fighting
>give them a lead to a mystic 'Maria' that will tell them what the magical ring does
>they get the information they want from her, give them another lead, they reject it
>as expected they try to start some shit, rogue follows her through bead-string doorway into backroom to get a surprise stab
>succeeds his stealth checks, sees her facing away, putting away teacups she served them with
>he goes to make stab
>she says "I wouldn't do that if I were you" without turning around
>fighter arrives through bead-string doorway too
>fighter warns they're probably out of their league
>rogue goes to make his attack with his newly bought steel dagger
this is where I started to improvise, I really didn't expect them to attack her, since she clearly didn't fear them and left them alone in the front room with all of her wares, and even anime'd the rogue (I wouldn't do that if I were you without turning around)
>as dagger touches her clothing, it turns to water and runs off without leaving a mark
>"w-what??"
>"I told you bro we're out of our league"
>rogue whips out his old bone dagger (I actually made him a bone dagger IRL, was pretty proud of that prop)
>Maria turns around, has a handful of some bloody fleshy pulp, throws it in rogue's face, it congeals into a fleshy film that covers his eyes, nose, mouth, ears
>Maria gestures and the beaded strings come alive and grab the fighter, constricting his throat
>fighter and rogue have to start rolling to stay conscious from suffocation

>>49200563
>rogue uses bone dagger to stab a hole in the fleshy film over his mouth
>discovers it hurts as if the flesh were his own
>fighter fails first unconsciousness roll
>Maria watches them
>rogue attempts to ram fighter to break him loose from beaded strings
>ends up slamming him uselessly against adjacent wall
>fleshy film heals over his mouth, resume making unconsciousness saving throws
>fighter fails another unconsciousness saving throw, but on next turn succeeds in escaping grab
>fighter crit grabs rogue, instantly puts him out of consciousness (by the fighter's choice), drags the unresisting body out of Maria's shop
>Maria follows them out and says some cheesy thing I made up and forgot
>rogue starts protesting, asking how she even knew he was behind her, he succeeded his stealth checks
>I explain that the beaded doorways were magical and she could sense him (made that up right when he asked me)
>rogue complains that I dumped all this magic on them when their universe had been magic-less thus far (5 sessions, XL3)
>don't have a good reply
>fighter maintains that it was clear they were underleveled for that encounter

If you were a PC and I did that to you, how would you feel? I completely made up her attacks, tried to make them fit dnd 4e mechanics, but there was really no way for the rogue to escape that fleshy face film. After typing this out, I can tell that I gave the fighter a fighting chance, a simple escape roll to get out of the beads, but I really unfairly fucked the rogue over with my DM powers over the universe. No rolls he coulda made really to get out of that face film. I was just getting a little tired of their murder-hobo recklessness

File: bone_dagger.png (754KB, 472x632px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 472x632px

>>49200650

File: bone_dagger2.png (478KB, 475x631px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 475x631px

>>49200671

>>49200650
Honestly, I'm a bit torn. I think as long as the rogue had a chance to escape, it'd be fine. I guess in your defense, we did see that he could cut it off, at least in theory (or he didn't know he couldn't, at the very least), and was given a chance to escape prior to combat. The rogue made a bad decision and should live with it. Magic may have been rare, but there HAD been magic- the ring itself for one (so they knew magic items could exist) and the Mystic was (presumably) a magic user herself.

That said, I gotta say that being railroaded by DM's sucks. I think as long as you would've let him escape had he rolled well enough or come up with some interesting or creative way of escaping, you're probably ok. Otherwise, it might have been a bit much, albeit understandable.

My friends and I played with a DM that would do similar things to players- all the time, not when they misbehaved. We don't play in his games much anymore and he won't play with me at all because I call him on his BS (he can still manage to bully his younger brothers though, so he's ok with them). Something to think about.

>>49200997
(I'm not implying that you're bullying anyone with that last bit, just fyi. It doesn't sound like you are. Just saying that it can get out of hand sometimes.)

>>49200997
>>49201009
Thanks man. Yeah, I guess it was just a little clumsiness on my part, I'm a pretty new DM. I think in the future I have to plan on them fighting every person of interest, and I'll have to design their battle stats/powers beforehand.

File: 1472347393068.png (537KB, 692x577px)

537KB, 692x577px

Is there anywhere to download a player guide like a pdf. I wanna try this out but I'm too broke to spend money on this right now.

>>49170967
How do I use this?

>>49201138
yeah, just torrent it

>>49201159
It doesn't look like there's a search function or anything (unless I missed it) but it looks like it's all there. Just click through to find what you're looking for.

File: proof.jpg (170KB, 1904x955px)

170KB, 1904x955px

>>49201213
>>49201159
what do you mean no search function, funin.space should have a custom google search below the link to funin.space/compendium

maybe wait a second or two for it to appear?
try turning off noscript? i swear theres nothing bad on it

>>49201285
Ah. The search is located at funin.space, but not funin.space/compendium

File: sitemap.jpg (100KB, 1919x895px)

100KB, 1919x895px

kind-of unrelated, but does anyone know why google doesn't index the entire compendium?