/4eg/ 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons General

>>53284542
What I'm saying is, defenders AC should be higher than strikers and controllers, which its not. I think maybe they should have let defenders take a minor dex bonus to ac (+1 for scale, +2 for chain) and kept AC bonus for armor expertise with scale. Single weapon fighter ought to get a +1 to ac as well to attack, and sheilds ought to carry a scaled bonus, like +1 per teir for shield mastery.

>>53284604
Armors scale with masterwork armors.

A Fighter in scale+heavy shield will have 19 AC at level 1. How's a wizard matching that?

Also, mathematically, scaling off of two sources instead of 1 (shield and armor/stat, instead of just armor) will mean that shield will outscale attack bonuses. Which is bad. You want to keep AC and offense in the same ballpark.

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

75KB, 600x833px

>>53284604

The defender is a shaky role in general, and not just because of the fact that some strikers can have defender-like AC even without abusing Battle Cleric's Lore.

I fully believe that defenders having few methods of shoring up their NADs (beyond a heavy shield for +2 Reflex) was a horrid design decision.
It gives them a major achilles heel for no good reason.

There is nothing worse than laying down, say, a Combat Challenge or a divine sanction on a monster, only to discover that that monster enjoys targeting non-AC defenses. There are many, many monsters that do such a thing, even at low heroic.

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

468KB, 1427x1016px

Under the context of the encounter-building guidelines failing to take themes (and, obviously, house rules) into account, consider a level 4 party with themes and a whopping five free feats. Should they be treated as a level 5 party for encounter-building purposes, or as a level 6 party?

>>53285038
Well, depends on the expected value of a feat. If you already got the tax feats (which are the most straightforward hit/defense boosts), a feat at best can be considered something like +0.5 to-hit (cause it's situational) which would put them into level 6 range, imo.

But I prefer fights to be harder than easier... although logically, you'd start with an easier fight, and then ramp up the difficulty.

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

560KB, 1471x696px

I had just reread the Rules Compendium's rules for scaling DCs. Tell me if I have this right.

Rules Compendium, page 126: "When choosing a DC from the table, the Dungeon Master should use the level of the creature performing the check, unless otherwise noted.
"Level 4: Easy DC 10, moderate DC 14, hard DC 21
"Level 5: Easy DC 10, moderate DC 15, hard DC 22"

Page 132: "Acrobatics: Escape from Restraints: DC: Hard DC of the creature's level."

Page 135: "Arcana: Identify Magical Phenomenon: DC: Hard DC of the phenomenon's level. If it has no level, use the hard DC of the creature's level.
"Arcana: Sense the Presence of Magic: DC: Hard DC of the creature's level."

Page 147: "Insight: Sense motives or attitude: Moderate DC of the target's level.
"Insight: Sense outside influence: Hard DC of the effect's level.
"Read the mood of a crowd (easy DC)
"Discern who among a cagey group is the leader (moderate DC)
"Interpret enemies' hand signs (hard DC)
"Recognize a creature as illusory (moderate DC of the effect's level)"

Is there any rhyme or reason to what DCs constantly scale based on a PC's level, and what DCs are keyed to NPCs' or external effects' levels?
It is sensible enough that identifying magical phenomena, sensing motives or attitudes, sensing outside influence, and recognizing illusions is based on NPCs' or external effects' levels.
However, it is completely bizarre that many other tasks, like escaping from restraints, sensing magic, reading a crowd's mood, discerning leadership, and interpreting enemies' hand signs is based on the PC's level. In some cases, like when going from level 4 to 5, the PC might actually find the task harder than before!

How should one make sense of this? Is the Rules Compendium simply being obtuse and always assuming that PCs are always in a level-appropriate challenge? If that is the case, then why does the Rules Compendium explicitly note when a task's DC is based on the level of an NPC or an external effect? How does this work?

I was just thinking that too. Rule of thumb should be that the DC should be based on the opposition's level, and I'm not sure why they tie it into PC level in those examples.

>>53285319

It's based on 'What would be a threat of X difficulty for a PC of Y level'. Not everything will be level appropriate.

File: be505b1464304dcd5afd57262fa9736f.jpg (124KB, 892x918px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 892x918px

>>53285395

Identifying magical phenomena and recognizing illusory creatures is based on the phenomenon/effect's level. The same goes for sensing motives, attitudes, or outside influence.

So... why not the same for other tasks, like detecting magic, or escaping restraints? The DCs for those do not, in fact, stipulate "of the effect/phenomenon's level."

>>53285437
Oversight I guess.

It makes sense to do it the way you are describing, so just do it that way. I do not see any reasoning why they went with what they went for those unless
> Is the Rules Compendium simply being obtuse and always assuming that PCs are always in a level-appropriate challenge?

which is silly.

>>53284604
>>53284720
>>53284987
I think Defenders should diverse more than only "guy with big AC". Yeah, a full plate fighter with a tower shield can have a higher AC, but so do a martial artist with high DEX that keeps poking foes that doesn't pay attention to him. But I would like to see a more (monster) Brute (instead of the Soldier role) applied to characters: A Defender that doesn't rely much on AC but on HP, with power like Invigorating to keep him up fighting.

>>53286912
>A Defender that doesn't rely much on AC but on HP, with power like Invigorating to keep him up fighting.

Aren't those the CON secondary/primary defenders in a nutshell?

>>53286941
CON has a very small effect on hp in 4e

Of all the roles in 4e, Controller always felt like the problem child to me.

Not that they aren't cool- Controllers get to do a lot of awesome shit.

But everything they do seems kinda tertiary. Very nice to have, but if you're doing a three man party the class to cut always seems to be the Controller. Without the Striker you lack damage, without the Leader you lack healing and enabling, without the Defender you're vulnerable. Without a Controller... Lots of dudes might be more difficult and you don't have as much debuffing?

Although I guess what leads on from that is, is that a bad thing? Is it okay to make Controller kind of a miscellaneous role, giving them cool and interesting things to do which add to the group which don't naturally fall into raw offence, defence or support?

>>53286990
Which bothers me greatly.

My 4e retroclone won't even have abilities. All will be attached to class, feature choice and power options.

>>53287093
4e only actually needs three stats to correlate with the three defenses. The six stats just got jammed in because muh d&d

>>53287093
>>53287120

I'm trying to stick with the six, for familiarity/marketing reasons, and giving each one a combination of two things they add to.

A primary defence, like Ref/Fort/Will, and a secondary benefit like maximum HP or surges.

Keeping the defence assignments the same, we have Str and Cha affecting HP (strong body or force of personality letting you keep fighting in the short term) and Wis and Con affecting surges (physical endurance or great willpower helping you keep fighting in the long term)

The trouble is AC, Int and Dex. In the other two cases, we've managed to divorce the defence from its secondary benefit, but it's hard to really fiddle things around to split apart Int and Dex like that, and a bonus to AC is such a huge fucking benefit it's hard to know what to do.

I still think the principle, of each stat adding to defence x and also providing benefit y is decent, it's just how to make it all work.

We did try to have six different benefits, one for each stat, but it's honestly hard to find that many things in the system which actually matter to make it work.

>>53287262
Sounds like your life would be much easier if you just accepted that three stats is superior

>>53287350

Three stats would be simpler, but I don't think it's necessarily superior. If we can make the six all meaningfully distinct it does create more choices, and plus the familiarity element really can't be underplayed.

It kind of sucks, because there's more than a few things we don't think are ideal, but changing them might push things to the point it's no longer recognisable as D&D, which would severely limit our potential audience.

>>53287376
>but changing them might push things to the point it's no longer recognisable as D&D, which would severely limit our potential audience.
Let's be mildly real here: how many people will
1) give a shit about a 4e retroclone
2) that aren't also ok with 4e

if you're fine with 4e, and thus interested in a retroclone, you probably aren't too hyper-attached to funky things DnD does just because it's DnD.

>>53287262
Use Int + Dex for AC, call it Defense, and Armor add DR instead. 4e uses big numbers so DR isn't much of a problem.

>>53284987
Don't defenders have by far the greatest (damage)*(overall survivability) though?

Presumably the real problem with defenders is just that 4e is too easy so everyone only cares about damage (speed of encounter completion) and not damage-over-lifetime.

>>53288044
>4e is too easy
No, enemy damage got buffed starting with MM3. I don't know why the fuck you think enemies need to have lots of HP in addition to that, but it needs to go far, far away. We already dealt with high HP and fucking *nobody* but you wants those kill times back, let alone a game where the lethality is lopsided like 5E.

>>53288166
I'm pretty sure I never said monsters need more HP.

From where I'm sitting, it seems that monsters are generally too susceptible to control effects.

>>53288229
Except that's a good thing. The fuck are you going to do with a Warlock or a Rogue if enemies were hard to debuff and hit like they do now? That leaves jacking up the HP, which is a bad idea.

>>53288273

Not >>53288229

I think you could just nerf the control effects (and their effectiveness, like the save debuffing wizard builds) and leave the rest and be relatively ok.

>>53288229
>>53288317
It's not fun to play a Controller that doesn't control. Imagine playing a Striker that often (as often as you think control effects should happen) misses?

>>53288317
But it's not an issue. Defenders aren't exactly shit in 4E and their problems have very little to do with others being able to kill enemies (reasonably) quickly unaided or being able to crowd control enemies.

>>53288444
Err, yes

Defenders are melee crowd control, just like how controllers are ranged crowd control

>>53288444
>>53288362
Right, I'm just saying I agree that some of the control builds could be reeled in (then again, this is true for a lot of other stuff).

>>53288499
What about going over 9000 the >>53288489 idea and fuse both into one?

>>53284720
A wizard with unarmored agility, an int of 20 and staff of defense has an AC of 18 at level 1.

>>53288744
a monk with unarmored agility, and a dex of 20 has a 19 AC at level 1.

>>53287120
What three stats would you suggest using?

Howdy /4eg/, I've been getting the itch to go back and run a 4e game and take a break from 5e. Are there any programs that can provide me with a character sheet that has the chosen abilities/spells with descriptions at hand? I only have one copy of each of the PHBs and its far too cumbersome to be constantly passing them around the table.
If the offline character creator in OP can do this, fantastic

Anybody else pissed that the fighter didn't get plate proficiency? I thought it was a typo when I read it.

>>53288744
And a fighter with a shield in scale armor has AC 19 and guaranteed more HP regardless of constitution

>>53288836
Yeah, the character creator should do this. Last time I had it, I could print out the spells onto cards and have everything at hand.

>>53288852
>>53284720
>A Fighter in scale+heavy shield will have 19 AC at level 1. How's a wizard matching that?

>>53288870
Great to know. Thanks Anon. I know what I'm doing when I get home from work tonight.

>>53288891
So why did you forget that in your post?

>>53288744
For all of one attack, and is still less.

>>53288835
Immediate thought: Is there a problem with literally using Fortitude, Reflex, and Will? Maybe rename Reflex to "Wits" or something.

I suppose the biggest one is Dex and Int are a bit...different. Particularly troublesome when it comes to skills. Str/Con are usually relatively tied, both in fiction and in real life, and Wis/Cha can usually be close enough, especially when skills are brought in to differentiate between the perceptive stoic ranger or the boisterous needs-a-council-of-5-advisers leader.

Depends on how you do skills, really. If it's keeping d20+attrib+"Training" like DnD , it's going to be a bit odd.

>>53288744

That is a wizard who picked his level 1 feat be 'More defence' and his subtype the 'Defensive wizards' one...and he's still 1 lower than the fighter.

That seems fair. He's tough for a wizard but not quite a fighter.

>>53289015
staff of defense gives you a passive +1 to ac. if you actually used the power you would get another +2 to ac, for a total of 20.

File: 0c2c7b2aa42810bd9cac13b76854f678.jpg (623KB, 631x902px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 631x902px

Level 4. Crossbow ranger, Covenant of Wrath invoker, Charisma paladin, melee Wisdom/Constitution cleric (warpriest).

The melee cleric (warpriest) has no budget for a holy symbol, and uses no implement abilities.

Should the melee cleric's level 3 encounter power be Death Surge, Allied Accuracy, or Resurgent Sun?

Death Surge is an off-turn attack, but the character has no implement (Devout Protector Expertise, at least), and the character would likely be able to catch only themselves and the paladin in the burst.

Allied Accuracy will lend some accuracy, but the party has little in the way of "I absolutely must land this attack against this one enemy" attacks, except for maybe Valorous Smite and Silent Malediction.

Resurgent Sun is an automatic healing surge expenditure.

The warpriest's at-will powers are Blessing of the Sun and Singing Strike, their level 1 encounter attack power is Prophetic Guidance, and their level 1 daily attack power sadly has to be Lesser Aspect of Wrath due to how the party will probably spread itself out.

>>53289052
Fuck, yeah.
To be more accurate, +1 AC and then immediate interrupt enc for +CON Defense against 1 attack.

>>53289073
This seems to be a low op group, so I'd go resurgent sun for safety.

>>53289015
Skills period are a bit odd. The very concept behind an advantage due to some specified training makes sense, but as a strict mechanical subsystem I don't think it applies anymore. If I were to do a retroclone, I'd probably lean closer to 13th Age or SotDL and have narrative background related bonuses as opposed to skill bonuses.

As an aside, not sure why renaming Fort, Ref and Will would be an issue. Lots of games still use those as a go to for defenses or saves without much issue. But you could always rename Fort and Ref if it's a matter of taste. Maybe Endurance and Cunning? Will sort of speaks for itself, so no need for a name change if you ask me.

>>53284604
>and sheilds ought to carry a scaled bonus, like +1 per teir for shield mastery.
>>53284720
>Also, mathematically, scaling off of two sources instead of 1 (shield and armor/stat, instead of just armor) will mean that shield will outscale attack bonuses. Which is bad. You want to keep AC and offense in the same ballpark.

Shield mastery is a paragon tier feat, but if it were availible at heroic tier and gave a scaled bonus like weapon focus, i don't think that would be that broken.

>>53284604
>Single weapon fighter ought to get a +1 to ac
Single handed weapon fighters getting a +1 for using a shield is a pretty reasonable adjustment.

>>53289015
Well dex has a lot of crap that should belong to strength, so once you make dex actually fine motor controls and finesse as opposed to "agility" it should work better.

File: 234d4b0d32b618b50e6c06cd03b7be3b.jpg (302KB, 1800x1700px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1800x1700px

>>53289119

I was previously unaware that crossbow rangers, Covenant of Wrath invokers, and Charisma paladins were considered "low optimization," especially given low-heroic starts.

Tell me what power you think should be most useful, then.

>>53284720
>>53284987
>>53284604

Just do what I do: All defenders calculate their base defenses from 12 instead of 10. That includes AC.

>>53289145
Toughness and Evasion.

>>53289162
>Shield mastery is a paragon tier feat, but if it were availible at heroic tier and gave a scaled bonus like weapon focus, i don't think that would be that broken.

It'd make shields even better.

Using a shield would net you +5 AC at Epic. That's fucking ridiculous, considering how often it is hard to justify not using a shield when you can to begin with.

You got to understand that the scaling of defenses is already matched to the scaling of offense. Introducing MORE scaling/bonuses into it is basically fucking up the math that expertise feats unfucked, except from the other end.

took me 10 fucking minutes to make this post, get a fucking hold of yourself 4chan

>>53289780
why do you keep saying things?

>>53289162
Shield mastery is available in heroic, but only if you're a fighter or multiclassed into fighter

It's called Stout Shield. Encouraging Shield goes with it, also fighter only, but gives you your shield bonus to Will

File: ashen_crown.jpg (32KB, 260x314px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 260x314px

Has anyone here run Seekers of the Ashen Crown? I bought it when it came out years ago, but never got the chance to run it. I'm looking to remedy that.

>>53289856
I assume that the chances of making myself understood go up as I keep explaining things, but I'm starting to think that it's an inefficient way to spend my time.

>>53289780
I thought we agreed defenders AC wasn't scaling properly to begin with?

Classes that rely on int and dex bonuses for AC already have a scaling AC bonus, one that starts at +5 which is the equivalent of chainmail, plus another heroic tier feat which gives them the equivalent of plate.

Avengers, Monks, Barbarians and Wizards all have class features that give bonuses to their unarmed AC already.

>>53289918
shield specialization, rather.

>>53290003
Yes, and the masterwork medium/heavy armors have built in scaling that matches the stat scaling.

Also, putting the scaling on shields means a light armored type could grab a shield and scale double and still outscale the heavy armor guy, even if you are right.

And, as said, the two handed weapon guys are even more fucked.

>>53290207
a scaling feat, not a scaling item bonus.

I mis spoke, i meant shield specialization.

>>53290207
but defenders don't get class feature bonuses to AC, and they don't start with access to unarmored ajility, and armor specialization doesn't start till paragon tier, and for some reason that also gimps fighters because scale doesn't get a bonus to AC like plate or chain mail.

>>53290322
What is swordmage?

Also scale armor specialization does give an AC bonus

>>53290322
Masterwork scale does? Elemntal drake scale gives +13 AC, godplate gives +14.

It's a patchwork fix, but it's there.

>>53290364
oh. well then its annoying that that isn't listed under the feats summary description.

All I'm saying is that wizards, monks, and avengers all end up with higher AC's than defenders, which are supposed to be tanks.

>>53288044
>4e is too easy

4e is as easy as the DM wants it to be

Any experienced DM will take the encounter XP budged and wipe his ass with it.

>>53290433
Just give all defenders a class bonus to defenses and HP.

>>53290433

Viewing a single stat in a vacuum is stupid when defense and durability is far, far broader than that.

Despite the similarities, a defender is not a MMORPG tank where survivability is the only concern.

>>53290433
Defenders primarily defend with their HP, not their AC. In fact, making their AC too high is counterproductive, because then they incite their marks less to attack them.

Having high AC in general is bad for the game, because shit only happens on hits. If your cool monster can't hit, you can't show off how cool his stuff is.

Finally, 2 out of those classes are frontliners who need that high AC because they don't have the HP to go with it. Hell, the monk has an incentive to be always in range of two enemies at once, and the third one has to give up a much more useful offensive specialization for that AC.

look, letting defenders have an additional +2 or +3 to AC isn't broken, its just fixing a problem that needs to be addressed.

A +1 AC from single handed weapon fighter, and scaling bonus for shield specialization is a good fix.

2 handed weapon fighters are in no way gimped, but if you really wanted to you could add an untyped damage bonus to greatweapon fighter class features. I don't really think they need it, but sword and board fighters are pretty garbage tier, desu.

>>53290563
Your not even arguing the point.

DEFENDERS SHOULD HAVE HIGHER AC's THAN STIKERS

>>53290578
>I don't really think they need it, but sword and board fighters are pretty garbage tier, desu.

You don't understand this game.

>>53290433
Why do you keep bringing up wizards?

Monks, Avengers and dex-barbarians all have AC that can match defender AC, but the only defenders wizards beat at AC is 20-strength wardens without shields

>>53290589
>Your not even arguing the point.

Neither are you, you are just repeating it.

>>53290589
>Your not even arguing the point.

Yes I am.

>DEFENDERS SHOULD HAVE HIGHER AC's THAN STIKERS

See

>Defenders primarily defend with their HP, not their AC. In fact, making their AC too high is counterproductive, because then they incite their marks less to attack them.

I'm literally refuting the core of your argument.

>A +1 AC from single handed weapon fighter, and scaling bonus for shield specialization is a good fix.

it's not.

Do you really not understand how having a 6 AC gulf between a guy using a shield and one that is not is a huge fucking problem? Do you really not understand that strikers can pick up shields too?

>>53290589
Except they shouldn't. Those classes have lower HP averages, and they tend to go down in a few good hits or one very deadly hit, if not protected by a good Defender. But the Defender needs to look appealing as a target, mark or no mark. Having too high of defenses would counterbalance that.

The defender can survive having a lower AC score better than those classes. You're not suppose to completely mitigate damage from ever happening. There must be threat to the party somewhere.

>>53290578
The problem with two-handed weapon fighters is that you're either using a polearm, or you aren't being a defender

Is this the same guy who was going on about Leaders earlier? If so, just how hard can one person fundamentally misunderstand 4e?

I just find it frustrating that when I present a perfectly reasonable adjustment to fix a valid complaint you establishmentarian reflex is to defend the system, cover up its flaws and say "4e is a gud boy, he dindu nuffin!"

>>53290665

Damn I missed that, TLDR?

>>53290642
>strikers can pick up shields too

Most strikers aren't willing to spend two feats and a very suboptimal stat array to pick up a shield and probably lose damage due to occupying their off-hand with a shield instead of a weapon or implement

>>53290665
ugh, god, you disgust me.

You haven't even played the game, you 4e virgin, and you're telling other people how to run it. I played from level 1 all the way to paragon tier in a single campaign.

Your like a kid who thinks a diaphragm goes up the butt.

>>53290642
>I'm literally refuting the core of your argument.
You're not even addressing the periphery of my argument!

>>53290700
>I played from level 1 all the way to paragon tier

whoo impressive

I'm currently wrapping up my scales of war campaign, joined at lvl 3, nor lvl 26.

Plus countless shorter campaign in heroic and paragon, with a couple epic

>>53290688

They were shouting about how the most important thing about Leaders was healing and how Warlords were Strikers because they helped do damage, despite direct quotes from the book contradicting their stupid assertions.

>>53290642
>6 AC gulf between a guy using a shield

Agh god, you can't even add!

Scaling sheild specialization gives you a +2 at epic tier, and adding a +1 to single handed weapon fighter for using a shield is a total of +3, which puts them one over most dex builds and strikers with unarmored AC bonuses as class features.

>>53290691
For +6 AC I sure fucking would.

Do you understand what that means?

Monsters have something like 60-70% hit rate.

add -6 to that and you go down to fucking 30-40%. You are almost half as likely to get hit.

This is elementary math ffs.

>>53290741

Funny, considering warlord can be the 22nd best healing class in the game. While being the best enabling one and top tier buffers as well,

>>53290768
A shield itself gives +2 you fucking retard.

Even if instead of +1/2/3 the scaling is +0/1/2 you are still at +5.

>>53290782
>22nd

*2nd - broken keyboard

>>53290738
uh huh. sure you have.

I think this guy just found a new way of trolling 4e, since MMO NOT AN RPG ROLLPLAY NOT ROLEPLAY doesn't work anymore.

>>53290782

Yeah. They've basically conclusively proven they know nothing about the game yet they just keep going on about how they'd 'fix' it.

>>53290805

https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/14030/scales-of-war

Say what?

>>53290802
Shield specialization is a paragon tier feat which gives +1 AC at paragon, if it was scaling, that would mean it would give +2 AC at epic.

Now, as you said, the shield itself gives +2, so that's a grand total of a +4 shield bonus

>>53290832
The +1 from the single handed fighter?

>>53290802
>A shield itself gives +2 you fucking retard.
omfg you can't be this stupid

Anons? Don't know if this is thread relevant, but I was wondering: anyone have particular 4e-related fluff that they really like, especially in comparison to the 3e and 5e version? This could be for one of the specific settings or for "general" D&D, I'm just curious if anyone else out there likes 4e for the lore as much as for the crunch.

For starters, I vastly prefer the World Axis to the Great Wheel. 4e's planar layout just feels so much more like a mythological universe somebody would have actually come up with; the Great Wheel feels... artificial. Sterile.

>>53290851
...where is that coming from? I'm sorry, i must have missed that post

>>53290900
I really love the blend of mechanics and lore for 4e Eberron and 4e Dark Sun

Things like the dragonmark feats, the wild talents, and arcane defilement

>>53290926

Love 4e dark sun as well,

But mostly cause I like dark sun period.

Was kinda wishing for a 4e spelljammer.

>>53290903


>>53290768
>Scaling sheild specialization gives you a +2 at epic tier, and adding a +1 to single handed weapon fighter for using a shield is a total of +3

Me: Hey guys, defenders are 2 AC lower than most dex builds. Maybe we should let defenders take shield specialization at heroic and let it scale?
Crowd: RAPE HIS CHILDREN!!!

>>53290961
Actually
>Crowd: you are an idiot, and here's why
>You: LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!

>>53290955
Oh... that's a bit stupid, Fighters are already ahead of the curve in terms of AC. Behind Swordmages and Paladins to be sure, but every sword&board fighter matches the highest non-defender AC by default

>>53290961
Me: Hey guys, taking shield specialization would put defenders who use shields AC on a even keel with dex builds. But if we give single weapon specialists a +1 to AC for using a shield, this will put them one higher...
Crowd: SACRIFICE HIM TO OUR DARK GODS!!
But its no worse than the +1 AC you get with brawler style...
Crowd: NOOOOO!! THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH!! BURN HIM!!

>>53290996
>Fighters are already ahead of the curve in terms of AC
God, why do you keep saying that? They are 2 AC BELOW the curve for dex builds.

>>53291025
>If you make an ass out of yourself, there will always be someone to ride you.

>>53290981
Yes, because we all know large crowds have superior reasoning capability to lone individuals and that appealing to the consensus is not at all a logical fallacy.

>>53291077

/r/iamverysmart

>>53291025
Brawler style gives a +1 when your offhand is free.

You know.

Not holding a shield that adds +2.

I'm done, you are either seriously retarded or trolling.

>>53290996
A heavy armor fighter with a shield, the standard fighter, will, at level 1, have 19 AC. This matches 20-dex monks and 18-dex/int avengers with unarmored agility. A light armor fighter with a shield will either have either 19 AC if they're starting with 18 dex or 18 AC if they're starting with 16 dex. Distinctly lower than heavy armor fighters. Now, this does change, assuming constant investment into either dex or int light armor characters will get +1 over heavy armor characters from level 26-30. But, this isn't enough for most non-defender classes to match fighter AC

>>53291158
good riddance, you piece of shit.

File: u-mad-1[1].jpg (32KB, 500x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x480px

>>53291189

So mature

>>53291044
The curve is not made of the most efficient, anon.
Do you even know what that expression means?

>>53290433

What wizard has a higher AC than a defender? The listed example was a fully specced for defence wizard and he was STILL lower AC.

Monks are also a very defensive happy class.

File: 9244e9cd21660fb2d279da567ca3326a.jpg (308KB, 658x1176px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 658x1176px

>>53289073

Also, the Charisma paladin is actually a Charisma/Constitution paladin with only one use of Lay on Hands each day, in case that matters.

The simplest solution to light armor being superior to heavy armor is to simply declare that the elven chain shirt item does not exist and no one is allowed to buy it

>>53289073
Allied Accuracy seems to be the better pick here, especially to open up for the Paladin or the Invoker.

Getting an error trying to install the updates with the character builder. Any fa/tg/uys have a fix? Its a 7zip internal error for the updates after Jan 2010

>>53290472
Encounters that are properly difficult for a party of moderately experienced, moderately optimized (that is, no serious cheese) would generally be too large, containing too many enemies to be enjoyable.

>>53290589
AC is just one out of many defender-relevant stats, and you're over fixating on it to the point of comedy.

>>53294642
I'd say redownload it if 7zip isn't extracting correctly.

>>53294642
Personally, I've never had any success with any installation of the version of the character builder that is distributed on 4chan.
The only version if it that I ever got to work was back when I had Win XP and the base installation was the OG one that came from the WotC website, patched with extra content afterwards.
Lost to the river of time.

If someone knows how to actually install the damned thing, at least one extra person would be grateful.

>>53294642
>>53294770
I don't know what to tell you. It works for me!

>>53294770
Don't fucking install it in the program files folder.

>>53294802
huh. This actually worked. Thanks for the tip Anon.

>>53295904
Win 7+ requires you to run something as an admin to have it edit anything in program files, and because the way the patches are coded, it won't work, even if they're run as Admin.

On a semi-related note, I've had literally every single member of my group fuck this up despite explicitly explaining it to all of them.

How would you suggest going about doing HP in a retroclone to make it not tied to a stat?

>>53297284
have it tied to class

>>53297284
>>53297546
I mean it's nearly already tied to class, since it only is applied once. You might have to fudge the numbers around in healing surges a bit, since that's the real survivability gain from high Con, but after level 5 or so, the HP total of an 18 Con character isn't going to be that much different from a 10 Con character of the same class in terms of pure numbers, and that ratio is only going to get smaller as levels increase.

>>53297007
which i guess explains why it worked for me, since i'm rooted as admin

File: 1456373866773.jpg (127KB, 827x813px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 827x813px

>>53298059
LOOK AT ME! I AM THE GREATEST PERSON WHO EVER LIVED! ALL BOW BEFORE ME AND MY UBER LEET SKILLS! I AM KING OF THE BASEMENT TROLLS!

RAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

>>53289015
>>53289145
>STR/CON=Tenacity
Related to the body; represents a character's physical prowess and fortitude. Governs skills related to might and endurance

>DEX/INT=Acuity
Related to the mind; represents a character's keenness of mind and reflexes. Governs knowledge, senses and hand-eye coordination

>WIS/CHA=Resolve/Will
Related to the spirit; represents a character's force of personality and willpower. Governs social aptitude related skills.

>>53290589
Defenders want to give opponents incentive to target them, and being easier to hit is a good one. What defenders really need is the ability to survive the hits, which hp and saves provide. Warden I think is the best example of how a defender should work. Not great AC, but high hp, multiple chances to save/heal and great lockdown through power effects

>>53290900
I fucking love the feywild and have a hard time remembering the days when it wasn't a fleshed out part of the game

>>53284542
Can anyone help me? I need to stat a rat paladin, hes a normal rat who took a paladin oath.

It took a few stupid coincidences and a bunch of natural 20s but now Björn the rat has become a Paladin of Bahamuth.

Anyone got ideas?

>>53300478
Tiny size is actually pretty good for defender types, as they can charge into enemy squares, forcing the enemy to shift twice to get away from being adjacent.

Is this a PC or an NPC/enemy?

>>53300535
So far an NPC but a new player might take him, that beeing said right now hes an NPC and i dont want to make him as powerfull as a full character, he is literaly a rat afterall, not a magic rat

>>53300717
Well, being a Paladin makes him magic.

He should still have tiny Strength and CON though, making his melee less than stellar. I'm also not sure what his CHA should be.

So, the only relevant things from cavalier should be the Defender Aura and maybe the heal daily. Possibly give him some minion tier automatic 2-3 damage as long as he's adjacent.

>>53286990

Con has a very large effect on total HP (HP + surges * surge value), which is important for a defender with staying power.

>>53286941

Battlerager fighter is basically this all over. Paladins can touch themselves all day to keep themselves going. Wardens can generally justify second-winding each encounter to self-heal, with their buffs to it.

>>53303333
>Paladins can touch themselves all day to keep themselves going
nice quads

>>53303333
you know, thematically, it makes no sense for a paladin to be able to use their lay on hands ability to heal themselves. Laying on hands is supposed to be a selfless act.

File: Deedee+big+pimpin_5370a0_4297610.jpg (39KB, 556x565px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 556x565px

I need ideas for monsters that are maybe a little corny. Not so corny as the "Calzone Demon", but kind of tongue in cheek, "I see what you did there" type monsters.

>>53294653

Our last (boss) encounter in my campaign was one solo and three elites.

It was definitely not easy

>>53306191
I think you're lying, but I'll humor you. What did you fight? What level were you? How many were in your party?

>>53307020

Level 24 at the time, 5 man party.

>>53307020

Sorry, missed the first part of the question somehow.

Artillery solo with a controller bend (lich)
Tanky elite soldier, (corpse abomination/golem)
Elite lurker (some kind of banshee)
Elite brute (zombie giant)

Judging by their defences the solo was lvl 26, the elites lvl 25, but not 100% sure.

>>53306191
We had one encounter involving 4 Solos and 8 Standards, all at least 5+ levels above our party and 2 of the solos were 6 levels above us, and everytime the standards took any damage from anything, they'd explode for heavy damage and get instantly replaced by an identical monster. Our party was also split in half (3 on one side, 2+DMPC on the other) with each half fighting 2 solos and 4 standards.

We got pooled back together mid-way through the fight when all but one enemy committed suicide and we had to fight a level 29 Phoenix solo. We were level 21 and half our party couldn't even hit the thing. This is still the same fight so we had zero chance to heal or regain encounter powers between the two.

We only won that fight on stupid amounts of luck and browbeating the DM into taking enemies out because of all the bullshit, and having 4 Leaders due to not coordinating our characters.

I think the DM took it personally because he followed up with us taking down the Phoenix by using an auto-hit "You die" attack we couldn't have done anything about. He wasn't allowed to DM again.

>>53307933

Well, our characters are fairly optimized, but the DM does not allow utterly ridiculous builds

Does the warhammer fantasy rpg have as much annoying time consuming combat as dnd does?

>>53307933
It sounds like your DM is playing fast and loose with the rules.

>>53307933
chronic bullshitter

File: 1475269746905.png (220KB, 736x502px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 736x502px

>>53307933
Your party is 4/6 leaders? What.

>>53303333
I love Battleragers in theory but holy shit, having your primary and secondary pump the same NAD sucks and so does being pushed into using +2 weapons while wanting a high secondary stat.

>>53311100
>dubs-trips-dubs
Checked!

Battleragers also lost their main advantage which was boatloads of THP that managed to make hitting them kind of stupid. But yeah, they have issues. Doesn't help that WotC tried to push them with Chainmail but not Scale, and with no shield either.

>>53311100

>having your primary and secondary pump the same NAD sucks

My problem with lazer clerics. Otherwise i love them

>>53311184
Laser clerics are pretty damn effective compared to the other Cleric, though, while Battlerager is a little bit of a step down from a vanilla Fighter.

It's playable, and still a decent class, that's what being a Fighter in 4E will do for you, but damn if it isn't stupid to basically have -2 to hit and shitty NADs. Makes it a little too easy to get screwed over by high AC enemies or enemies that debuff with attacks that hit Will or Ref.

>>53311184
Laser Clerics are kind of stupid, but it's worse with the Prescient Bard. They're above average with their powers, but other than that they're kind of eh.

wasn't warden supposed to be an aura defender? How did that work out?

>>53311784
Better than the essentials aura defenders

File: e0f4900118ea9b0b55eb35d54199dbda.jpg (1MB, 1000x1414px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1414px

>>53311184
>>53311245
>>53311768

Frankly, I do not see much of a point to playing a Wisdom/Charisma dedicated ranged cleric when a Wisdom/Constitution melee/ranged cleric can get the job done more flexibly and more durably.

>>53311768
>>53311184
>>53311100


There was a set of homebrew rules I made a while back that gave most, but not all, class options with their primary and secondary under the same NAD could use their secondary stat to calculate a different NAD

So Battlerager fighters could use constitution to calculate their will, stormheart (but not earthstrength) wardens could use constitution to calculate their reflex, all clerics had the option of using charisma to calculate their fortitude (but only if it was lower than their wisdom), etc. etc.

>>53309487
Was. Like I said, we didn't coordinate what we were building so we ended up showing up with a bunch of healers, a Paladin, and a Ranger. The excessive healing was basically the only reason we won those fights, and we even still lost someone (due to the GM dropping one guy to zero, then dropping a smoke field that blocked LoS for us, and only us, and then had one of the solos walk up and CdG him to death)

>>53314907
That's weird, I've never been able to make any leader without knowing what everyone else is making first

The effectiveness of any one leader build is decided by the rest of the party

>>53315401
Yeah, we're usually more careful about that kind things, but it was a one-shot the guy DMing it sprung on us at the last minute, so we didn't have as much time I'd like to see what everyone else was making first.

I play Warlord as much as I can regardless of comp though, because we usually have at least one good MBAer anyways, even it's just the Defender.

File: ed83415e44f4f63836739b69a04b13d4.png (3MB, 2400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2400x1800px

Why don't we make like /pfg/ and organize games over Roll20 or MapTool?

People can even play fox hengeyokai!

>>53311784
wildblood speed makes my dick hard

>>53317516
If someone volunteered to GM a 4e game where I could play a fox hengeyokai I would KILL to be in it...

Except I'm already in too many games : (

>>53319201
So kill one of your games?

>>53319230
Well, the 5e game I'm in is on the verge of dying anyway. My character alone accounts for like 75% of all the roleplaying that ever happens and everyone is getting kind of sick of the campaign (I think it's Rise of Tiamat?).

I feel bad for the GM. He's a good guy but this is his first game and he hasn't quite figured out how to make things interesting yet.

Hey all. Recently got juiced on 4e after working on filling a 4e Dark Sun campaign (since I was working on 2e Dark Sun anyway and the stuff can pull double time), when I found themes for Templars and Defilers as well as the Creature Catalog's elemental, gladiator, psionic, and sunwarped themes. Two of my friends have agreed to take turns DMing as well, so I'm pretty excited.

Anyone do a 4e Dark Sun campaign recently? How'd it go?

>>53307020
>>53294653
This is stupid. When early 4e was leaked, not only did people take it apart and show how to kill Orcus fast, but we also did a challenge to see how to "optimize" enemy encounters using average encounter XP alotments for levels to produce encounters which would utterly obliterate high optimization mid paragon, low epic, and high epic parties with no fuss or muss.

Turns out: its very easy to do, even for an Orcus slayer (not to be confused with Orcuslayer) party, pre errata. This was also with the low damage, easy ass, gen 1 monsters.

Some things may have to be differently handled (Sonnlinor revenants) but you don't need to make parties for mid or high op big or long winded.

Are there late gen, Monster Vault quality versions of, say, air or storm archons, or of the different versions of fire, ice, water, etc. archons?

>>53320097

Make your own

The best thing of 4e is how fast, easy and satisfying is to create new monsters for DMs

>>53322254
And the worst is how hard it is to homebrew or retroclone it.

Was there ever a guide as to how to convert old MM monsters into the new formula as to not make encounters last forever?

>>53323493
For a strictly direct conversion, no. The math adjustments are easy, but balancing powers takes a bit more effort. For the most part, try to save OoT powers for bigger threat monsters, and don't give anyone but Elites/Solos reusable ones. Beyond that, peruse newer monsters and try and follow suit with what they do where applicable.

>>53323538
Alright, thanks. I got the itch to run 4e again recently after my group started using Fantasy Grounds and we saw how automated it gets, which should cut encounter times by a lot.

>>53323641
Speaking of Fantasy Grounds, is there a way to use the parser to parse all of the information from the offline Compendium or should I get a one month membership to WotC's one just to make it easier?

>>53323765
I'm interested in this as well.