i want to run 4th edition

I've been a GM for about 3 years, running games in anima beyond fantasy and GURPS so dont worry about teaching the basics.

>>52484018
I honestly can not. 4th has solid combat mechanics, and is probably the only edition where martial fighters are useful.

But the supplements are pure crap.

>>52484051
You're gonna have to elaborate on that.

>>52484018
Don't worry, it's just perfectly fine right out of the box, nothing broken and no bad trap options at all in any class!

This is what 4rries actually preached for fucking YEARS.

File: 0a1664cc7e6d374eceebd7e4cc87807909ba3270423a5ed7852acb703f1e9192.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>52484018
If you need anything you can usually find it at >> funin.space <<. It's a rip of the compendium from the WotC website of all the 4e stuff, so have fun.

>>52484018
You don't even really need any books.

You should maybe have the players read the PHB and you the DMG, but otherwise just use CBLoader and funin.space. Oh, also Monster Manual 3 and the Monster Vaults are useful.

Links to everything here:

https://pastebin.com/85Hm56k5

Also maybe familiarize yourself with skill challenges, if you want to use them:
http://www.runagame.net/2013/08/4e-skill-challenge-example.html

Does anyone know if theres a game thats D&D but the players ave more options for what they can do other than "I'm a warrior, so i can only do warrior based stuff, so I'm pigeon holed" or "I'm a caster so that means i die in 2 hits and can't use any armor"

File: 2453c8bad175353f1cbf26fc807131576c4cac3250787446fe7df94615bb2c1f.jpg (107KB, 800x749px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 800x749px

>>52484262
>What is 4e and 5e

File: 1263434574008.jpg (155KB, 800x718px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 800x718px

>>52484262

Legend <- Very Good low fantasy

FantasyCraft

>>52484167
Not the OP, but I've looked at it before and I'm not sure how someone would actually use this to play the game.

wow thanks everybody, i didnt expect actual answers so quickly, i expected shit posters to be honest.

but thank you so much, ill go look at funning.space now.

is there a place i can pick up lvl 5 pre-genned characters? I've learned over time that nobody actually likes starting at level 1 and i usually start people at lvl 3. also if I'm going to test this with my group i dont want them to take 2 months to build their characters and lose all the hype.

>>52484018
It's not the worst edition, it's just vastly different from the paradigm that 3.X established.

It's a very self-contained system that does what it intended to do extremely well, in that it balances combat. It has very little else to it. Encounter design and character building is all mechanic-centric, it's all very neat and tidy, and it basically just works, but a lot of people feel that it gets to be a little bit soulless because of this focus on balance.

It's basically a tactical unit-based wargame. If that's your jam, you'll enjoy it, and it's not like you can't roleplay, there are just no mechanics to support it. And that's fine, people who need mechanics to roleplay are autism incarnate.

>>52484366
You wouldn't, it's a rules compendium. It's for people who already know how to run a game to look shit up. You should read one of the beginner books at least.

>>52484394
CBLoader makes character building very, very easy, although for absolute newbies 5th level characters would still take some time.

I think the 4e starter set (red box) comes with premades at least.

>>52484397
>and it's not like you can't roleplay, there are just no mechanics to support it

You are not wrong, but... it basically has the same amount of rules support for RP-ing as every other D&D. D&D really isn't an RP heavy system in general.

>>52484501
is CBLoader accessible for mac?

>>52484018
I've been running 4e for years, and you have to get used to refluffing monsters, and shuffling their non-AC-defenses to be appropriate to their new forms. Fortunately, this is pretty easy.

It's less of a module-based game, and works much better with an improv style, where the highly cinematic action-hero nature of the system can shine through.

Whatever you do, remember that, unlike in many other editions of D&D, your players aren't just a part of a living breathing world that grows around them, they are the protagonists in a fantasy novel about them and their adventures.

As far as books you need, the PHB's, Monster Manual 3, Monster's Vault, Dark Sun Creature Catalogue, and Monster Vault 2 are all you really need. DMG can be helpful, but is actually quite unnecessary.

Worst of the editions? Imo it is the best. 4e is a rain man's dream, and great if you have 5 hours to spare for combat. 3.5 is great for "I am a -insert broken minmax here- and I will -insert broken combo here-. But I suck at everything else. Pathfinder is dope. Hilariously broken at times, but good material I guess.

5e is pretty vanilla, but its stength lies in the ability for a (competent) GM to add almost anything to it. Complex combat, new classes, races, etc. It is super easy to homebrew 5e. Also, OOB everything is balanced. No trap options (except PHB Beastmaster). It just takes getting used to the fact that there is so little content compared to the editions (hint hint, it is newer).

>>52484262
I agree with >>52484307 that Rule of Cool's "Legend" is great, but it's officially dead and lacks a bestiary so it'd take more work to run an ongoing game.
Still, it's free and satisfies this interesting design niche where it pulls concepts from both the d20 SRD and 4e.

FantasyCraft makes for FANTASTIC martials and has some interesting mechanical hooks for any number of settings, but has very some fiddly bits and the book's a bit obtuse if you don't basically do at least one full read-through. Having a PDF helps a lot.

Personally I would recommend additionally checking out a game called "Open Legend" (also free). Instead of things like a specific spell list it has "banes" and "boons" representing special effects, many of which can also be done by nonmagical types.

>>52484262
>>52484307
Second for Fantasycraft

>>52484216
Man, that blog post really makes the skill challenge system work really well. I loved the idea of them, when I first encountered them when DMing 4e years ago, but I could never get them to work right, always being up front with entering a skill challenge. But keeping it hidden and part of the flow of an encounter seems so much fuckign better. And im also fuckign pissed my brain never realized this before now.

Now I can bring this over to PF games I plan on running too.

File: 1476826585588.gif (478KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 500x375px

>>52484633
>5e
>>52484633
>Complex combat
>>52484633
>OOB everything is balanced. No trap options


Good one anon.

>>52484644
>FantasyCraft makes for FANTASTIC martials

When your Soldier wades through magical fire and poison, up to the Wizard and beats him to a pulp with a Mace, you know that Martial Characters are viable.

File: 5eTrapOption.png (71KB, 446x304px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 446x304px

>>52484633
>No trap options
......;_;

>>52484735
>But keeping it hidden and part of the flow of an encounter seems so much fuckign better. And im also fuckign pissed my brain never realized this before now.

It's basically THE advice for skill challenges. I mean, there's lots of other small nuance you can add (DMG2 collected a bunch) but that's the basic idea.

>>52484567
Not as far as I know. A D&D insider subscription (ew) would get you the online char builder, and a bunch of other cool tools that don't have an offline equivalent.

>>52484820
Very much this. Damn shame so few people are using the system.

>>52484018
So you're just wanting to run a game using the system? You have no story or idea, just that you want to use 4e?

>>52485276
Fantasycraft had a general thread last year.

Spycraft 3rd Edition is taking precedence, but apparently Fantasycraft 2nd is in the pipeline as well.

>>52485108
Don't fall for that meme. The site is absolute trash.

>>52484633
>(hint hint, it is newer).
Shut the fuck up. It's a shitty release schedule that's the problem, not how new the game is. 4E had already hit Essentials in the same amount of time between 5E's release and now.

>>52485108
>>52485633
Its not accepting new subscriptions ATM. And its very useful. Its the reason I kept doing 4th edition for like 3 years straight. Easily make characters. Easily alter monsters homebrew style. Easily look up enemies to throw into a campaign.

>>52485875
funin.space makes it irrelevant.

File: 1452649617311.jpg (56KB, 499x572px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 499x572px

>>52485897
This. As long as you have that site, you can run and have fun with 4e as much as you want as long as you're willing to sometimes have to filter through large blocks of text to find what you want/need. That said, it's a godsend.

>>52485535
currently yes. I've run fantasy games in the past so i can easily mock up a game where i dunno undead wolves attack the town theyre celebrating in or something.

although it wouldn't hurt to get a cool pre-gen

File: 1468295006834.jpg (235KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 640x960px

>>52486696
4e Didn't really have a large swath of modules to draw on, especially since it had a fairly short print run. Reavers of Harkenwold is probably the best, though I am also partial to Madness at Gardmore Abbey.

>>52484018
Key books are the Rules Compendium, the PHB, MM3 and Monster Vault. The DMG1 and 2 are both good in their own right, but the Rules Compendium should handle most things rules related. They do have interesting advice and other stuff for a budding GM to pilfer though.

Beyond that, the splats aren't too terribly necessary. If you and your group like it and want more, you can pick up some stuff then, but don't worry about much beyond the key stuff to start with.

For modules, I remember the Chaos Scar stuff from Dungeon being pretty cut and dry, but it's also good stuff to pull out and get something rolling in 10 minutes. If you can find a decent download for all the old digital mags, I'd say give it a try. Past that, adjusting the fights from the Dungeon Delve book with newer math would be a good dry run of the system too.

File: 1477613581121.gif (174KB, 307x304px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 307x304px

Going to act like this is a 4e general now
Newbie potential player/DM who's far more experienced with 5e here. I know to use the MM3 math changes, but what are the feats recommended to hand out as math fixes again? And is Essentials completely compatible with core 4? Some of the races and classes unique to it are intriguing, and many of the feats are vastly...different form core.

>>52484051
You forget 1e, 2e, BECMI, and 5e.

>>52489141
Yes, Essentials is purely backwards compatible.

>>52489141
woot! yes thats a good idea, ill come back here with questions if i have any now.

Demonomicon (sp) is fucking great. Although it greatly dumbed down demons early on, the Demonomicon redeems them as an antagonist. They're fuckin cool.

I'd say the best 2e antag book is, if not a Van Richten book, Cult of the Dragon. The best 3e one is Draconomicon (imo), as it revitalizes dragons in the wake of the crazy OP protags of that edition, and for 4e its the Demonomicon (sp).

>>52484051
>But the supplements are pure crap.

Primal Power disagrees.

>>52489141
Give out 1 expertise feat for free and use inherent bonuses to fix the issues of magic item necessity.

Essentials is fully compatible with core, but some of the classes suck. New powers and feats introduced should all be fine to take for any applicable class though.

>>52484018
>can you recommend any books other than the players/gm book. and any good modules

Get the later Monster Manuals. The formula for calculating monster HP was broken in the first Monster Manual, so most non-minon monsters have too much health, and using them out of the box isn't impossible, but can create long, tedious fights. Later books fixed the math.

I never ran any 4e modules other than Keep on the Shadowfell, which wasn't a bad module, but it was made with the original monster math, so some encounters are very grindy. Also, it kind of assumes you're not going to use every encounter in the module.

>>52489488
Are you referring to the expertise feats in earlier books that just give a number bonus, or those from Essentials that give additional benefits?
Is inherent bonuses the variant rule from the Dark Sun book?

>>52489500
The only HP change is that solos are x4 instead of x5.

Its damage that is increased.

>>52489518
Any expertise feat will do, but you could technically just give all players a +1/tier to attack rolls and call it good.

Inherent bonuses are from Dark Sun, yes. Make sure to give Magic items of similar bonuses to the ones they have naturally, and consider letting magic items grow naturally with the inherent bonus progression. It makes them actually seem magical when their effects are the bigger draw as opposed to their numbers.

>>52484018
I can make you a straight forward level 5 adventure. Also look for the LFR (Living Forgotten Realms) as its modules are AMAZING.

>>52489686
dude really? sweet, that'd be real cool of you. ill be here all night to answer anything you need. i wish i could offer something as thanks

>>52490047
It will be a little while, so you might wanna check back.

Or, check this shit out: http://www.livingforgottenrealms.com/adventures.html

You dont need to do all the LFR tracking circle jerking

>>52484018
>any good modules
Not really, 4th edition did a bunch of stuff not particularly well, the settings and modules being among them.

>>52491559
Modules were mostly shit, yes. But what's your problem with the settings?

Sure, FR got wrecked, but if you liked FR to begin with, you've already had 30 years worth of material.
PoLand was pretty cool if (purposefully) half-made
Dark Sun was widely praised I seem to remember

>>52491608
Dark Sun is always good no matter the context but it's more what happened to the Planescape (ending the blood war, the fuck?) FR and also I cannot say I saw any appeal, whatsoever in points of light.

For the most part I can't help but feel all the settings used in 4e were riding off of older success, and for some that success ended at 4e.

>>52491608
>>52491706
With the exception of Points, but that was so DIY it hardly counts as a proper setting IMO.

>>52491608
Yeah the Dark Sun setting is pretty killer, but you have to negotiate with your DM if you wanna play the most meta of characters.

>>52491706
If you want to play Planescape, you play Planescape with 4E's rules. 4E kind of relies on refluffing anyway.

PoLand changed the cosmology, sure, but I can hardly see it as a bad thing, because new cosmology had no chaff like infinite planes of such excitement as "Magical water and nothing else" or "Plane of healsplosion".
It combined astral plane with bits from Spelljammer to give us Astral Sea for your exploring strange new worlds pleasure
All of the actual locations from Outer Planes are still around, except they're now located either in the Astral Sea or Elemental Chaos.
Feywild and Shadowfell are supposed to invoke mythological archetypes like otherworld and land of the dead. Dawn War is supposed to resemble creation myths of some Earth cultures
Also it's kinda implied that old cosmology is still around, you just have to tilt your head differently

>>52491875
Oh, and Eladrin are still around, they're just called... Eladrin. What we have as PC race is their scrubs, actual elemental feyish outsiders are the same race but their stats in MM are in high Paragon levels

>>52491875
If you want to, of course the best thing about D&D is you can always choose the fluff yourself and I just did not feel much of what happened in 4e. But that's not really a damning judgment on what they did.

>>52491706
>>52491731
Yeah PoL was built try and stay out of a DM's way, but it ended up too blank for some people.

Also remember that most of WotC's best content came from groups other then WotC (Paizo, LFR, ect), and 4th ed is not covered over the open gaming licence, so groups would have to pay WotC to publish games/supplements under 4th ed. In their great wisdom, WotC granted exclusive licences to groups that had no plans to publish anything.

>>52491938
...And pushed Paizo away due to this and other factors who made Pathfinder further spelling doom for 4th edition.

Thank god 5e turned out alright.

>>52484397
>there are just no mechanics to support it
What kind of mechanics did 3e had to support roleplay anyway?

>>52492086
A ridiculous amount of character specialization.

If you wanted an inbred train facts guy as your character you could make an inbred train facts guy as your character.

>>52492140
What about this description stops you from just plastering it onto any other character?

>>52492140
I don't quite understand how that's something that supports roleplay

>>52484018
This might be a something of an unpopular opinion but I rather like 4e fluff and think lots of its books are fun to browse through (Heroes of the Feywild being my fav). otoh it's fights seemed to take forever and were a touch too crunchy for my tastes.

>>52492185
Knowledge (locomotives).

>>52492219
History and Dungeoneering, depending on the specifics

>>52492140
Well, my own issue with 3rd was that the "flavor" characters all had a severe case of the suck. Which wouldn't be so bad, but 3rd punished players for not picking meta characters. So you can be a trainman, but only so long as the trainman was also a wizard or cleric. Otherwise your trainman would either be a deadman, or dead weight.

>>52492402
Fair point, I will concede 3.5 was super bad at allowing flexibility.

>>52489518
I prefer to give out the later ones, because they give weapons a bit of a unique flair.

>>52489518
Either, though some consider the latter for free as too much, since some of those feats are actually worth it even without the bonus to hit

>>52489500
Uh, Keep on the Shadowfell was SUPER shitty.

File: LaughingElves.gif (875KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 500x281px

>>52484051
>he didn't read manual of the planes
>he didn't read primal power
>he didn't read heroes of the feywild
>he didn't read any of the dragon articles

>>52495480
This.

Here are two sins against 4E that you can accidentally commit because they were a norm in earlier editions:
1) Trash fights. Because of how slow and involved 4E's combat engine is, you don't throw enemies at your party simply to drain resources.
2) Featureless rooms. In 4E your battle arena needs piles of crates to hide behind, chandeliers to swing off, mounted windlasses to shoot with and so on, otherwise the fight will be boring

That does mean that it can be tricky to come up with a sudden fight, but it's possible

KotS had both of those sins IN SPADES

>>52484018
I'd recommend hanging yourself before running 4e.

The last thing 4rries need is any encouragement to think they're playing a legitimate TTRPG.

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

107KB, 889x444px

>>52495877
>Featureless rooms. In 4E your battle arena needs piles of crates to hide behind, chandeliers to swing off, mounted windlasses to shoot with and so on, otherwise the fight will be boring
That's pretty much a rule in every edition ever. If anything it's less true for 4e due to all the powers that can generate zones, movement effects, obstructing terrain, etc

>>52496098
It's helpful in other editions but hardly necessary, especially in the older ones where your turn is like 3 seconds long and you're expected to bring your own furniture (hirelings) anyway.

>>52496126
There's not that many of this kind of powers and they're mostly controllers' prerogative

>>52496137
>It's helpful in other editions but hardly necessary
I can say in 5e it's a requirement if you don't want to be bored to tears, and if you aren't a caster in 3.5 it was the equivalent to DM throwing you a bone so you could actually do things
>There's not that many of this kind of powers and they're mostly controllers' prerogative
Zones were a warden's whole reason for living, movement effects were literally fighter at wills and a whole rogue build's gimmick, warlords and bards were all about rearranging the battlefields as they saw fit and barbarian's rages almost always came with some kind of weird zone or action-oriented buff. Ranger is really the only class guilty of not doing much more than hitting things, and even they dished out disabling effects every so often

Part of the reason controller was a vague role was because they gave controller-like effects to everyone. It was never entirely clear what was actually unique about them because of that.

>>52496242
5e combat is boring, yes. I general, WotC editions are involved enough that non-casters need something to do that isn't 'I attack'. In this respect I agree that 4E is the least dependent of them.

File: 1452264678485.jpg (219KB, 741x1148px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 741x1148px

Are there any powers or items that increase a creature's size? I've got a concept for a small character that upsizes to surprise and battle larger foes that relied on the 5e Mystic, but don't know where to start to search 4e.
On a tangential note, are there rules for Large races? I was looking at making centaurs playable, and while I ironed it out in 5e, I wasn't sure if 4e could handle such a thing as well.

>>52496492
There are no official Large races, no class can get Large (even Druids and Wardens) and I can't remember a single item that does that but I might be mistaken here

>>52496492
There's a few warden forms that increase your size, and I remember a primordial themed ED that makes you huge sized briefly.

Generally though, PCs are generally balanced around medium sized or smaller, or else Fighters and wardens, as well as anything with auras, would play nothing but the large races.

>>52496571
Huh. Maybe I missed something back in the day then. Disregard >>52496569

>>52496571
There are warden forms that increae your reach, but I can't recall any that increase size. the sovreign beast druid ED gives you large size wild shape. Also the Great Spirit shaman PP gives you a large spirit if that's relevant.

>>52496652
Emerald Guardian PP level 20 power, Form of the Life Giver, makes you Large for one encounter. More of a healing focused path though.

>>52491559
4e did Eberron better than 3.5, Dark Sun as well as 2e, and despite the fluff of it being spread across approximately all of the books, had a pretty solid standard setting in PoL

>>52496492
There's a Warden form that makes you large but I can't remember what it is, there's a Shaman PP that makes your spirit large but that isn't what you're looking for, and then there's Giant's Might. http://funin.space/compendium/power/Giants-Might.html

Giant's Might is fucking amazing, always worth poaching if you're playing an Eternal Seeker

>>52496569
>>52496571
>>52496652
>>52496765
>>52496910
So, the only option that does the trick is 20+. Shame, I'll just have to save those concepts for 5e. Not that there aren't plenty I can do in 4 and not 5 that I'm working on.

>>52496949
You know, you can just start your campaign at level 21

If everyone involved is ok at starting as demigods and going up from there

>>52496582
Aha, found it.

Emergent Primordial ast level 26 can make you Huge for an encounter.

>>52496949
I mean, you can definitely homebrew a large pc race without any real issues. Auras are going to be the only real oddity at first.

>>52496765
>>52496989
Funny thing is that Giant's Might >>52496910 stacks with Form of the Life Giver and Emergent Primordial, letting you become huge or gargantuan respectively

>>52496989
Also I forgot to mention, keep in mind Large size by itself doesn't increase your reach, and increasing your reach doesn't necessarily increase how far you threaten with AoOs.

Even if you get Huge size, you still only threaten spaces adjacent to you unless the power says otherwise, or you have another ability that lets you, with the big benefit being that you increase how many spaces are adjacent to you, and making yourself a bigger obstacle to go around.

4e was the best edition. I started playing 1e in 1985, fite me.


Honestly it was generic enough to allow a ton of refluffing. Also, no caster supremacy (mostly) and this is coming from someone who's fave class is wiz. I hate obviating someone's class. That's not d&d to me.
I was playing a ranger in 4e and for a striker, yes he sucked. He still could kick a vampire's ass, no problem.

Each edition has become even more if a hug box than the previous editions. 5e has but one save or die effect and it's pretty neutered, right? 4e didn't encourage the DM to outright kill either iirc.

D&d hasn't gotten a good edition yet lol

>>52497528
I thought Ranger was the most powerful striker class in the game

At least as far as raw damage output is concerned

>>52497559
It is.

Not that the other Strikers aren't good. Even the Vampire is functional, if a bit more boring since most of their powers are set in stone instead of having choices.

>>52497726
It once was but I thought the ranger had been deposed of the top spot by the 2nd version of the assassin?

My favorite striker was the avenger, hands down. My second avenger was very tricked out for stickiness.

>>52497882
No

The executioner is good enough, better than cha-rogue but worse than str-rogue. Very well balanced especially when compared to other Essentials classes, but O-ranger is still king of both DPR and Nova, through twin strike and blade cascade respectively

4th edition is literally worse than every edition of D&D, advanced or basic. Why would you do it?

>>52498119
What do other editions do better, famalam?

>>52497917
Ah my bad. I'm glad ranger is still top of the striker pile. My ranger wasn't made to be a dpr machine but that's my fault, not the system's.

>>52498119
It's the best for combat. If you need rules for rping, you're a big baby.
Here's your (You).

>>52498119
OP is just a desperate 4rry pretending his dead game has any sort of interest in it still, and trying to make /tg/ think people can still be tricked into playing this piece of shit.

Just ignore the bait thread and move on.

>>52498225
Heed your own advice shitlord or is the sound of your own voice that important? No. Faggot.

5e is shit. Sorry you feel burned by that very salient fact but just keep swallowing down your shit Twinkie, boy.

>>52498189
>>52498203
Depends on what you want senpai
Dungeon crawling without a bunch of fluff, optimized for fast play? ODD and Basic
Structured adventures with a large library of modules, settings, and accessories with an equally sized library of things for your characters to have and use? 1E/2E AD&D
Good entry level edition to get people into the hobby with a lot of room for DM to work with without changing the official rules too much? 5E
I was going to defend 3E but then realized I couldn't, so maybe 4E is better than that. If you want to play an MMO, I suppose 4E is fine.

>>52498270
Who gives a about about 5e? Its Eden Moore dead than 4rry.

Don't be so mad 3.PF is lightyears ahead of you.

>>52498332
>Structured adventures with a large library of modules, settings, and accessories with an equally sized library of things for your characters to have and use? 1E/2E AD&D

Yeah, except you can use every good thing that came out of AD&D with OD&D / Basic without all the useless crap and with minimum effort (scale PCs hp a bit). And even then, that's not a lot of diamonds in a lot of dirt.

>If you want to play an MMO, I suppose 4E is fine.

If you want to showcase your brain damage, I suppose comparing 4e and MMOs is fine.

>>52498332
I've played since 1e. I know what I want from out of a system. They're all piles of shit but 4e is the least offensive.

BOOL! The end

>>52497528

4e was great, I just kind of wish they designed it more around a core of "generic" classes with more specific options depending on the campaign, setting, magic levels, etc...

>>52497528
It was shit when it came out. Mostly because of the bloated monsters in MM. Then, they fixed it.
I wish there would be more support for 4E, but eh, what can you do?
P.S. - I wanted a turn-based, tactical video game adaptation of 4E very badly.

>>52497917
>>52497882
Maybe you mean twinked out executioner hybrids?

The ones that are exclusively basically pixies with streak of light that literally only charge attack every single turn?

>>52501203
Yeah. Boring build. 4e didn't exactly encourage "builds" anyway.

>>52501887
Not that they were needed anyways. 4e was balanced enough where you could pick everything each level randomly and still end up with something just as viable as anything else.

Do the very linear Essentials classes like vampire go well with multiclassing, skill powers, or themes to shore up the lack of options?

>>52504259
I'm not I charop type but I seem to remember that you could twink out a Vampire quite handsomely with multiclassing

File: 1475309888661.png (91KB, 800x601px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 800x601px

Is it accurate to say that a 4e party's success is much more dependent on their tactical moves in combat and how they use their abilities, rather than the build/abilities they take?

>>52504434

Except in excessive cases like a Radiant Mafia, yeah.

>>52504434
In the long run, yes. Though obviously, some ability selections are more useful in the long run than others. It depends on the regular opposition, the overarching goals of the campaign and the whims of the party itself. Lets face it, picking a Warlord in a group full of non basic attackers sort of limits what sort of effect your basic attack granting powers will have on the group.

>>52484018
>i want to run 4th edition

Save yourself and your players a lot of grief and DON'T.

>>52504259
I'll never forget the tripleVampire/ monoWerewolf meme build.

>>52505653
Quad-dead Werewolf thank you very much.

>Play Revanant Vampire
>Be Vryloka(Vampire race) past life
>take half vampire bloodline
>take Avenging haunt PP
>multiclass or hybrid into arcane class
>take Archlich ED
>then Werewolf theme because why not

They best part is its still a fully functional and viable character

There are some very dedicated anti-4e shot posters in this thread.
>>52484018
Check the archives for the recommended start for 4e, using MM3 math, getting the CBLoader, and giving everyone the free feat to balance the math.
4e can be a lot of fun, unless you don't like tactical grid combat.

>>52506734
I'm trying to figure out how the shit you'd justify this in the backstory.

>My great great grandfather was a vampire
>Then on my 13th birthday, I got bitten by a vampire.
>I later found out it was my great great grandfather. He was very apologetic about the misunderstanding.
>Then on my 18th birthday, I died, and was risen as a zombie.
>Then on my 21st birthday, I was bitten by a vampire and a werewolf at the same time.
>Then I got hit by a bus and became a ghost
>Then I decided to become a Lich because I'm sick of all this horseshit.

>>52501887
Wasn't 4e the source of the whole subclass build concept in 5e? Then there where all the feat based builds like polearm builds, dizzying mace builds, frostcheese builds, etc. 4e was basically made for CharOPers who actually wanted a semblance of balance.

File: the_three_by_banished_shadow-d6469zc.jpg (95KB, 600x1052px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x1052px

>>52506734
>>52505653
This seems like it requires an image/PDF of the required rules text screenshots.

Because this... this is excellent.

Any other ludicrous starting builds?

>>52509340
Behold! Vladimir McClusterfuck, the Double Vampire, Double Werewolf, Robot Zombie that wields triple-bladed Boomerangs! (Note you could be a Triple Vampire, Double Werewolf Zombie if you choose Vryloka, but I chose to add a robot via Warforged instead).

Vladamir McClusterFuck, level 1
Revenant, Vampire|Druid
Theme: Werewolf
Hybrid Vampire: Hybrid Vampire Will
Hybrid Druid: Hybrid Druid Reflex
Blood Drain: Blood Drain Dexterity
Choose your Race in Life: Warforged
Gritty Sergeant Benefit: Weapon Proficiency (Chatkcha)
Background: Gritty Sergeant (Gritty Sergeant Benefit)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 8, Con 12, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 14.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 8, Con 12, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 12.


AC: 14 Fort: 11 Reflex: 15 Will: 14
HP: 24 Surges: 2 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Endurance +8, Stealth +9, Intimidate +11

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +4, Arcana, Bluff +2, Diplomacy +2, Dungeoneering +3, Heal +3, History, Insight +3, Nature +3, Perception +3, Religion, Streetwise +2, Thievery +4, Athletics -1

FEATS
Level 1: Vampiric Heritage

POWERS
Hybrid at-will 1: Vampire Slam
Hybrid at-will 1: Savage Rend
Hybrid encounter 1: Blood Drinker
Hybrid daily 1: Summon Pack Wolf

ITEMS
Cloth Armor (Basic Clothing), Chatkcha, Adventurer's Kit

File: giphy (2).gif (2MB, 741x425px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 741x425px

>>52509709
That's amazing.

My god, they really went a bit nuts with the character generation options at the end, didn't they?

>>52509765
And you can add Ghost with a Paragon Path and then Lich, Dragon, or even full on God-hood with an Epic Destiny.

File: 51g+Cfbvf5L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (32KB, 260x338px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 260x338px

>>52484018
If you want quick cut and paste into the system, Dungeon Delve
30 small stories, 1 per each character level
3 encounters, one after the other, per each story

They're all self-contained so every chunk is readily available to take out and stuff into an ongoing campaign of your making. rpg.net also did a review of each scenario here

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?441933-Let-s-read-Dungeon-Delve-spoilers-ahead&s=41a6e7514c97721cf6baf7f67ac946a8

PHBs are always good, MM3 is always suggested because monsters are now less HP sponges and deal more damage to compensate. Monster Vault instead of MM1, Monster Vault has the readjusted stats for the D&D bread and butter monsters.

If you're looking outside of D&D but want the system, Gamma World. That shit is hilariously fun, makes randomly rolling for characters not only enjoyable but completely viable no matter what anyone gets. The major downside is that no one sells the cards anymore, but you can go to drivethru and head to a copy shop to print them out

File: Rasputin.pdf (2MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1x1px

>>52509340
The build I used when I first start the Quad-Dead Werewolf thing.

Could be optimized better, but fully functional in basically any 4e party.

>>52504259
>>52504278
All the essentials hybrids are a LOT better than the base classes themselves, because you are not chained to the shitty/limited essentials powers selection (and also, you often times lose basically nada from the essentials side, because they don't have much to give to begin with).

Vampire hybrid is on the weaker side, because neither its power, nor its boost is anything exceptional, but you inherit the flaws (limited surge amount). You can, however, twink out a pretty funny vampire multiclass, where you take as many of the multiclassing feats you can, and then keep draining surges all day every day.

>>52509765
I suspect it was a cases of "we can do this better on the second try", but the first try still hung around

>>52511732
There was A LOT of that in the system. In fact, it would have really benefitted from a not backwards-compatible 4.5E that would cut all the chaff

>>52509709
You could add the Ghost template to add more wreck to the build. It was an option in later Dragon Magazines, it gave you a lot of cool options.

>>52511732
I feel like most should just be themes

Werewolf and ghost are themes, the fact that vampire is a class really sticks out like a sore thumb from any angle

>>52509983
WARNING
WARNING
Dungeon Delve uses shitty MM1 math and terrible encounter design.

File: 1452318975339.jpg (167KB, 433x600px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 433x600px

>>52512639
Well, you can more easily fluff Werewolf with druid or warden abilities, or ghost with rogue and similar, while vampire warrants more unique mechanics like the stealing surge thing.
On one hand, they could have limited those stacking options by "You can only have one Shadowy Nature option" or something, but I think it's worth it to have these shenanigans.

File: 1428995619445.jpg (377KB, 1106x822px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1106x822px

Backgrounds allot you either +2 to a skill of your choice, or to add a skill to your class's skill list, right?
Could you take the Skill Training feat for something not on your class list at level 1, and have your background grant +2 to that?

>>52513665
yes, but in most instances that's a poor allocation of resources

As a general rule a feat is worth more than +5 to a skill

>>52513843
Are there any others ways to grab a skill proficiency at level 1 that isn't a class skill so you can get the +2 background bonus? Or is that +2 pretty negligible when you can just use the background for the unusual skill anyways?

>>52513882
Some backgrounds grant both the skill as a class skill and a bonus to the skill in question. But some DMs won't allow those

File: 1432525022934.jpg (234KB, 404x900px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 404x900px

Can you take a feat multiple times?
And am I correct in inferring you can take a Skill power in place of a class power by default, and the feat gives an extra power separate from your by-level class powers?

>>52515779
No, you can only take most feats once. There are feats that you can take multiple times, but they all state "you can take this feat multiple times"

Yes you can take skill powers normally and the skill power feat does give you an extra utility power

>>52484018
4e was busted for more than half of its lifespan, apparently. The only usable monsters are those in the MM3 and Monster Vault. Also, skill challenges should never be used and 4rries try to pretend that they never existed.

>>52518419
>Skill challenges should never be used
So in other games you play, do you never give characters consecutive skill checks? Have you got a policy of one non-combat roll per session?

>>52518604
Wow you sure kicked the fuck out of that strawman!

>>52507092
Why not explain it the same way a fighter or sorcerer gets new powers?

>>52518419
Only Elites and Solos pre MM3 are busted. Their hitpoints are bloated and they don't have interesting abilities or a way to defend themselves (except through HP) against the action economy advantage that the player characters have.

"MM3 on a business card" gets pushed around a lot and while it's true that MM1 and 2 monsters don't deal enough damage (increase by 25-50%) their defenses are on-par with MM3.
The reason people feel that MM1 and 2 monsters take too long to kill is because the fights aren't very threatening and because people generally didn't know about feat tax.

The monster manuals that can be used completly without adjustment are:
MM3
Monster Vault
Monster Vault - Threats to Nentir Vale
Dark Sun Creature Catalog

>>52513882
Some multiclass feats come with training in a skill. If everything matches up, that might be an option. You'll the Skill Training, a multi-class perk, and then your +2 Background bonus.

>>52518419
>skill challenges should never be used and 4rries try to pretend that they never existed.
Eh, there's many different opinions on skill challenges.
There's those GMs that want skill challenges where every character should be able to participate and those that want skill challenges that highlight specific skills.
The way skill challenges were introduced in the DMG 1 was a bit bland and boring but a perfectly servicable frame work.
The work the GM needs to put into a skill challenge is to either make the outcome meaningful for both fail and succeed conditions OR to make the rolls that make up the skill challenge have meaning by themselves.

All in all skill challenges are just a framework to turn a series of skill checks into something that can be considered equivalent to a combat encounter for the purposes of XP. As with encounter design you can't just put the players onto flat terrain and expect it to be fun by itself.
4e powers help make combat more fun even without interesting combat elements and I think 4e could have been greatly improved by giving players more tools to interact with skill challenges. I think that 4e skill challenges are no more bland and boring than D&D combat systems are without 4e powers. So pretty bland actually unless GM and players puts some effort into it (but not really broken).

>>52518940
Very much this.

I'd never tell my players I was running skill challenges. I'd just present a situation and had a tally of the number of successes or failures that would move the story forward in particular ways.

For instance, the party comes upon a burnt out husk of lumber camp. The could start tracking the attackers, look for survivors, salvage useful stuff, and so on. After 2-3 successful rolls they might find a significant clue, say a survivor who tells them what happens. After a similar number failures maybe a setback, like scavenging animals being attracted to smell of death. After a few of these events when the party has an idea what they want to do I start pushing them towards the next set piece encounter.

File: Youmu.jpg (782KB, 1600x1237px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 1600x1237px

I want to lay out a build for a character with a ghost companion bound to them. I'm definitely going shaman since the party needs a Leader (role) but not leader (roleplay). What are some good ethereal/ghostly feats, paragon paths, themes, etc that lend themselves to this? Things like becoming ghostly or inflicting debuffs on enemies. I've heard mention of a ghost theme, but couldn't find it on funin.space or the wiki.
So far, I think the best lead for paragon path I have is Ghostwalker, after a bit of Monk multiclassing. Is there anything similarly spirit related and more leader/control oriented?

>>52518940
You can say that it's "just a framework" all you like, but that framework (Everyone takes turns making a skill check each, you must get X successes before Y failures, you can only use certain skills after you've "unlocked" them with a successful check in another skill) never makes sense for the situation and is never fun.

The players who don't have relevant skills will want to be able to pass and do nothing, and if you let them then the skill monkey will just keep rolling until the challenge is over. It's often implausible that failing at certain checks would actually bring the challenge closer to failure (how is failing a Perception check worse than not even trying to make one?) or that a single check wouldn't just end the challenge right then, for good or ill (If you track those monsters in Anon's other example, the party knows where to go without needing to make any more checks. If you offend an important NPC in a social situation, they're not going to give you a second chance; they're going to throw you all the fuck out.) You really have to jump through hoops to make the model fit any situation in the game world, and the consequences of failure have to be bad enough that they have a reason to do it but not so bad that they're left at a dead end (unless it's a situation that could plausibly cause a TPK.)

>>52519851
>The players who don't have relevant skills will want to be able to pass and do nothing
Sure but would you allow a player that doesn't go for a combat oriented charater to just sit around in combat in his safe space where nothing can hurt him?
Of course not, a skill challenge should always be something where time is precious. A single "turn" in a skill challenge can represent a variable amount of time to account for this. If you are doing an overland track through a skill challenge each roll of the dice can represent multiple days as you try to make it to your destination before your resources run out / the BBEG catches up to you. If you work together to disarm a machine every second is important before the doosmday machine explodes.

>how is failing a Perception check worse than not even trying to make one?
It isn't neccesarily, I think DMG 2 (or the essentials DMG) suggests that some skills can only contribute a certain number of successes. So in our overland example the party never makes a Perception check but got enough succeses anyway. This would mean they didn't notice that somebody switched the signs and they are traversing the more difficult route but they managed to deal with the difficulties anyway.

>>52520391
(part2)
I think a good GM has to be flexible with skill challenges (just like one as to be in non-combat situations without skill challenges).

>If you track those monsters in Anon's other example, the party knows where to go without needing to make any more checks.
Sure but again there's ways of dealing with this when designing your skill challenge.
1) You make it into two challenges, one of them tracks the monsters to their lair, this is a pretty difficult challenge. The other one is one that represents you gathering additional clues not directly related to the challenge and gives you bonuses if you succeed. If you fail you took to long and you get ambushed by the monster.
2) You bring up additional difficulties to account for those they "skipped". They didn't scavanger resources? There's some hazzard they need to cross and that's now more difficult because they don't have what they would need to do it.

That's also something suggested in later books, instead of having all skills just contribute successes some skills might give alternative rewards within the skill challenge such as a bonus to other tests, making tests easier or even allowing new skills to be used.

>If you offend an important NPC in a social situation, they're not going to give you a second chance
That's just bad skill challenge design isn't it? Wouldn't it make for a more interesting story if, instead of just throwing the players out the NPC gets furious, maybe even brings up guards / whatever and goes "Explain yourself at once or I'll have your heads" instead? I think it cerainly would. (Meanwhile the GM marks down one failure out of the 3 they need to the NPC to lose his cool and actually tries to throw out the PCs)

>>52520416
(part3)
Now the question remains "Do you need skill challenges?".
And I think the answer is no, a good GM can certainly do without them. In fact I think the initial writing of skill challenges left a lot to be desired. I'm not a big fan of the turn order system myself for skill challenges where time isn't too important but I do think skill challenges (and non-combat encounters in D&D in general) are more interesting if there's more tension and some sort of 'time limit' increases the tension I'd say.

Which is why I come back to my initial post. It's just a framework to hang your stuff onto. Not every non-combat scene has to be a skill challenge of course. And if they're used badly they're boring and bland but it you use it properly it can be a lot of fun. Of course you can also have fun, tension filled scenes without skill challenges but I think it does help to give structure to some types of non-combat scenes.

>>52520416

>A single "turn" in a skill challenge can represent a variable amount of time to account for this
Except that a skill challenge doesn't measure time in "rounds" or "turns;" it measures time by how many dice rolls have been made, regardless of who made them. It's a quick fix to change this, but it's something that somehow didn't occur to the 4e designers, and it's far from being the only problem with skill challenges.

>That's just bad skill challenge design isn't it?
The problem is that good skill challenge design doesn't correspond to anything an adventuring party might face. In a well-designed skill challenge (from a game design point of view,) the NPCs act like psychopaths with chronic mood swings, the traps are not the kind anyone would want to build to keep an area safe, and in general nothing makes sense. You have to twist the whole game world around to make it conform to the rules of the skill challenge.

>>52520555
>the NPCs act like psychopaths with chronic mood swings, the traps are not the kind anyone would want to build to keep an area safe, and in general nothing makes sense
You'd need to give me some more examples of this because I don't see it that way at all.

In a social skill challenge with a single NPC I could see each failure slowly whiddling away at the good will of the person you're talking to but if you get enough successes you've convinced them (but they might still be pretty miffed if you had 2 failures for example).

For a trap / defense mechanism each success might peel away a layer of defenses like in a spy movie where the first success gets them through the laser grid (which is then turned off to allow the others through) before someone sneaks through the ventilation system to get access to a hidden control panel and lastly someone picks the lock of the safe. Here each failure would make either what comes next more difficult as the system reacts to them, maybe it alarms guards that they'll have to fight later on and each failure make the encounter more difficult or some part of the trap goes of and hurts the players.

>>52520745
NPCs in skill challenges don't talk to one person at a time like sane people; they carry on as many simultaneous conversations as there are PCs. And of course if the fighter rolls low on a Diplomacy check he'll describe it as saying something incredibly rude, because it's funny and in-character. More likely, the bard will be trying Diplomacy while the barbarian tries Intimidate, and they're working completely at cross-purposes to each other.

Ultimately, the most damning thing about skill challenges is that it's easier and more fun to run a game without them. This goes far beyond not needing them, because they're not just unnecessary but actively harmful. Whether it's exploring an area with various things to find, talking to an NPC, or trying to get past multiple layers of traps, the game is exponentially better if you just handle it like every other game with a skill system rather than making it a skill challenge.

>>52521006
>they carry on as many simultaneous conversations as there are PCs
No, it's a group conversation where there's two parties, the PCs and the guys they're talking to. Sure they might have different approaches but the NPC will probably attribute whatever is being said to the group as a whole instead of an individual NPC.

If three people try to convince you of something and one of them treats you like a complete fool you'll not think very highly of the other two simply by association.

On allowing Diplomacy and Intimidate in the same conversation: That's entirely up the the GM really. If you are fine with it, allow it, if not just give the Barbarian his automatic failure for trying to Intimidate someone who he really shouldn't be trying to indimidate.
But I think there can be conversations where both is possible. The bard tries to make a diplomatic offer but if that doesn't take hold (because they don't have enough succeses yet) the Barbarian makes some threats and while the NPC isn't to keen on cowing to that either (still not enough successes) he will keep it in mind as he might fear what will happen to him if he does not cooperate.

>>52520555
This is the most frustrating thing about skill challenges when I'm playing 4e: because they count skill check successes/failures rather than rounds, they incentivize inaction while technically not allowing it. In chess this is called zugzwang. Suppose that you're in a skill challenge and it's your turn to roll. Maybe you're not trained in any skill that will help, or maybe your ability modifier in the relevant skill isn't high. You know the rest of the party will solve the challenge soon if you can manage not to fuck it up by adding failures. You're in zugzwang: you would prefer to pass and do nothing because it incurs zero risk of adding a failure: it would effectively replace your weak roll with the stronger roll of a teammate. But as written, you must roll them bones and hope that you don't fuck everything up worse than if you were absent from the party.

>>52519851
http://www.runagame.net/2013/08/4e-skill-challenge-example.html

sixth damn post

>>52521700
That example dodges all of the problems I mentioned. See how multiple PCs volunteer to make checks even though the DM is being kind and not making them go in turns. See how NPCs suddenly become much more indecisive when a skill challenge happens, forgiving of slights and forgetful of critically important information they've been given, but the players don't notice. The players' dialog is carefully written to avoid the awkwardness of NPCs having multiple running conversations at the same time.

>>52484040
>Ran Anima and GURPS
>Has trouble with 5e
...yeah I can see how that happened, although I don't think 4e will have the crunch you're used to either. More than 5e sure but don't get your hopes up when your standard is "Saint Seiya the Dice Master" and "I CAN DO EVERYTHING if I use numbers right"

>>52522419
If your players don't want to participate, that's hardly a problem with the system

>>52522615
yeah i get it, i have been looking for a less crunchy system thats why i keep searching out D&D/Pathfinder cause it has less crunch than anima but more than savage worlds.

my problem with 5e (and maybe D&D) is that your character is pretty pigeon holed into one thing, my wizard couldn't handle picking up a longsword because learning to shoot fire out of my hands mean i never learned to swing a stick bigger than a butter knife. and even though i have STR 12 and CON 15 i still couldn't think about wearing a heavier armor.

but i think my biggest gripe is that i choose one set of abilities it takes away all others, because i choose to cast magic it takes away skill with traps and axes.

i believe you should be rewarded for specializing, and not LIMITED to specializing.

File: ariel-perez-dek.jpg (212KB, 949x1288px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 949x1288px

>>52509840
Well, of course. But as a starting character... that's exceptional.

It reminds me of the legendary Panther or Fern, or even Ball of Arms Man.

>>52510127
>>52511732
Are there any other weird builds like this out there? Just stack up the same core concept 8 or 9 times in different, silly ways?

>>52523689
Fantasy Craft can do that.

I understand your frustrations, but the crunchier you get, the more specialized system designers ask you to be as a balance mechanic. Playing a Caster in almost all games from FC to Simple10 require investment that takes away from their main focus, ya know?