/4e/ general thread please. Is your campaign setting a

Not at the moment, although it's always a nice idea.

I don't think it's the best idea to try and spam-create 4e generals though. I like the game, but it doesn't have the population or playerbase to support consistent threads at the moment, most die before hitting 300 posts. Better to have more occasional really long, good threads than very regular mediocre ones that bleed away interest rather than letting it build up to a point where we can get some really good discussions going.

Is there a 4e game set on modern, future or post apocalyptic settings? I think the type of game Shadowrun does of urban crawling and building delving makes it good for 4e.

>>53745270
https://rpggeek.com/thread/792832/gamma-world-rpg-review

>>53745270
You'd need to kind of change the whole things or refluff a lot of stuff but theoretically it could work, it just wouldn't be easy.

Creating a similar system wouldn't also be easy, 4e's got a ton of material to cover even at the basics.

>>53745270
Either>>53745282

Or you could try Strike!. It's got built in stuff for XCOM-like shenans, but also strips away the d20 and a lot of D&D-isms.

>>53745270
>Earthdawn timeline led to Shadowrun timeline
>People familiar with Earthdawn compare 4e to it
>Also former Earthdawn devs worked on 4e
:thinking:

>>53745387

Stop shilling Strike! Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike?!

>>53745387
>>53752939
Stop saying to stop shilling Strike!
Why does /tg/ keep saying to stop shilling Strike!?

>>53745387
>>53752939
>>53754834
Mekton Zeta will always be abetter system for any sort of giant robot combat.

>>53745282
This. The Gamma World based on 4e is fun as fuck, especially character creation.

>>53756574
Mekton Zeta is exactly on the opposite end of the scale when it comes to design from 4e/Strike!.

Since I really like the top-down design of those games, Mekton is actively repulsing me. Like, I can't finish reading the book, because every 5 minutes I have to put it down and think about how shit doesn't make sense from a game-design perspective.

It's probably great for your robot-simulationist boner, but I can not for the life of me imagine why I'd want to play it, aside from maybe novelty's sake.

>>53758401
Giant robots in systems like strike or 4e have no weight. It feels like you are doing some kind of special move, which does some kind of basic effect. In MZ, all attacks have weight, and damage usually has an effect. It's much better for representing the giant robot experience than Strike!

>>53759021
Well, that depends on the giant robot experience you are going for.

Strike!/4e is perfect for SRW style super robots. It doesn't do real mecha with hit locations and overheating and shit like that as well (although I think it'd be relatively easy to homebrew for Strike!; I tried something like it for the AC game I ran but ran out of time before I could finish it).

>>53745042
>Is your campaign setting a points of light setting?
Pretty Much, I mean I always put my own spin on it, and a different spin each time, because part of the point of points-of-light is that the up-and-coming heroes don't know how the big scary magic world works, and the PC's stumbling through discovering it should be mirrored by their players stumbling through discovering it.

>>53745042
/vg is > that way lads.

>>53745064
Every day I check for a 4e general. Not having a place to discuss 4e kinda sucks.

If I have a party of 3 PCs, do you think its better to use lower level 5 man encounters (per the DMG suggestion) or smaller encounters?

>>53745042
Well its Dark Sun, so that's pretty PoL.

>>53764592

As long as you fit it to the encounter budget and don't stray from the usual level range, you should do fine.

>>53764592
What classes are they?

>>53765058
Blackguard|Assassin, Warden, Shaman|Sentinel.

>>53765456
>Blackguard|Assassin

Holy charge optimization Batman!

>>53765492
Oh? Do tell.

>>53765520
Blackguard | Assassin (assuming under assassin you mean executioner) hybrid can stack the Striker features they have _and_ can also stack smite+poison.

It's a really strong nova build and also a pretty good charger build since it has really good basic attacks. What race is the character?

>>53765591
Revenant. Do you feel like giving me a spoonfeeding of whatever charge tomfoolery would work?

>>53765627
Grabs Valiant Strike to have a CHA basic attack, then applies all the bonuses. If he got a high profile target, also activates Dreaded Smite and a poison for massive nova damage.

Revenant could pick up race specific charge bullshit, such as Streak of Light from pixie (which would guarantee always getting his shit off). or... IDK, Springing Charge from minotaur?

Alsu multiclass fighter or rogue (most likely rogue) for Surprising charge.

>>53765780
Oh wow, that sounds fuckin amazing.

File: revenant_blackguard.pdf (415KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1x1px

Quick Mock of level 10 Blackguard | Executioner

File: extremely_virtuous_strike.png (44KB, 324x746px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 324x746px

>>53767391
This is your basic attack strike

I remember someone saying something about how the bladesinger is deceptive in how you go about making one decent.
I have a player who rolled one up (which I've never seen or used myself) and they went 16/16 dex/int, which struck me as sorta... not bad, but made of why, until I read how the book recommends it. Can I get some advice on this, whether it will come back to bite them or hold them back?
Also, runepriest, is it as shit as I've heard? I am a fan of the lore, and just imagine slapping people with blocky roman print and telling them how much the gods hate them and I will write it down for them if they don't believe it.

>>53767461

Runepriest isn't bad, it's just got quite a limited power selection since it was such a late class.

>>53767461
Let the bladesinger add INT or DEX to a secondary defense. They have a gaping hole with DEX and INT overlapping.

File: 4965257518e2a273ba772998bd8e2475.jpg (2MB, 1273x1800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1273x1800px

>>53765591
>>53765780
>>53765857

I would say that an assassin (executioner)|paladin (blackguard) is not much better than an assassin (executioner)|warlock, a generic Spiked Chain Training rogue (scout), or a charging gouge fighter (slayer) with Martial Cross-Training for Rain of Blows.

While such builds will always be good chargers, they are probably going to find themselves outclassed by more dedicated nova builds in the paragon tier.

I am slated to play a level 6 wood elf Spiked Chain Training ranger (scout) in an upcoming mini-adventure myself. I can do nothing but charge, but I do charge well.

>>53767391

This character should be a pixie for the improved mobility of altitude limit 1 flight, which is not actually as limited as it seems. It would also help to shuffle around wealth (e.g. selecting and selling off rare items at 100% market price) to afford a Horned Helm and a Vanguard Weapon.

>>53767494
Well, that player is fairly new and keeps to the fundamentals, so that won't be a issue at all, thank you.
>>53767500
Recommendations? I'm thinking fortitude.

File: 669145739d29b96d3cd7b8d86b2d7c72.jpg (323KB, 1400x1000px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1400x1000px

>>53767461
>>53767598

A runepriest is serviceable enough in a Strength/Wisdom build, though I would not call it on par with an Intelligence warlord or a Virtue of Cunning bard in the right party.

Strength/Constitution runepriests have the same issue as any other Strength/Constitution character: abysmal noncombat capacities and horrendous Reflex and Will. Strength/Wisdom is simply the better choice for a runepriest.

As for the wizard (bladesinger), give it Dexterity to Fortitude in place of Strength or Constitution and call it "Agile Conditioning." Give it actual daily attack powers as well; there is no reason at all for a bladesinger to be saddled with encounter attack powers as daily attack powers, particularly when they are not even compatible with bladespells.

>>53767584
The nova turn it can do with dread smite is a bit better than Warlock I think.

Besides, it doesn't have to be better, being on par with some of the most optimized chargers is pretty stupid already.

Also, virtuous strike can become arcane, and in Paragon that means you can grab white lotus riposte which is pretty great.

>>53767598
>Recommendations? I'm thinking fortitude.

I think having a bad Will on a wizard is weird so I'd lean that way.

File: 1a6dd07ed605f86fed4a75e954ce32ed.jpg (4MB, 2550x3510px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2550x3510px

>>53767701

>The nova turn it can do with dread smite is a bit better than Warlock I think.
A bit better, yes. I believe I had posted such a build in these threads some time ago: https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/48865239/#48888299
I had used Valorous Smite instead of Dread Smite in order for the character to serve as an off-defender.

>Also, virtuous strike can become arcane, and in Paragon that means you can grab white lotus riposte which is pretty great.
On the other hand, Eldritch Strike is arcane by default.

>I think having a bad Will on a wizard is weird so I'd lean that way.
The wizard (bladesinger) already has +2 Will, and the iconic bladesinger race, eladrin, has +1 Will and a bonus to saving throws against charm effects. The bladesinger could use Fortitude more than Will.

>>53767701
>The nova turn it can do with dread smite is a bit better than Warlock I think.

Oh, and I almost forgot, it got the rain of hammers Ki focus.

Which just makes things very dead (albeit once a day, unless you have a friendly Artificer around).

>>53767794
Yeah, I remember that thread.

I bet there's some other optimization tricks you could do with virtuous I'm not thinking of (on top of the off defending). As well as the revenant.

How to optimize a superior crossbow using rogue? Assume a free weapon expertise and improved defenses feat.

>>53767391
>>53767415
Hmmm, neat.

>>53767584
Is a Vanguard weapon that good for a small party, though?

Is this how the edition of Touhoufag dies? DISAVOW

File: 23c69aae6c4fcbf6eeb3e68bfe7079da.jpg (254KB, 796x1200px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 796x1200px

>>53769862

Vanguard Weapons are for the +1d8 damage on a charge.

Avalanche Hammers can add another +1[W] to a mordenkrad, but hammers have less overall charging support.

Should I run this, or Strike!? Or is there a different game that captures the slightly-anime feeling of gridded powers-based combat better? Basically the group I'm playing 5e with is going alright, but I can tell from their actions and lack of critical thinking that they want more combat-oriented approach, and I remember liking 4e's combat back when I tried it.

Advice?

File: c0c13af1c005f323d1ef0bd2bec78d41.png (2MB, 1052x1488px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1052x1488px

>>53772693

I prefer D&D 4e for customizing a character's precise combat capacities. There is no denying the sheer wealth of combat options 4e has available to it.

I prefer Strike! for its actual combat chassis. How attack rolls are resolved, the way positioning is even more important than in 4e due to the way Advantage works (flanks are terrifying and cover is a life-saver), the splitting up of Move Actions by default, and the more hard-coded mechanics of combat roles all make for a more thought-provoking and tactically intense experience, in my opinion.

Strike! has its share of stupidly strong combinations (rogue [backstabber]/striker is the most prominent one; summoner/controller is another), but they are nothing compared to the sheer insanity of certain 4e builds. Strike! also suffers from some of the exact same problem that 4e does (a party of nothing but high-initiative strikers can blaze through the vast majority of combat encounters), and alas, there is little that can be done about it short of house rules or anti-alpha-striking encounter design.

Strike! is also the better game for reflavoring. 4e is a breeze to reflavor, but it still has its share of reflavoring obstacles, such as weapons and armor. Strike! is much more flexible in that regard.

While Strike!'s noncombat subsystem is a befuddling mess of narrow skills and spontaneous skill acquisition, I would *still* take that over D&D 4e's skill subsystem, which has trivially-beatable easy/moderate DCs and which arbitrarily screws over some characters in the skill department for no good reason (e.g. anyone Str/Con-based). Strike! tries to divorce combat resources from noncombat resources as much as possible; being strong and sturdy does not screw over your skills.

4e and Strike! are both deeply flawed games with completely *pathetic* and nonexistence balance in the face of high optimization, but I prefer Strike!, since customizing a character's combat capacities is not of very high importance to me.

>>53772883

Touhoufag, do you have advice for playing a ranged rogue that doesn't use hand crossbows?

>>53772693

Kamigakari or Valor are alternatives I'd look into.

I don't hate Strike, but I think 4e has more depth.

File: 692608fb475b9476411dcc5a32b15081.jpg (302KB, 707x900px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 707x900px

>>53772929

Permanent Stealth builds are by far the most reliable means of vindicating ranged rogues. Another decent method is being a Fey Beast Tamer by level 5+ for easy combat advantage, and it helps that the owlbear sharply increases the party's damage output.

If you just want to shoot people without gimmicks, play a ranger.

>>53772936

Speaking as someone who has studied Kamigakari and played, and who has studied Valor as well, I think both of them are a notch or two below both 4e and Strike!

Kamigakari has an intensely interesting and engaging resource management subsystem from Spirit dice, but the actual tactics involved are primitive. There are vague attempts at "combat roles," but direct offense is more cost-effective than anything else, party-defender mechanics are more unreliable than in 4e or Strike!, the best buffs are the ones that improve damage, and I hardly saw any meaningfully useful debuffs. This means that Kamigakari is even worse than 4e and Strike! about promoting parties that do nothing but bash enemies to death with raw damage. Let us not get into how multitarget attacks are dominant with the likes of Mysteries of Battle, and how Contractor B is a broken mess.

Valor impressed me even less than Kamigakari. It has character customization going for it, and that is it. There is hardly any incentive to build towards actual roles (which means combat runs the very real risk of being as primitive as "let us all gang up on this one person with our huge-damage attacks), you are better off concentrating on one or two super-moves rather than emphasizing a more diverse array, and the way attributes works encourages heavily lopsided characters who suddenly flop ineffectively when faced with an Achilles' heel. If you thought level 8+ 4e was bad with its rift between key ability scores and non-key ability scores, and strong NADs vs. weak NADs, you will hate Valor for sharpening that rift even further.

>>53772883
That gives me a lot to think about. I think I do like the idea of more tactical combat. What was putting me off about Strike! was in fact the roleplay section as I don't care too much for 'narrative' roleplay mechanics. ESPECIALLY that bit about spontaneously gaining a skill. But you made me reconsider. I might try reading it a little bit more before giving up on it.

>>53772936
1. Is Kamigakari in English?
2. Given a choice between all 4 of them, which would you choose for a long-running campaign?

>>53773154

I'd say 4e is the safest bet. With the fixes it works great, and a lot of THF's issues only come through in high op games, when it all works fine mid to low op.

>>53773184
>I'd say 4e is the safest bet. With the fixes it works great
Yeah, that was actually one of my concerns with 4e and why I didn't just dive into it. I had heard that you needed to half the HP of the monster and double their attacks or something? But only for certain books? I wasn't too clear about what needed fixing and where I could get that info.

File: 9dcaf449b9a3ee2f7df7bcea57dcc826.jpg (252KB, 1158x1637px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1158x1637px

>>53772936

Additionally, my opinion is that 4e has more complexity, but Strike! has more depth to it.

Strike! places much more emphasis on thinking through the durations of various effects, positioning your party and your enemies to gain Advantage on your attacks while trying to place Disadvantage on theirs, synergizing your party's effects together, and so on. 4e has plenty of this as well, but Strike! beats this out.

I say this as someone with a fair degree of experience in playing both 4e and Strike!, and as someone running a 4e campaign and playing in a Strike! campaign.

They run into similar problems in optimized environments, and like many games, they fall prey to the dominance of ridiculous alpha striking (though at least in a more interesting way than in Kamigakari and Valor), but these are more difficult problems to solve.

>>53773154
>>53773184

I would take up Strike! for the reason stated above: the actual combat gameplay has more tactical depth to it than 4e's, at least in my opinion.

>>53773184

I consider it a high mark for a game to withstand heavy optimization. Strike! and 4e both *horribly* fail in this regard, but Strike! fails less dramatically.

Therefore, since I value in-combat tactical depth and resistance to heavy optimization, I will take Strike! over 4e any day.

File: printablemm3businessfront.gif (27KB, 1050x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1050x600px

>>53773222

It's actually pretty simple. Pic related is all the math you need, the Monster Manual 3 and the Monster Vault use these stats if you want premade monsters.

For PC's, you just need to give everyone an Expertise feat and Improved Defences for free. After that, you're golden.

People will suggest other things to tweak it, but these are the only bits you need to know.

>>53773246

Have you ever played 13th Age? What did you think of it?

>>53773246
>>53773184
>>53773254

Thanks for answering my question guys. Touhou fag made a pretty persuasive argument for it, so I'm gonna stomach the narrative shit and try out strike. Failing that, I'll just fall back to 4e. Thanks again!

>>53752939
Strike needs to come in booklet form instead of lorem ipsum form

File: 813e8bc6c50592433b76c638051a3319.png (1MB, 1565x1821px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1565x1821px

>>53773255

If you metaphorically placed a firearm to my temple and asked me to rank these five games in an instant, I would probably say: Strike! > 4e > Kamigakari > 13th Age > Valor.

I like 13th Age's icon relationship subsystem, but that is just about it. The tactical depth of the combat suffers greatly when it is all about loosey-goosey relative distances, and contrary to what the book implies, it is not that easy to convert it to a more traditional grid.

The AC/PD/MD subsystem is a complete mess that strongly encourages having two dumped ability scores. Bizarrely, it all but forces Strength-based characters to dump Dexterity down to 8 if they want to have good defenses.

Where 13th Age flails around epileptically, however, is the class design. The designers had an opportunity for unified class progression, and then squandered it horribly. The classes are internally balanced against one another at levels 1 and 2, but once you hit level 3, class balance goes out of whack.

An older thread in which I go over my issues with 13th Age can be found here:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/43530325/#43533070

I do not think I was able to articulate myself as well as I did in this more recent thread, however:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/47191606/#47197158

Tiers in 13th Age are probably less "tier 1 to tier 6" and more "tier 3 to tier 5," to borrow 3.X/Pathfinder parlance, but that is still a non-negligible disparity.

File: f86bc109445799612964ec7ad0708f3a.png (5MB, 1700x1974px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 1700x1974px

>>53773294

The author actually planned on releasing, for free, a completely reformatted and restructured Strike! core rulebook that contained all player rules and combat rules, but no GMing section.

However, the author's child began to die of cancer, thereby putting a stop to that project. For that matter, the "Player's Handbook 2" project, as was the monster project. Strike! would have had a "Player's Handbook 2" and a comprehensive bestiary by now, were it not for that incident.

If anyone would like a collection of Strike! books and playtest material, it can be downloaded here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1i5mhmasq77iqm/Strike%20Books.zip?dl=0

>>53773438
>I like 13th Age's icon relationship subsystem, but that is just about it.
I mean, our GM basically just adapted it our Final Fantasy flavored 4e campaign, along with the whole "One Unique Thing" stuff. They're both mechanics that can easily be adapted to other systems.

I personally find Strike!s class design incredibly boring

Sure it allows a lot of combination with few actual classes, but the lists of powers are frustratingly short, and the classes themselves all have to operate in each possible role, which I feel is a very limiting design decision, far more so than 4e's AEDU system.

Of course, that's ignoring the big problem with Strike!, the weird fetish the creators had for the worst possible dice system

>>53773438
13th Age has balance issues, but I can almost forgive that for how mechanically beautiful the 13th Age monk is.

You know, so long as you ignore the existence of the Barbarian and Ranger and remember to use the no-ability-scores variant system

File: ac17391af1c36ad59e002f267db8a1db.png (1MB, 1228x1023px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1228x1023px

>>53773712

4e does have much more customization of combat capacities. It is true. Strike!, by comparison, is far more restrictive even with the playtest material.

Where Strike! shines, however, is its actual in-combat gameplay. The classes and roles play as they are supposed to... sometimes a little too well, and often with many stupidly strong builds like the rogue (backstabber)/striker, the duelist/defender, and the summoner/controller. For the most part though, its design is quite tight.

I think that the d6 works perfectly fine for Strike! It is the natural extension of what 4e's attack/defense math was supposed to work out to anyway, Miss Tokens help soften misses while Miss Triggers make misses interesting, and Strike! does not have that "and now I hit on a natural 2+" phenomenon that shows up eerily often in 4e.

13th Age's monk is poorly designed beyond the surface. Its MAD is a serious issue for its progression, and its attack chain mechanic does not work as well as it should. Here is a fix for it: http://13thage.org/index.php/classes/495-the-improved-monk

>Everyone ignores thread prompt
>Strike! general instead

>>53774020
More like
>2hu general

>>53774020
It's hard to argue about 4e, it's a good game that's been mechanically solved.

Arguing about Strike is far easier, it's a bizarre game that's relatively new


Buuut, to bring things back to 4e, I like Barbarians but think they're a tad weak compared to the crazy shit other strikers can do and a tad too strong when hybrided compared to base. So I've got a bit of a homebrew idea. Barbarians get 4 skills at level 1, rageblood mechanics now work off of dexterity instead of constitution, deadly rage is now a Barbarian feature instead of a feat, and Howling Strike now reads "When charging, you can use this power as a melee basic attack. If you are raging, you can move 2 extra squares as part of the charge." instead of "When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack. If you are raging, you can move 2 extra squares as part of the charge."

So, you know that Deck of Many Things that came with the 4e adventure Madness at Gardmore Abbey?

This is gonna sound really fitting, but after drawing from it and then setting it down, it disappeared on me. Can't find it fucking anywhere. Because of course the deck that disappears when it's done... disappeared.

Joking aside, anybody got a spare copy of Madness at Gardmore Abbey I can bum some cards off of?

>>53773883
you need to use the no-ability-scores variant for 13th Age anyway, and that fix is pretty small, just a collection of small buffs while sticking to the basic design, which show that the class is well designed, just underpowered

File: 9e837d154cad3a438981e8f66aa1886c.png (2MB, 900x1275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x1275px

>>53774097

My fix for pure-classed barbarians would be:
• Barbarians have four trained skills.
• Barbarians gain a +1 feat bonus to AC in leather armor and a +3 feat bonus to AC in cloth armor or no armor.
• Barbarians can use their Constitution or Charisma modifier in place of their Dexterity or Intelligence modifier when determining their AC when not in light armor.
• While a Whirling Slayer barbarian is wielding two weapons, their main hand weapon deals damage as if the barbarian was one size category larger. A Whirling Slayer barbarian also gains proficiency with ki foci.

I would not touch Howling Strike; charging has enough support.

>>53774132

Here is Madness at Gardmore Abbey:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rtg87nut82vf1y4/Madness%20at%20Gardmore%20Abbey.zip?dl=0

>>53774193

I personally prefer to use the New Alternative Array Ability Scores" for 13th Age, which, unlike Death to Ability Scores, is actually an official variant:
http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/13th-sage-new-alternative-array-ability-scores/

>>53774455
But the alternative array still stops you from making a strong rogue or a nimble barbarian

death to ability scores both expands character options and fixes maths at the same time

>>53774455
I mean, I have the pdf as well as the physical box, I'm just being autistic about completionism.

>>53773222
post MM3 math is fine.

If you use MM1-2 era stuff, the damage is a bit low.
http://www.asmor.com/scripts/4eMonsterMathCruncher/

Anyone got the usual pastebin links that usually get posted when a 4e thread pops up? Checked the archives, but couldn't find it.

On the Strike! stuff: I think it's got plenty of character building options, once you start brewing multiclass feats. Since your feats are not tied down to minor increases and "feat combos" like in 4e, I think there's a lot more variety there.

I'm also kinda-sorta working on some homebrew that'll have 2 options/role (by splitting up existing role's focus into two and building around it, but also some new stuff), and some other extra stuff.

>>53774935
4plebs says:
Useful resources: http://pastebin.com/85Hm56k5
Online compendium: http://funin.space/

>>53773123
>Kamigakari has an intensely interesting and engaging resource management subsystem from Spirit dice, but the actual tactics involved are primitive.

What makes that interesting? I've not looked into it myself.

Are dex/wis or int/wis Avengers considered better?

File: 04937ba137636646961c89fbf041dc8c.png (1MB, 1600x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x2000px

>>53776396

It would perhaps be best for you to visit the /tg/'s Kamigakari thread and ask for an explanation on the "spirit pool." It takes a while to explain.

>>53777281

In optimization circles, it is generally agreed that Wisdom/Dexterity-based avengers are overwhelmingly superior. Dexterity confers high initiative right out of the gate, and the Censure of Pursuit's benefit is more generally useful than the other Censures, since it effectively locks down an enemy that the avenger chooses to engage. Furthermore, the Ardent Champion, practically the best avenger paragon path short of Morninglord madness, is exclusive to the Censure of Pursuit.

Outside of combat, while Wisdom/Intelligence makes a character a party sage, Wisdom/Dexterity makes a character a party scout. Furthermore, an avenger is supremely qualified to take point and scout ahead due to their melee focus and their high durability.

>>53777339

>In optimization circles, it is generally agreed that Wisdom/Dexterity-based avengers are overwhelmingly superior. Dexterity confers high initiative right out of the gate, and the Censure of Pursuit's benefit is more generally useful than the other Censures, since it effectively locks down an enemy that the avenger chooses to engage. Furthermore, the Ardent Champion, practically the best avenger paragon path short of Morninglord madness, is exclusive to the Censure of Pursuit.

Ah, that's unfortunate to hear. I'm putting together an int/wis avenger as I wanted to play a learned priest and the group was missing a striker. Seriously, it's the only group I've seen where no one wanted to be a striker.

Is the separation far enough apart that it's as bad as playing a Str/Con fighter? I was looking at the Censure of Unity as the group is mostly melee.

>>53777406
>>53777339
I think there has to be some way to game Unity. Like, stack familiars/summons and companions around the target for guaranteed damage bonus or somehting.

But the +1 is paltry and you don't have any multi-attacks so it feels not too great until you hit paragon/epic.

A lot depends on composition, admittedly.

>>53777431

Unity could do some pretty disgusting things with a summoner ally/fey tamers in the party.

File: 1495080826041.jpg (92KB, 1024x802px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x802px

What do you do when you play a character that you're loving character wise but hate mechanically

Because the dm I'm with has been going to work at including character backstory elements for everyone in game and I like the way my character's side plot stuff is going but I'm so fucking bored of playing a ranger
>Alright I twin strike
>Oh I guess I'll use my encounter power that's just a stronger twin strike
>Time for a daily! It functions exactly the same as twin strike but it's 1 weapon
>New daily acquired, it's like twin strike but you hit one guy 3 times and a different guy once

I'm trying to think up a different character to do but I'm not sure what exactly he'll be. How are paladins in terms of combat options? Might go with cavalier or just the normal paladin, probably going to make him really good at mounted combat

>>53777455
Choose different powers/retrain the character.

I find TWF fighters and barbs way more interesting than rangers, and they can pull off the same themes easily.

>>53777465
I thought retraining was limited to just changing out feats?

>>53777455

You could swap a ranger pretty easily (Keeping the same fluff) into a two weapon rogue/barbarian/fighter or monk (The last if you are in paragon). Most of those are still strikers, too.

>>53777478

Feats and powers, yeah. You'd need to talk to your GM about a full on rebuild.

>>53777478
You can retrain powers as well (I think?). Retraining needs DM approval anyway, so doing it as a full rebuild shouldn't be that much different.

Your DM sounds like a cool guy, give it a try.

On Barbarians:

I think that mostly due to the fixation on the strength of their charge optimization we've kind of missed their capacity for multiattacks which honestly rivals the Ranger. Then again, one of the reasons why Barbarian hybrids are so strong is that their striking is overwhemingly more dependant on their powers than other characters.

I do concur that they kinda get the short end of the stick often but on the other hand sometimes they feel overloaded with stuff.

>>53778041
Speaking of barbarian hybrids, I want Ragespell PP to work but I keep hitting stonewalls.

>Elementalist barb multiclass would be great, but you don't have dailies to exchange for rages
>Barbarian or berserker sorc multiclass (using half elf dilettante for an at-will) actually usually has a better at-will option in charging (although special mention goes to berserker using a sorc at-will as a punishment power+white lotus riposte maybe?)
>Hybrids need to be split evenly STR CHA and have a hard time between switching between melee and ranged.
>Sorc with barb multiclass also has limited rages

>>53745270
Personally, with a bit of refluffing I've always thought that 4e's combat system could work really well for a mech game.
Classes = Mecha chassis
Races = Cores
Powers = weapon mounts
Magic items = Custom mods
It does away with the people who bitch about powers being limited use by saying that encounter powers require recharging or reloading manually while dailies require stripping down and rearming.

>>53778155
Of course that's on top of having to use an implement or dagger for everything, when as a Barb you want a nice big weapon.

>>53780465
Arcane implement proficiency feat, grab heavy blade implement proficiency, then you can use a fullblade as an implement

File: 245c39b953e078b6a5dceb7e6c2a9385.jpg (1MB, 1151x1612px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1151x1612px

>>53777406

Wisdom/Intelligence avengers are not that much worse than Wisdom/Dexterity avengers, even if the difference is obvious.

On the topic of avengers, they only come into their own by the paragon tier thanks to Painful Oath. During the heroic tier, an avenger can be vindicated only by charge optimization from a Vanguard Weapon, a Horned Helm, and the rest of the charge package. A heroic-tier avenger has little going for themselves otherwise.

>>53777455

Paladins are perfectly fine defenders. How they compare to other defenders depends on the level range you will be playing at, which you should definitely state.

Avoid the paladin (cavalier) at all costs. It is one of the more horrid Essentials classes, and its lack of true encounter attack powers is a major liability. On the other hand, a hybrid paladin (cavalier) loses nearly nothing, so if you wish to try a cavalier, that is what you should be.

>>53778041

4e is a near-completely solved game by this point, and various barbarian builds have already acknowledged that barbarian multiattack optimization can achieve some impressive results.

Between Savage Growl, Thundering Howl, and Storm of Blades, a level 13 barbarian has an impressive action point encounter nova available to them. If they can take the Five Stars Five Strikes alternative reward to help trigger Rampage, that is even better.

Granted, such a barbarian is still better off as something like a barbarian|cleric or a barbarian|warden, but that is the barbarian for you: hybrid fodder.

>>53778155

Another problem with a barbarian|sorcerer is item support until mid-paragon. Once you can get your hands on a Radiant Weapon with a Siberys Shard of Radiance, you should be golden, but before then, you will struggle if you want both an item bonus to damage rolls and a dragonshard bonus to damage rolls.

>>53781216
>On the topic of avengers, they only come into their own by the paragon tier thanks to Painful Oath. During the heroic tier, an avenger can be vindicated only by charge optimization from a Vanguard Weapon, a Horned Helm, and the rest of the charge package. A heroic-tier avenger has little going for themselves otherwise.

Oof. Is there any houserules/simple fixes to make Avengers more playable in heroic?

>>53781362

They're entirely fine at mid to low optimisation. Always remember that THF has a very high base threshold for optimisation and what he considers acceptable.

File: 62ef10f83db74dfce9121410e6c06eae.jpg (1MB, 1150x1400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1150x1400px

>>53781362

Making Painful Oath a heroic feat might work, but then, I would be worried that a heroic-tier avenger with such a house-ruled Painful Oath might overshadow other strikers with charge optimization on top of that.

>>53781438

Right. Man, charge optimisation really screws up 4e designs stuff.

Outside of charge optimisation, painful oath at heroic would be alright though you think?

>>53781362
Bit of a houseruled feat:

>Precise Oath
>Requirements: Avenger, Oath of Emnity power
>If you roll against your Oath of Embity target and both attacks hit, you deal additional damage equal to your Wisdom modifier

>>53781216
I'd say the best multiattack Barbarian is a simple Barbarian|Fighter, and for some mid-high optimization I enjoy using Master of the Fist and going Shock Trooper; essentially becoming Kenshiro. Plus you can get Quicksilver Motion and that's ridiculous.

>>53781529
It doesn't screw up as much as you'd think, actually. They deal really strong DPR with a sole attack but pale in Nova levels and ultimately that will be the main thing. It's why the best Strikers are the Ranger and the Sorcerer and their DPR is kinda mediocre; as you go on the Rogue, the Monk and the Barbarian show up and they deal good enough Novas to be very useful in high optimization.

File: 45f47ffe8e463266c739a7789eb40645.png (795KB, 900x659px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 900x659px

>>53781818

It should be noted that during the heroic tier, certain charger builds have DPR close to (if not higher than) optimized novas' damage output, which is quite frightening if you think about it.

Spiked Chain Training rangers (scout) and hybrid assassins (executioner) are the scourge of combats in the heroic tier.

Are the people who say avengers are meh factoring in oath of enmity's effective +5 to hit?

>>53782357

They're talking about high optimisation games, an experience the vast majority of 4e groups will never encounter.

>>53782357
Low damage, but they're accurate as it gets and the best for crit fishing. I actually quite like them and have toyed around with developing a good, high optimization Avenger that doesn't rely on Mia-level stuff.

File: f40249849e53fbb51a5d830f1c625b8e.jpg (829KB, 708x1000px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 708x1000px

>>53782357

At the heroic tier, without charging optimization, that accuracy increase is not going to have as great an impact as the extra damage of other strikers. It certainly does not help that avengers get skittish around crowds and have their Oath of Enmity arbitrarily shut down the moment more than one enemy is adjacent to them.

While heroic-tier avengers have Relentless Stride and Fury's Advance for strong level 3 and 7 encounter attack powers, their level 1 encounter attack power slot has few stellar options available, and all of their heroic-tier daily attack powers are merely "okay" and not amazing.

>>53782433

I am not so sure. Even at its most basic, a generic archer ranger with maxed-out Dexterity, Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Focus, and Bracers of Archery will handily outdo an avenger at the heroic tier.

>>53783171

Doesn't that Ranger setup outdo nearly any other striker at heroic tier until you get into the high-op stuff anyway?

>>53783218
Nah, on Heroic they kinda are more up there, if there's one that's head and shoulders above anyone during Heroic it's the Scout, with the Rogue's Brutal Scoundrel not that far behind, actually.

The reason being that the Ranger needs to get his static bonuses in place to really start wrecking stuff, and he takes a bit of a long time to get them. Not insanely long, but the others will have him beat.

File: 7cb91befa8bb3621aef647d4a54c3a3f.jpg (2MB, 1750x2450px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1750x2450px

>>53783473

The ranger (scout), the hybrid assassin (executioner), and the fighter (slayer) tend to be the go-to classes for extremely high damage at the heroic tier, but if Essentials classes are not on the metaphorical table, then you can hardly go wrong with an archer ranger.

An archer ranger has freedom of targeting thanks to ranged attacks, particularly with an eagle companion, and Disruptive Strike can undermine a key enemy attack.

>>53778492
We did Races as the manufacturer, Classes as the model.
Then the Power Source dictated its "design" - like martial stuff was high-performance mechs with fusion reactors (gundams), primal was bionic NGE style, Divine was laser & energy focused (shields), etc. Arcane and Psionic mildly step on each others toes of "cutting edge", but eh. If you try hard enough you can probably find a distinction.

This leaves you with eg Primal being bloodied because its passive regeneration has run out (or just can't keep up currently), martial its armor being peeled, divine its shield being broken, whatever.

I dunno what you mean by "cores" - like its power core?

Does anybody care if future 4eg OPs include some sort of "and 4e-likes/retroclones, personal homebrew or not" in the OP? Incorporating other (similar) stuff in a manner like /awg/ (alternative wargames), so threads stay alive and people have a place to talk? As it is, they're already talked about a fair amount (and Strike was in this thread)...

Seeing 4eg threads die well before the bump limit kinda sucks (and so is not having a place to talk 4e), and being able to talk about about retroclones (either stuff anons are working on, or otherwise) without feeling like we're "off-topic" or making some 10 post thread would be cool.

>>53784352

Arcane is cutting-edge tech in the sense of being aboslute bleeding edge of what is currently possible.

Psionics is cutting-edge in the sense of taking what is already possible and supercharging it; basic stuff looped in on itself using advanced manufacturing techniques to be supercharged, allowing massive bursts of potential but a lower overall power (IE, powe rpoints to fuel your at-wills).

>>53784330
2hf do you have any spreadsheets where you've done char-op calculations of various kinds? If so, could you share em?
I'd really like to see what the differences in damages all these things here are vaguely like

>>53780994
Which doesn't exactly help as a build, as many of the spells (and sorcerous blade channeling) you want to be using require daggers explicitly.

Though I guess you can at least get Katars, they are pretty good.

Hmm, I wonder if the "can treat them as daggers" thing extends to effects that buff daggers. Would be a very lenient reading, admittedly.

>>53784800
I'd definitely prefer that. I have been mulling over this myself. Many games grouping up can keep the general alive longer, which means it's more likely to catch attention, which means more prospective anons participating!

what about a 404 instead

Are there any leader classes that synergize with Hengeyokai? I was given the okay to play one and had intended to be a striker, most likely a ranger, but then I found out the rest of the party is another striker, a controller, and a defender. I've been going through the leader classes but so far it seems like only the shaman has any synergy.

>>53790715
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=4E-Character-Optimization-Guide

Wiki's undergoing maintenance currently, but you should be able to see how well they work with leaders from the Handbooks found here.

Maybe we should add that link to the Pastebin?

>>53790715
Same guy, but another alternative followup question would be: is a leader necessary in a 4 man party? Is there a way I could just shoehorn in some healing somewhere and call it good without going full leader?

>>53790990

You could, but it's important to understand that healing isn't the point of having a leader. Don't get me wrong, the healing is useful, but leaders are a force multiplier. Whether it's through giving bonuses or extra actions or other things, having a leader makes everyone else in the group better at doing their job, and playing one is a really fun experience because of that.

>>53791039
DESU I have doubts about the striker and defender doing their jobs, as they often don't understand their own characters and don't think tactically. In our previous games I constantly have to basic things like flanking. That's why I thought maybe just some basic healing and focusing on something else might be better.

>>53791088
have to remind them to do*

>>53791088

Honestly, you can play a Leader and still do that. Warlords are an excellent example, they can fight on the front lines, dealing and taking a decent amount of damage while also tossing out heals and ally buffs.

>>53790990
Leader's just really help a lot. At a medium-high (not Touhoufag levels of high), leaders make thing die quickly, and that's pretty vital. They can also make the entire party go faster and deal far more damage.

Warlords, Bards, Shamans, Artificers, Ardents, Clerics, they all speed up the process of killing things. Think of this in another way - it's one guy that's giving your striker another attack and giving him bonuses. It's more akin to having another striker in the party, just with a fair amount more of utility.

For example: a Level 1 Half-Elf Bard with Eldritch Strike can, for example, do a charge and teleport his ally to a better position as his opening move, or just straight up reposition the board while giving an ally an extra attack. A Warlord can quite literally save an ally from certain death, or at least make something really important miss. Artificers make things like Rangers bloody dangerous even at the lowest levels, and anyone that is already strong even more so.

Is a Leader necessary? No, but they're probably the ones that make winning easier. If I were to run a 4-man party, I'd run Striker, Leader, Defender, Striker - a brawnier guy and a more distant or at least evasive bloke.

Besides, there are very few builds that actively want to take a more leader-like approach to combat, especially compared to Defender (where it's common for an Off-Defender to exist) or even more so, the Controller.

>>53791122
>>53791162
Alright, I guess I'm convinced that I should play a full-on leader class. Unfortunately that brings me back to my earlier problem which is that I see very little synergy between Hengeyokai and any of the leader classes except a particular shaman build which is best for mainly ranged parties.

On that note, maybe I can convince the GM to let me swap the bonus Dex on Hengeyokai to strength and add another animal type that makes sense for that. What hengeyokai animal forms would make sense to have a Str bonus? Bear? Lion?

>>53791285

Eh, you've got a +2 to Cha, that's decent for Warlords, Clerics and others I'm not remembering.

If you're not doing super high optimisation then both stats lining up isn't really that important, as long as you can start with an 18 in your attack stat you'll be fine.

>>53791380
It's decent for Warlords and Clerics; Bards and Ardents have that as a main stat and honestly if you don't mind using a bow and going fake-Skalding you can definitely provide some good stuff with a Hengeyokai Bard.

>>53791285
Bow cleric also works with wis/dex, not the strongest option, but it does work

File: 1d25e753d8b544f1df03c7e6769d9a21.jpg (97KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x900px

>>53791039
>>53791162

To add to this, in addition to being force multipliers, leaders help a *great* deal with managing healing surges. Without a leader, a party's healing surges will mostly go to waste, but with even a single leader, those surges can actually be used to good effect in combat to keep the party up after a round of mishaps.

Outside of combat, this healing surge management extends to the leader repeatedly taking short rests and using their minor action heal in order to stretch out a party's healing surges over the course of a day. This plus the Comrades' Succor ritual can be very helpful for making a party last throughout a day. Granted, this is less important if your GMs are the type to have only two or three encounters a day.

As for what leader would suit a hengeyokai (+2 Dexterity; +2 Wisdom or Charisma) best, well, tell us about the party first. Leaders are highly party-dependent. Even the most optimized attack-granting Intelligence warlord will flail around helplessly in a party with no spectacular basic attacks, which is more common than one thinks.

Suffice it to say though, you are probably looking at a Charisma-primary leader like an ardent or a bard, or a Wisdom-primary leader such as a cleric or a shaman.

Starting level is important to state as well. By the paragon tier, most leaders have trouble competing with the likes of warlords, hybrid artificers, and War Chanters, but before then, most leader classes are competitive with one another. What level will you be starting at?

>>53791745

>Outside of combat, this healing surge management extends to the leader repeatedly taking short rests and using their minor action heal in order to stretch out a party's healing surges over the course of a day. This plus the Comrades' Succor ritual can be very helpful for making a party last throughout a day.

In my experience, most GM's straight up won't allow trying to cheese like this for bonus healing. It works RAW, but it's dumb and unintuitive and I think they're right for disallowing it.

File: aff28b3a5fb8a9003e0596103841f4a6.jpg (825KB, 703x1000px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 703x1000px

>>53791162

>At a medium-high (not Touhoufag levels of high)
I do not understand why this is considered the zenith of 4e optimization. I am actually *very* rusty at D&D 4e optimization. Due to me being able to find and play in only heroic-tier games, my specialty lies in heroic-tier optimization, which is trivially easy to optimize for because of the relatively narrow span of options.

While I know of a handful of good paragon- and epic-tier builds (if you ask me though, nothing beats a party of Morninglords/Radiant Ones) and can throw together some fairly optimal paragon- and epic-tier builds, I have never quite caught up with the 4e CharOp board's metagame for the paragon and epic tiers. To wit, for the past several months, I have been in a Discord server comprised mostly of 4e CharOp board veterans, and I am consistently and actively insulted by my betters for my lack of knowledge of top-tier 4e optimization. (I do not blame them though; I surely deserve the beration for my lack of expertise in that field.)

>If I were to run a 4-man party, I'd run Striker, Leader, Defender, Striker
If I was given sole control over a four-person party and I could control every character, I would have four strikers of the exact same build at the heroic tier, or three strikers and one leader at the paragon and epic tiers. They would probably be Morninglords at the paragon tier too, and Radiant Ones at the epic tier.

That said, for a more "serious" four-person party controlled by actual players, who would balk at the idea of playing duplicate characters and would also balk at the idea of having three of the same role in the party, I would have one controller, one leader, and two strikers. It is my opinion that defender is the most superfluous role in 4e; while there *are* a variety of very strong defender builds at every tier (my favorite at the heroic tier is a Mark of Storm flail fighter), defenders have too many holes in their defenses and ways to outright ignore them.

>>53791948

You're comparing yourself to the top end of optimisation circles. But compared to the average group or a normal game of 4e, your minimum standard for optimisation is still pretty damn high.

>>53791948
I kind of put in you as a point of reference as our resident "specialist" of sorts. There are others that can optimize quite well (I'd say myself included, not to brag), but you are the one that brings out the point where 4e's stuff starts breaking, while others tend to be more practical.

As a result, compared to people who ask what to do with a Hengeyokai Leader, you're at a reasonably understandable zenith to them.

As for Defenders, that's honestly my bias showing since I love Defenders and the mindgames that involve them, but I can see Leader/Controller/Striker/Striker.

Anyway, personally a Warlord|Bard with a Crossbow (or a Dagger) is the best one for you, and it's not easy to fuck up, given Bards and Warlords are both quite strong alone, nevermind together.

With all these talks of Leaders, I should try and do a quick write-up of my attempts at coming up with a very well optimized Wis/Cha Bard|Cleric. It's not incredible but honestly there's some good stuff in it.

>>53791745
The party will be starting at level 1 as far as I know. We're going to have a rogue, a defender of some sort (most likely a fighter), and a wizard (last I checked).

>>53792095
Warlord|Bard huh? I'll look into how that works.

>>53792501
Warlord|Bard is quite simple.

Raise Charisma up to 18 at the very least. You have Jinx Shot as a control option and Direct the Strike as your "give your Striker another attack" option. You have stuff like the Powerful Warning and Rhyme of the Blood-Seeking Blade so you will rarely not use your at-wills, which are quite powerful, because you'll be doing stuff off-turn. I hate sounding ridiculously generic, but it's just piling up on a shit-ton of good Leader powers with very few of the deficits of hybridizing - you keep most of the stuff you want from both, only really losing the Warlord's bonuses on AP.

Essentially that's what it boils down to.

File: 62033196639b55d85c0068f814271733.jpg (149KB, 1200x649px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1200x649px

>>53792095

>but you are the one that brings out the point where 4e's stuff starts breaking, while others tend to be more practical
I am not the one who plays in parties of Morninglords who take on encounter level +7 or +8 as "regular" encounters. I would not even register as a blip on the radar of top-end 4e optimization.

>I love Defenders and the mindgames that involve them
On the higher end of the optimization scale, defenders eliminate the mind-games entirely by forcing catch-22s that cause an enemy to be totally screwed over regardless of what they do, above and beyond what a defender normally does.

>>53792501
>>53792855

I would not be so fast to recommend an attack-granter. Wizards have no good basic attacks to speak of, a generic shield fighter's basic attacks are middling (short of something like a Mark of Storm flail build), and the rogue might not have a good melee basic attack.

Is the rogue an Essentials rogue (thief), a Brutal Scoundrel rogue, or something else entirely? If the rogue is either of the former two, they will have serviceable basic attacks, but if not, then you should look into a non-basic-attack-reliant leader such as a cleric.

Built properly, a cleric (templar) can avoid anything reliant on secondary ability scores altogether, helping vindicate a hengeyokai cleric. Of course, a hybrid cleric is even better thanks to hybrid Battle Cleric's Lore. A hybrid cleric|druid (sentinel) might be especially noteworthy, since it could use Magic Stones as a bread-and-butter at-will power and enjoy Summon Giant Toad for a level 1 daily attack power.

>>53793091
The rogue hasn't been built yet, all I know is they want to go Dex/Cha and be the face. I was intentionally trying to avoid being a face this time around as I was the de facto party leader in the last campaign, but it seems inevitable at this point that I'm going to have a Charisma build.

File: f251dec915f5108f341e60667479291c.jpg (795KB, 1253x1887px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 1253x1887px

>>53793138

In that case, your party has completely middling basic attacks, and I would not recommend a leader reliant on them.

I would recommend either a pure-classed cleric (templar) with Battle Cleric's Lore, with a focus on purely Wisdom-reliant powers such as Prophetic Guidance for a level 1 encounter attack power. For something even stronger, try a hybrid cleric|druid.

>>53791088
I like the Shaman's spirit as a sort of flag for your allies to go "hey, I'm here, interact with me!".

If you feel like you will have to support the frontlines, a defender hybrid could work. I quite like cavalier + any CHA leader, since cavalier gives up basically nothing and paladin has a bunch of leader-y powers on top of the defending.

>>53793138
Well, you could go the Druid route and be more WIS based than CHA.

>>53791948
>defenders have too many holes in their defenses and ways to outright ignore them.
Can you expand on this? What do you mean by ignored?

How are enemies "ignoring" a warden's lockdown, or a fighter's Glowering Threat (easily getting -7 on ATK rolls not against the fighter)? Or if a Paladin is ignored, all of the damage potential from its marks?

Or do you mean ignore them in that the rules generally don't actually mandate you follow their "instructions", even though there are consequences to doing so. Is that not enough?


Your preference for a Controller rather than a Defender is also interesting - what makes Controllers different in their ...superfluousness?

>>53798629

Not 2Hu but I can help answer this. At least some of it.

4e has 4 major defences. AC, Fort, Ref, Will. Defenders due to good armour tend to have above average AC...but the other defences rarely get similar sorts of boosts. So while a defender promotes people attacking him, he's not actually much better than his allies at defending against 3/4 of the defences they could wallop him on. As you leave heroic, more and more enemies have non-AC attacks (As they can add more non-weapon dudes) so defenders get more fragile.

The other major one is conditions. Outside the Warden, defenders don't have much resistance to conditions and have a hefty reliance on their own actions in order to keep up the defence of their allies. They don't shake them off more easily and a stunned/dazed/weakened defender is in deep shit as he can't keep up the protection of his allies very well.

Finally is mobility. In heroic, defenders are really good at locking down mobility but as things get higher, more enemies get shifts, flight and (Especially) teleports. These bypass a defenders normal methods of locking people down.

They are not unplayable by any stretch but defenders could have done with a bit more of a baking. It's one of those things that makes me really sad about a lack of a 4.5 or a 4e based 5e. The lost potential.

Stuff that could have helped, each minor but they add up:

>Giving ALL defenders some amount of start of turn saving/ability to shrug off conditions more easily.
>Give all defenders codpieces to prevent people hitting them in the NADs as easily.
>Making people unable to shift when slowed. As shifting rarely cares about your movement speed, which slow is reducing.
>Making teleport a subtype of movement rather than a type. So someone could shift 3(teleport) or move 5(teleport) with the same ability for a fighter to whack him in the face and say 'No fucker, you stay there'.

>>53798988
Yeah, it's why the arguably best Defender, the Swordmage|Warlock, has good NADs overall and doesn't truly care about mobility.

>>53798988
Paladins and fighters get a lot of stuff to help deal with save ends conditions, paladins via numerical bonuses to their saving throws and fighters via a large array of powers that end save ends effects the moment they happen.

I'm especially fond of hero's poise, a Paladin paragon feat that gives a great big bonus to all ally saving throws so long as you passed a saving throw in the last round, thereby meaning a paragon paladin can often end a multi-target save-ends effect by themselves.

Also, while flight is always an issue, fayslaughter is an enchantment available on all melee weapons that pretty much all defenders except paladins and swordmages should look into getting

File: 463bce4c4ad2e76044ebccd762f36bfe.jpg (141KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 680x680px

>>53798988

Level 1 is absolutely the best time to be a defender. Your mark punishment eliminates a large chunk of enemy hit points. NAD-targeting attacks are relatively uncommon. Flying, teleportation, dazing, and immobilization are rare.

As the levels, go by, things take a turn for the worse for a defender. Your mark punishment eliminates less and less of the enemy's proportional hit points. NAD-targeting attacks become more common. Flying, teleportation, dazing, and immobilization likewise see more frequent usage.

You will notice that in high-optimization environments, paragon- and epic-tier defenders work by playing the role "unintentionally," such as by forcing counterattack-based catch-22s. Mark punishment becomes more and more trivial as the levels go by, and only a few things can actually make it matter, such as the Weakening Challenge epic feat for paladins.

Controllers do not have to deal with this poor scaling, because a daze is a daze, a stun is a stun, and a massive attack penalty is a massive attack penalty, be it at level 1 or level 30. Controllers work out-of-the-box (for the most part), and optimization can take them to even greater heights, rather than to merely "can actually do their job."

>>53801526

I would hardly call the swordmage|warlock the "best defender." It is just one of many, *many* defender builds that are functional in high-optimization environments at the paragon and epic tiers by playing the defender role "unintentionally."

>>53801781

(Save ends) conditions are one thing. "Until the end of the monster's next turn" is much more insidious and difficult to defend against.

I think giving defenders better defenses than average is a bit of a trap, design-wise, since it makes the -2 they apply to attacks kinda superfluous as an incentive to attack them.

Getting rid of effects would be cool though.

File: 43a10545f7b44303dfa846c9c43394ca.png (1MB, 1345x1438px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1345x1438px

>>53802840

>since it makes the -2 they apply to attacks kinda superfluous as an incentive to attack them.

The entire point of defenders attracting attacks to themselves is that they are more well-suited to absorb and survive those attacks than any other party member.

It is completely embarrassing to see, say, a Charisma/Wisdom paladin mass-mark a large pack of enemies, only for those enemies to proceed to punt the paladin in the NADs, forcing the paladin to blow through many of their Lay on Hands uses for the day to stay afloat.

And make no mistake, such NAD-targeters exist even among low-heroic brutes, such as this one:
http://funin.space/compendium/monster/Poisonscale-Brawler.html

And before you say "the paladin is still doing their job, because the more important striker was not attacked!", think about what would happen if the party simply doubled up on strikers instead.

It gets a little better with some of the more specific, "not quite as intended" defender builds, like a low/mid-heroic Mark of Storm flail fighter. Even then, that specific build is both item- and dragonmark-dependent.

>>53802235
I would consider the catch-22s as part of the Defender role and related to the mindgames, but I can see why you disagree with that, honestly. But I'm a pleb so what do I know.

>>53802960
Well, the problem there is that cha/wis is even a supposed option for paladin, because doubling up on one NAD is always disastrous

>>53803795
Paladin getting some NAD boost in the form of stat replacement (like... "Divine grace: can use CHA for reflex saves" or something) would have been pretty reasonable. Still leaves 1 hole with the WIS/CHA paladin, but that's not _too_ bad.

>>53802960
I'm not saying having holes is good, I'm saying having too good defenses is a bit degenerate, cause the target won't bother attacking the defender. Once his defenses get noticably better than the -2 to attacks makes it for allies, it's more reasonable to just tank the hit always.

Of course, that can be changed by making the hit just that good, or increasing the debuff.

I think the whole stat is just a sacred cow they couldn't butcher. The system was built with 3 stats: Might (fortitude), Mind (will) and Mcunning (reflex). This allows for 9 different attack patterns without even thinking about the situational bonuses.

I've been wanting to pick up 4e again. Probably as the DM for a small group of players. Most likely 3. The players would only have experience with 5e so I'm looking for suggestions of conceptually simple classes/builds that still capture the essence and dynamics of 4e.

What are your best three player parties for a 4e beginners?

>>53805276
Fighter, Warlord, Rogue all encompass 4e decently well, personally, especially at lower levels.

>>53805276
Three player parties are a bit thin.

Most Essentials classes are easy to build to a decent level, although they pale a bit in comparison to non-essentials builds. Essentials Slayer is basically equivalent to 5e Battlemaster Fighter, Thief is pretty much a better rogue, etc.

If simplicity is your only/primary aim, you should try those.

That said, 4e characters aren't that complex for the first few levels, so I think just going with whatever catches the player's attention/imagination works.

Also keep in mind that 4e is very refluff friendly, don't tie yourself down with the names of things. Try to focus on how a class plays, and try to help the players generate characters like that instead of just saying "fighter", since the expectation of what a "fighter" is changes between editions.

Probably also helps if you grab the CBLoader and churn out a few premades.

>>53805620
Cool. But even restricting to these three classes there are so many different ways to build a party... Oh the joy of 4e :-)

>>53805641
I didn't really care for essentials. So simplicity is maybe not THAT important.

>>53805945
If I were to pick the classes that really feel like 4e:

Defenders are probably the Fighter, the Warden and the Swordmage. Strikers I'd go with Barbarians, Warlocks and Rogues. Leader I'd lean towards Bards, Warlords and the Shaman. For Controllers, Invoker, Druid and Wizard.

>6th time trying to slog through Strike!
>oh hey forget the last 100 pages if you want
>you can play with only roles and rules
>will probably need 4 more reads to get shit in order

>>53808427
Que?

Are you having difficulty figuring out Strike, or something? It's a fairly simple game.

File: 2855212.jpg (171KB, 430x760px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 430x760px

I wish there were more systems where the rogue was stupid accurate as their main thing.

Feels bad going from 4e Rogue to the 3/4 BAB and "you better trash that accuracy even further with the two-weapon-fighting feats for sneak dice" shit in PF.
Even worse in 5e where even the fucking Wizard is as accurate at stabbing things as the Rogue.

>>53808551
I liked how the Rogue worked in 4e. It was this sort of hybrid that had great accuracy but it wasn't only that, it had quite good damage including some multiattacks but it wasn't just that, it had an insane number of effects (I know that most Controllers would kill for a Level 9 Unconscious power) but at the same time it didn't entirely sacrifice, it could run around and move quite freely through the battlefield but it wasn't their main focus.

It was just a very middle-of-the-road specialist that did a bit of everything and didn't fuck up anywhere, and honestly that's one of the most fun types of character to play.

>>53808551
Your post is weird to me because tons of RPGs let you play rogue-type characters that are highly "accurate".

They just tend to be classless ones. Which I think is actually most RPGs nowadays, interestingly enough.

Have you played much that isn't DnD? Or do you just specifically want class & level based RPGs where the "rogue"-type has special accuracy buffs?

>>53809646

It's about viewing it within its context. D&D-esque systems are often very unkind to rogues. Then again, they're unkind to non-casters in general. Apart from 4e, which is why a lot of people who like it stick with it.

>>53809746
So the desire of "I wish rogues were particularly good at accurately stabbing" but also limited to "in DnD and DnD clones"?

I mean, I guess if that's what you want to limit yourself to then feel free to, but it seems an overly ...narrow "context" to stick to. Especially when DnD itself varies a decent amount.
What's so special about DnD anyways that one would want to only look at it for ones desires? Just a general desire for DnD in particular to be more suited to ones tastes?

>>53809846

Well, it was posted in a thread about a version of D&D. That makes it not too surprising that it's referring to, y'know, D&D.

File: 002133.png (237KB, 582x474px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 582x474px

>>53809918
They said "more systems", not "other editions of DnD."
That combined with the bafflingly common problem "I only ever play DnD"...

Well, makes it truly sound like a generalized complaint about a rogue's treatment in RPGs, but maybe I'm far too autistic or y'all need to use your own terminology in a more correct way or something. Whatever, no big deal.

But, yes, within the context of DnD, it'd be cooler if other editions were just less bad in general.

>>53808470
It's a fairly simple game but jesus christ is the rulebook horribly formatted

While 4e isnt my favorite edition, I do wish they didnt execute so early, ive had fun playing it, I wanted to be able to play shit like the vampire and seeker but its just so broken.

>>53810425
On this topic, other than Strike! what Pathfinder-style continuations are there for 4e? Do they even exist?

I remember hearing 13th Age bandied around a lot right when the Next playtests were going on but when I skimmed the rules they looked nothing like 4e to me.

>>53810491

None have yet to manifest, although there's at least four or five different WIP's that have been talked about on /tg/. I'm working on my own, but the trouble with a 4e rewrite is that you need to make a lot of really good content before you can even claim to have anything to show. It takes a while.

>>53810491
why dont people just continue making some homebrew stuff for 4e. patch up the issues and expand and such

>>53810803

Because the amount of work it actually takes to make new stuff for 4e means you might as well just go back and rewrite stuff from the bottom up.

Plus, lack of OGL makes any attempt at a new version which reuses any recognisable content a real danger. Better to be able to clearly show it's fresh stuff all the way down.

>>53810803
For one class, you need the class features, which all vary depending on the type of class, 2 of which are based on the riders; at the very least 4 powers per level on average. Might not sound like much, but to design for Heroic alone you need 40 unique powers, which is a load of powers. Oh, and you need to be ridiculously precise with wording.

Then consider designing 4 paragon paths, and the powers for Paragon and Epic levels, and you're looking at nearly a hundred different powers.

Then feats come in... Consider all the playtesting too.

It's a bloody difficult job.

>>53810491
Valor had been name-dropped this thread, but it's... well, I just don't really like it.

"Make your class" seems to be the way of making a 4e clone if you don't want to put out hundreds of pages of content just to match a fraction of what 4e already has.

>>53810491
>13th Age

It feels a lot like 4e to me, if you decided to take 4e off the grid.
Each class is distinct, there's none of that "take a level in X" shit, casters each have their own unique spell lists, etc.

>>53813317
What don't you like about it? I tried to read the PDF but it lacked bookmarks, I didn't feel like making any, and I didn't care enough to read without bookmarks, so I didn't really look at it.

>>53815574
And then it has the 3.pf influence of "and then some classes are distinctly trash."

It's beautiful.

>>53815666
Only trash class that comes to mind is Barbarian. Rage is waaaay too shitty and restricted.

>>53815693
Druid and Monk are also pretty trash from what I recall.

Magic classes also get a free pass on doing basically whatever they want with "used a spell out of combat" as justification.

I mean, the example the book gives is destroying an artifact because you have acid splash FFS.

>>53815715
Eh, as the most flexible class, Druid is also the only one you can manage to fuck up. As long as you take talents that make sense you'll be fine.
Monk sounds iffy on paper, but getting 3 stat boosts in addition to a lot of self-healing and control options that don't depend on rolling a specific number on your die makes up for it.

Rituals are very much a "DM decides" thing, sure you can base your ritual on Acid Splash to melt a shitty artifact, but any DM who knows what the system was built to do is going to make you gather ritual components as the real meat of that ordeal.
It's not like in D&D where you just go "I beat the spellcraft check, I can do this now"

Are there any particular synergies in a Bard|Warlock hybrid? At the very least getting CHA/INT on both of them is easy and effective, so it seems like it could be.

I like them both in theme, as well as liking teleportation and sliding which they both seem good at.

But, ahh, I'm not very knowledgeable regarding it all, and I know going Hybrid can be a good way to end up flat inferior, especially without a specific goal in mind. So is there anything specific Bard|Warlock can get up to better than just going pure Bard or pure 'lock? Not asking for an actual full character build here, just some notes or quick analysis.


Further note/request regarding warlock hybrids: I "know" warlock|executioner is apparently good, but I'm not overly interested in Eldritch Strike charge op or whatever it is, and then Warlock|Paladin has its own stuff. Are there any other warlock hybrids that are effective?

>>53816361
I think going into one of the Warlock PPs that boosts teleporting could be an interesting avenue for the Bard | Warlock to consider.

You could also actually grab one of the skald at-will stances and use Eldritch strike with it, IIRC.

There's also the Warlock | Magus for good Warlock hybrids.

>>53815715
Druid is only bad compared to wizard and cleric, which are a tad on the overpowered side

Monk would be good if it wasn't MAD, the token extra +2 doesn't really help enough.

Both of these are still a shame, considering that Druid and Monk are the most interesting classes in the game design-wise, it's harder to care about Barbarian and Ranger being shit when they're both so boring

>>53816361
Bard/Warlock is a fantastic controller hybrid, which is weird considering that it's a leader/striker hybrid

The main strength of the hybrid is the hard control and will-targeting attacks, including two heroic-tier dominate powers. You can take the Life Singer Bard PP or the Entrancing Mystic Warlock PP in order to be even scarier, as both PPs boost the spells of the other class as much as they boost their own class.

>>53816383
Aye, those PPs would be strong considerations.

..Magus?

>>53816420
Yeah, the secondary controller role (and how effective they both can be at it) is in part why I like them both and what I was aiming for, especially amusing when, as noted, it's a leader/striker hybrid.

But, if it's not just flat inferior, cool. I'll look into it more without the fear of "this could end up being a massive waste of time", then.

>>53816498
>..Magus?

Err, sorry, Swordmage | Warlock.

File: Untitled.png (11KB, 572x275px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 572x275px

>>53816361
Decree of Khirad alone is often worth a dip into Warlock.
You don't go into Warlock for the teleporting shit unless you plan on making that your full-time job, you're just there to poach amazing control powers and curse feats.

Also, Warlock|Swordmage seems decent for many of the same reasons Warlock|Paladin works.
Eyebite to become 'invisible' to the target, aegis the same target, then when they inevitably attack someone other than you, punish from across the room.

>>53772883
[Strike RPG]
>summoner/controller is another
What's so good/broken about the summoner/controller in particular? You don't have anything particular above normal classes as far as I can see.

Sure, summons and they're neat, but they lack AoE by default (so you're not smacking several things with your Control Boost) and still require an attack action to make an attack, so you're not making more Control Boosts that way either. The At-Will damaging effects are not attacks, so you're not deploying a Punisher or Trooper and Controlling off of their damage.

The best I can see is their summons tending to have a passive controlling effect (obscuring, diff terrain, pulling whatever) around them, but it doesn't seem to interact with Controller (because they are not attacks, you will not get Control Boost) except that you're...just doubling up on the ability to control, I guess? The biggest thing I can see there is you can attack people to Control Boost slide/slow them to keep them in your zones or further accentuate control, but you could just be a blaster and make diff terrain/obscurement that way, or be a striker and murder them so you don't have to keep them in zones, or whatever?

>>53816547
Swordmage/Warlock is the teleport king

Evermeet Warlock or Long Night Scion + aegis of assault + ethereal sidestep + the vast array of teleport powers both classes have is amazing

File: c25c25d71584ac88df5b9568cece90ed.png (2MB, 1753x1453px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1753x1453px

>>53816899

By RAW, Trooper completely breaks forced movement. It is not a zone, nor is it terrain, so there is no saving throw to avoid being forced near the Trooper. Even if they did receive a saving throw, it would knock them prone regardless of the result.

Additionally, the FAQ says this:

>The Controller's Role Boost can trigger conditional damage on Effects of some attacks instantly like the Summoner's "Trooper" or the Mammoth Shapechanger’s "Stompy," because you can choose the order of effects in a favorable way. Normally you would have to coordinate attacks with a teammate for a similar effect. Is this intended?
>Yes, this is fine.

Trooper with Control Boost is an at-will 5 damage on top of setting up a zone for other enemies to fall prey to, and on top of forced movement.

At level 2, a controller receives Battlefield Repositioning, thereby allowing Trooper to deal damage to a vast swath of enemies.

>>53817010
Ah. I see. You can ram them into/by your Trooper to trigger it, even in the same attack action as summoning it.
Very interesting. That IS an absurd amount of damage. I wonder why he allowed that. Maybe to not make a bunch of exclusions to the game mechanics?

If desired, it'd be an easy fix to just say "move adjacent or into when it wasn't already adjacent to" and make it less on-demand absurd, but that wouldn't change Battlefield Repositioning letting you sling everything into it. A Zone would mitigate it as you said, but prone is still a good effect to inflict. You have any other ideas?

File: 6a4c12aaca9dd399ad414e9f6520abc4.png (955KB, 1024x1639px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 1024x1639px

>>53817128

I truly cannot say why the author allowed such a thing. It is a stupid design decision if you ask me.

I would fix this by dictating a general rule that a summoner's at-will spirits activate only after the entire attack is resolved. I would also add a stipulation of "The enemies cannot enter any squares that would damage them or otherwise impose a hostile effect on them" to Battlefield Repositioning and Warzone Repositioning.

>>53817648
That change to Battlefield/Warzone Repos seems a bit much of a nerf, especially given that it seems a lot of its potency would be to shove people into Zones or just all the normal difficult terrain a map might have. Do you think it's necessary to nerf such things just because of Trooper?

Oh, an unrelated question: what does the Duelist mean when it says "positive effects from its powers"?
Are not all powers basically positive from the perspective of its user? Or does it mean only things that would eg heal or buff the user? Can a Packmaster who has a Duelist saying he "cannot benefit from positive effects of its own powers" still revive Taken Out Stooges with Inspiring Strike [I ruled yes]? Can a Sneak move w/o Opportunity in Slip Away [No]? Cause extra damage in Sneak Attack[no]? Defender grant Cover with Interposition [yes]? You agree with those?

>>53805945
>Oh the joy of 4e

I once made a Wizard as a Striker, it was relatively easy with all the feat support they received.
I then had a silly idea to make a Wizard as a Leader, which was... passable, I guess, but really wouldn't last very far past early heroic when the lack of focus starts kicking in.
Still haven't managed a Wizard Defender, though it's easy enough if you're willing to hybrid Swordmage instead of staying a pure Wizard with a MC.

>>53819257
>Still haven't managed a Wizard Defender
Lack of trying, or lack of ability?

>>53819402
Without hybriding, I can't seem to find any way to get a defender punishment worth mentioning.
There are a few paragon paths that give you a shitty version if you MC'd into a real defender class, but they're all, of course, in paragon. And shitty.

>DM bans most controllers
>expecting hard fights every session
>wat do

>>53819807

Why the fuck would he ban controllers?

>>53819818

Too easy to buttrape encounters wuth a good one. Thinking about doing a polearm druid anyway just to slam shit on its ass.

Controllers banned?
Just play most any Arcane class, they're all decent secondary controllers.
Especially the Warlock, it's easy to forget they're supposed to do damage as their main thing.

File: 57726986_p0.jpg (377KB, 944x1280px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 944x1280px

>>53820294
Druids are controllers, Anon.

>>53821221
Shit, replied to the wrong post.

>>53819829

So, query: if Essentials hadn't come along and screwed up the approach to classes, what new classes or class options do you think we might have gotten instead?

For example, a Genie Pact for Warlocks (hey, they brought back Templars, why not Sha'ir?), or a Necromancer as a full-fledged class.

>>53822090
Wizards got Sha'ir as a subclass.
It was a mechanically poor choice, but flavourful.
I don't think Necromancers would ever not suck in 4e, since they restricted summoning to dailies. (and I'm glad they did, it's an annoying as shit archetype)
Probably better off just playing a Necromancy/Nethermancy Mage and taking the wizard daily summons than bothering to write a whole class for it.

>>53822090
Some sort of Shadow Controller, Shadow Leader and Shadow Defender. Shadow Controller I can see being a Necromancer, honestly. More support for the Seeker and the Runepriest. I can see them expanding on Dark Sun and Eberron - as for any other settings, maybe Dragonlance?

>>53822090

Man, there's so many interesting options.

I'd have loved to see an attempt at a martial controller, say, or any other role/source slots that aren't yet filled.

Class design and power structure details, too. More experiments with the AEDU system like Psionics, or adding extra stuff to powers like the Runepriests Rune States.

An odd idea I had, probably unworkable but an interesting thought experiment, is a class which didn't get the usual stat progression or as many features as usual, instead each of their powers having an active and passive component, each power choices shaping your characters abilities.

On a slightly less ridiculous level, something like the cool idea behind the 5e playtest sorcerer could work. A class which got benefits based on expended dailies that changed their playstyle in future fights.

>>53822090
Would have been nice to get a psionic augmentation Striker, but I think they knew what that would lead to as far as charop goes.

>>53822199
I wish I could ever find a game running Dark Sun. It's such a nice setting, distanced from the vaguely European stuff most others have.

>>53822090
>>53822199
I could see Necromancer having very flavorful powers like clawing hands (burst 1 with a range of 10) of the death, a full-on skeleton rising from the ground to hug and immobilize a monster, banshee's wail, phasing as a ghost, vampire gaze working as dominate power... A necromancer doesn't need to be "army of corporeal undead".

>>53824162
Honestly a Necromancer would definitely have something to do with Summons, almost like the Shaman in a way, but not only that because else it'd be boring.

Now that I think of it, it'd actually be surprisingly close to the Shaman, just with a heavy dose of whatever they'd decide the running theme for the Shadow classes was going to be.

We all know the tactical combat of 4e, but how would you describe it better or what you think is the most important of the combat in 4e?
a. Tactical positioning (for combat advantage, better use of blast or burst powers, defender's ability to mark effectively, artilleries being out of reach of melee)
b. Situational bonuses/penalties (to AC, to next attack, to ST, to movement)
c. Status effects (daze, stun, blind, slow...)

If you could distill 4e combat, what would appear? Totally not thinking on working on a 4e homebrewDon't like how far Strike! got away

>>53824223
By far, each class being its own thing.
Tired of 3.pf crap where every caster casts the same spells, every martial takes the same feat trees.

>>53824223
Honestly the main thing that 4e has and that makes it quite difficult to run it with a Theatre-of-the-Mind style is the tactical positioning used. If you distill 4e combat, it essentially boils down to how much movement you allow your team and the DM's team.

Keep in mind that damage is always going to be one of the main things but situational bonuses will always exist anyhow, and things like the Artful Dodger's Charisma boost to AC versus Opportunity Attacks exist, and the impact of things like daze, stun and slow is that they have difficulty moving or allow you to move next to them without the risk of being pinned down.

I'm working on a 4e Heartbreaker too, but going with a differente route - rather than a Strike! esque style, I'm going to start with the 4 basic archetypes of RPGs (Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard) and give each one powers. Then of course expand with the classes we all know and love, such as Paladins and Warlords and Druids and Barbarians...

And probably create a good, generic fantasy setting for that sort of stuff.

>>53824325
Oh yeah, that is a distinct characteristic of 4e itself and its design, but I don't feel it's a characteristic thing of the design of the combat proper, which is what will definitely have more weight given what anon is trying to do.

>>53822090
I doubt Essentials not being a thing would've extended the shelf life of the game any to see more full Classes, but I imagine Ninja and Necromancer being things if they actually did something with the Shadow power sources. Maybe Soul Knife for a true Psionic striker rather than the vision of Ki as a Psionic offshoot we got with Monk. Not that Monk was a bad class, but it felt like making it a Psionic Striker was a hamfisted move.

Necromancer would probably play more like a mix between Leader and Controller. I can see a big batch of Artificer-esque Conjuration powers for mini 'summons'. Possibly as ally buffs for being in the general area of the Conjured mob. Maybe some Call Spirit Companion like encounter powers as previously mentioned. Make the summons easy to kill, but only if they can be hit. Past the summon options might be more debilitating single target control effects like Bone Prison and such ideas.

Ninja I can see being similarly flighty to Monk, but maybe with more focus on a 'Ninja magic' feel, with substitution from being attacked, duplication for area attacks, and using elemental magics for some attacks. I've not got much off the top of my head that might make it distinct in how it plays though. Might end up looking like a bastard hybrid of Monk/Ossassin.

Soul Knife I actually think would've been the way to do the Hexblade as its own class than as a Warlock offshoot, with the conjured weapon being the more important selection to determine what powers you want to use with it.

I had a rules question come up in my last session on what skill would be appropriate to blend in with a crowd. I as GM was thinking it would simply be stealth, but the player was arguing for bluff in the same way that bluff is used for disguises. What do you guys think? I couldn't find any examples in the rules myself and internet searches haven't turned up anything.

>>53824636
Stealth, Bluff or Streetwise I'd of used as options. Stealth for obvious reasons, Bluff for your idea, and Streetwise for navigating the crowd's flow and using backroads and alleyways to stay on the move towards the next crowd.

>>53824664
I should have mentioned I actually did see in the rules compendium the entry for streetwise being used to escape through a crowd, but the situation was a little different in my game. They weren't trying to escape a pursuer, they simply wanted to observe as part of the crowd without being noticed.

>>53824706
That's not really a skill check though. That's just a 'we don't attract undue attention to ourselves as we make our way through the streets' basically. It shouldn't require a roll unless someone in the party is actively subverting that goal with their dumb ass antics.

>>53818167
I'd just rework the duelist so you choose a power or a passive (including things like "make opportunity" and maybe even "shift" or "move") and you punish that... the wording is rather meh on that ability, and having to pick 2-3 things is going to be cumbersome.

>>53824739
Under other conditions I would agree, however, these are the circumstances:

1) They have been negotiating with several key figures in the city and are starting to become fairly well known
2) Basically the entire party has a stand-out appearance: 2 minotaurs, a warforged (this isn't Eberron so it's exceedingly rare), and a drow
3) They wanted their interference in a potential incident to come as a surprise

>>53824795
Any of the aforementioned skills still would've been acceptable then. Bluff to pass as people they aren't with different armor and the like, Stealth to keep out of sight from people who might be watching them, or Streetwise to follow guides for a whoever it is they might be helping to avoid enemy attention.

>>53824792
What, like the Rogue's Backstabber, but not based on a roll/trade-off and is a "cannot" rather than a flat disable? I'd probably keep shift/move in the realm of Defender, but Cannot'ing specific traits & powers is interesting. Sorta stepping on another class a bit, though.

Backstabber:
"When you roll a 4, 5, or 6, you may forgo your base damage to disable a trait or power. Pick an eligible trait* or power belonging to that enemy. That trait or power is unusable (save ends). If you roll a 6, you may forgo your base damage (and its doubling) and your extra Backstabber damage to remove a trait or power entirely."

>>53824889
Yeah, that's the inspiration. "Cannot" is already "actually he can, it just provokes an opportunity".

Something like "name a specific action, if your duel target takes that action, he provokes an opportunity".

>>53824223
Hard to pick one but I'd vaguely rate it in order of importance uhh....C>=A>B?
Status Conditions are a lot of what make it fun (I mean simple -HP can be kind of boring, frankly) and give a lot of distinction and theme beyond classes and powers. Like without them you'd just be what, +-HP, + movement, and +- ATK/DMG? Functional, but plain.

...but spacing is one of the core things to tactics and meaningful interaction. At the *very least* you need some form of abstract ranges, even if you just mash up a 6 line system and do Rear/Mid/Front vs the enemy's Front/Mid/Rear, or use something like Darkest Dungeon's 4 rows.

Adding bonuses everywhere is also a decently important thing to make the above stuff have more complexity & depth, but...it doesn't necessarily need to be there as it is in 4e for combat to be interesting. Strike sorry just uses Advantage/Disadvantage to mark the important stuff and that works well enough. Although it doesn't even use JUST Adv/Disadv (eg Striker's have +DMG, Duel treats 2s as 4s, etc), so you'll likely need a bit more.

I'm also of the opinion you can make a cool setup using 100% hit rates.

Why do you want just a single aspect here?

>>53824223
>>53824330

What the heck are you two nerds working on?
Gimme some details?
If you can't give deets about what you're doing, explain why you're not using Strike (this isn't a "use strike" post, it's me wanting to know what Strike lacks that a 4e player would want)

>>53825602
Uhm... that 4e Heartbreaker I'm working on is quite simple, spanning 15 levels, and probably feats but I'm not 100% sure about it. I'm not using Strike because while it's a great game and I enjoy it, I want to make my own game if only as a thought experiment.

Skimming this thread; how are battleminds as a functional defender, if I opt to cripple myself like that?

>>53828263

Lot to medium op, you're probably fine. See if you can get your GM can give you the con-based basic attack feat for free, since otherwise it's just another annoying tax.

>>53825942
Presumably, you're also not using Strike! because it's actually nothing more than a bad joke when used for anything other than combat.

>>53828263
They're alright, especially considering Lightning Rush and other things, such as Brutal Barrage or Dizzying Mace+Intellect Snap builds.

>>53828306
>>53828382
Superb, but why would I grab the basic attack modifier if I just use an at-will every attack or so?

Or am I misunderstanding something fundamental about 4e.

>>53828404
Opportunity Attacks, Battleminds completely lack them. And, well, then they can't threaten enemies to stay near them. Also their punish triggers after the attack, which is bad, thus Lightning Rush being potentially very strong.

>>53828404
>>53828429

Yeah. Without a good MBA, Battleminds lose a lot of a defenders base stickiness, which is dumb. The class should have just gotten Con based basic attacks by default.

>>53828429
Ah, right. I completely forgot about those.

Well, I'm sure he probably will, he's pretty good about these things.

>>53828448
They can go with Twisted Eye but honestly it's kinda stupid to have to spend power points just to perform a basic Defender function.

God, this talk about Battleminds reminds me of attempting to play a Swordmage|Battlemind not long ago, that was fun.

>>53822161

I think it could have been done, however I think it would have needed a little creativity.

Zones are a good one for a necromancer. Have a zone that does necrotic and slows people that are in it as skeletal hands rise from the ground around them.

I think that sort of stuff + a shaman-style ally (Easily replaced, not REALLY a person ruleswise) could have made a good necromancer.

>>53824189

Honestly, it could BE a shaman subclass. Grave Spirits, bam. Have it have controller as it's secondary role and a necrotic damage focus.

Bless your allies with the strength of the dead or let them walk through foes like a ghost.

>>53824625

>Not that Monk was a bad class, but it felt like making it a Psionic Striker was a hamfisted move.

I could have seen them do monk as Primal, oddly enough. Chi is the flow of life within everything, after all.

>>53829577
>>53824189
Please someone homebrew this for me. I'm not experienced enough with this system to do it, but it sounds super cool

>>53829592
Also, animal and elemental styles totally fit primal.

>>53822161
>>53829549
A super long time ago, I somewhat homebrewed a minionmancer like this. It seemed fine, but never got around to trying it in a game.

It was heavily influenced by Azir and D2's zoomancer builds.

>>53830192

Alright, the core things with the Shaman that might matter here

>Secondary Role
>Secondary Stat
>Spirit Bonus
>At-Will granted by spirit type.
>Spirit's opportunity attack.

>Secondary Role
My thoughts on what is fitting for undeath is a controller/defender sort of thing. Draining people and forcing them to fight the respawnable spirit.

>Secondary Stat
The main ones for Shamans are Int, Con and Dex. Int and Con are the two I can see working best there. Int gets you better Arcana and Con makes you tougher.

I'll say Int for the Arcana.

>Spirit Bonus
This is the passive your spirit grants by being near it. This is stuff like 'Grants +2 to ally saves' or granting a hefty damage bonus against bloodied enemies.

I'm tempted to say giving it the inversion of the Animist would be fluffy. Enemies next to your spirit companion suffer a -2 to saving throws. Quite possibly too powerful, however.

>At-Will granted by spirit type.
This is the first area where a shaman's subtheme shows. Animists grant extra attacks, bears give temp HP and stalkers let the spirit flank for a turn.

My thoughts is a melee attack for your spirit. 'Does necrotic damage to the target + target cannot shift'. You are too chilled and unfocused by the touch of the grave to do anything fancy. It also means that someone being ravaged by the spirit is going to find it hard to escape defenders or the spirits own opportunity attack.

>Spirit's Opportunity Attack
I'd go with very minor damage + slowed until end of next turn. So a guy leaving your spirit's attack radius risks getting his movement knocked down to 2 for the triggering movement + subsequent turn.

These are just throwing ideas at the wall for the moment though.

The idea is to make the spirit something you can't just ignore (Like you reasonably can with some other shaman types). It's an aggravating bastard that makes people want to kill it so it will get out of the way.

>>53793286
>>53798110
Alright, after much internal debate I've settled on a hybrid Cleric|Druid (Sentinel). I'm picking at-will powers right now. I'm tentatively looking at Grasping Tide for the druid side and Righteous Brand for the cleric side. Any opinions on that?

Also, a rules question concerning the hybrid version of healing word. Normal version of healing word lets you use it twice per encounter, and then three times at level 16. Hybrid version says you can only use it once per encounter. Does the usage limit still go up at 16, or is the hybrid version stuck at 1 use forever?

>>53831953
Well, since both druid and Cleric has healing word, you are actually stuck at 2, but yes, you don't get a third one.

>>53832064
Laaaaaaaaaaaame ok thanks.

>>53831953
Oops, I mistyped earlier. The cleric power I was actually looking at was Brand of the Sun. I was favoring it over Sacred Flame since I didn't want to invest in Charisma.

>>53831953
Consider Magic Stone for the druid half.

File: 1be9fbd89c0e3c077bfde42074c3413a.png (2MB, 1228x868px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1228x868px

>>53831953

Magic Stones is absolutely, positively your top pick for the druid side. It is very easy to target the full span of three targets for Magic Stones, and pushing them 1 square will produce results.

As for a level 1 cleric at-will power, Gaze of Defiance or Lance of Faith is probably your best bet. Either should give you a serviceable at-will option.

Later in your career, when you can afford to purchase push/slide-increasers (e.g. Gauntlets of the Ram as a level 8 item), you could consider multiclassing into fighter and then taking the Polearm Momentum feat to make your Magic Stones knock prone. However, since you are a hybrid cleric|druid (sentinel) rather than a pure-classed druid, this investment is not quite as good for you, so do not consider it mandatory. Additionally, depending on your ability scores (starting with Wisdom 18+2 definitely is not out of the question for your build), you might not even be able to afford a decent fighter multiclass feat anyway.

For a level 1 encounter attack power, I would suggest the cleric's Prophetic Guidance to help the party beat down a specific monster. Later, at level 3, you can take the druid's Wind Wall to harass multiple enemies.

For a level 1 daily attack power, you definitely want Summon Giant Toad from the druid side. The control it applies is great considering that its instinctive action does not require you to do anything.

Staff Expertise will be your top pick for a feat, because it improves your accuracy while removing the one major weakness of ranged and area attacks in general: provoking opportunity attacks. Consider the Mark of Healing for a feat to help your allies save against nasty effects.

Try to purchase an (Accurate) Staff of Ruin and inserting a Siberys Shard of the Mage, since you will be dealing damage across multiple enemies, though you will probably have to switch to something like an Alfsair Spear if you want to take up a Polearm Momentum build.

>>53822161
I actually took a shot at a Necromancer class (Shadow Controller) years ago; I went with Summons as daily and undead "conjurations" for Encounters and At-Wills. Calling up a tormented soul that screams so loud it kills anyone nearby, for example. Sadly, all my notes on it are gone and it went down with WoTC's forum...

What was wrong with Essentials?

>>53836335

Adds nothing new. The classes are essentially just less interesting, less well designed versions of the core 4e classes made to appeal to 3.PF fans who never cared about 4e anyway.

The kick in the nuts comes from the fact that Essentials stopped their being future support for interesting classes like the Runepriest, and even took away things from core classes/errata'd them to make them worse in order to incentivise the Essentials alternatives.

>>53836377
I dunno, I took a poke through Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and it looked to me like they were just trying to do a stripped-down version of 4e that attempted to make the classes something other than just kits of the same basic 4e class.

As for future support, the game was already dying at the point when they released it; it was a last desperate stab to try and get back the fanbase they lost.

>>53836335
Mearls tried to make the game more similar to 3.5e and proceeded to botch most of it because he either does not or is unwilling to understand the core design of 4e. The powers and feats are generally fine to good and worth picking up on a pre-Essentials character, but the classes introduced can be awful. Heroes of Shadow is particularly bad about it.

>>53836466
>kits of the same basic 4e class
Honestly they ended up being more similar than 4e classes, mostly because 4e classes had a quite varied design and they all behaved differently even if they mostly stuck to the AEDU system - still they played really different from one another.

A structural difference does not always imply a meaningful gameplay difference.

>>53836630

>A structural difference does not always imply a meaningful gameplay difference.

This is the big thing people always seem to misunderstand with 4e. 4e had huge gameplay differences using the same structures, and Essentials entirely missed the point of that.

>>53835123
Magic Stones, huh? I'm kind of surprised. I mean, yes, it's more damage overall if you can hit all three, but I kind of assumed it would be the worse option due to the pretty low amount of control on it; push 1 doesn't seem like it would be useful that often.

I do have Prophetic Guidance selected right now, but I was actually starting to second guess it because I had picked a wolf companion which already causes combat advantage on all the things around it, and stacking CA is anti-synergistic. Do you think I should switch animal companions, take something other than Prophetic Guidance, or not worry about and keep both?

As for dailies, I had three options in my head: the cleric's Moment of Glory, druid's Summon Giant Toad, or druid's Summon Pack Wolf. Initially I had been leaning toward Toad, but Moment of Glory seems just absurdly good at low levels. Also, as an alternative to Toad, Summon Pack Wolf seems like it has a really strong synergy with the wolf companion. Do you think Toad is still better?

>>53836255
Most of the forum is on the wayback machine, if you remember what to search for.

>>53837148
The push 1 really depends on your team, (other ranged types who don't want to shift?) but the triple target at-will with super nice aim is an amazing thing to have as an at-will, even if all you do with it is blow up minions.

File: 4a62155f496e0c16a37483103e7e5408.jpg (497KB, 724x1024px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 724x1024px

>>53837148

You choose Magic Stones for ease of targeting, and for minion-detonation. Other at-will powers may have better effects, but target nowhere as easily.

Prophetic Guidance is still a great choice in my opinion even with the combat advantage overlap. It allows the party's action point novas to rip an enemy apart, for one. Keep the wolf.

If you are still hesitant, take Wall of Smoke or Call Forth the Spirit Pack as your level 1 encounter attack power. Then, at level 3, retrain it into Prophetic Guidance and select Wind Wall as your level 3 encounter attack power.

Moment of Glory is indeed very good at low-to-mid-heroic, but I have never been a fan of how it forces squeezing most of the party into a blast 5. If you can manage that handily enough, then by all means, take it. If not, then Summon Giant Toad may be the safer choice.

>>53837489
Cool, thanks for the explanations 東方, I really appreciate it. I'll take your advice on Magic Stones and Prophetic Guidance/Wolf Companion, and for now I'll stick with Moment of Glory. I can always retrain that later when resist 5 becomes less cool.

As a final note I'm now trying to find art to depict a Hengeyokai (Sparrow) in hybrid form and wearing armor. I fear this may be an impossible task...

File: 7e3fcfe31fe84ea145f52b86832ff6c5.png (454KB, 800x618px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 800x618px

>>53837560
This is the best I could find on short notice.
Not about to sift through the furshit you'd need to deal with to get something more specific. :v

File: 043be99ac0937806ed816f5ec45268c8.jpg (652KB, 848x1200px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 848x1200px

>>53837560
?

>>53837899
That's cool man, I appreciate the effort. Unfortunately I don't think your image works because it's not armored enough and also the wrong gender. I honestly don't really expect to find anything that really fits my parameters.

>>53837905
If only it were that simple! Unfortunately the way I read the Hengeyokai description it seems like their arms themselves would turn partly wings rather than sprouting separately. I like the pic anyway though, thanks.

File: 46d46af96a6afb43a8b31ef0c9c7ede5.jpg (762KB, 862x1200px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 862x1200px

>>53837977
Your character, your fluff description.

Harpies are cool tho.

>>53837489
>>53837560
Just thought of one last mechanical question. What theme do you recommend for my character?

File: d516e69b037f75cb2603e51c2380fe22.jpg (1MB, 1060x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1060x1500px

>>53838524

For a game starting at level 1, I doubt you could go wrong with the Noble Adept. Saving yourself and allies from failed rolls every encounter can be a life-saver. It helps that Adept's Insight can be recharged with a short rest out of combat, which helps a good deal with skill usage.

>>53839258
That looks solid, but kind of boring. What do you think about Fey Beast Tamer? It'd be pretty thematic for my character and having another animal companion sounds pretty good, especially because that means I can heal both of them and myself with one second wind. That seems crazy efficient. Plus with the level 5 feature the fey companion will be granting combat advantage so I could swap the wolf for bear.

>>53745042
No, it's a points of darkness setting, wherein there are abysses so deep and dire that they hold the potential to engulf the lands in immutable cruelty and death.

Then the players show up.

>>53836630
I have my doubts since 4e classes play the same.

>start of encounter
>spend encounter powers
>at-will until dead
>spend daily if doing poorly

It's too bad some powers don't need rolling, otherwise you could've just said
>roll d20

Only 1 meme arrow then. I suppose you could have a second:
>don't even roll d20, wow!

>>53840158

If you simplify it to the point of meaninglessness, sure.

>>53840250
I'm sure if you're fundamentally obsessed with minutiae they might feel different, but they're not even remotely on the same level of difference as old-school classes in the OSR days.

Hell, a 4e fighter can stand in for a wizard fairly well with all of its area affecting, movement forcing/restricting abilities. You couldn't claim that with the Rules Cyclopedia.

>>53840158
This is basically every game
>spend all renewable resources (if you have any)
>when out of renewable resources, do actions that don't need resources
>spend non renewable resource if in trouble (if available)

>>53840362

There is more difference between the Wizard and the Sorcerer in 4e than in any other edition.

>>53840385
To be fair, isn't sorcerer only a thing since 3.5 and 5e?

So that's not saying much.

>>53840385
Not really. They're both bound to the same framework, and the 3e wizard and sorcerer were considerably different, since the distinction between spontaneous casting and prepared casting is huge. The 5e sorcerer also gets metamagic abilities that allow it to fundamentally alter its spells in a way other classes don't.

>>53840433

Nope. They have the same structure, but unlike every other edition they have different spell lists.

It's the same idiot mistake people always make. assuming different structure = different gameplay, when it's blatantly untrue with even the slightest thought applied to it.

>>53840433
... but 4e classes are only different in minutiae

Actually, I'm sorry. I came to ask what you guys don't like about essentials and wound up stirring up shit, which i a dick move. I'll be leaving you alone.

I wont delete my previous post, in case someone is responding to it.

>>53840492

[citation needed]

>>53840516
Sorry, I just found it funny that
>I'm sure if you're fundamentally obsessed with minutiae they might feel different

but then

> the distinction between spontaneous casting and prepared casting is huge

>>53840486
This is because the basic structure is what determines most of how a class plays. It's how distros like Ubuntu, while vastly different from Arch, still feel like Linux because you're still going to be interacting with the Linux terminal constantly.

>>53840530
But that isn't a distinction of minutiae, they're fundamentally different mechanically. A better comparison would be cleric and wizard, though it doesn't hold because clerics can still fight better.

>>53840561
I work with ubuntu and never use the terminal... it's really just there to run PHPStorm tho.

>>53840561
>This is because the basic structure is what determines most of how a class plays
This is what retards actually believe.

I just wanted to know: are there any arcanist fans here who found they really loved the way that 4e went out of its way to make the spells of every single arcane class completely different? Wizards get spells entirely unique to them, sorcerer spells are different, swordmage spells have little in common with either... it just always made each class really feel distinct as a magic user, to me.

Hell, my big issue with the Bladesinger in 5e is that there's almost none of the Swordmage spells in 5e, so I can't pull off the same mix of stab & hex I can in 4e.

>>53840584
No?

Their spell selection mechanic is different, but they play the same.

Besides, 4e wizards also get to select from multiple dailies while sorcerers don't, so...

>>53840606

Despite the lies told by people who get confused by consistent layouts, 4e classes play more differently from each other than their equivalents in other versions of the system. It's one of the great things about it.

>>53840561
>all OSs are written in machine code and are therefore the same
>the rest is just minutiae

>>53840509
Nah bro, it's fine. We enjoy this shit.

>>53840629
Nah. That would be like saying 4e and 3.5 are the same because they're written using text. All Linux OS'so use the Linux Kernel and this feel similar if you do anything more than look at the GUI. All 4e classes are built on the same framework, and thus run somewhat similarly.

File: flail.png (68KB, 365x285px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 365x285px

What are some good ways to reliably (i.e. at will, ideally) render opponents prone? I happened upon the flail expertise feat which gives you the option to forfeit a slide for a knockdown. Anything else?

>>53842056

It takes some time to come online, but a Polearm Momentum fighter can pretty easily get an at will with a push of slide of 2 or more, which triggers the feat and prones the target.

>Is your campaign setting a points of light setting?

Nah it's basically fantasy Mesopotamia shortly after a great flood analogue.

>>53842056
Flail Expertise with Mark of Storm, Dragging Flail, and a Lightning [flail] weapon, if you wanna complete that combo.

Well Dragging Flail isn't actually necessary, but it lets you slide it after you prone it.

>>53842056
Powers that slow, and World Serpent's Grasp. You can get Hindering Shield too.

Honestly, that Deva Cleric|Bard I was working on seems to be leaning heavily towards Striker and Controller as a secondary role, what with all the minor attacks I can get, such as the one from Quickened Spellcasting, or Paragon of Victory's. Honestly I like that idea, probably going to multiclass Rogue.

>>53846519
It's really hard to resist the siren call of "moar DPR" in 4e.

>>53848013
Yeah, honestly it started as a great Leader with a heavy Controller favor, then I started noticing I could get like 3 minor action attacks and a massive buff of my choice.

Then stuff just went downhill.

I think I'll rebuild it and make it more Leaderesque or more Controlleresque and resist the call of the Striker.

I finally finished building my Cleric|Druid (Sentinel) and I'm SUPER hype to have two animal companions and potentially a summon on top of my main PC. I also had to spend all day building characters for half the party since they are too new to the system to do it themselves.

...and now I have to wait an extra day because it turns out I have to go to my cousin's graduation. AAAGH THE ANTICIPATION

To help me survive, tell me about the cool 4e games you guys are in. What happened last session? What's gonna happen next session?

>>53848074
God, I can't remember when was the last time I played 4e, my group moved to 5e and I can't really do much about it. Wish I could play it, it's such a great, fun game, even more so with people who understand what they're doing.

>>53848136
I feel you man. I was playing 5e with this same group before, and only after half a campaign of suffering and a near TPK was I able to convince them to switch. I'm still a little nervous since I'm the only one in this group with any real 4e experience, but I think even a rough 4e game will be better than the last campaign...

>>53848156
4e is a game that has to have the players thinking about their action while the others are taking their turns to really speed up, so do a session 0 and teach them how to properly play the game, especially whoever is playing the Defender.

>>53840433
The difference between a metamagicked spell and a not-metamagicked spell in 5e is less than the difference between any sorcerer spell and any wizard spell of the same level in 4e. Therefore the difference between a 4e wizard and a 4e sorcerer is greater than the difference between a 5e wizard and a 5e sorcerer

File: 20110214_fuck.jpg (89KB, 508x508px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 508x508px

>>53848074
>To help me survive, tell me about the cool 4e games you guys are in.

So you're trying to kill me instead, huh? I haven't had a 4e game going in years.

/tg/ /4eg/ game when?

>>53848074
I fucked up

I popped my full once-per-day striker nova on the BBEG, did somewhere around 300 damage at level 20, and bloodied the bastard

Then he turned into a dragon, panic ensued, and the entire party fled into a pocket dimension by following a mime, who gave us a red glove and sent us right back to the fucking dragon

That's where the session ended

>>53850249
He's still bloodied, aye? Roll to Intimidate.

>>53850207
You GMing?

cause if not, never.

>>53850287
I know the monster the DM is using, when it transforms, it actually turns into a completely different monster, so it isn't bloodied anymore

>>53850337
Slowly and deliberately pull out the red glove, then slap the dragon across the face with it.

>>53848074

I'm in a few games at the moment, one just starting up and the other rolling on happily.

The long running one is a 4e Eberron game where I'm playing what might as well be 'Captain Argonessen', a Dragonborn Warlord who was born with the platinum scales of Bahamut, but wanted to prove their strength to him themselves, rather than relying on him. They recently multiclassed Paladin, but they're still very much focused on winning honour and glory by their own hand, to prove themselves to their God.

The other PCs are a paranoid Kalashtar Druid, a cute and mysterious amnesiac Pacifist Cleric, a small and ferocious Dragon Sorcerer who hatched from the shell of a Warforged (long story), a Mephit (refluffed pixie) Monk who is basically a fish out of water, except replace 'water' with 'fire', our somewhat ill mannered but (way, way down) good hearted Dwarven Fighter and finally, Miss 'Not Appearing in this Game', a House Medani Invoker whose player hasn't been able to attend for a little while.

It's been fun though. We're currently operating as something of a special taskforce for the Queen of Aundair, helping her keep things stable. This ran into trouble when we found a rogue nobleman trying to start a war with the Eldeen Reaches, claiming that the treaty to sign away the land was a crime against Aundair. If he won, he'd be in a good position to unseat the queen, so naturally we've gotten involved.

A good start was stealing all his armies equipment (The Dwarf is Clan Kolkarun) and we're about to launch a raid on their supply lines, when they're halfway between the closest city and their destination. If we're lucky, they'll given in without a fight, or enough will desert that they'll not pose a real threat.

>>53850405
I tried to DM an Eberron campaign in 4e, but it fell through when 2 of the players decided they don't have the time... good ot hear it's working out for someone at least.

I got into a PbP game of 4e, but then the GM had to bail before we could actually start due to life issues that hit at the same time.

Other than that I haven't played 4e in years either.

>>53852291
PbP 4e sounds atrocious, unless you do something to shortcut the out of turn actions

>>53852332
I've been there, it's amazingly shit if you don't houserule stuff to make it play faster.
A big one that I founds helps is making everything on a team take their turn at once.

All enemies take their turn, players do reactions/interrupts/whatever.
When that's done, all players take their turn, enemies do reactions/interrupts/whatever.

You only get one Immediate action per round anyway, so edge cases are the rare free actions you'd want to use on enemy turn that aren't just "I prevent 5 damage".

Initially we rolled ini anyway just to decide "well Wizard stunned Brute and Invoker walked away this turn, does Brute get an OA?", but everyone quickly just started "delaying" do the same ini since it's not like enemies would act between them.
Had to make that shit roll both ways though, which upped lethality a bit.

>>53852332
I'm not 4e savvy, but how many prevalent are interrupts/reactions?

In a D&D computer game, would that mean a pop-up every enemy action for "window opportunity for your immediate power"?

>>53853583
Uh... fairly. Opportunity attacks trigger whenever you don't shit past someone, the Immediate Powers have so much variety you can have things like 4 Interrupts and an opportunity action going off at the same time by level 3 if the situation probs itself up correctly.

>>53853583
A pop-up would be good, yes. Probably with an enforced 3-5s delay on further action so the possible-interrupter could parse what is being shown to them.

If you don't want a delay like this, you'd likely need an ability to "undo" an action- this is to prevent the GM from, say, moving a monster then quickly attacking because he had a plan in mind and didn't realize the player could Interrupt the movement, and it's very easy to right click to move a monster then just click the power and click a target - quick enough a player and the might not even realize they could've interrupted that.
The undo would simply go "no that attack didn't go off, because I interrupted the movement." - this "undo" could have a timed window of opportunity or just be freely open and leave it up to the group to use it properly like you do now.

Hell, you could have a "time bar" at the bottom of the screen that logs the round and turns as they go, so you can skip around to them if you need to. It'd probably sort it by Round -> Creature Turn -> Move Action | Attack Action. Then you could click round 2 to skip to the start of it, or maybe click round 2 -> [somebody's turn] and skip straight to the start of their turn, etc. Then you could use THAT as the "undo", and only undo as far as the GM/group allows.


There are a lot of ways and it doesn't have to be as hard as I've seen some people do it. Is it something that would need some work to do? Yes. But it's definitely not impossible.

>>53850167
Sorry man... For some reason people won't just see the light and admit that 4e is the master edition. Find better friends.

>>53850249
Whoah man, you gotta give me more details. What's the deal with the mime and the red glove? Who is the BBEG? What does your nova look like?

>>53850405
Your character sounds awesome, as does the campaign. I always liked Eberron back in 3.5, but I haven't gotten to play it nearly enough. Here's hoping your game continues to go well.

Alright, so now I've gotten curious about something aside from the above. I've seen Direct The Strike touted as an amazing Warlord at-will, but to be honest I have no idea what's so good about it. Do striker basic attacks become so powerful that it's better to use Direct The Attack then use your own attack? Or does it have amazing feat support? Someone help me make sense of this.

>>53855217
The mime and the red glove literally came up last session, we have no idea what's with them other than the fact that the red glove is a 100% unique artifact and that the mime is affiliated with no gods, fae lords, or eldritch abomination dragons.

The eldritch abomination dragons are the BBEGs, we managed to piss them off royally by placing their Tzeench-expy in such a place where he was forced to reveal that he had lied to the fae who, in this setting, are physically incapable of lying.

As for my nova, I'm a str-rogue with the daggermaster PP, so my nova is knockout, action point, bloodbath or deep dagger wound (auto-crit due to unconscious target), two-weapon opening free action attack (due to critical hit), critical opportunity, low slash.

If I don't start adjacent to the enemy, I use tumbling strike at the beginning instead of low slash at the end

File: 1490674624834.jpg (510KB, 1280x1613px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x1613px

>>53855492
Huh. My advice is not to trust the mime. He probably has his own agenda. Have you checked the glove for curses?

As for the rest of it, good luck my dude. Hopefully you can still fight Dragonthulu without your supernova.