D&D4e General?

>>49995881
http://funin.space/index.php?search=creation&folders%5B%5D=backgrounds

which?

Searching at http://funin.space/index.php?search=Creation&folders%5B%5D=backgrounds there doesn't seem to be a "Creation" background:

Created
Experimental Prototype
Imbuer
Incomplete Creation
Iron Gatekeeper
Occupation - Artisan
Pivotal Event - Amazing Creation
Psionic Artifice
Thoughtsinger
Warsmith
Wilden - Ancient One

>>49995910
Thanks, it was the Created one. He said Creation for some reason. Possibly autocorrect or typo or misremembering.

>4e
Do people still play this? I mean it wasn't awful but I really don't see how people could prefer it to 3.5 or 5e

>>49996110
>3.5

Well, that's easy, 4e is not a broken piece of shit. :^)

Trolling aside, 4e is literally a fixed 3.5, taking all the design experience that came from 3.5 and applying it to the same "fantasy superheroes" genre that emerged from it. There's no reason to play 3.5 over 4e if that's what you are looking for (or 5e is you want more classic D&D feel).

>5e

4e has way more variety, a grander scale, and combat (when done right) is actually tactical and exciting.

5e's (numerical) simplicity is charming, but it got old for me hella fast.

>>49996110
I've been running a campaign for half a year now. And a couple years ago, I finished running a two year long campaign.

>3.5
Oh, this is bait. Well, I'll give you a (you) anyway.

>>49996176
>>49996139
>Preferring the simplified MMO version to the 3.5e way or the classical stylings of 5e
How?

>>49996110
>prefer it to 3.5 or 5e
If I don't like 3.5, why would I like 5e?

All trolling and edition warring asside, 4e does a lot of things that no other edition does well? It's the first and only edition where combat is independently entertaining and deep enough to be a game in and of itself. The argument can be made that combat being fun is system dependent, while non-combat being fun is GM dependent, and so 4e, with a good GM, is ideal. Also, it's a GM's DREAM edition. Crafting interesting encounters has NEVER been so easy.

>>49996202
That's an impressively long meaningless string of words

>>49996202
What's the 3.5 way, pray tell?

Can you put what is good about it into words without comparing it to 4e?

>>49996214
Eh, fair enough. I guess the games I've played in have been crafted well enough that I've always found combat to be interesting and engaging. It's always been enjoyable and never felt like a chore to me. Maybe that's the GM making good encounters or maybe I just prefer the feel of the combat but it's never been a weak point for me.

File: Latimeria_Chalumnae_-_Coelacanth_-_NHMW.jpg (238KB, 1920x694px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1920x694px

>>49996202
>This old bait.

>>49996231
>Can you put what is good about it into words without comparing it to 4e?
Sure I can. But when we are literally comparing the two it'd be sorta pointless not to.

Awesome! I honestly didn't know anyone else ran 4e still.

I've been DMing my group for years now. Started at the end of my sophomore year of high school and this December will be our 7th year straight playing.

Folks, don't reply to bait. 4e generals usually do well, let's not get lost in 10-year-old trolls.

>>49996281
>10-year old trolls
Holy shit. This just made me realise that 4e is about 10 years old now. It's been a fucking while hasn't it?

File: Ugh.gif (974KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 500x281px

>>49996300
Now I feel old again. Thanks, anon. Christ, I started with 2e, back in highschool. Though 3e was out around that time.

>>49996250
The point is that saying something like "3.5 style is superior because it's not an MMO" doesn't actually explain anything about what makes 3.5 good.

You could say "FATAL style is superior because it's not an MMO" and it'd just as correct.

Putting aside the rather subjective judgment of which tabletop RPG is or isn't an MMO, it's a much more logical way to compare games using the things they do instead of the things they don't.

>>49996345
Me too, anon. 4e is still my favorite D&D.

>>49996345
>2e
Sheesh. I never got a chance to play 2e. Was it any good? I only managed to start a bit before 4e came out.

>>49996394
Personally, I am very fond of 2e, it being the edition I started with (and, being a kid at the time, I had a LOT of time to spend poring over the books); but I don't think I'll be able to play it again today. The system is dated in many ways and my tastes have grown different. It still does have a fascinating atmosphere even in the corebooks and the best settings, something that neither 3.x nor 4e have (5e comes close, and it's its only redeeming feature).

>>49996394
>Sheesh. I never got a chance to play 2e. Was it any good?
If you're in a 4e general, there's a good chance you'd like 2e. It's a VERY different game, but there's a strong overlap between 4e fans and 2e grognards I've found. They both have a strong focus on cooperation, synergy, and team dynamics.

>>49996441
Well, 4e at least ported Dark Sun and some of Planescape.

I think it probably does both better, desu.

>>49996447
>If you're in a 4e general, there's a good chance you'd like 2e. It's a VERY different game, but there's a strong overlap between 4e fans and 2e grognards I've found. They both have a strong focus on cooperation, synergy, and team dynamics.

This is meeeeeeeeeeeee

I started with 2E and have played and liked other TSR era editions. I like 4E (though it definitely has flaws compared to 3E) a lot more than 3E (though it definitely had some improvements over 2E)

File: Gandalf Installer.jpg (51KB, 591x855px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 591x855px

>>49996394
The game itself is pretty loose and has a lot of optional sub-systems. On its own, it's good.

But I got started with a group of NINE highschoolers as players. Shit was kind of insane because of that.

Also, the DM's style didn't fit my preferences. He was a great guy away from the game, but was very much an adversarial DM. The slightest mistake was met with a dead character. Plus theatre of the mind games break down where there's ten people involved who all have their own interpretations of what's going on.

He also wasn't too big on plot. He preferred throw away dungeon crawls with the barest of plots. Though he was pretty good at setting atmosphere, at least.

I prefer long campaigns with a central premise and plot progression beyond "Did you kill the villain? y/n" So we just didn't mesh.

TL;DR: Good game, not so good personal experiences. Still good enough to leave me with a lasting love of gaming, though.

>>49996464
The thing is, the 4e versions probably play better, as they are designed first and foremost for accessible play, but the 2e versions read better, sometimes at the cost of playability.

>>49996625
Well, I think they are more fitting mechanically, and the fluff can be reverted relatively easily.

Dark Sun in 4e means you don't need clerics to heal, wizards to AoE, etc. but now environment can drain surges which is a way more granular resource than whatever AD&D did.

And the more colorful power palette just fits a fantastic world like planescape better I think.

>>49996503
>If you're in a 4e general, there's a good chance you'd like 2e. It's a VERY different game, but there's a strong overlap between 4e fans and 2e grognards I've found. They both have a strong focus on cooperation, synergy, and team dynamics.
>This is meeeeeeeeeeeee
>I started with 2E and have played and liked other TSR era editions.

This describes a LOT of the people who still play 4e as one of their first choices. I run a 4e, and my table is consistently at-least 50% TSR-Era Grognards.

>Nearly 10 years of 4e

Started out with 4e way back in Middle School, damn. Still feel like a goddamn newfag. I still try and optimize for crazy stuff like the Ranger who was really a Defender in disguise.

File: 4eCombat.jpg (107KB, 889x444px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 889x444px

>>49996110
The appeal is pretty straight forward

>>49996505
>Also, the DM's style didn't fit my preferences. He was a great guy away from the game, but was very much an adversarial DM. The slightest mistake was met with a dead character. Plus theatre of the mind games break down where there's ten people involved who all have their own interpretations of what's going on.
>He also wasn't too big on plot. He preferred throw away dungeon crawls with the barest of plots.
Sounds like the guy started in earlier editions that while had similar enough mechanics, didn't drape them over with heroic narratives the way 2e did

>>49999129
That's a terrible room for a 4e fight

>>49999139
Not necessarily. Mindless dungeon crawlers are like babby's first D&D, in any edition and possibly in any game. The problem is stopping there.

>>49996676
The advantage of 4e dark sun is that 4e's power sources seem almost custom-made to fit with Dark Sun

Gods don't exist in Dark Sun, so divine classes are disallowed, arcane classes are distrusted and have access to arcane defiling, psionic classes get their wild talents, and primal classes fill the rolls normally filled by the divine in other settings

>>49996676

Yeah, Healing Surges are utterly fantastic for Dark Sun and other harsh environment games.

>>49996110
>I really don't see how people could prefer it to 3.5

Are you blind?

>>49999157
What are some cool locations you've fought in in 4e?

I've had some great ones, like a field of waist-high grass that was on fire (the fire was slowly spreading through the grass, small characters had concealment in the grass but also treated it as difficult terrain, and the wind was shifting, which meant the grass fire was moving in odd directions throughout the fight), or in a corridor filled with portal-like doorways that opened into other doorways in the same corridor, and one great fight in a wizard's library where knocking over bookshelves occasionally activated spells in the spellbooks on the shelves causing them to do random shit

>>49999321

I enjoyed the back of a lightning rail in ebberon.

>>49996447
That is a friend of mine, and myself to a degree.
I started with 2e, have enough fond memories.
I generally play games for the cooperative tone, and how 4e's groups work, where everyone can do their part, not alone, but together greater than the sum of their parts, is phenomenal when the players get their shit together.
As a DM, that is the most satisfying thing I have experienced in 12 years of running rpgs.

Regardless of how 4e handles other 3.5 things, how do you think 4e's Eberron Dragonmarks compare to the 3.5 versions of them?

They do very different things, and honestly, even though I prefer 4e Eberron over 3.5 Eberron, in this one area I think I prefer the 3.5 version

>>49999379

I prefer the 4e ones myself. The 3.5 ones were really kinda dull and could be emulated pretty easily by a couple of magic items. The 4e ones are more unique.

>>49999379
The 4e dragonmarks offer more for having them, making them commensurate for the price you pay in the setting.

>>49999321
Honestly, the best fight I've run was in a cluttered alleyway. I've had halfling enemies abusing cover like crazy

For the more fantastical environments...
A greenhouse full of overripe watermelon-like fruits that had a chance to detonate if there was fighting in an adjacent square. They exploded into sweet juice and attracted a swarm of wasps that did nothing otherwise.
A lab on the back of a giant stone bird in flight. The whole thing happened in dreamspace so physics wasn't an issue.

>>49999321
I ran an adaptation of the Red hand of Doom, and my favorite encounters ever were from that, a string of fights against the invading army of goblinoids in the streets of the city, going in and out of (possibly burning) buildings, up and down rooftops and so on. It really played to the dynamic characters of 4e.

>>49999321

Collapsing scaffolding around and above a molten metal pit. At one moment, some chains get around the bard's feet, dragging him from one of the higher ones. End result is a bard swinging around in circles firing at every enemy in sight (the entire build was ranged but he was Valor and as a Half-Elf took Twin Strike because that's what you do) like that scene from Casino Royale.

Or, alternatively, the fight in a sandstorm in Dark Sun where the "walls" shifted around every round.

>>49999379
I've never liked much the way 3.5 boiled everything down to free spells. I played and DMed a lot of 3.5, so please don't take this as a troll, but there are objectively a ton of things like "regular dude with a SLA", "Wolf with a SLA", "+1 sword with a SLA". 3.5 Dragonmarks make sense in that context, as a way to give access to a few minor utility spells, but are not ultimately all that interesting. Some 4e Dragonmarks are better in that sense.

Is there anyone who plays 4e who actually feels like 4e feels like D&D? Having played 3.5, 4, and 5e, I feel like 4e is far different from the others, feeling like a completely different d20 tabletop system. On the other hand, 5e feels like a simplified 3.5.

>>50006969

The problem with saying something "feels" like D&D is that D&D is a really (really) barebones game especially how most people play it.

Most people tend to do a lot of fudgeing in 3.X/PF and I mean a LOT of fudgeing. Like to the point where it's basically a *World game and the question of "what can the fighter do?" becomes "whatever you can think up and is rule of cool because that's literally all we can offer you at this point!"

Spells become either "okay you just do this" or "ignore the wording it just does this" and "stop fucking buffing yourself you CoDzilla munchkin!"

4e at least in combat actually expects you to ya know... understand how each ability/power works and apply the math correctly. You can't really fudge with 4e because the math actually WORKS (most of the time) so going outside of it is not encouraged. This is why combat tends to go so much "faster" in 3.x aside from the obvious reason like fighters only really being good at full attacking/charging.

I've met multiple 3.x/PF GM's who fully admit that they don't even track monster HP and just just go "okay this battle's gone on long enough I'll end it now". Which really is the only way you can do it past a certain level since HP becomes practically invalidated as a measure of when an enemy is out of combat.

>>50007062

I'll admit, I haven't played a game of D&D (3.5, 4, OR 5e) that didn't require at least some fudging. That's the point of a roleplaying game, you're collectively forming and telling a story.

>Spells become either "okay you just do this" or "ignore the wording it just does this" and "stop fucking buffing yourself you CoDzilla munchkin!"

Played through 10th level in 3.5. Never saw this happen, we played spells by the book. Only spell we (I) invented was to counteract the DM's damage-reducing mechanic, which was offset by deities of his world. My character worked with one to form a spell mimicking Scorching Ray, except it removed the damage-reduction effect for a turn so I could support my teammates that way. Still, it had rules and fired off the same.

I WILL say combat feels very different in 4e, and despite one fight taking forever, is actually fun. My wife and I played twin sorcerers in a campaign and it was interesting. (I was wild magic, she was dragon magic. Both tieflings.)

Also, I'd like to point out that I'm not bashing 4e, I actually found it fun. I just don't think it feels the same.

>>50006969
It feels different, but I wouldn't say it feels less like DnD, because "feels like DnD" is up to the DM, not the system

Hell, FATE can "feel like DnD" if it's run that way

>>50007233

I should clarify:

Spells become like this primarily for utility spells or other bullshit.

Spells that're mostly blastey/evocation spells are usually played by the book since they're really just attacks that deal damage and have saves rather than AC.

>>50006969
Having played the same I don't know what d&d is supposed to feel like. I've fought gelatinous cubes and had crazy dimension hopping shenanigans in all editions. I can say I've only ever done those things in d&d; is that what it feels like?

>>50006969
I'm one of the "started with 2E" guys from before and 4e feels the most like D&D to me - in the sense that high-action heroics are exactly what I want from the games I run. For the first time in years I felt really free as a DM to run the game I wanted to run, playing with the system and not against it. I could trust the game not to break whenever I wanted to do something outside of the norm. Also, character and monster creation that is not a chore is a plus. I know this is pretty subjective, but for me it works.

File: bait need bigger.png (7KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 625x626px

>>49996139
>4e is literally a fixed 3.5

File: 1435522056779.jpg (90KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x600px

>>50006969
That's okay. If you started with the era of 3e, and all (or most) of what you have to compare 4e to is 3e the OGL-era [insert genre]d20 games, 3.5, pathfinder, and 5e (which, to me, feels like a slightly fixed 3.PF) 4e very much seems like the odd one out.

If, however, you started with 2e or earlier, 4e doesn't so much feel different from"D&D" as it does feel different from "that whole 3.PF OGL d20... thing."

That's not to say that the whole 3.pf OGL d20... thing is bad. [Granted I would personally say it's bad, but that's beside the point.] For many who played before the Wizards-era, 4e both accomplishes what most 2e tables tried to do but failed due to old-school-design-assumptions, and brings back a sense of cooperation, teamwork, and party cohesion, that 3.PF got rid of in lieu of individual power-builds.

I constantly see the same basic story

>2e was cool. It was broken, but we made it work for the fantasy-novels we were trying to emulate.

>3e worked better OOTB, but the system and culture resisted the house-rule-into-fantasy-novel-world common house-rules that popped up due to many MTG-inspired design choices

>4e does OOTB what 2e did with years of a whole community coming up with house-rules, and even more effectively.

Even in this thread I've seen a lot of mirroring that general sentiment.

>>50009884
It is. 4e is taking 3.5 as it was at the time, with its million splats, fixing the issues people who actually bought/played with those splats had with it, like the massive imbalance and shitty martials, skill points, HP being reduced from a resource you need to manage to CLW-wand charges, etc. and fixing all that.

Just as 5e is fixing 3.5 for the people who CRB only, because everything else is weeaboo shit.

>>50010262
Interesting point, but I don't think that's the whole story. You see, we actually have some idea of what kind of design process 4e went through, since WotC published two books about that. So yes, it is true that many design decisions in 4e stem directly from the desire of finding a different approach to what were the perceives issues of 3.5; and it is also true that late 3.5 served in part as a test for some of the innovations of 4e. But I think that saying that 4e is literally fixed 3.5 is wrong - there are also many design ideas that come from different directions, and the game grew organically from VERY different assumptions about what the game was about.

>>50009647
>>50009942
These.

Does anyone have experience with battleminds?
A player has picked one up, and I know fuckall about them.

>>50011341
They need something, anything that can let them MBA with constitution

The main weakness of the Battlemind is they lack stickiness, a battlemind with a weak OA can not force marked targets to stick to him, and thus can't do it's job

Also Lightning rush, take lightning rush at level 7 and never swap it out

File: 1341507604281.jpg (71KB, 408x360px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 408x360px

I've started somewhat recently a campaign with a new group. We take turns DMing, me and one other guy. And while we both started with pathfinder, since the ambient dissatisfaction wasn't just mine own with the system, while he tried (and is still trying) to fix it, I decided that instead of trying to make fights go faster, I'd make them more fun, thanks to a shift to 4e. Thankfully, the transition wasn't that hard. We had a bard, a druid, and a barbarian that kinda dipped into sorcerer, all reasonable. And one guy that's probably gonna join once his schedule frees up wanted to play paladin.So we even have a working group!

With all the enthusiasm that got reignited for this game, I'm even going to do one thing I never did in my ten years of mastering: a dungeon. Like, one with a map, and randomly determined loot, and traps and secret passages. And given that the foes here are kobolds (that were dismayed when in-setting, dragons everywhere fucked off to an archipelago to watch the world burn, until they decided to worship the eons-old earth elemental imprisonned in an ancient wizard's ruined underground lab) there's gonna be plenty of shenanigans.

Gonna start slow, with traps in the forest and around the entrance. But then things will go a bit crazier with the terrain. Like a tower with a 3w3 opening on the floor above, for some verticality, a water reservoir with a beast lurking beneath, or a lab with some random hazards flying around as mayhem increases.

That game's system just has something that inspires me with cool tactical situations. And once I'll have it done, I'll have to see how feasible will be some shadow of the colossus level shit going on, once they go big game hunting. Because monsters as terrains and hazards just tickle me in funny places.

File: 1473694419014.jpg (75KB, 467x967px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 467x967px

Can a two-handed weapon ranger be done, without going full beastmaster? Disregarding the fact it probably shouldn't be done anyway

>>50011445
Depends on your definition of two handed weapon. Spiked chain is technically a two handed weapon that you can use as a double weapon, for example.

>>50011445
Yes and no

Yes you can do it and be a decent striker, you have enough powers available to you that don't require a weapon in each hand, no because you're just a worse avenger by that point, and far worse at your job than the two-blade ranger

>>50011445
Charging with Marauder's Rush should be a decent start at low levels, not sure where to go from there.

>>50011445
>>50011798 again
Dragonborn Ranger mcFighter with Staggering Strike, Draconic Arrogance and Polearm Momentum (alternatively Hobbling Strike and World Serpent's Grasp) might be able to accomplish things. Hybrid Ranger|Cleric is very attractive for this, of course.

>>50006969
The comparison I like to use is that 4e is analogous to the Final Fantasy Tactics spinoff series to the other editions' mainline Final Fantasy series.

It feels very different, but I enjoy the hell out of FFT.

>>50007628

Same guy, I'm back after a day. Might as well chip in.

My biggest utility spell was Create Water. Fucking useful.

>create rush of water to temporarily blind a few people and get a party member out of a bad situation
>create pool of water underground to push away loose sand around an object we know is underneath via displacement (spawns in the space between the grains of sand)
>create a turn of rain to locate an invisible level 20 rogue, negating the invisibility bonus for a turn

All of that works without going against what the book says.

As for 4e feeling like 2e, I've never played 2e, so I wouldn't know. And I can agree, team builds are definitely better in 4e, but being someone who occasionally splits from the group (mainly because it consisted of a Chaotic Stupid barbarian and her sister's character following her around), I like individual builds.

>>50013872
I'd say 4e characters can solo as well as a 3.5 barbarian, so if that's your problem...

>>50006969
3 and 5 are notably similar to each other, but 2, 3, and 4 are all quite different. Also 3 and 4 are more similar to each other than they are to 2.

The one thing about 4E that's really strange for D&D is how durable level 1 characters are. In every earlier version, you could get one-shot by a kobold. 5 actually kept some of this though.

>>50012674
So thematically similar, mechanically divergent? Seems accurate.

>>50013872
>All of that works without going against what the book says.

Actually,

>create rush of water to temporarily blind a few people and get a party member out of a bad situation
>create pool of water underground to push away loose sand around an object we know is underneath via displacement (spawns in the space between the grains of sand)
>create a turn of rain to locate an invisible level 20 rogue, negating the invisibility bonus for a turn

This is pure fiat. Nowhere in the spell's description is it said it can be used in any of these ways. It doesn't say the water shoots out of your hands or anything. It'd have been an entirely reasonable ruling that the water when you cast create water just appears in a container of your choice, or, failing that, on the ground in a puddle.

>>49996110
I've mostly switched over to 5e, but I really, really like 4e's combat. Not just the powers and such, but monster roles and encounter building guidelines.

3.X is garbage.

>>49999321
Partial example: an inn that was in the act of being burned down by me.

>>50017161
also, in 4e traveler's feast is a ritual that creates water and there's a class from essentials that gets create water as a class feature. Rituals aren't the best, but still. Using abilities (because they're not all spells, you can use martial exploits too) to solve out combat puzzles works exactly the same way as it did in previous editions. If your 4E DM says you can't use the fireball to blow down the rickety wooden door because the door isn't a targetable enemy, you have a bad DM.

I remember there was a 4e thread a while back here where someone complained that all 4e spells are combat focused, and there aren't immersive out-of-combat spells like speaking with animals, feather falling, or spider climb.

All three of those are totally abilities you can have in 4e.

>>50011407
Thank you, I covered the one.

>tfw mostly play OSR games
>tfw missed out on 4e and want to try it

It's a strange overlap of preferences to be sure, but it seems to be relatively common

So what exactly is peoples issue with 4e? Ive only played a bit of 3.5 and pathfinder but I always see people bash 4e or awkwardly dismiss it and I never get a real answer.

>>50018399
3.x kids threw a shit fit because 'not muh D&D!' and persist in bitching about it, despite often times never giving it a chance.

See previous posts about how people who started with 2e tend to like, or at least not hate, 4e.

There are people that genuinely just don't care for 4e's style, but those are the sort to just quietly play their preferred system instead of getting their panties in a twist.

>>49995881
So, to get off of the old edition warring. What does your table consider "tax feats" and how many of them does it give away for free?

File: 4e modified bonuses.jpg (15KB, 187x411px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 187x411px

>>50020869
The Improved Defenses feats, the various +1/2/3 feats that add small numbers to your combat bonuses.
I am currently using pic related, a homebrew version of the innate bonuses rule that affectly makes the tax feats obsolete.
>rules query, do feat bonuses to things like defense stack? Would something like Unarmored Agility stack with the chart listed if they were listed as feat bonuses, for example?

>>50021061
Any bonus that explicitly references a "type" does not stack with other bonuses of the same "type".

If you listed the bonuses supplied by that chart as "feat bonuses" then they wouldn't stack with improved defenses or unarmored agility or the armor specialization feats. But the innate bonuses rule states that all bonuses given by it are "enhancement bonuses", so it already doesn't stack with magical items.


>>50020869
Personally I give out improved defenses as a free feat and give everyone a feat bonus to attack rolls that scales with tier (+1/+2/+3, like the expertise feats). The reason I do it like that instead of via giving out free versatile expertise is because this way it buffs attack rolls that aren't using a weapon or implement, which by RaW tend to be really, really weak

>>50020869
It's been a long time since I played, but my DM was a bit of a grognard who didn't believe in free feats. The result is we had a few less slots to fill with fun stuff since we used up our slots on the "feat taxes," but it's not like the game ground to a halt. Plus I hate the process of choosing feats out of a fucking giant alphabetically sorted list spread out over multiple books anyway so it worked out fine for me.

All things being equal I'd recommend at least giving out Improved Defenses or Unarmored Agility, and one weapon expertise (or even all of them) for free, but it's not going to bring the sky down if you don't. I definitely would at least alert the players that they SHOULD buy defense/expertise feats if you're not going to give them out.

>>50021755
I wouldn't give unarmored agility out for free

The only class that absolutely needs it is sorcerer. Wizards, psions, monks and avengers all like to take it, but it's not a steadfast required feat for them, merely an excellent choice when you're not sure what to pick

>>50021933
Seconding this.

Though as a DM, I'm up for letting a PC swap out leather proficiency for Unarmored Agility, if they want a cloth clad rogue or something. No one has ever taken me up on the offer, though.

File: 1423985014317.gif (403KB, 160x224px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 160x224px

Thinking of making a rogue for an upcoming game. Would a dex/cha rogue be good? What's a rogues best strength?

File: 1429580815452.gif (325KB, 245x138px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 245x138px

>>50021061
Cool. That's actually originally the modified inherent bonuses I created for my online game. Glad to see others are using it.... unless you're just one of my players, in which case G'DAY M8.

Pic Related MFW others are using my homebrew.
>>50021223
>Any bonus that explicitly references a "type" does not stack with other bonuses of the same "type".
>If you listed the bonuses supplied by that chart as "feat bonuses" then they wouldn't stack with improved defenses or unarmored agility or the armor specialization feats. But the innate bonuses rule states that all bonuses given by it are "enhancement bonuses", so it already doesn't stack with magical items.

As the creator of the chart, I can tell you it's intended to fold in the assumed numerical "feat bonus" feats, and feats no longer grant their numerical "feat bonuses" though some can still be taken for their effects that aren't numerical feat-bonuses (many rogues still want to take light blade expertise anyway for example.)

>>50022141
I found it posted here, probably by you, and I decided to give it a whirl.
I'll let you know how it goes.
>greentext
Oooh, that explains it.
Does it, as the previous anon said, count for the enhancement bonus as well?
If so, one of my optimizers may get fairly salty, but Idgaf.

>>50022136
As long as you aren't making a ruthless ruffian rogue, your rogue is probably good.

dex/cha rogues tend to be better at control than dex/str rogues, but worse at straight damage, but that's ok, because rogues will always be playing second fiddle to rangers in terms of straight damage.

That said, take dexterity melee training, even if your DM uses the nerfed version of melee training, you still need a decent MBA as a rogue, especially if you're planning to be a daggermaster

>>50022201
Was probably gonna focus on daggers and yeah the group seems to have a warlord so I know Dex training is mandatory. Right now the group seems to be fighter, rogue, warlord - and two undecided.

>>50022166
>Oooh, that explains it.
>Does it, as the previous anon said, count for the enhancement bonus as well?
>If so, one of my optimizers may get fairly salty, but Idgaf.
Well, I always say that a GM should use his/her best judgement, HOWEVER, if you want to use it as I intended it to work, the inherent does not stack with enhancement bonuses. Weapons and items still give their abilities other than enhancement bonuses. Yes, this does change the "meta" of what weapons, armor, and neck slots are optimal, however, in almost all cases this makes the more FUN choices optimal, and the "more numbers" options not optimal. In my opinion, this improves the game, though certain players who have memorized post-essentials power-builds do find it a hard pill to swallow.

>>50022166
By looking at the chart, I think it's safe to say that it's including enhancement bonuses for everything, and feat bonuses for attack and damage rolls. Basically it's just the inherent bonuses rule, + expertise, + weapon/implement focus

>>50022218
If you're using daggers, take the daggermaster paragon path.

Also, consider being a kenku, kenku make crazy good charisma rogues thanks to bonus accuracy when flanking

>>50020869
Personally I don't care much about the sort of optimized characters you often see in this threads, and I never felt the need to give out free feats, as I feel the game works well enough as is.
That said, I too tinkered with an unified table like the one the other Anon posted. I think feats are the weakest part of 4e, too many of them and often too small benefits. I'd rather throw out most of those ultra-conditional fiddly bonuses and use more themes and meatier feats.

>>50022267
What's a kenku?

>>50023330
A bird person.

http://funin.space/compendium/race/Kenku.html

>>49995881
>IDC if there's a copypasta, but if there is someone put it up.

D&D 4e General /4eg/
If you are GMing, remember...
1. To strongly consider giving out at least one free "tax feat," like Expertise and pre-errata Melee Training.
2. To use Monster Manual 3/Monster Vault/Monster Vault: Nentir Vale/Dark Sun Creature Catalog math. Avoid or manually update anything with Monster Manual 1 or 2 math.
3. That skill challenges have always been scene-framing devices for the GM, that players should never be overtly told that they are in a skill challenge, and that the Rules Compendium has the most up-to-date skill DCs and skill challenge rules.

If you would like assistance with character optimization, remember to tell us what the what the rest of the players are playing, what books are allowed, your starting level, the highest level you expect to reach, what free feats you receive, if anything is banned, whether or not themes are allowed, your starting equipment, and how much you dislike item-dependent builds.
If you wish to talk about settings, 4e's settings are Points of Light (the planes and the natural world's past empires are heavily detailed in various sourcebooks and magazines), 4e Forgotten Realms, 4e Eberron, 4e Dark Sun, and whatever setting you would like to bring into 4e.

Pastebin with all the useful links: http://pastebin.com/paPzDyS4

>>50022218
Footpad's Friend weapon, level 10, gives charisma rogues a lot of damage.

Looking at a Valor Bard, with a goal of offering team support while still being able to mix it up in fisticuffs.
I'm open to any advice people have to offer.

>>50024489
If you really want to mix it up in melee, I recommend being a half-elf and taking virtuous strike as your dilettante power. Then taking versatile master in paragon tier

Bards get a bunch of powers that involve them making basic attacks, doing this not only gives you a charisma-based basic attack, but now your basic attack gives an ally +2 to saving throws

>>50024489
Even if you want to melee it up, Staggering note is so great it'd be a waste not to take it.

The same's true of battle song expertise and mark of storm (if your DM allows it).

>>50024561
Another interesting power to take would be the Warlock's Eldritch Strike. It gives you a repositioning melee attack power as an at-will, which is pretty great.

I wish this thread wasn't dead.
Why can't we be the cool kids?

>>50026550
We're too busy playing to spend all our time shitposting on 4chan.

I wish

>>50026550
Be the change you want to see!

I think it's just that people who still play 4e basically more or less mastered the system to a degree they don't need help; and the electronic resources also help a lot with any questions they may have. With 5e out, new players are even fewer and farther in between, and of course, there's no new releases to discuss, and homebrewing for 4e is in that grey area where you do stuff you don't really need second opinions on, or it's just too much hassle (making a new class). The game had also been dissected to the point where there aren't many new "cool builds" to discover (nor a need to), and no controversial topic like Martial/Caster Disparity to drive the conversation forward.

I guess we could talk about the cool games we had. Or wish to have.

>>50027187
I've been desperately trying to revive this thread by mentioning certain easy-to-find 4e games around /tg/ to people who were out of games.
Unfortunately it wasn't particularly effective.

>>50027214
You can't force a grog to drink, only lead him to the non-toxic spring that is 4e.

File: im fine.jpg (38KB, 442x650px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 442x650px

> Currently in a thirty minute post-fight dinner pause in an online game
> Recently switched from PF to 4e
> Just before leaving, one of the players mentionned "I miss PF"

>>50027388
>> Just before leaving, one of the players mentionned "I miss PF"
Disgusting.

>>50027214
Certain easy-to-find 4e games you say?

>>50027409
The Guild Living Campaign on roll20.
It's pretty amazing, avoiding the common pitfalls of living campaigns and being actually, legitimately good. I was actually surprised myself by how good it is for a living campaign.
It's also where most roll20 4e players are.

File: followtherainbow.gif (203KB, 500x429px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 500x429px

>>50027400
I know! If at LEAST it was a pissy caster player late game, but no. We're level three, and that character's a barbarian. I just don't know anymore.

File: vomit rainbow.gif (544KB, 303x357px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 303x357px

>>50027436

>>50027388
I had this happen with a group. We switched from 3.PF to 4e, I offered to DM.

Fucking hunter ranger bitched about standing up not provoking AoOs, deducing that proning enemies now sucks, and that dailies are shit cause you can only use them once a day (as opposed to the 3.PF ranger just spamming spells left and right, right?) and the Artificier was butthurt he couldn't build a robot army at level 3.

File: Absolutely disgusting - Orel.png (654KB, 719x478px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 719x478px

>>50027548

;_;

>>50017161

Nope.

>create rush of water to temporarily blind a few people and get a party member out of a bad situation
Create Water can be made as rain within range. Cast over the targets and that's that many gallons falling in a turn.

>create pool of water underground to push away loose sand around an object we know is underneath via displacement (spawns in the space between the grains of sand)
This requires specifying that the object WAS a large stone bowl we needed to expose. Counts as an open container, DM couldn't argue that.

>create a turn of rain to locate an invisible level 20 rogue, negating the invisibility bonus for a turn
Again, it can be cast as rain. I knew the general area she was in.

Should point out that we were in 3.5, but it works about the same in 5e. Don't know about 4e, didn't do too much with it, just enjoyed what I played.

>>50013872
>And I can agree, team builds are definitely better in 4e
Team optimisation is a better idea than character optimisation in any imaginable system with build options
Optimising over multiple sets of options is superior than optimising over one set of options simply because there are more options to choose from.

>>50032195
It's a question of how much the system lets you do it.

We had a rogue who could charge for stupid damage in one group, if able to bring his Sneak Attack to bear with the charge he could usually one-shot bad guys. So after a few levels of seeing this, we thought "That's a neat trick that happens maybe once a fight, lets see what happens if we can force it happen more!" so the Leader and Controller picked up some forced movement and ally movement powers, so we could set up the positioning so the Rogue could get this uber sneak attack charge in 3-4 times in a fight. It was great.

To add on, I love playing characters that focus on helping others be awesome, no edition comes close to 4e as far as the options and effectiveness for people who want to play like that.

>>50032628
>It's a question of how much the system lets you do it.
I suppose I agree, though it's mostly a matter of degree.
Any system with multiple players in a team and build options supports team optimisation to one extent or another, so saying that it's somehow unique to 4e feels off.

>>50032800
It certainly isn't "unique" to 4e, but the design of the game lends itself to it more than most.

This will probably upset some folk, but I like the almost MtG was you could build combos, within your own character or between characters in the group.

Setting up and executing a big combo that most, if not all, of the group contributes to that produces a devastating effect, is in my opinion, far, far more exciting and accomplished feeling compared to "Wizard cast a spell and the bad guys blew their saves, so fight is over" things we'd get in 3.PF.

Does anyone here know anything about programming video games?

I firmly believe that we could create the 4e turn-based tactics RPG, a-la Final Fantasy Tactics or Disgaea, if we could all work together. The mechanics are all there for us.

>>50034835
The main issue with a 4e videogame is the number of off-turn actions available. Opportunity attacks, interrupt and reaction powers, assorted free actions, etc.

Ironically, the edition often accused of being a videogame is the least easily adapted to videogames.

Compare Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Temple of Elemental... Though that last one turns to shit outside of combat, it is an amazing 3e combat simulator.

>>50034922
In a game like Disgaea or FFT, I don't think that's as much of an issue as you make it out to be

It might slow gameplay down a bit, but a simple "Use X power now?" pop up when the trigger for a power is met is probably enough, with options for having it activate every time it can (defender mark punishments) or the first time it can be used per-encounter (encounter power immediate actions) if you don't want to see so many pop-up questions

>>50006969
4e isn't anything like what I look for in D&D.

It's not a bad game, and I sometimes play it when I want to play a weird SRPG with some D&D flavor bits thrown in, but when I want to "play D&D" I go for Pathfinder, 5e, 3.5e, or 2e.

>>50036444
The only thing 3.PF does that 4e doesn't is caster/martial disparity and natural language.

>>50036599
Nope. Here are a few examples of things 4e doesn't offer at all.

>Overall maximum power and versatility level.
Nothing in 4e plays like T1/2 Pathfinder. Even T3 Pathfinder tends to be capable of more than is easily accomplished in 4e.

>NonHP Win conditions.
Next to nonexistent in 4e. For instance: good luck defeating an enemy by reducing their attributes to 0 rather than their HP in a system where such a tactic is nonexistent.

>2e D&D Fluff is built-in by default.
I don't have to refluff (and recrunch) succubi to be demons, or make eladrin be what they were before 4e, or refluff Tieflings to be fiend-blooded (hell, Pathfinder goes a step further and has tiefling bloodlines so you can specify what KIND of fiend it is you're descended from).

>Level by level multiclassing.

>Vancian Spell Slots.
Because yes, D&D style magic is something I consider somewhat important if I'm running an existing D&D campaign setting.

With Pathfinder I can fairly easily pick up my 2e planescape book and run it, and the fluff already matches the crunch. Or 2e/3e Faerun. Or whatever.

>>50036599
>>50036681
>Prebuilt Iconic Monsters
When I played 4e, I recall many of the various D&D monsters didn't exist in a 4e bestiary.

It had a bunch of its own, but it didn't have conversions of everything from prior editions.

There's no prewritten rules for Dragonkin in 4e, as an example.

If I want to run a classic D&D setting with 4e, I have to filter out the wrong fluff from the right fluff, make sure my players know the difference, and invent the crunch for all sorts of creatures that they never bothered to stat out.

So uh.
Nope.

>>50036681
And this is where the "feels like DnD" issue sees it's actual problem

Everyone disagrees on what "feels like DnD", and since it's so important and so subjective, people get weirdly up in arms about it

For me, as long as it involves a classic dungeon crawl with traps, monsters and a big boos dude hoarding a lot of treasure at the end, it "feels like DnD". Everything else is just bells and whistles added on top in my opinion.

Also I personally can not comprehend why you would want non-HP win conditions that still involve combat like lowering ability scores. If you wanted to win without lowering HP, why did you choose to fight? Find another way to solve the problem, lure the vampire into sunlight, bargain with the fae-lord, steal the lich's phylactery etc. etc.

>>50036681
>>Overall maximum power and versatility level.
>Nothing in 4e plays like T1/2 Pathfinder. Even T3 Pathfinder tends to be capable of more than is easily accomplished in 4e.

>>NonHP Win conditions.
>Next to nonexistent in 4e. For instance: good luck defeating an enemy by reducing their attributes to 0 rather than their HP in a system where such a tactic is nonexistent.

You mean >caster/martial disparity?

>fluff

Okay, sure, if you are that fucking lazy/raterded that you can't even refluff/transplant fluff just keep playing AD&D because it has the exact flavor of whatever you like.

>Vancian Spellslots

You mean how the wizard works? You know you can select between multiple spells to fill your daily slots, right?

>>50036730
You don't need to invent crunch for creatures they never statted, they statted enough things that you can probably find something close enough and re-fluff it into what you want

>>50036730
>There's no prewritten rules for Dragonkin in 4e, as an example.

http://funin.space/index.php?search=dragonkin&folders%5B%5D=monster

>>50036766
To be fair, 4e wizards get a choice of two spells per daily level, 3.PF wizards get somewhere around 20 per spell-level

>>50036803
Expanded spellbook pushes it up to 3.

Plus, you have more spell levels, since they are not split to 1-9 (or at least you fill your spell levels faster).

>>50036748
And I typically go for the more 2e style exploration and quest campaigns, dungeon crawling is a side-aspect in my D&D games, rather than a primary feature.

Lowering Ability scores is only one alternate win condition. I also go for "permanently buried alive", or "permanently separated from us and no longer a concern".

>>50036766
You mean >caster/martial disparity?
I mean 4e is built to a T4 power level. If the type of gameplay I'm looking for is what you would get from a party of Druid Cleric Wizard Bard, or something of similarly high power level, 4e does not play at that power level.

The disparity is only problematic because of the gap between good and bad characters.

>"Refluffing most of the game is easy"
No, it's really not. Players will see something and they might refer to 4e rules, without realizing what parts of the 4e fluff is completely different.

I suppose I could tell them "assume ALL of the 4e fluff is wrong", but it is still more work than them just being able to refer to a book that already has the right fluff.

>4e wizard spell selection is equivalent to pre-4e wizard spellbooks and vancian slots
Not even a little bit.

>>50036768
Hunting for the right creature to refluff (assuming there's something that will fit the bill for whatever they didn't reprint) is still more work than looking up the monster you need by name, but sure, in some cases it could be easy to adapt somethign already done into what you're lacking.

None of this means 4e is a *bad* game, but if I'm looking to run D&D, 80% of the time that means either I want to run a Forgotten Realms or Planescape campaign of some kind, and with 2e/3e/PF/5e you can more or less just pick it up and go (5e you'll probably need DM's Guild material to fill in missing content, and may need to homebrew some stuff), and 4e is a very different sort of beast, which will require substantially more work. And so, when I want to play D&D, 4e is not a good fit.

>>50036854
If rather than my starting point being "I want to run a D&D campaign", it's just "I want to run a medium powered fantasy SPRG campaign", then yes, 4e is a good fit.

But using 4e to run a D&D campaign is more work than using several other editions of D&D and some spinoffs.

>>50036730
I don't get this complaint. I mean, first off you are comparing the first monster book of an edition with the entirety of another, which is stupid (and 4e got a TON of published material thanks to the magazines). Second, making new monsters in 4e is incredibly easy and it fucking works. Third, it's fluff - nobody mandates you to follow the default fluff of a game, especially in a game like 4e that is built to support reskinning.
Your post reeks of "I don't like cause it's not 3.5" which is a valid opinion but, no matter how much you coat it in long spiels, is just an opinion.

>>50036854
Your definition of D&D is either fucking retarded or bait.

>>50036681

Actually: Level by level multiclassing turned up in dragon magazine.

>>50036854
>I also go for "permanently buried alive", or "permanently separated from us and no longer a concern".

You can do this in 4e. You just don't have a spell that conveniently does it for you in 6 seconds.

>I mean 4e is built to a T4 power level.

Bullshit. They easily measure up to T3, and there are some abuses that can be easily considered T2 (if we are going by the 3.5 tier definitions).

>Players will see something and they might refer to 4e rules, without realizing what parts of the 4e fluff is completely different.

Which is where 4e shines, since the rules very rarely have fluff built into them.

>>4e wizard spell selection is equivalent to pre-4e wizard spellbooks and vancian slots
>Not even a little bit.

If you add rituals, it's pretty damn close.

>>50014804
In other editions you can (and are quite likely to) also one-shot a kobold yourself. You can't do that in 4E

>>50036854

>Lowering Ability scores is only one alternate win condition. I also go for "permanently buried alive", or "permanently separated from us and no longer a concern".

That was introduced in a dragon magazine option where it talked about expanding what '0 HP' means beyond the obvious. It could mean banishing someone to the astral for a year and a day, turning them to stone forever or stripping them of all powers. Almost anything as long as it's justifiable.

Heck 'Imprisoned underground' is one of the listed examples.

>>50036854

>5e you'll probably need DM's Guild material to fill in missing content, and may need to homebrew some stuff

Wait...so your complaint about 4e also applies to 5e then? As DM's guild is sanctioned homebrew, not official WOTC material.

>>50036892
>what are minions?

>>50036854
T3-equivalent is absolutely the norm in 4e, with characters having broad areas of competence with strong specialties.

It gets difficult to compare in some aspects since 4e doesn't default to "impossible unless you have a spell for it" for many tasks, though, so measuring utility abilities is a bit tricky.

>>50036892

Sure you can. There is a heap of minion options in kobold.

>>50036913

Yeah, 4e is more 'Sure, fine the applicable skill and roll it' rather than having spells replace everything.

Wow, this thread is almost alive today.

>>50036922
Which is quite a bit cooler.

>>50036912
>>50036914
False equivalency. Then in previous editions you should compare 1st level PCs to those kobold women and children you see in the lair descriptions and in Caves of Chaos

>>50036967

How is it a false equivalency? Minions are a very viable threat and often come with nasty tricks. It's not like they are non-combatants.

>>50036872
We actually mostly used the website, not just one monster manual.

And yes, you can homebrew the monsters (or find one that's close, reskin it, and tweak whatever you have to). But its far more convenient to not have to.

>"I don't like cause it's not 3.5"
I like 4e fine, just not for the kind of campaign I reach for D&D for. I also like 2e and 5e, despite neither of them being 3.5.

>>50036891
4e Characters have a very small pool of different powers. I'm inclined to say significantly less than the variety of abilities offered by your typical T3 character, and far less variety than your typical T2 character.

My point still stands that "T1 Adventuring Party" is not a gameplay style which 4e can do.

Yes, it's classes are all close to the same power level/tier. But if that's not the power level you're looking for for your campaign, you're kind-of SOL.

>>50036891
Rituals or not, I'm not solely talking about the number of options that exist, I'm also talking about the number of options a single character can know, and the actual "Vancian Spell Slots of Different Spell Levels" schtick, which is a defining factor of mages in most D&D settings.

>>50036892
This post is not me. But 4e does tend to have far more drawn-out combat. You can't rig a combat in your favor and end it in a round or so like shooting fish in a barrel nearly as easy as in older editions.

>>50036882
I did not know this.

>>50036905
The fact that it's sanctioned and sold on a WotC site, and more importantly, readily available in a convenient location so I don't have to make it myself, is the point. Not whether or not WotC employees are the ones who wrote it. But yes, if you were to ignore all DMs Guild content, some of my reasons for not using 4e when I want a "D&D Campaign" would also apply to 5e.

>>50036854
4e works fine with higher power level games

You just need to use higher level characters

Epic-tier characters can do some crazy shit. Like spontaneously reincarnating themselves in the middle of combat. Or teleporting between all the planes to chase down a fleeing foe. Or stealing intangible things, like a man's ambition, or the color of someone's eyes

>>50036980

>4e Characters have a very small pool of different powers. I'm inclined to say significantly less than the variety of abilities offered by your typical T3 character

What t3 characters have significantly more options than a 4e character?

I'm thinking of running this character once my current one dies. My DM said he'd allow it, but my question is, should I?
Character description: It's two gnomes on top of eachother in a trench coat, though they insist they are a single human. They were twins at birth, but when went to go sign up for the military as per their father's wishes, they refused to be sepperated so they both faked their own deaths. They got a trench coat and went signed up for the military. They some how made it through the military, though by the time they left the military they'd became so disillusioned that they actually believed they were one single human, and they could not remember their lives before the military. Later the two studied religion and became a paladin. Until they felt they'd accomplished enough went back to their small village to live out the rest of their lives in peace, as a single human. That was until duty called again...

Think it could work?

>>50036979
In older editions, 1HD monsters are roughly eqivalent (as a challenge at least) to a 1st level PC. In 3.X (and 3e+ that is 5e) 1/4 CR serve the same function.

4E has monster levels for that. Equal-level standard monsters serve the function of being a fair challenge. Minions do not; they exist to be used in small mobs and therefore aren't quite the same as an encounter with an equal amount of gobbos in earlier editions.
Now, sure, if I were to put something like 1-2 HD creatures of AD&D and (theoretical and missing from rules) same level half-standard monsters from 4E, it would be a similar opposition against a 1st level party of its edition.

Sorry if the explanation of my position is a bit jumbled, I'm pretty sick.

>>50036985
>A high level 4e wizard is significantly less capable than a high level 2e or 3e wizard.
Would you not agree?

Regardless of which effects exist (I'm not going to look for specific examples that don't exist, though I'm sure there are such examples), a 4e wizard won't have nearly as many slots to work with, let alone as many spells known.

>>50036997
I'm not sure why you're stuck on such a minor point, but sure, I'll bite:

A Bard in Pathfinder eventually has 30 spells per day with unlimited cantrip casting, 40 spells known, bardic knowledge, 22+Cha (lets say 5 at minimum) rounds per day of Bardic Performance, and 12 different kinds of performances.

That's 30+27=57 uses of abilities before he runs out of them entirely.

And
40+12+1=53 different abilities.

PLUS a good selection of skills.

Good luck finding many 4e characters that have that kind of variety.

>>50037044
Depends very heavily on the tone of the campaign.

>>50036980
The pool of powers available at any one time is small, but keep in mind there are a lot of powers that you can take in 4e, and you can retrain a power every level if you to change things up

>>50037059
It's silly, and stupid shit is allowed to happen. So I feel it could work.

>>50036892
You can if you're using MM3 math. And playing a striker.

>>50037067
I suggest you play a chaladin and get Bluff as a trained skill. Then have fun.

>>50037072
Yeah, and blow a daily.

>>50037063
The pool of powers you have at any one time in 4e is quite anemic, IMO.

But anyways.

4e plays fine, and it's a fun SRPG, despite the things I dislike about it.

But, as I pointed out over many posts, is not a good fit for everything someone might want D&D for.

Sure, if you just want a game that can handle dungeon crawls with a "medium heroic" power level, it does that just fine.

But if you're wanting something more specific than that out of D&D, or something different than that which older editions of D&D had some kind of support for, 4e is not necessarily a good fit.

And thusly I say to >>50036599, once again:
>"Nope"

>>50037081
Nah man, just a good encounter power. Though that's 'can' one shot, not guaranteed one shot.

Alternatively, you can play a two-weapon ranger and use off-hand strike + twin strike + quarry. Boring, but effective.

>>50037130
>Sure, if you just want a game that can handle dungeon crawls with a "medium heroic" power level, it does that just fine.
You've never played a campaign past heroic tier, have you?

>>50037170
Played up to 19. Why?

>>50037057
>30 spells per day with unlimited cantrip casting,

4e characters have unlimited at-wills and can use encounter powers unlimited times as long as they get a ~5 minute rest inbetween.

This puts their "spells per day" at higher than 30 for sure.

>40 spells known

A 4e bard will have more rituals known and you didn't even get into their powers yet.

>bardic knowledge
>PLUS a good selection of skills.

4e bard has it. In fact, he can grab a feat that essentially makes him trained in all skills. They can literally do everything with skills.

>22+Cha (lets say 5 at minimum) rounds per day of Bardic Performance, and 12 different kinds of performances.

Are essentially an encounter powers (except you can use encounter powers in every encounter, guaranteed).

>>50036892
In 4e I once one-shot Tiamat

Well, I say one-shot, but I mean I blew two dailies, two encounter powers and an action point combined with a cheesy crit-fishing build that has since been nerfed in errata.

Still, I killed Tiamat before she took a single turn

>>50037183

Because Paragon and Epic allow some pretty damn crazy things. I mean, my Monk can turn into a damn fire elemental and an Epic character can bring his future self back in time to save his ass if a fight goes bad.

>>50037200

Oh, that build. That's a build I haven't heard about in the longest time.

Yeah, that fucker needed to get nerfed and I'm glad it did.

>>50037204
Epic allows for some crazy cool stuff, but I guess you can't wipe out whole armies with single spells? You have to spend several rounds and work at it if you want to kill an army.

>>50037226
Depends on the army in question. If they are statted out as swarms/minions, with the right build, it could happen.

>>50037226
Well hold on, an army in 4e would be represented as a gargantuan swarm of medium-sized creatures right?

A sorcerer with the blizzard mage PP and the archspell ED combined with frost-damage optimization might be able to do it with their super-powered Blizzard

>>50037233
>>50037237
Ok, if you want to model it as a big swarm, but not sure how much of an army that is.

Maybe several big swarms, which would still take a few rounds due to the space they would take up.

A gargantuan swarm would only be representing, what? 50-100 guys at most? Not really an "army".

>>50037251
Then again, you also aren't killing more than that in 5e, especially not in one turn.

>>50037189
>Unlimited At-Wills.
>At-Wills are better than cantrips.
Advantage there, true.

>can use encounter powers unlimited times as long as they get a ~5 minute rest in between.
Seems unlikely to go through enough encounters with breaks in between for this to come up, but theoretically possible, I suppose.

>More rituals known
Perhaps, but last I checked, rituals can't be used when you're pressed for time, which is why I wasn't considering them. You can't generally use them in combat, or while being chased, or what have you.

This is the big difference between the two, I feel. The bard will have a wide variety of available powers /IN COMBAT/, whereas the 4e bard will only have a handful. Not to mention, unless they're at-wills, the 4e bard can only use them once in an encounter, or in the case of dailies, 1/day, whereas the bard can use whatever one he wants until he runs out of steam.

>Skills
Probably an equal match here.

>Bardic Performance is an encounter power
Huh? How is that?
>I know *12* of them.
>I can use whichever one I want, whenever I want, until I run out of juice.
>I can switch from one to another and back again, in a single fight.
This in addition to my spells.

>>50037204
Paragon and Epic allow for some cool things, but the number of cool things you can do in a combat scenario is still pretty limited, and the number of in-combat abilities which make permanent battlefield changes are also very limited. Contingent effects in 4e? Also very limited.

>>50037270
>Seems unlikely to go through enough encounters with breaks in between for this to come up, but theoretically possible, I suppose.
15 minute workday isn't the norm in 4e.
Going through half a dozen encounters or even more in one adventuring day isn't uncommon at all.

>>50037277
Healing Surges are daily limited, aren't they?

And I don't expect 15 minute workday, I expect like, on average, 20 ish rounds of combat, and 4-6 encounters in a day.

The 4e character would certainly have more uses in a day (at least before considering performances) of their limited use abilities, in a day with many more rounds of combat, so long as they were many small fights rather than less, longer fights.

>>50037301
>Healing Surges are daily limited, aren't they?
First, surgeless healing exists. Second, depending on average encounter difficulty, they can take quite a while to eat through.

>>50037301
Anywho, it's late, and I have to get up in 6h, I should have gone to bed 2 hours ago.

Later.

>>50037311
>First, surgeless healing exists.
So do megalixers but you don't spam those every round in any FF game that isn't 7

>>50037277
15 minute workday is not the norm because any sane DM would say "You wake up surrounded by 150 goblins and 50 orcs because they were tired of you nuking the dungeon one room per day."

>>50037270
>Seems unlikely to go through enough encounters with breaks in between for this to come up, but theoretically possible, I suppose.

You can use them out of combat. I do not know all the encounter utilities a bard has by heart, but there's bound to be something good there.

>Perhaps, but last I checked, rituals can't be used when you're pressed for time, which is why I wasn't considering them. You can't generally use them in combat, or while being chased, or what have you.

Oh, so this is about combat viability? Well then, you may as well cross off basically every spell off of the bard list that has a save, as they are basically only useful against enemies you wouldn't waste slots on anyway because of how the saves scale in 3.5. Well, okay, maybe you can try to use the 5-6 ones. The remainder are buff spells which are best used out of/before combat. Bard in-combat casting is extremely limited in 3.PF, much more than power use in 4e.


>Huh? How is that?
>I know *12* of them.

But how many do you *use*?

>I can use whichever one I want, whenever I want, until I run out of juice.

IIRC a bunch of performances are just "use X rounds, effect happens".

>I can switch from one to another and back again, in a single fight.

Fair enough, this makes them work more like the Skald's aura I guess (which bards can pick up).

>>50037355
>IIRC a bunch of performances are just "use X rounds, effect happens".
I've now just realised bardic performances are basically a point magic system.

>>50037355
>>50037444
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard#TOC-Bardic-Performance

I just skimmed them, didn't see any that consumed extra rounds on use.

>>50037493
Quick example:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/bardic-masterpieces/masterpieces/ancients-flight
Use: 2 bardic performance rounds per round.

>>50037507
>>50037493
I was sorta mixing it up with those.

>>50037507
Oh. Those aren't regular performances. They either take a feat or make you lose a spell slot. But okay sure, those ones do take extra uses.

>>50036681
While I personally disagree that any of those things are "Essentially D&D," all of those arguments are valid under the assumption that they are essentially D&D...... except

>I don't have to refluff (and recrunch) succubi to be demons, or make eladrin be what they were before 4e, or refluff Tieflings to be fiend-blooded (hell, Pathfinder goes a step further and has tiefling bloodlines so you can specify what KIND of fiend it is you're descended from).

in 4e, re fluffing takes literally seconds to do. It is a zero-effort speedbump that shouldn't interfere with anything ever.

The rest is a matter of taste, but I had to nitpick, because the incredible EASE with which 4e can be re-fluffed is indeed a feature for many of us who play it.

>There's no prewritten rules for Dragonkin in 4e, as an example.
There are DOZENS of monsters at both MM1-2 and MM3-MV math that can easily be refluffed into a dragonkin with zero effort and negligible time.

IF you REAAAAALY need to make it yourself, because you're paranoid that your players will notice you refluffing monsters (protip: they won't in 4e) making monsters from scratch is easier in 4e than in any other edition.

File: catsup.jpg (27KB, 566x242px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 566x242px

>>50036980
>I also like 2e and 5e, despite neither of them being 3.5.
>5e
>Not 3.5

Really.... REALLY?

Come on. 5e is 3.5 with the obvious holes filled in with flex-seal, and with a new fresh coat of paint. There are almost no changes. All the changes are improvements, but there are almost no changes.

>>50037555
To be fair, I personally feel 5e is a downgrade from 3.5, simply because of how dumbed down it is.

>>50037801
Honestly, if I hadn't read FATAL I'd be surprised at the idea of there being a dumber ruleset than 3.5.

>>50037555
I dislike system with hard stops built in 'just because balance'. Why should a campaign stop at 20th level?

>>50037801
Tell us how things are "dumbed down". Keep in mind that "large number of options" is not a good thing.

>>50037857
Never looked at Rifts or WoD have you?

Both are unilaterally worse than 3.5.

File: 1454902417570.jpg (43KB, 211x204px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 211x204px

>>50037857
>read FATAL
Oh you poor bastard, what were you thinking?!

>>50037868
>Tell us how things are "dumbed down".
There are almost no options at all and thus it's impossible to implement way too many character concepts.

>>50037355
>this makes them work more like the Skald's aura

This got me thinking.

Half-elf of any class can pick up the skald powers. Using them as encounter powers doesn't matter, since you can't switch them anyway (since you only have one).

You can also pick up the skald aura as a simple multiclass feat.

Now, we only need a class that makes lots of MBA-s...

Hunter Ranger sounds fun with this setup.

>>50037876
That's not "dumbed down" anon. And don't give me this crap about "concepts", D&D has been a game that actively punishes concepts that stray outside the AC/save/HP scaling since 3e.

>>50037890
Core 4e and Essentials don't mesh well, news at 11.

>>50037876
The lack of options does hurt, but honestly I'd disagree on character concepts

It hurts the number of "build" concepts, but build and character concepts are two very different things


Or maybe I'm just biased because finally, after so 3 and a half editions of waiting, it's finally possible to make a monk that can throw a fireball in 5e, and I can finally be a street fighter character

>>50037926
Ok, build be a mad scientist character.
Alchemy over magic, construct building, that kinda shit.

>>50037922
That's technically all Essentials.

>>50037926
>it's finally possible to make a monk that can throw a fireball in 5e,
Kineticist in Pathfinder is kinda that.

>>50037935
Not him, but:
>Artificer
>Take summoning powers.
>Maybe one of the Eberron familiars so you have a permanent construct pet.
>Alchemist theme.
>Sling alchemist fire all day.
Fucking done, mate, with plenty of room for customization, too.

>>50037943
Unchained Monk CAN do that.

>>50037890
Elementalist sorcerer can abuse it the best

Primary stats line up with the half-elf bonuses, you have a big-meaty RBA that is also an arcane at-will and you use charisma, so you don't need to waste attribute points on an otherwise useless attribute to afford the multiclass feat

>>50037950
I was asking about 5e, fampai, not 4e.
I know how to do it in 4e.

>>50037938
Half-elf had to be updated when PHB3 came out to clarify that you can only take 1st level at-wills.

I'm not convinced being able to take Essentials at-will powers wasn't an oversight.

File: 1412526758283.jpg (38KB, 251x231px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 251x231px

>>50037955
Ah, sorry. It's pretty late night where I am, must've misread.

>>50037952
Hunter's advantage would come from making more MBAs/turn, meaning more buff handing out.

My other runner ups would have been Fighter (cause Opportunities and punishes) or Barbarian (cause crits grant MBAs).

...

Could actually put it on top of Barb | Sorc hybrid.

>>50037978
Dw, famalam, I know you had good intentions at heart.

>>50037964
The skald powers are listed as level 1 at-will attacks for some reason.

>>50037955
That is how you do it in 5e... almost

Artificer wizard from the Eberron unearthed arcana as your class and specialization. Rock gnome race for the tinker trait. Sage background. Then just fluff your spells as alchemy

>>50038019
>just refluff a wizard
ayy
Lemme raise the difficulty a notch, here's the backstory of an actual Pathfinder player character of mine, which I had no effort statting up with relatively little refluffing:

>Two Hobgoblins, Seri and Beri, were bitter rivals in life. They were sisters, but hated each other due to differing views and lifestyles: Seri was thrilled by magic and loved experimenting with it and harnessing its' destructive power, while Beri saw magic as nothing but foul trickery that is beneath a true warrior. With years, this bitter enmity resulted in them fighting to the death, with both dying in the fight. But then, something went wrong: they went to the afterlife together. Literally. For some reason, their souls were conjoined in one vessel as they arrived to Acheron, making for an agonising existence for both of them.
>However, Seri thought quick and managed to use her magic create a second vessel in the form of a raven, fit to bear a soul, splitting them apart and dramatically improving their existence. But it was not perfect - they were still tightly bound together and constantly fought for the control over the main vessel instead of the raven, while, at the same time, having to learn how to live in Acheron, drawing on each other's powers to fight more effectively and eventually blending their martial style into one, combining magic and steel.

>>50038061
Fuck I dunno, it's very fluff-heavy and crunch-light isn't it?

The only guidelines I have are "uses magic and martial skills" and "has a familiar", everything else is just a matter of how you roleplay it.

I'd say your best bet is to make a bladesinger wizard, but only because I can't remember what gets the find familiar spell aside from wizards in 5e

>>50038101
>The only guidelines I have are "uses magic and martial skills" and "has a familiar", everything else is just a matter of how you roleplay it.
The point of the character was that the character had two sets of abilities switchable with a swift action, while the raven was also a very capable combatant, able to use the character's abilities in combats and sharing ability scores.

>>50038106
Oh, well in that case, refluff a moon druid. Wildshaping is just the martial personality taking over and the raven is your animal companion

>>50038119
Moon druid doesn't have an animal companion tho. But you can just pick up a familiar through the ritual caster feat.

>>50027388
To give an update on that, actually things ended up less badly than I first feared. What the player mentionned was that she made that barbarian in PF with certain expectations regarding what to do, and the change of system meant a change in capabilities. So rather than considering a return to that, by the end of the second fight, she was much thinking towards changing a few things from her build, or changing class. Given she was surprised she couldn't "just rage" and had to hit someone to do that, I've asked her to look into warden.
And the rest of the group is adapting nicely enough. The druid feels a bit useless, because he's in for the bear form, and nobody can really exploits the combat advantages he grants to their fullest potential. So again we'll consider changes in builds, though I'm gonna make sure for the next fight to have a tightly packed group of foes so his AoEs can shine properly. As for our bard, he actively wanted something as noncombattant as possible, and thinks killing kobolds by insulting them is hilarious.

>>50038144
Just to clarify (although I assume you already know), you still rage if you miss with the rage power. It's in the "effect" line not the "hit" line.

Also, another interesting proposition (imo) would be the berserker, which is a bit more like the traditional barb. On the other hand it's... not really great, admittedly.

>>50038144
You can rage without hitting someone in 4e, keep in mind that the rage is an "effect" of the rage powers, so it happens whether the attack hits or not, so you can just rage attack empty air to enter a rage without hitting somebody and enter the rage that way

Stupid as fuck to do that though, rage powers tend to hit really hard

>>50038144
>and had to hit someone to do that
Isn't the 'rage' part of rage powers an effect independent of the attack? They happen whether you hit something or not, it's just you take a swing as part of activating them.

Though that's probably arguing semantics.

>>50038144
I'm glad it's working out for ya, famalamski.

>>50036985
>Or stealing intangible things, like a man's ambition, or the color of someone's eyes
I'd really like to play a Thief of Legend one day

>>50037873
While I'm aware they're both fucked up, too, from what I know WoD at least runs simply, which is more than can be said for 3.5, where there are rules all over the place that appear to only exist for the purpose of complicating mechanical procedures without actually contributing anything to the game.

And then you have things like the lava rules, that don't really... make executing the mechanics that much worse but are just utterly, completely baffling.

>>50038162
>>50038164
>>50038165
Oh, I meant hit someone as in, swing your axe at someone, I realized and told that even with a miss, the rage still happens. Hadn't considered attacking no targets (due to how much of a waste it is) but yeah, options.

File: 1400122616736.jpg (27KB, 500x362px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x362px

>>50038380
> WoD at least runs simply

>>50038412
Never played it, knew a lot of LARPers in my late teens so you'll understand if I stayed as far away from the related systems as possible, but the big argument that's always come up for it is that it's easy to play.

Starting up a campaign with some weirdos from a Discord chat. One's gone Assassin|Rogue heavy MC Bard who is like the second most experienced guy, one's running an Infernal Warlock|Assault Swordmage with no experience at all, someone's thinking of joining and I'm not quite sure if they will, and apparently I'm bound to be the Leader AGAIN. Oh well, at least it's possibly a Shaman. Don't wanna play Wood Elf again, but Eagle Shaman's shaping up to be the best and +17 Initiative at Level 1 is disgusting, especially for a Leader. I could run Shaman|Artificer, but I can't make it actually be decent fluff-wise.

>>50038412
Have you played WoD since Masquerade, anon, where they got rid of jumping target numbers, combat involving 5+ separate rolls per combat action, per character, the wildly disparate power levels per character within the same splat with the same xp expenditure fluffed as "immersive"?

>>50038476
Don't listen to the other Anon. WoD is fine, the latest edition is pretty good mechanically and miles away from 3.5. He probably is thinking of the older editions, which are 20+ years old and thus not really comparable.

Also, I'm not sure why this thread turned into a pissing contest, but I don't see much point to it.

>>50038829
>Assassin|Rogue

Also known as "I'll combat advantage myself, kthxbai"

> Infernal Warlock|Assault Swordmage with no experience at all

Aw shit, I hope someone's around to help out. Hybrids need some experience. Also, generous heaps of extra feats.

Eagle Shaman looks like a pretty fun leader. Maybe switch it up and go with something like longtooth Shaman | Runepriest?

>>50038925
>Also, I'm not sure why this thread turned into a pissing contest, but I don't see much point to it.

Because we refuse to let go of fights we've had, regardless of how many decades pass.

>>50038974
Swordlock is actually not at all that complicated to deal with, you warlock around on your turn, Eldritch Strike for your punishment, and pick minor/off-turn swordmage attacks. Grab Sword Burst for the swordmage at-will for AoE option, and you're pretty much set.

>>50038829
Consider making a runepriest

They're boring as fuck to build due to their limited power pool, but they're quite fun to play as

>>50039245
The problem is that you're still doing a 16/16 build, and swordmages, probably more so than even the other defenders, love having a starting 20 in their primary stat

>>50039262
Plus you need to get both your aegis and your curse on the same dude. A bit of a minor action clog there.

>>50039281
I don't think it's a huge problem, actually. If you're not close enough to mark, curse, and attack, you leave the marking until your next turn when you're planning on fucking off and beating on someone else anyway. Grab White Lotus Riposte to punish them if they hit you (since they're not marked anyway) and slide them so you're between them and your party.

Amusing trick: For the hybrid, Hobgoblins have perfect ability scores, and with 13 Str you can also grab a penalty-less heavy shield instead of Warding, freeing you up to use a flail so you can pile on flail support on that Eldritch Strike slide. Hobgoblins incidentally also have a weapon proficiency plus damage bonus feat for flails.

>>50039262
That's because it governs both attack and defense for them, but the warlock half has the stronger offense anyway so it's the 20 starting is a lot less attractive anyway.

>>50039426
Careful with the flail thing, you still need to use an implement, and swordmages only get inherent implement proficiency with heavy blades and light blades, not flails

>>50039550
At its simplest, just grab ki focus proficiency and call it a day. There's a bunch of other avenues, too, of course, like just keeping a different implement on hand for your implement attacks. Hell, you could even get one of those shield enchantments that make it a blade...

Just for the record, you don't actually need to use an implement. You could go your entire career only ever making weapon attacks, but you'd be a bit worse off for no swordburst and a narrower power selection. Essentially, all your standard action attacks would be Eldritch Strike or some daily with an encounter-long effect.

>>50039620
The still leaves you with your expertises all over the place... which is one of the reasons why I said originally that you'll need a bunch of feats.

Also, unless you are picking up some Infernal only feat (and I can't recall any good ones off hand) going with sorcerer-king pact is pretty good because it opens up the mindbite scorn feat, which is amazing.

>>50037964
>Half-elf had to be updated when PHB3 came out
There were non-first-level-attack-power at-wills already in the first PHB. Cleric utility power Holy Lantern. Divine Challenge and Lay on Hands. Rogue Fleeting Ghost, Great Leap, Chameleon, Nimble Climb, Shadow Stride utility powers. Wizard Cantrips. The ability needed clarification regardless of what was in PHB3.

>>50039794
Worst possible case you grab two expertise feats, and frankly Flail Expertise would be worth it even without the to hit bonus.

SK pact is the default, yeah, but infernal isn't bad when you can spend your Hybrid Talent on picking up the full thing. You'll be shitting THP, which should help make up for the AC loss compared to full swordmage.
I think infernal has some shenanigan feats, too, but Mindbite Scorn is Mindbite Scorn. The SK pact feats are less attractive since the lesser ones all rely on Hand of Blight, though.

>>50015375
Yeah. It tells the same sorts of stories using the same sorts of themes, but it does so primarily through the medium of much more robust grid-based tactical battles (and skill challenges). 4e feels a lot more granular and structured than other editions to me (in a good way, as long as you're playing to its strengths). I had a DM once try to use 4e to run a game that was all social stuff and political intrigue taking place in one city, and that did not go well. I don't think ANY edition of D&D is designed to do that kind of thing well, but it's especially true for 4e. The bard and the rogue had a good time (since they had powers that had social uses), but for everyone else things were awful.

>>50041428
The key to running intrigue/social in D&D is "don't afraid to step away to freeform".

>>50041947
Fuck, I can't write for shit.

>>50041428
>>50041947
I don't know, I find that skill challenges work well in the games I run - I know that those are little more than freeform with occasional rolls, but that's enough for what I need. Of course it's not one of the strenghts of the system but at least it's something to work with.

>>50041428
Yeah, you kinda waste half the system if you don't do battles often. "Intrigue only" also limits the number of skills that can be applied, and makes the variety of skills used pretty barren.

>>50042011
But isn't that the point?
You use the system for combat and free-form for non-combat.
I'm pretty sure that's a big part of the philosophy of the 4e.

>>50042618
Right, but if you never have combats you are missing the best and most supported part of the system.

>>50043774
Well, yes.
Ideally you'd have a well-balanced mix of the two, though.

>>50038829
>Infernal Warlock|Assault Swordmage
What the fuck is he even trying to do?

>>50044684
That's one of the standard hybrid builds (well, I'm sure SK Warlock is a more common half). You punish mark disobedience by teleporting in and smacking them with Eldritch Strike, getting your bonus curse damage. It basically plays like a higher damage Swordmage.

So I'm about to play DnD for the first time on friday, but it's going to be my friend's first time as a DM and he's only done one campaign that ended with everyone dying half way through, is it a good idea for a first timer like me to be playing with a first time DM?

>>50041428
>>50041947
>>50042003
I'm slightly sore about it because in that particular game, the DM didn't warn me before letting me make an antisocial Shardmind telekineticist with a negative Charisma modifier.

Also, since all of my powers listed that they did damage, the moment I used one of them (on an NPC who was harassing it, and it wanted through) it was arrested for assault (because it had inflicted HP damage).

Pretty much every power I had dealt HP damage, which meant I could basically only make mundane skill rolls in order to interact with the world.

While playing a race AND class defined by having psychic powers.

That was not a good game.

I'm still convinced I could have had fun if the game had been a traditional dungeoncrawler (or, conversely, if the DM had just vetoes my 8 CHA telekineticist with the explanation that that sort of character wouldn't be any fun in that campaign and had me roll up a bard instead or something).

>>50042618
>You use the system for combat and free-form for non-combat.
>I'm pretty sure that's a big part of the philosophy of the 4e.
Not having noncombat uses for my psychic powers also drained practically all of the flavor out of playing a psion for me, as well. Back in ye olde 3.x my psions did almost all of their psion stuff outside of combat helping the party with utility stuff.

>>50045220
If you trust him to try to run a good game, and to be able to take feedback, good and bad, then it's perfectly fine.
I'd rather have new players who are enthusiastic to play then experienced players who try to backseat gm.

>>50045302
>>50045326
DM should have allowed you to rebuild, or at least use powers creatively.

>>50045373
Yeah. I retired that character via having it break out of jail, walk off the island into the sea, and then just decide to sit down there until all those people that had been pissing it off died of old age. Then I was going to roll up something with a positive CHA modifier and some actual utility powers, like a cleric or something, but I ended up leaving that community for unrelated reasons before I got the chance.

I don't have anything against the guy, but I really feel like 4e D&D was one of the worst systems he could have picked for the sort of game he was trying to run.

>>50045373
>>50045420
I got some half-decent use out of Tenser's Floating Disc (the character was effectively a homeless person, and wandered through the city with all its equipment floating behind it on said disc, within eyesight so it didn't get robbed), but that one like ten-minute ritual spell was basically the only out-of-combat telekinesis I had (aside from a racial at-will power that let me float one object at a time as long as it weighed under 2 pounds, or something, but that wasn't particularly useful - it mostly used it for lugging its psionic implement around).

I was mostly annoyed that the gloves of Mage Hand the Rogue got made him, essentially, better at telekinesis than my dedicated telekineticist.

The TK build for psions in 4e was not well written. I've heard telepaths are pretty good, though, but I'd been playing those sorts of characters in other games and wanted to try something different.

>>50045360
I wouldn't exactly call him enthusiastic, the reason he died was because he was doing something on his laptop while the other players were essentially leading him along, and at one point, he was about to walk into a spike pit, the DM told him that he was about to walk into a trap, but not knowing what kind of trap it was, he still insisted he just walk past it

>>50045479
The optimal psion is a Shaper Int/Cha Psion with Dishearten and Mind Thrust as two permanently selected at-wills.

>>50044922
With half your powers being inaccurate as shit because they're CON based.

>>50045668
Hybrids with different primaries are SHIIIIIIIIIIIT, SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT.

>>50045668
That's retarded, they're one point of to hit behind your normal optimized Swordmage with 20 Int, nevermind the fact that it's still mostly weapon attacks against a NAD come Paragon, with a pile of bonus damage and riders.

>>50045942
Who the fuck deluded you into thinking 18/18 is bad?

How do I make 4e spooky?

>>50044684
Using Eldritch Strike to punish hard, taking powers without modifiers as a Swordmage or that use CON, and being that big mean bastard with a sword that's on the neck of someone while being a threat to some asshole far away.

Decided to go with Half-Elf Cleric|Animist Shaman, shooting for Soul Igniter and finding increased crit roles. Pretty balanced melee build, uses a Falchion 'cause it was military. Should be fun. Honestly I originally wanted to test out the idea of a half-lazy Ranger which would be like a Half-Elf Warlock|Ranger going for Fake Skald using only Eldritch Strike, but nah.

Also, to the "16/16 spread is shit anon" - that's a goddamn Warden, who is wayy before hybrids.

>>50045420
I'm sorry about your game; I've found that 4e is not very forgiving in the hands of GMs who bring in assumptions that don't fit with the game.
That said, as a psion you should have had a free telekinesis encounter power for class, and possibly the chance to use your attack powers too. It's fiat, sure, but it's encouraged in the books.

>>50045479
The good psion powers only have ability score riders, not specialization riders. So while the telepathy powers are good, the telepathy specialization is not, so shaper psions with telepath powers are the best psions

With living missile, because that is the most fun daily

>>50047759
>the good
There are no specialization riders for psions.

Shaper spec is fine, but the other specializations do have some decent feat support, sometimes depending on race (kalashtar?).

>>50046271
16/16 isn't inherently shit. But swordmages get AC, basic attacks, and their attack riders running off of the same stat, not to mention arcana, which they can abuse with the sage of ages ED if they go that far.

No other defender class uses dexterity or intelligence as their primary stat. Swordmages can use this to get obscene amounts of AC

>>50045966
>Who the fuck deluded you into thinking 18/18 is bad?
At the very least it's quite sub-optimal for most builds. Granted, we're not talking 3.5-level gaps between optimal and sub-optimal, but still.

>>50050984
Found the dex-only player. Other ability scores actually have feat prerequisites to meet.

>>50050984
Oh what the fuck. It's ONE POINT of difference, at most two at epic. Disu shittu is why we 4e players pass for autistic numbercrunchers.

>>50050984
>At the very least it's quite sub-optimal for most builds.
What builds are you playing?

I mean, going INT/CON with an assault swordmage misses out on a lot of riders, but there's still a huge benefit to having high CON over pumping everything into INT.

Features, riders and feats, my friend. They can make a world of difference.

>>50051200
Most things using dexterity, primary or secondary, can go 18 primary pre-racial and still qualify for stuff. I assume that's what the anon is used to.

>>50048384
Swordmages have lots of Con riders as well, not to mention the fact that in this case their basic attack does run on Con. Your argument would make sense if Int actually was the primary offensive stat for a warlock|swordmage, but it isn't.
Unless you Intelligent Blademaster your Eldritch Strike, in which case you could go for the 20 Int and just grab all non-standard action attacks (which you were likely to do anyway). You'd be sacrificing a lot of flexibility, though.

>>50050984
Absolutely not true. For most builds, a 20 compromises defenses, durability, and rider effects. It's prohibitively expensive.

>>50051216
Some int primaries like wizards can go 20 as well.

>running 20 post-racial on classes that aren't inherently light on riders

You seriously running a 20 STR 16 CON/WIS Warden?

Or a Barbarian that can't get Battle Awareness or has less AC than a Rogue?

Only very few Int/Dex primaries can run 20 post-racial without nearly reaching TheoOp levels, the rest should keep to 18 post-racial, especially because Superior Will exists as a thing.

I remember one player that brought a pure STR ranger to a game I was running. Poor guy didn't know what he was doing, went to a charops board.

He was constantly getting hit and spent most fights teetering on the edge of 0 HP, despite how monsters didn't target his character any more often than the rest of the group. Who weren't even optimized at all.

I outright told him that he's free to adjust his stats if the shitty AC and reflex felt like a problem. He took me up on it, though he pouted over the 5% reduced hit change and -1 to damage.

Did /tg/ get a lot better at 4e than a couple years back? You guys had no idea what you were doing back then.

>>50051308
/tg/ is always shit. At everything. No exceptions.

>>50051457
Except for fucking your mother. :^)

>>50051551
Pretty nice digits you have there.

>>50051308
No one on /tg/ actually played 4e a couple years ago.

File: 1455532546406.jpg (214KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 600x620px

>>50051590
True for me, at least. I was too busy running campaigns and avoiding the shit posting to check out 4e threads back then.

>>50051590
No one on /tg/ posted about 4e to avoid the usual funposters. Plenty of people played.

>>50051200
Assault SM riders were shit anyway

I wanna dual wield axes. What class likes axes the most?

>>50051919
Dual-wielding is up the Ranger's alley, generally speaking.
But I don't really remember if there are any decent axes with the off-hand property, might be that there are some, might be that there aren't any - no idea.
At worst you can refluff something else into axes.

>>50051986
Rangers do not need the off-hand property to dual-wield

>>50052007
Well, I'm retarded.

>>50051919
Do you want big axes or small axes?

Big axes? Go ranger or whirling barbarian. Small axes? Tempest fighter

Regardless of which, take the kensei PP

>>50051919
>>50051986
Whirling Barbarian is a thing, as well.

>>50052031
Shock Trooper is probably better for the whirler.

>>50052046
For the tempest fighter? Yeah.
For the whirling barbarian? Fuck no, you need that +1 to hit that kensei gives you and you don't even benefit from half the stuff shock trooper gives you because you aren't technically using off-hand weapons

>>50052031
Either size really, but I was leaning towards whirler.
>>50052072
Well you can wield off-hand weapons, and the increased die size helps lessen the downside of doing that.
The fluff of shock trooper does call to me more than kensei too. Probably doesn't help that kensei's only got two sentences of description. I think it might actually be the least flavored paragon path in the whole game.

>>50052154
The problem is that by doing that, you're giving up much-needed accuracy for a better encounter power

The biggest problem with axes is that every axe weapon has +2, not +3 proficiency, so you really need that kensei accuracy boost. Tempest fighters need it less because the tempest technique gives them a +1 to hit anyway

>>50051986
Gauntlet axe.

>>50052072
Whirler turns the weapon in your offhand into an offhand weapon. It also provides a static damage boost (larger but more limited than Kensai) and a triple tap encounter attack as opposed to Kensei's power trash.

>>50052236
It lets you wield a one-handed weapon as though it has the off-hand property. It does not actually give it the off-hand property.

Death is in the details.

>>50052236
1. That only applies to your off-hand weapon, not your main hand weapon
2. the static damage boost is both limited to once-per-round and requires combat advantage, as opposed to being constantly available
3. The reserve maneuver feat pretty much exists solely for kensei's to replace their shitty encounter power with a better one from their class. And while the shock trooper encounter power is very good, the kensei daily is fantastic, and unlike the shock trooper daily, does not require you to sheath your off-hand weapon before using it

>>50052269
You "can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand and treat it as an off-hand weapon." Shock Trooper works fine.

Death is in the details.

>>50052269
No, that's two-blade ranger

Whirling barbarian states that you "can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand and treat it as an off-hand weapon"

>>50052293
I'll give you that the whirling slayer is better off main-handing a +3 proficiency weapon while going for the largest possible one-hander for their off-hand.

>>50052326
whirling barbarians are pretty much the only dual-wielding class for which it is beneficial to wield two different weapons

I used a funny whirler build once where I used a whip and a battleaxe. Because whips are a +3 proficiency one-handed reach weapon, so I could hit people with my battleaxe from outside the range of my battleaxe, which I fluffed as my whirler tying the battleaxe to the end of his whip and using it as an axe-flail

>>50052402
Man, I don't think I ever thought of putting reach on it.
Blade of the Eldritch Knight for pulling this shit from five squares away.

NEW THREAD:
>>50053050
>>50053050
>>50053050
>>50053050
>>50053050

>>50051919
How simple do you want to get?

Scout is literally dual axes: the class. You do nothing but hit things with your axes.