/4eg/ - 4th Edition D&D & 4e-like General

>>53873881
I'm actually not that big of a fan of "dedicated" utility powers, cause I feel the mundane ones limit what your character can do without powers (i.e. that arrow ladder power Hunter Rangers get, for example), and the magical ones could often be rolled into rituals mostly... and you give up more combat focused stuff for them to boot, but that's more a systematic issue.

Then there's also the ones that are kinda uninspired (replacement powers, simple + powers) and let characters cheese their way into being good in everything (i.e. Arcana buff wizard).

So yeah, generally not a fan I think.

But just picking a cool one randomly, I'll go ahead and say that Chariot of Susterre is fucking metal. I'm interested to see what others have to say.

http://funin.space/compendium/power/Chariot-of-Sustarre.html

>>53873881
Why is our game so shitty, lads?

>>53874582
>I'm actually not that big of a fan of "dedicated" utility powers, cause I feel the mundane ones limit what your character can do without powers

This... is possibly a fair perspective. An interesting design problem.
It's a similar problem with how some games might put combat manuevers (disarming, tripping, etc) or whatnot behind explicit feats or class features (other recent DnDs do this, but original DnDs did not) - this basically says that such things are not-allowed unless you have that ability.

But of course outside of combat things seem to be more fuzzy in what is allowed/not, even though they might interact with defined mechanics (eg DCs and their maths) the same as combat. Archer's Stairway, for example, just makes it easier to climb some vertical spacing. Now before that ability was added, I could see people allowing whomever to do this (however mechanically - maybe it drops from Hard to Moderate, or whatever? No skill roll? Spammed?), but if it exists as defined as it is, people might feel as if they can no longer do such things, because they haven't bought that explicit option.

A similar phenomenon exists with skill lists and getting too specific. The more specific you are, the more you you have to explicitly list what you can do (and in a way, you might more define what you cannot do) eg having just "Science" versus having "Physics", "Maths", "Biology" etc - in that case you can actually end up with a top tier physician/biologist, but be bad at math.

>>53874582
>>53874943
And of course, I also think simple replacement powers (I assume eg "Use Arcana rather than Stealth for a check" and so forth) are fairly boring, and maybe a bit bad for game design as well - sure those powers have an opportunity cost (the slot), but it lets people do silly things like buff Arcana and then just use Arcana for everything (as noted), which, ah, erodes the entire point of it all.

As a quick, fairly simple one: http://funin.space/compendium/power/Mordenkainens-Mansion.html . I just like the idea of a wizard creating a gate to a nice cozy mansion possibly wherever there is a door. A nice, simple comfort.

>>53873881
Would 4e-like include 13th Age? I've been wanting to discuss something other than its class math for quite a while now.

>>53875557
I don't terribly mind, myself.

Now I wonder though - are you discussing its class math frequently somewhere? And where was it such that you couldn't discuss the rest of it?

>>53875612
It's just that every time 13th Age is mentioned a guy posting with Touhou pics invariably pops up and starts posting why the classes are not balanced and how they should be fixed, driving all discussion towards that end of the spectrum.

File: Skill Challenge example Rules Compendium.png (1MB, 911x725px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 911x725px

>>53875704
Probably about as well as they fare in the other editions, frankly.
They're not really different. You have the normal DnD attributes, a list of skills where you are trained in some of them (like 5e proficiency, really), DCs, you roll d20, add some modifiers, and try to beat a DC and see if you succeed or not. That's the long and short of it all.

There *are* skill challenges that provide a light behind-the-scenes framework (not exposed to the players) to help the GM define when a medium-form problem (such as investigating a crime scene - talking to people, gathering intelligence, and so forth) might be resolved or lead to a problem, but it's only mildly more complicated than getting X successes before Y failures to get the "best" result. But you can just roll plain skill checks as you always might, of course. Pic related is an example of a Challenge.

You deleted your post, but you're still getting this response, because I've typed it.

>>53875843
Ah. I believe he'll avoid that if you tell him you'd really not rather not focus on mechanical balance. He's reasonable enough there, I believe.

>>53875922
It's hard to trust anyone on /tg/ to be reasonable lately.

Regardless, what did people think of the free RPG day adventure Pelgrane Press put out this year? The Island of Dr. Moreau premise was great but I feel they must have accidentally sent a previous version out to print, since they're referencing placeholder page numbers and abilities that appear in the core rulebook. Feels kind of awkward for something that's supposed to showcase the game.

>>53876022
I imagine most of us here haven't seen it, and I can't find it to download it.
Was it free? Could you share it?

Is it interesting to look at in a system-agnostic kind of way?

>>53876382
There doesn't seem to be a PDF release, though I'm assuming they'll put one up eventually like they did with the previous free RPG day adventure.

What skill would you guys use to prevent a crashing air ship in Eberron from going "too badly" (maybe by trying to steer it into a "softer" area, or salvage any possible lift for as long as possible), or to repair it to try to save it, or any stuff like this?

The closest I can think is Thievery and that's solely because it's used to disable traps, which implies some form of machinery-related ability, which itself is maybe vaguely that, but that's....clearly a large stretch.

I mean you can say "They can't, they're adventurers! That's NPC stuff, like crafting!" but frankly I don't think that's a very good answer at all. There's plenty of stuff with the idea of adventurers being on their own and having to do stuff like this to survive, or at least stave off imminent firey death.

>>53878290
Arcana, Athletics, Endurance, Nature, Perception, Thievery, a Dexterity/Strength/Constitution check...

>>53878604
You wanna rattle off dungeoneering or acrobatics too?

>>53878672
Acrobatics is fair, Dungeoneering is possible, Intelligence and Wisdom checks might just work. It's all about how you use it.

>>53878290

Arcana(To work with the Arcane machinery), Thievery(To work with the arcane Machinery), Perception (To find a good landing place), Intimidate/Diplomacy (If they speak primordial, to help work with the elemental spirits).

That would be my guess. It's all about the approach.

A'ight. Fair enough.

A lot looser than I'm used to, but hey whatever.

>>53878887

Yeah, 4e's skill system is a bit looser than 3e's. The skills are a lot more general, rather than 3e's much more specific skills. Sorta goes to the point >>53874943, that larger skill lists end up more more specific and defined in what they do or do not.

As an aside: I've actually had a 4e character (Who spoke Primordial) interrogate the elemental spirits in a Lightning Rail before to tell us if smugglers used it recently. That was fun.

On recommendation of this general, and /tg/ as a whole, I'm currently reading through 4e's DMG, and my setting is now Points of Light because it's a super cool idea.

Thank you, /4eg/

>>53875557
I've always been interested in it but also never really found anyone to actually talk about it with.

>>53879163

It's a more fleshed out setting than people assume it it and the dawn war is a very cool creation story.

What are some uses for the Supernal language as a lower level PC?

>>53882647
I'm not sure what you are thinking about aside from "speak with creatures that speak supernal".

>>53874943
I think the in-combat balance is fairly good about "has power/doesn't have power"; if you want to replicate something that someone with a power can do, you can use an improvised action. It'll be less precise and have shittier damage, but it's not like "only rogue can throw sand in people's eyes" was ever a valid concern.

The out of combat utilities are however just not as well designed for this, especially the skill replacements. Those are all stuff that could/should be a creative use of the skill at baseline.

Then again, you could just do that and add a level of difficulty for those that don't have the replacement power, I guess.

>>53883227
Druids imo suffer the most from the combat vs non-combat utility powers disparity, the same is also true for feats. If I were to re-write them I'd give them some selection of attributes they could apply to their beast form per encounter; Swimming and water breathing, limited flight, burrow speed, wall climbing etc.

It just seems wrong that beast form has no utility outside of a free shift every so often without spending feats or using utility powers on it.

>>53883901
This seems reasonable, but the way I see Druids in 4e work more on the skinchanger rules than D&D druid rules. You transform into one kind of animal, not whichever animal you want, a bear, a panther, a wolf, etc.

I had a druid once who's wildshape form was a llama, I took a bunch of swarm druid powers which I fluffed as llama spit

>>53882647
>What are some uses for the Supernal language as a lower level PC?

I've got a PC with exactly that right now. She's a historican and scholar. A lot of old religious texts are written in Supernal so it's useful to her.

Holy fuck boneshard skeletons are a nightmare
>When bloodied or killed they explode doing neurotic damage against every creature in the burst
We nearly tpk'd in the second encounter I even had. I'm actually liking the West Marches type stuff

>>53883927
Whatever animal you pick, you still have no mechanical ability to represent it until you pick a feat or utility power that says you can. Your form could be a giant eagle, but you'd be grounded until the level 22 'Sky Talon' utility power, shows up, and even that comes with weird limitations.

>>53884141
They probably should have done the forms similar to barbarian ranges (except maybe encounter based?).

In general, just going "here, you can turn into ANYTHING!" is going to end up either stupid for the reasons it's stupid in 4e, ior for the reasons it's stupid in 5e/3.5.

>>53884318

Yeah. Flight is just damn hard to value.

Pixie style flight is the best I've seen but people got unhappy about being forced to fly within stabbing height.

>>53884141
But why would you pick giant eagle if you can't do that?

The default options are bear, panther and bees for a reason

>>53884371
Why would you pick a wolf if you don't get blindsense, why would you pick an ape or bear if you're not good at climbing, why pick a panther if you don't get low light vision?

I'm just pointing out the inadequacy in the system

>>53884141
I think the problem here is that you want mechanics that reflect fluff, and I want fluff that reflects mechanics

So I can see why this would be a problem to you, but please understand why it has never been a problem to me

>>53884538
My problem is that you have to pick between powers such as the 2nd level utilities skittering sneak, which is a cool out of combat power that has an array of applications, and verdant bounty, which is a powerful combat ability that can save your allies from a round of enemy attacks.

As discussed above, dedicated utility powers limit what a character might have been able to do had that utility not existed. They could have been druid specific rituals or innate abilities like wizard cantrips.

>>53884623
Oh, well if we're looking at that, I feel like the solution would be a separation of utility powers into combat and non-combat utility powers

>>53884623
>>53884638

Yeah, that's one of the main things we're pondering with a 4e heartbreaker we are working on.

Your class gives you Support Power (Combat utility) and your Power Source gives you Utility Powers (Non-Combat Support). So a Rogue is Martial, so he has Utility powers about being inhumanly but not magically good at stuff. A Paladin is Divine so he has prayers and blessings.

The idea is that non-combat utility stuff either improves a skill (Making it faster, for example) or does stuff a skill can't do (A small portal between two places for Arcane). Rather than just being number bonuses or 'Use X skill for Y'.

>>53884702
Sounds cool, I like the power source thing, I'm happy to see it expanded upon

>>53884737

That and it helps us keep the Utilities to reasonable levels. There is 4(Ish) classes for each power source, separating how a Cleric and Invoker do non-combat stuff is going to give us headaches.

>>53884760
Good to hear you're keeping non-combat utility within in the same powers source feel distinct between classes, that was my immediate concern.

I'd say clerics are more combat oriented in general, so would have utility for battlefield triage, curing poison and disease, maybe short term buffs to athletics, endurance and heal.

Invokers as the more mystic of the divine classes so could have divination utility, predicting the future and scrying, as well as minor miracles like walking on water and creating food.

That would be my suggestion.

>>53884893

Yeah but by the same token, an Invoker of Bane is all about them fightin' and a Cleric of Ioun would do divination and such. The one thing all 4 dudes have in common is the power being about prayer and divinely granted.

Which is sort of why we are going with it per-power source rather than per-class. It will mean that power sources, yeah, will mean more out of combat than your class.

On the other hand: We like to think it will also open up a bit more versatility in non-combat stuff. A Warden and a Fighter are both defenders who are tough sons of bitches but different power source means they will have different approaches to non-combat stuff.

Mind you, we are still in 'Throw stuff at the wall' right now so feedback is very appreciated.

>>53884935
Maybe tie utility to the deity in that case, have some baseline utility they all have access too, then specific powers based on the deity's domains.

>>53885209

We were thinking of theming them that way, though not restricting them. So a Pelor guy CAN learn 'Prayer of Night' (And making an area drop to low visibility) but there would be some obvious theme overlaps.

If you want one that doesn't immediately line up with your god, find a way to justify it and give it a new name (Since refluffing is always allowed). So the Pelor guy could call it 'Pelor turns away' and it's about the god revoking light rather than making it darker.

Martial: Themed around skills/qualities a person has.
Divine: Themed around prayers and various metaphysical domains.
Primal: Themed around which spirit of nature you are invoking the aid of.

So a Warden could ask the spirit of the river for help and turn water into solid ground for a time. A wizard calls up a disc of levitation. A cleric parts the waves. The fighter gets confused why everyone else is being fancy and just jumps over it.

At least, that's the thematic/general idea.

>>53884760
But they're both divine?

>>53885447

Yeah, that was my point. That making 'Divine' a source of non-combat powers is much less headache inducing than trying to pare down exactly how two divine people or two arcane differ in how they do it.

>others are also working on 4e-like homebrews

the race is on, motherfuckers

>>53874630
It's not. It's a well-made RPG for vidya-style fantasy combat. People who act like that's a bad thing, are faggots. People who deny 4e's vidya-like nature, are retards. 4e has good combat, and that's all it needs to have. Most RPGs with heavy non-combat mechanics are shit. We want the rules to stay out of our roleplay, and only come into play during combat. It's annoying when the roleplay has a good flow to suddenly have to stop and do some social combat ruleshit. Whereas a combat? No one even cares that much if it's contrived. Who gives a fuck? I hate the daily powers in 4e, I hate the resource management bullshit for fighters, I hate minions (even though they are a good idea design-wise), and I don't even like the combat style that 4e sets up. Feats just seem like bloat, most of the powers seem like bloat. That said, the game does what it does, and does it well.

I really fucking regret introducing my group to 3.5 because even though I prefer 3.5, they decided to convert the campaign to the 3.5, and the DM said he was okay with it but really wasn't once he started getting into the rules, the players completely outpaced him learning all the rules and he's been on the backfoot ever since, I'm pretty sure that is 50% of what killed our campaign, the other 50% being him getting married. I hated my build in 4e but I would have happily stuck with it if it meant we'd gotten to actually play that campaign more. Fucking kill me.

Building a fighter/barbarian warforged hybrid

Which hybrid talent feat should I take? Tossing up between barbarian agility, fighter two-handed talent and rageblood vigor

>>53887070
Make him TWF and take tempest style.

>>53887102
If I was building a thri-kreen or half-orc, I would, but I want to build a charger, because charging is super fun

Besides, I already have a fighter/ranger hybrid with tempest technique

>>53887123
I think the bonus to-hit is more valuable than the bonus AC. If you want, you can just invest in heavier armor later, but it's a bit harder to get attack bonuses.

>>53887070
Barbarian agility ties you to needing a good dex bonus for a worthwhile AC, take fighter weapon talent if you want the feats it unlocks, which are pretty decent if you haven't looked at them, otherwise take rageblood vigor as it's the most bang for buck option.

>>53887371
Why wouldn't a charger want good dex? You need it for surprising charge and spear feats

>>53887689
It means you need to keep bumping up dex with every ability score increase to keep pace with scale armour instead of increasing something else to boost your riders.

>>53888175
Yes, and?

What's the alternative? Constitution? I'd rather have a good secondary NAD, and access to surprising charge and spear mastery

>>53888220
Unless you start with an 18 in dex, which will be difficult as a warforged, you'll be behind in AC until paragon, and be 1 ahead in epic. Alternatively you can do anything else with that feat, start with 15 dex and a gouge, take surprising charge at 8th and increase con to 17 to take axe mastery at epic.

>>53888468
but why?

What benefit is there in investing in constitution instead? Axe and Spear mastery do the same thing

>>53888624
The question was, is barbarian agility better than fighter weapon talent for a warforged hybrid? Unless you value +1 AC at epic and a dependency on dex over +1 to hit and feat access to things like hewing charge and brutal tactics, the answer is no, it isn't. Unless there is some specific hide armour only enchantment you want.

>>53887070
Arena Fighting with multiattacks. So you can be using a Fullblade, have it count as a Light Blade and be able to do things like Rain of Blows+Thundering Howl.

>>53873881
>What are your favorite Utility Powers that actually seem to be made for out of combat purposes and/or "normal" utility (interpreted as reasonably as you feel)?

Memory to Mist is the Jedi hand wave. "These are not the warforged you're looking for."

>>53889691
I keep forgetting that arena fighting works like that

How do you deal with different optimization levels in a 4e game? My group, myself included, are mostly low to mid optimization sorts of people, we just do shit that's cool, but another player's big into charop; and it's not like she's a bad guy or anything, she just gets a kick out of being the best at her job, and doesn't really realize when that means she's making some of us obsolete. We've talked to her about the problem and she's tried to cut back some but she's still making really optimal characters, and she's tried to pick niches that aren't someone else's, but I worry that it'll keep being a problem; we don't want to kick her out because she's a great roleplayer and a good friend, but it has negatively impacted some of the other player's enjoyments of the games. She's apologized for that and tried to fix it, but...

>>53892105
Let her make a leader.

A leader works best when he enables others, so an optimized leader should make everyone else feel amazing.

>>53892105
>Playing with autistic girls

desu senpai you deserve what you get m8. I bet she's not white, too.

>>53892836
Don't bully autistic girls, I've only had good experiences with them. Then again it may be my own autism resonating with them.

Also, yeah, ask her to make a Leader. They can decide the whole combat on the first turn and make it seem like it's the work of others.

>>53884338
Pixie flight is pretty nice, basically means you're immune to trip forever, even if you never go on top of building to rain death upon the wingless mooks.

Is there any way to make sure all your attacks are Fire And Radiant? I'm playing a wrathvoker looking to go into Sublime Flame, and I'd liek to make use of the level 30 to get +4d6 to all my damage.

>>53894773
http://funin.space/compendium/item/Crusaders-Weapon.html

This'll turn half your damage Radiant, so if you're using Fire powers it'll be both.
Not sure if there's a more generally useful option.

>>53894891
Hmm, hammer or mace only, and I've been using staves, unfortunately; and I didn't take the right multiclass to pick up holy symbols as implements. Damn.

>>53894773
>>53894891
Just remembered this paragon path exists, if you can afford the opportunity cost:
http://funin.space/compendium/paragonpath/Malec-Keth-Janissary.html

The 16th level feature lets you splice extra damage onto everything you do, which carries the keyword for picking up bonuses.

>>53894969

I already multiclassed wizard, unfortunatley, which fits the character more than swordmage; also the paragon path is... overall not that useful for a multi swordmage as is, only for straight swordmages.

>>53894773
I can only think of Radiant One where you deal Fire and Radiant damage equal to your Intelligence modifier if you hit an enemy granting combat advantage, but that's an Epic Destiny. You can use Hellfire Staff if you're using Close and Melee powers; or if you'd rather go with Radiant powers, there's always the Radiant Staff.

Also, you should've gone with hybrid Cleric.

>>53895637
Hybrid cleric was unnecessary, I felt like, given we had two full leaders already at the time I joined.Hellfire Staff and Radiant Staff both replace, not augment, so it wouldn't trigger the Sublime Flame's 30 twice, as I understand it.

>>53895894
Hybrid Cleric is honestly more of a Controller thing with some Leader tacked on, and the proper hybrid for a Dizzying Mace build.

>>53896268

So is Hybrid Invoker|Cleric 100% a better build than straight invoker?

>>53896750
Honestly, it's not 100% better as you might have a build that would rather do something else entirely, it's different with plenty of advantages and it's hard to fuck up, you don't lose much with it, you tend to only really gain.

>>53897086

Well, my current plan is for an Eberron game; a house medani half-elf invokver of the silver flame. Current plan is Wrath Covenant invoker (mutliclass wizard with that feat that gives you that future sight daily you use on long restss), and the Inquisitive theme, since I wnated to play a house medani investigator. From there I was going into either Medani Trueseer or Exorcist of the Flame for PP; probably Exorcist, since currently her faith is more important for her than her family after a race-change incident has put her on thin ice with the rest of the Medani. EDs I was looking at were either going to be Sublime Flame or Heir of Siberys; depending on a few things. General plan was to be a general area nuker like wrathvokers are good at, with a side order of 'all the insight, all the perception'.

>>53897225
Well, you can be a bit more of a debuffer with the Cleric, plus getting better AC anyway. Exorcist of the Flame makes you lean slightly towards Leader, and for EDs Heir of Siberys is pretty great.

>>53897544
Well, debuffer was never my plan with the character; wrathvokers are secondary striker, after all. covenant of wrath is all about pointing in the direction of the enemy and unloading buckets of HOT HOLY WRATH all over their innocent, waiting faces.

>>53886982

How is it 'vidya style' at all?

>>53898874
Tactical war game style combat lent to a lot of modern day video game design, for better or worse. Trouble is, lots of folk of my generation don't remember there was a time that games did things before computers, so rather than attributing the design qualities of 4e to Chainmail and other war games like someone who's played back further than 3.pf might, the easiest comparison to draw as an example is to video games, which drew from those sources as inspiration many a time.

So in that, yes, there is a distinct 'vidya style' to 4e, even though said vidya style is largely thanks to table top war gaming in many aspects.

>>53899045
Even then, the WoW attack isn't even the closest analogy - it's more akin to Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy Tactics.

>>53901757
With no facing rules, no ala carte multiclassing and no dead zones on ranged, the one trpg that is remotely close to 4e in mechanics and style and character is the Arc the Lad series, although Trails is very similar now that I've played it.

Final Fantasy Tactics is literally third edition, right down to the prestige class system

The closest thing to Fire Emblem is ironically fifth edition because all of the classes line up perfectly. Champions == Lords right down to the new combat style change halfway through the game. Barbarians == the entire Warrior line, Pegasus Knights == Cavaliers that dump constitution, Shaman == Warlocks etc. Cut Rangers and Paladins and it is practically a one to one relationship.

>>53902498
Eh, 4th does have a 1-hex zone where you provoke an OA if you make a ranged attack. Although it's stupidly easy for PC's to avoid.

>>53898874
No obfuscation.

Clean, precise, mechanical description is something that was relatively unheard of in TRPGs.

>>53885479
Well you could make unique combat powers and have a power source have a grand list of support and utility powers that all the classes could access.

Building a heartbreaker, but hit a wall. How would you guys make each weapon/implement type distinct in the way it is used. While we're at it, when making Armor damage reduction, how would you make lighter armor worth considering when measured against heavier armor?

>>53905217
I'm working on this as well. I give each caster class an at-will implement RBA, and then the implements they use give bonuses (sometimes related to it, sometimes not).

Arcane gets:

>Wand
The normal/utility choice. Leaves the other hand empty, so you could use two with different enchants, or use an off-hand for shielding.

>Staff
Can use the RBA in melee

>Orb
Double range on the RBA

Primal gets a totem. The totem lets him transform in some way, depending on type. When used this way, it fuses into you, leaving your hands free.

>Beast totem
Grow claws and thick skin as if wearing medium armor. If both hands are free, can do a maul attack (as two strength handed weapon).

>Raptor totem
Double range RBAs, low light vision

>Treant totem
Grows thick bark skin (as if wearing heavy armor), grows long vines it can attack with from range (as if with a spear).

Not sure what to do about divine symbols yet. Probably just have it make your attacks a certain element, but take no slots aside from that.

Light-medium-heavy armor as in 5e, but heavy always gives you a movement penalty, but also reduces forced movement by 1. I'm trying to think of what would be a good bonus to differentiate light and medium in some way, but I don't want to get into stupid shit like damage types.

>>53898874
The way you use your powers, with cooldowns and all, is quite like an MOBA. There are little one-shot minions to kill just like in Dota, there are "bosses" (solos) and the powers have loads of ongoing damage type effects. It's very MOBA like. Nothing really wrong with that either.

>>53906513

But it isn't. But... I guess it loops back to what >>53899045 said

People compare it to vidya because that's what they know, even though board games and wargames are a much more direct precedent for 4e's design principles.

>>53906607
Even comparing it to vidya, comparing it to a MOBA is really weird.

At least WoW actually has "solos" and is actually mostly about PvE. The best you get in a MOBA is jungle creeps and Roshan/Nashor.

File: 68fe4871c5a37bc22a109243d0cd3b30.jpg (788KB, 2755x1500px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 2755x1500px

I'm thinking I'd like to run a Monster Hunter inspired campaign using 4e.

The trickiest part is to make solo encounters interesting. I'm thinking the best way is to split monsters into "parts" and stat those parts individually, but still give the monster an overall health pool. Players can target individual parts to break them (these parts normally have higher AC), or can simply attack the monster (usually a lower AC) but no chance to break parts. Many of the monsters attacks are tied to these parts and a broken part means the attack deals much less damage or is more likely to miss.

In addition, a solo monster can attack with up to two different parts per turn, when enraged attack with three different parts per turn, and when tired just one part. This will probably need to be tweaked but it's just a base idea for now. Maybe to make a solo monster actually frightening I should just allow, once per fight, to have them use all of their attacks at once, but can't attack next round, instead of my other idea.

Finally solo monsters need to have mobility options so they don't simply get surrounded and beat down. This shouldn't be too hard to create but might be tricky to balance without having melee classes spending all of their turns running around just trying to keep up with it.

As for magic items, instead of weapons being magical, they'd actually be crafted from monsters, same with armor. What I'd essentially do is say that slaying a monster gives enough material for a weapon or armor to be crafted with some of the monster's attributes, so it's analogous to getting magical item upgrades from treasure parcels, without them being strictly magical. I really want the world to feel more primal and ancient, so the setting would be more Monster Hunter style with small, interspersed settlements, instead of advanced civilizations spreading to create kingdoms and empires.

>>53909069

I think it could be cool. Designing good, interesting to fight solo boss monsters is always tricky, but there's a lot of room for exploration. I've always wanted to try to nail down the Shadow of the Colossus style of thing, where the monster is also terrain you can climb on, with different locations having different advantages or disadvantages.

>>53906607
>But it isn't.

But it is.

>People compare it to vidya because that's what they know, even though board games and wargames are a much more direct precedent for 4e's design principles.

LOL yeah no, that's not where the daily powers came from.

I'm a two blade ranger, and while I feel like when it comes to damage our party is fine, but we're lacking in other roles. We have

>Swordmage, defender
>Sentinel, Leader
>Myself, Striker
>Warlock, Striker
>Rogue, Striker

And I want to try and fill in as a secondary defender or have some controller aspects to my character. I already have some stuff that helps with it, mercenary theme giving me the ability to knock things prone, parting strike let's me slow enemies and reposition myself without any danger, and I have armor that lets me make an area around me count for difficult terrain.

I'm just hitting level 6 now, is there anything I can work towards (multiclassing, picking up certain feats/powers, paragon path options, etc) that I can grab to make myself a bit better at controller or defender? Preferably controller

>>53910991
That class list says nothing about party comp, so we can't really offer good advice. What options are your Swordmage, Warlock and Rogue taking? How well has your Sentinel doing with leadering, and what is their Cycle of choice? Based on what your party is doing, you should either let them cover those bases and go full damage, or pick up some of the slack on the area lacking.

>>53910991
Multiclassing Cleric then going into tactical warpriest makes you into a pseudo defender (pseudo fighter, really) at 16. It also has a pretty great leader encounter power and class ability at 11.

>>53910402
>LOL yeah no, that's not where the daily powers came from.

Yeah, those come from cleric casting, where you regain your spells 1/day when you pray.

We all know dnd 4e literally copied Heroes of the Storm, and I even suspect they copied from Overwatch.

It's embarrassing, really.

File: Strike!Reaper.png (789KB, 1261x1377px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1261x1377px

>>53912179
Yeah, but it did it badly. It took slightly homebrewed Strike! to perfect it.

>>53912228
Did you ever decide on how to do multiclass feats for Strike?

I wrote down
"Multiclass <X>: You gain an At-Will and the Class Feature of another class. You may choose to gain the At-Will as either an Encounter Power, or replace one of your At-Wills. The Class Feature is similarily marked as ????"

in my notes but obviously I have no idea what to go with, either. I'd probably make more of an opinion if I actually looked at how class features could break/be-broken (especially when combined with how the at-will you choose functions), but I'm far too lazy for that.

>>53912314
It seems to me that each class, similarly to a role, gets a passive "class boost" of some sort (sometimes attached to powers, for the martial artist, summoner, shapechanger for example) + at-wills, so you could easily do the same thing as the role multiclass feat does and restrict it to be able to use only either your own class's boost or the one you multiclass at a time.

>>53912388
Mmm maybe, yeah.
The Magician is a bit odd, though. Their "passive" is "Restricted power access" - can't really flip that one on/off for a single attack/turn.

And Martial Artist MCing is extremely...nothing, because they don't technically have at-wills. You'd want, MC and gain a Stance, then you use it as they do? But you'd have to pick between the Stance or any normal class buffs you'd have?

And that's not even looking at the playtest classes because I know a fair amount of them are odd enough to need considerations.

>>53912489
Magician multiclass should probably just give you an encounter right away with some sort of restriction depending on the tradition
(blood stays as is, star you can use every second encounter, chaos you need to select an encounter power you have, flip a coin to decide which one you get to use this encounter or something).

MA stances are split between passive and active effect, if you take only one as a multiclass you'd always be using it on your MBAs, and use the passive effect on turns when you aren't using your class' passive I think, but I haven't put much thought into it since.

>>53912666
Thinkin' we'll need explicit-per-class Multiclass Feats, the same as in 4e. Or as they are for Minor Roles.

You change Archer at all, yet? I think I agree with you on making them (at least their at-will selection) have more "condition infliction" rather than just "take damage" but I'm not quite sure what fits the best.

>>53913344
Was thinking just giving disadvantage to attacks while in the zone they make.

Maybe make an effect called "supressed" for them that stops enemies from using non-basic powers (it's what XCOM does), to represent that you can't really do fancy shit while you are being harassed... maybe with an "or provoke Opportunity" caveat.

save

File: author on multiclass back in july.png (140KB, 1723x603px)

140KB, 1723x603px

>>53912314
>>53912388

File: warden.jpg (53KB, 200x545px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 200x545px

>get into 4e
>nobody wants to play it
>manage to find some online campaigns that never really last long at all
>leader classes were totally my kind of thing

Warlord, Shaman, Bard, all of them were just fantastic. Warden took the role of defender when I wanted to step out of leader for a while. God damn I miss 4e, I really want to get back into it.

>>53918005
I think most in these thread do, Anon. One day we'll get a /tg/ game. One day.

With 3 players and no controller should the Leader focus more on healing or damage dealing when it comes to feats and power?

>>53916739
There's logic in what he says, but multiclassing absolutely enables more concepts, see the attempt at Reaper above.

Also, it's not like the existing feats don't work better or worse with some classes, so some multiclass feat options being better or worse doesn't really change how much charop is going on there.

>>53920613
Leaders are enablers, so play to the strengths of your class and your party, healing and damage come as a side benefit. I can't offer too much advice without knowing the classes in your party.

>>53918524
My current game was organized in a /tg/ gamefinder thread. Just post as a 4e GM, and you'll get loads of replies.

>>53909069
>>53909715
I also think this is a cool idea that is worth exploring.

Why is the Mordenkrad so op?

>>53927095
Is it? I thought it's one of the few two handed weapons that is actually sometimes worth using, which means it's actually in a pretty good spot.

>>53928010

Mordenkrad is top tier for damage builds. No weapon should ever roll multiple damage dice.

>>53928032
I disagree. I think two handed weapons without reach should be 2d6 as baseline.

As is,, 1 handed + shield is just better whenever you can afford it.

>>53928345
A 2d6 brutal 1 with the second-best damage feat support in the game is obscene, dude.

>>53929159
Yeah, it quite literally only loses to maybe a Fullblade for accuracy and Firewind Blade stuff, dual-wielding Rapiers if you're more of a CA guy or a Gouge if you're a charger.

>>53929363
>>53929159
It definitely loses out to the fullblade at higher levels even on builds that want two handed weapons. +1 To hit > + 1,5 average damage per [W].

Which is why I'm saying that it's not that it's so awesome, it's that other two handed weapons are very seldom worth it in themselves, because to hit and AC both beat the minor increase in damage from damage dice. If a higher percentage of your total damage came from the weapon, it'd be fine maybe, but as is, it doesn't matter that much. It's merely the best remaining option for those who are basically designed around using two handed weapons (i.e. avengers and like... barbarians maybe?), or fully damage optimized charge builds.

>>53929700

Avengers prefer fullblades, actually; Mordenkrads find use from Fighters that want to go with ahmmers for their feat support, barbarians, Wardens that want to use two handers...

>>53929723
Nah, Wardens and Fighters use warhammers for that one, a shield is that important. Unless, of course, it's a hybrid, which likely is a Barbarian hybrid. Even the Barbarian hybrids want a Fullblade anyway unless the hammer is really necessary.

Also the Gouge is the best optimized charge build weapon, guys. Surprising Charge is still really strong and Spear Expertise is better for DPS.

How good even is a charge-op'd character?
Are there numbers people can share?

>>53931753

The gap is smaller than in a lot of other games, but it's still pretty significant. A fully optimised party can blow the usual guidelines of PC's facing encounters no more than four levels higher than them completely out of the water.

>>53931753
A vanguard gouge, horned helm, spear expertise and surprising charge puts you at an extra +1 to hit and 3d6+1d8+1 extra damage on charges, and that's something anyone can get access to in heroic tier.

>>53931753
A Level 4, minimally charge-optimized Half-Orc Barbarian|Fighter is doing 4d6b1+2d6+1d8+6 with a decently high accuracy (+10 to hit). Thing is, he's doing it every damn turn. Assuming a same level Skirmisher following MM3 math:
>Hit on an 8, 60% accuracy with combat advantage
>4d6b1+2d6+1d8+6 is equal to 33,5 damage on average
>average DPR: 20,1
He kills them in about 3 turns supposing that there aren't any buffs or extra attacks or anything like that.

Comparatively, a Warlock that has Expertise, an Accurate Rod and Mindbite Scorn has +9 versus Reflex, while dealing 1d10+1d8+1d6+5.
>Hit on a 7, 65% accuracy (with combat advantage)
>1d10+1d8+1d6+5 damage averages out to 18,5
>Average DPR: 12,025
He will take on average about 5 turns to kill an enemy.

It shaves off two rounds early on, which is VERY useful.

Why are there so few options if you want to use a crossbow that isn't a handcrossbow? Rogue's SA is handcrossbow only, archer warlord requires bows... so that leaves, what, ranger and seeker? Or does seeker require bows not crossbows as well? Ranged weapon bard is bow only too, I think? And Artificer, I guess. So Ranger, artificer, possibly seeker and bard.

Not really, you can pick up Crossbows and the best bow/crossbow by far is the Superior Crossbow. Literally everyone that can do ranged attacks (save for the Rogue) can use it. The Ranger, the Seeker, the Warlord, the Bard, the Cleric, the Artificer...

>>53935860

I know Warlord can't, not well. See the wording of Archer Warlord:

ARCHER WARLORD
When you choose the Archer Warlord class feature, you lose proficiency with chainmail and light shields.
You gain proficiency with military ranged weapons. In addition, when you make a ranged basic attack with a bow, you can use Strength instead of Dexterity for the attack roll and the damage roll.

Bows only, not crossbows, for having a decent RBA. I guess you could argue you could still use a crossbow and just ignore that class feature, but...

>>53935961

I've never understood the point of limitations like that. It seems entirely arbitrary.

>>53935961
Accuracy, especially as a Leader, beats an RBA every day of the week, especially when the Archer Warlord doesn't really gain anything - it's more like he loses a bunch - no chainmail means you can't have a Charisma Archer Warlord properly, for example.

Besides, the true patrician choice is Heavy Thrown Weapon, most likely a Drow Long Knife.

I feel like I ought to do a build illustrating just how to build a Ranged Warlord, because they've some really nifty stuff. An incredibly good buffing at will that can actually compete with Direct the Strike, some of the better enabling powers the Warlord has and good use of Intelligence. The only thing that truly hampers them is the fact that you can't really mix them up well with others.

>>53918005

If there is a 4e game that fits my schedule, I'd galdly play in it.

>>53938769
I'm always interested in builds, and I don't think I saw archer warlords options aside from "don't do this".

I remember there being a really cool "return fire" power they had.

>>53929159
We had a dude with Eternal Defender and an Executioner Axe. 2d6 brutal 2 + vorpal was insane.

>>53942026
Oh, there are plenty. In a way, they're the only ones capable of rivaling the Bards when it comes to battlefield repositioning, and their buffing is very solid.

>>53943757
>>53942026

The issue is mostly a lack of prior support so the powers for them are (Relatively) limited.

>>53936003

I wonder how it would have gone if it had instead swapped your warlord powers to dex rather than your RBA to str.

>>53944721
I was thinking "that's stupid" but it actually might be cool. I wonder what doors that opens in terms of feats.

Although, that alone would still not really make them archers, while changing the RBA to strength does.

>>53944721
Make it use Charisma or Wisdom instead of Intelligence for the riders too. Opens up a pretty big amount of classes and Roguelords become very powerful and possibly deadlier than just about true Striker|Leader. Wait, no, Rangerlords. Also elves become stupidly strong.

Doesn't open many things in terms of feats and changes more how they interact with other classes, really.

Is there an aspect of the game that is changed for the worst by getting off the magic item threadmill via Inherent Bonuses? Because I can't think of one that isn't improved or at least left as it was

>>53947907

In my experience, inherent bonuses is only a good thing. My only gripe with it is that I think it's actually a bit slow, but it does the job.

>>53947922
>a bit slow
What do you mean? That they don't apply at the start of the half-tier?

Can runepriests only use simple melee/ranged, or can they use martial melee as well at base?
I've seen both around.

>>53948291
You can use any weapons, and if you want to have proficiency you either already have proficiency or you get it through a feat or a theme. Essentially you can get a Fullblade if you desire on your Runepriest.

>>53948330

I am currently playing a Fullblade Runepriest. It's kinda pointless, sure, but it's fun.

Fluffwise she's a Goliath who was an assistant in a Giants library upon a mountaintop, learning the runes from the texts she was given to catalog and file. When she left, a Giant gave her a letter opener as a parting gift- The Fullblade she carries to this day.

>>53948330
>>53948371
I mean can they use them at base?
I want to know if I need to spend a feat or not.

File: Runepriest Proficiencies.png (31KB, 567x384px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 567x384px

>>53948291
The base proficiency for a Runepriest is simple melee and simple ranged, but their Runic Artistry feature can potentially give them proficiency with one-handed and two-handed military heavy blades or military hammers/military maces.

>>53948508
You can use a Fullblade, for example, or a Longsword, but you'd get no proficiency bonus (so you'd be rolling +4 vs AC rather than +7 vs AC at level 1, for example). If you'd like to use them with a proficiency bonus, you'd need to get them through Serene Blade or a theme or anything, really.

>>53938769
Is the build comin?

>>53953213
I think it'll be out tommorrow.

but we'll be ded tomorrow.

Any suggestion's on how to make a beast master ranger playable?

I downloaded the offline character builder and followed the included instructions. Everything seemed to go well until the last step. When I run cbloader.exe, the logo pops up, but then I get an error message that says "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." Anyone have idea how to fix this?

Hey guys, I have a question. I've been using 4E since it came out but I've never used the rules for the Essentials, like feats and all the that other stuff. Is the stuff in essentials compatible with the "vanilla" 4E, like the feats and the schools of magic and all that jazz?

>>53957738
Yes, 100%

Even the classes are compatible, but most people will tell you that most Essentials classes suck

>>53955365
Right, bit of a quick rundown on the Ranged Warlord:
>arguably the best Warlord build at buffing and movement enabling
>above average in enabling but nothing special for a Warlord

It's hard to figure out what to do with their Paragon Path, but I'm personally a fan of Flame of Hope just because it does so much damage. If you wanna hybrid, do a Wizard hybrid, mostly because Wizards are considerably strong and you can get a Cunning Drow Long Knife early on and that shit hurts, and things like Hypnotism and Disabling Missile combos are insane.

So yeah, if I was building a Ranged Warlord, I wouldn't stray too much from the best powers it has, pick up a throwable weapon, work with damage buffs and moving your allies across the board, and with your average fare of Warlord enabling powers.

I don't understand revenants

The Raven Queen is against cheating death with stuff like vampires, liches, that sort of thing. But isn't she doing just that by making revenants that do her bidding?

>>53958265
Eith revenants, their life is extended, but their death is 100% inevitable, as their life ends the moment they fulfill their duty

The Raven Queen doesn't care how long you take to die, just as long as you do so

>>53931753
>>53933969

Are the numbers for played math, like relative power levels hit bonuses etc posted anywhere.

I mean monster math seems basically solved with the MM3 on a business card, but I was wondering if there was anything succinct for the range of standard to optimized hit bonuses and damage etc.

I keep hearing about the bounded accuracy of 5e (no real interest in another D&D so I haven't read it) but I'm curious like how close the numbers are or are apart relative to level and tier and class.

My general idea is to shrink the numbers for clone, but I figure someone has already done the number crunching out there and I just havn't turned up much results.

>>53959062
MM3 on a Business Card, dude.

>>53947985
You get the +1 to attack/damage at level 2, but only the +1 to defenses at level 4, meaning your players are a little squishier than they would be on the treadmill

>>53957863
Thanks for the answer, kind Anon. I've been skimming through the essentials and there are some pretty cool stuff there, like the powers for worshippers of certain gods. Those sounds pretty baller, especially Pelor's.

Are there any patches for Alchemical items to make them less crap?

>>53959853
I have never seen an alchemy based character in 4e.

What are the problems with alchemical items?

Just finished my weekly session. Last session my players started exploring the sewers under a city, looking for their dragonborn-revenant warlock companion (PC of a player who got too busy for the game). There was a skill challenge for getting through some obstacles and tracking their friend through the sewer, which they failed, thus alerting the locals. After that they had a fight with some of said locals, a group of kobolds. One kobold managed to escape and set loose some less intelligent creatures to try and slow the party down: a gelatinous cube and a small flock of stirges.

This session the party ended up walking straight into the ooze which then digested the minotaur warden nearly to unconsciousness in the first round. After some grueling combat and a surprise stirge attack from behind that almost took out the drow hunter, the party prevailed. They were, however, a bit exhausted, having used multiple dailies and a large number of healing surges...

...which brings me to my dilemna. The party decided to exit the sewers and take an extended rest before they venture below once more. I had really expected the party to head on to the next area immediately, where the climactic third encounter of the day, but since there was no immediate reason they could not retreat, I allowed it. I feel that there ought to be some consequence for this beyond the readiness of the sewer denizens, who are by this point well aware of the intruders. Is this the right reaction, or is it too punishing? Furthermore, if it is the right decision, what kind of consequences should I arrange?

For reference, the final encounter of the sewer is with a beholder gauth and its bodyguards. The beholder is setting up a ritual to mentally dominate a local noble in a bid to take over the city in secret. I still haven't decided exactly what has become of the missing PC because I haven't found out yet if that player will be able to return.

>>53960562
It's tricky because now all the resource draining you had done is, well, down the drain, possibly making this final fight a bit too anticlimatic if they don't expect anything else after it and just unload the dailies, but I'm not sure if putting in filler encounters is a good idea.

Maybe have the Beholder send someone to harass them so they can't recover, or have the beholder succeed on the ritual and then send officials to the players by the noble's orders to arrest them for made up (t)reasons.

>>53960562
Bring the fight to them before they can get their rest or flee. A beholder wouldn't sit in a hole waiting to get slaughtered if it knows an adventuring group is after it.

>>53960562
Could the ritual have gone off during the delay and then now it wants to use the noble's power to attack the group, eg with guards or soldiers or something?

Or is a longer-term ritual?

>>53960661
>>53961475
>>53961833
Thanks, anons. I think I'll go with the ritual having been completed and the mind-controlled noble sending guards after the party. If the missing player gives me permission, I'll make it so his PC was sacrificed as part of the ritual.

>>53961871
Nice.
Report back next week, if you can, please.

>>53961871
Maybe if they disable the ritual, you could have the revenant revive cause he isn't needed to power it anymore, if the player wants back in.

>>53961913
Sure, I'll make a note to do so. I'm actually really excited for this turn of events, now that I've had some time to think it over. I didn't anticipate the beholder getting any breathing space like this, and it's extra fun because they need help from that noble to get to an island they want to explore.

>>53961941
Good call. Maybe instead of sacrificed, I'll put him into an arcane coma.

>>53886982
>Most RPGs with heavy non-combat mechanics are shit. We want the rules to stay out of our roleplay, and only come into play during combat. It's annoying when the roleplay has a good flow to suddenly have to stop and do some social combat ruleshit

agreed, but

> It's a well-made RPG for vidya-style fantasy combat.
doesn't really fly imho.

The mechanical foundation is solid, but for the thing it wants to portray it feels too limiting. By shoehorning everything into the same power-system, you lose a lot of mechanical variety. It very much feels like a game of GURPS where only one specific splat is allowed. Every character at the table basically works the same.
Added to that it think having roles in mind while designing the classes was a huge mistake as it does all the figuring out that is fun about combat for the players.

I think that is the biggest aspect where it's "vidya-ness" shows itself. In your average video game you're only going to have a limited number of conditions and different power systems simply because of programming and input limitations. I think trying to translate that into TTRPGs is a mistake born either from misunderstanding (like in 4E) or from laziness (like in every homebrew for a vidya inspired RPG). Having mechanics inform your character type is not only a huge boon for immersion, it also keeps things fresh when you've been playing for a long time because you'll actually use different mechanics.

Had they used the power system to set up different resource mechanics and actually used the breadth of detail you can simulate in an RPG, I think people would like 4E a lot better.

>>53956051
It is entirely playable, don't be daft.
What it's not is optimal, and it's power scale ceiling is closer to the level of an Essential's class. However, it has a lot of traditional FR ranger flavor, and I will take thematics in this particular system over a high mechanical ceiling.

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

15KB, 187x411px

>>53959219
That's why you use this one, anon.

>>53961993
Cue "you never played it and you have no idea how different all the classes play" arguments.

>>53962217
what about my NIC and my NAC scores?

>>53956051
Grab that PP where you get a griffon to ride on, that's BM only and it's really, really good.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the optimal strategy is basically being a bow ranger but with an extra meatshield. Although, it could be interesting to make a melee focused one, but it's probably even more sub-optimal.

You get almost the same benefits just hybriding a sentinel druid (that was the beast one, right?).

>>53961993
It seems to be very much a D&D conceit that there MUST be multiple subsystems to learn in a single game, when games that have done this and later abandoned it benefited from a more cohesive, stable experience (SR3-4, WoD-CofD, Scion).
For myself and my group, the fun of a game is not picking apart the details for as many +1s as I can find, or trying to pull some vague satisfaction from learning something with no practical value. The fun is playing the game and taking the journey.

>>53962230
Cute.
>>53962228
More like special snowflake syndrome, the avaricious desire to do it "differently" and calling it "immersion" when it's really "I want to be speshul!".

>>53962256
>the fun of a game is not picking apart the details for as many +1s as I can find

Should I assume you don't play 4e then or you just do it grudgingly, or what?

>>53962228
Well, if nothing else his point kinda falls flat because psionics and essentials exist.

Honestly, I just don't see the point in it. I don't get why rolling a skill check vs spending a psi point vs spending a slot makes shit soo different when you are all just throwing a firebolt anyway.

Making characters actually do different stuff is much more fun (and a lot more cohesive) than giving everyone different mechanics just for the sake of everyone having different mechanics.

>>53962273
No, just like in most games, I consider that incidental, or more like the price of opportunity.
I desire only to be as good as I envision my pc being at what they do, which may not necessarily mean I am optimizing the way others SAY I should (you lot tend to be incredibly vocal about the "proper" way to do things).

>>53962256
WoD and Scion are narratively focused games, comparing them to a game with a clear gamist direction is just pointless.

GURPS does introduce multiple subsystems, that is its very business model.

I've never played Shadowrun, but from what I've seen online, it was rarely lauded for its elegant mechanics and had that Nethacker system which was an entire minigame.

>>53960535

They don't really scale for junk and the attack numbers are kinda low even at your own level.

>>53962302
>GURPS does introduce multiple subsystems, that is its very business model.
Gurps is it's own monster, comparing it to something as limited as D&D is pointless.
>it was rarely lauded for its elegant mechanics
It made AD&D look like Fate-lite, but this changed very much in 4e where magic and hacking worked in line with meatspace activities, the same dice pool mechanic, and similar success/failure states and costs.

>>53962285
To be fair to "just throwing a firebolt", PP is very much different from at least the (AE) part of AEDU.

It has 2 quick things:
1) It makes in-combat management more flexible which in itself is an interesting contrast to normal AE while remaining relatively simple. Arguably, this could produce more thought in your round-to-round actions because you don't deplete the amount of things you can do each turn (eg, going from "I have 3 encs to choose from, now 2, now 1..." you got "I can do any of these...I can do any of these... and now I'm out of PP") which does have a different and interesting setup. I mean you clearly like defined rules to interact with if you play 4e, why pretend like all systems are the same if it's "all" just "do firebolt"?

2) And for some things (say, if the Martial power source used a similar mechanic) gets rid of any sort of "why can I only use this dropkick once a fight? I'm not too tired to do this roundhouse or this backflip into suplex" oddness that people suffer(ed) from.
Which, sure, everybody in this general has their standard response ranging from "fluff that as the OPPORTUNITY to do something" or "just get over it, it's obviously a gamist system for the balance", but ...

>>53962355
1.) PPs in practice usually reduce variety in your options, because you are just going to use the "best" option over and over again.

2.) yeah, sure.

I think the differences aren't enough to be hung up over or consider them important enough to build the game with both of them in it. Even if they are, you can easily simulate the differences with multi-use encounter powers that boost your stuff (like the essentials martials/elementalist, for example).

I'm not saying PPs are a bad idea, just that there's really no reason to build your game with having both PPs and the AEDU setup. Pick one, then if you really want you can have classes have some unique setups that adequately simulate the other.

>>53962447
1. Not necessarily. It's hard, but if you make powers actually somehow balanced, that shouldn't be a thing.

I mean the traditional thing with enc now is "pick the best one for each turn", right? Are all your turns the exact same situation? If no, why would the same power be the best one for each situation hands-down?

A good example of not doing it right is what we ended up with Dishearten/Mind Thrust Psions versus everything else they have. I don't know if there's a good example of doing it right, frankly. Dunno *that* much about the PP classes.


Multi-use enc can serve the same thing, I guess. It's just those essentials ones are also "the exact same power, multiple times" which is not nearly as interesting as "any of these 4 powers, how you want/need." Which obviously everybody agrees with, because most people consider the Essentials classes boring/simple and worst of all, underpowered.

>>53962355
>"why can I only use this dropkick once a fight? I'm not too tired to do this roundhouse or this backflip into suplex"
This argument has always seemed frivolous to me, as it isn't an attack on the combat system, the balance of the system, the skill system, or any core mechanic of the game. It even compliments encounter and daily powers as powerful and interesting abilities you want to use more than once, when the entire reason they're limited like they are is because they're powerful and interesting.

>>53962499
>Not necessarily. It's hard, but if you make powers actually somehow balanced, that shouldn't be a thing.

The problem is with the setup. Like, higher level powers should be stronger, right? So if they cost the same PP, why would you use the lower level ones?

PP economy could be a thing to balance that out (i.e. higher level powers actually cost more PP), but it's very, very rare that you don1t just want to alpha strike right away.


>Multi-use enc can serve the same thing, I guess. It's just those essentials ones are also "the exact same power, multiple times" which is not nearly as interesting as "any of these 4 powers, how you want/need." Which obviously everybody agrees with, because most people consider the Essentials classes boring/simple and worst of all, underpowered.

I mean, you could have done the following: don't give PP to psionic classes, instead they get an encounter power called "psionic boost" that they can use X times/encounter (maybe roll some generic things like attack/damage/range increases into this).

You have now replicated the PP system without using PPs.

I feel like it makes a lot more sense in design terms to begin with one solid structure, make sure it works, is balanced and then start experimenting with mechanics and start adding alternatives.

I'm not against the idea of 4e or 4e like games being more experimental, but subsystems for subsystems sake are just pointless.

>>53963008
This.
If there is a definitive purpose and adds something other things don't, sure, but not for it's own sake.

>>53962228
>>53962285
I liked 4e, and understand it was all new at the time so they could only try to modify the AEDU framework later with Psionic and Essentials. A new edition that started with it out of the core 1 books would be rad.

And I, too, never understood the need of several subsystems. The outcome ("what") is so more important than the "how".

It is better to use AEDU and each power do different than having a skill roll, a vancian casting or a psi point for the same outcome.

>>53962256

>Scion

Anon that's an example of a game failing to work period.

>>53959853
I've seen a bit of a dubious houserule that turns them into Alpha(?) equipment from Gamma World: the first time you use your items in an encounter, you choose whether you use them sparingly (and they're Encounter powers) or freely (and they're At-Wills but gone at the end of the encounter)
I think the idea is nice but I'm not sure it would gel terribly well with alchemical items as written

>>53959853
Proficency +3 and add scaling bonus. That said, most alchemical items as presented aren't worth the money out the gate. Making Alchemical items actually useful would require retooling them.

>>53967113
I usually just play with the assumption that any money loss due to consumed consumables is recovered during the adventure, so you don't forever lose the gold spent on a vial of acid, or rituals that make non-permanent stuff for that matter.

>>53968985
People don't do this out of hand?
I mean, I give out reagents, one use items, rituals, potions and such by the bucket, and expect the party to use them.
That said, I do not have magic item markets, but if you are good with someone, they might open up their preferred buyer stock for you.

>>53970474
>People don't do this out of hand?
the books could have been a little better about communicating this kind of stuff honestly

there are a lot of protips on running 4e that the community will happily tell you, but you wouldn't think to do if you just run a game straight from the books

>>53972256

It's a general weakness of 4e. They seemed to only really be figuring out the best way things worked near the end of the real content, and then Essentials fucked everything up.

I'm thinking of adapting 4e rules to use as the basis for a video game.

Firstly, I'm sure other people have tried to do the same thing so are there any publicly accessible projects I can look at as a starting point?

Secondly, what gameplay changes do you guys think are needed to make 4e more palatable to a single-player TRPG vidya?

>>53976346
>Secondly, what gameplay changes do you guys think are needed to make 4e more palatable to a single-player TRPG vidya?
You might want to make interrupts more tolerable

>>53976378
it's been a long time since i actually played, would you please elaborate?

from what i remember, each character gets one interrupt per turn. is the problem too many enemy interrupts, not enough player interrupts, or something else entirely?

>>53976466
The fact that interrupts are too variable. You'd need to have tons of possible scenarios for them and having each person, because for example - Combat Challenge to Overwhelming Force Trap to Rhyme of the Blood-Seeking Blade is like 3 Interrupts on one turn. That's bloody difficult to do and not be a pain in the ass for the players.

>>53977653
the way i would avoid that scenario is not building and putting characters that have those powers into my game

if i'm understanding the scneario correctly:
party includes (F)ighter, (W)arlord, and (B)ard
(E)nemy marked by F and adjacent to F shifts
F's Combat Challenge triggers to make MBA as Interrupt
W's Overwhelming Force Trap triggers to allow F to make melee at-will as Interrupt
F's attack misses and triggers B's Rhyme of the Blood-Seeking Blade
B makes attack against E as Interrupt
E takes damage or whatever

that does sound like a pain in the ass to program and make the computer manage all the rules for. i'm not nearly that far into the project yet though.

i'm using Java and so far i have 22 abstract classes to support content that might be used up to page 34 of PHB1. i might switch to building some characters i'd want to use and only implement the rules required for their powers first then add more complex things as necessary.

>>53977961
It's F's Combat Challenge triggers MBA as Interrupt, W's Overwhelming Force Trap triggers to allow F to make melee at-will as Interrupt, W's OFT misses and triggers B's RofBSB, which hits, and causes OFT to hit, which causes CC to be an At-Will.

tl;dr It is bloody difficult to do.

>>53978052
Nerfing interrupt powers is probably reasonable, since interrupt powers tend to be extremely strong compared to standard action powers

>>53978732
Even then they'll still overshadow them, it's all about action economy.

>>53976346
basically i wanted to make a SRW-ish game with muh donut steels and i need to practice Java.

i figured i could either reverse-engineer SRW's mechanics or (forward?!) engineer some other system and i thought 4e would be interesting.

>>53961993
> Every character at the table basically works the same.

Why do people lie like this?

If its really that important, have powers that resemble spells have the victim of the power roll defense (attacker takes 10, defender treats defense as 1d20 +(NAD-10).

Bam, you've just transformed 4e from WoW Babby Horseshit to deep immersive roleplaying.

Incursion is a video game which uses interrupts.

Any thoughts on how to make a character to best take advantage of master defiler PP + dragon king ED or master preserver + avangion?

I'm thinking for the former, it'd have to be some sort of int|cha tiefling Sorcerer King warlock|psion.

>>53978777
Yes, that's why they're more powerful

Most interrupt powers are little more than off-turn MBAs, or the equivalent of a standard action encounter power if they're a daily, and they're still almost always the best pick.

>>53979377
master preserver and avangion are exceedingly powerful. You don't really need a specific "build" for them, although they're probably best for wizards when compared to how good they are for other arcane classes. (Arcanist, Bard and warlock have class-PPs they really, really want, and there are other PPs and EDs which help sorcerers make big explosions more).

Unfortunately master defiler is pretty shit, on account of arcane defiling not really being worth it. Dragon king is good, especially for warlocks, but master defiler isn't really worth the trouble, you'd be better off refluffing one of the warlock PPs for it

>>53979360
It's also a roguelike and it's also really fucking annoying about it because it prompts you every single time.

>>53979701
Huh, good to know. I was just thinking master defiler may be good for the crazy psi point potential of a defiler.

>>53978732
If you take out the more intricate interrupt s then have them trigger automatically without a prompt, like opportunity attacks, you wouldn't lose much strategic choice, it would just change hands so the person on the receiving end is in control. If two interrupts are conflicting just have whoever had the higher ini bonus go first.

>>53980947
I feel like just having all interrupts auto-occur the first time they're triggered is probably enough, a lot of the power of interrupt powers is the sheer flexibility of them

>>53979343

Because they're obsessed with structural differences, rather than actual mechanics. It's bizarre, but apparently some people care about things looking different more than actually being different in play.

>>53981049
By intricate I mean the ones like that wizard utility that let's you teleport away as a reaction to an enemy moving adjacent. One solution would be to change their trigger to something like 'you start your turn adjacent to any enemy'. It would nerf the power but make it more videogame friendly. You'd still have the problem of a character having two interrupts, or reactions for that matter, triggered by the same event.

>>53981162
Daily trumps at-will, encounter trumps at-will and daily, interrupt trumps reaction, highest level power is used first.

In that order, so a low-level encounter reaction triggers instead of a high-level daily interrupt

>>53981212
That works.

>>53976346
Amusingly enough, modern XCOM is based on 4e.

>>53982297
seems believeable, any source for that?

>>53982499
Was cited in a developer interview as a source of inspiration, don't ask me when.

>>53976346
Regalia of Men and Monarchs
XCOM
Blackguards (uses The Dark Eye)

If someone knows any other, please tell. Steam is on sale

File: divinity original sin.png (210KB, 280x375px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 280x375px

>>53983768

>>53982297
[citation needed]

>>53962245
Hmm, I wonder if there's a good build for the hybrid ranger using the hybrid talent for beast mastery.

BM has access to some unique feats lik http://funin.space/compendium/feat/Beast-Protector.html which I can't help but think about combining with other classes with good OAs.

Of course, you'd be pretty stupid to spend your hybrid talent on that, but it still makes me think.

>>53912179
>dnd 4e copied two games released after it
Is this a meme?

>>53990996
It's sarcasm dude. Just move on.

>>53987937
You don't need to, Ranger has the best OA in the game with Twin Strike and Heavy Blade Opportunity. Sudden Roots+World Serpent's Grasp is a fun one, too.

>>53983768
Card Hunter.

>>53993189
Reading HBO you could actually use a ranged power too, as long as it's got a weapon keyword... hmm... wonder how you could use that. Too bad you can't combine it with the Human Scout/throw and stab build.

That guy doing the programmin' get anywhere?

You're not trying to make the entire thing in one go, are you?

>>53972256
Examples on these tips? Our 3e game finally ended, so we picked up some 4e stuff and got the CB because it seems more fun and different than 5e.

>Friend says he never tried the knight because he thinks a class reliant on MBA's would be too boring
>End up trying him out
What the fuck this guy is actually fun, so many free OA's

>>54000470
Can you do an opportunity attack that is an RBA (or, in this case, Drow Long Knife Twin Strike)? If so, we've something brewing here. Theoretically we could get minor action attacks too if we pick up Versatile Duelist and do Hybrid Bard (for RotBSB+Quickened Spellcasting Jinx Shot+sick utilities like Mantle of Unity and Haste).

>>54002955
Use skill challenges but learn how to use them and make sure your players don't notice it. Also, remember that every skill can have use, so be very narrative with it. This isn't that obvious at first, but learn how to do it and things will go smoothly.

Encounters can be very interesting if you think about them. Implement scenery, traps, and other things that interfere in combat. 4e's combat is already quite interesting by its own - make use of its good usage of positioning and create a battlefield that is interesting. Make sure to create interesting enemies too - meatwalls are boring, give them some effects; Goblins that have bonus damage when targeting prone enemies and have a way to get enemies into prone, for example, or a highly mobile group of Kobolds that can shift with every attack they take. Doesn't need to be overwhelmingly creative either, guards that get bonuses to their defenses when next to one another already force the players to think of how to defeat their tactics.

Make sure your players are on time. I'd say 2 minutes per player turn helps keep things on time for beginners, if you guys keep on with 4e reduce it to 1 minute per turn as you guys get more practice.

Don't use the normal XP system, I'd say if you do it by milestone or appropriate timing you can get some good balance.

>>54003088
Honestly the Knight and the Mage are the two well-designed Essentials classes. Maybe the Warpriest, big maybe.

>>54003352
Thanks for the advice. Love the idea of skill challenges, so I'll work on those as well. We are already definitely not using XP (I've always been more the type to reward levels with a hand wave) and inherent bonuses (my settings aren't exactly low magic, but magic items beyond simple bonuses are always requiring an additional component- for example, we needed a fire sword for some reason years ago, so we needed a special trap (like from Ghostbusters, actually) to secure a defeated fire elemental before we could actually craft it).

>>54002955
Tips can range from beginner friendly to in depth. Beyond the advice given for Skill Challenges, I would simply run it out of the box with your group, report some issues as they occur, and we'll help you along the way. Trying to learn almost a decade's worth of retooling and quick fixes is a bad idea because you'll need a bit more than out of the box system experience for it all to be of use.

That said, 4e is easy as hell to learn, so you'll find yourself quick to pick things up, and maybe even put a few things together on your own. Good luck with your game Anon!

>>54002955
Also, a little touch up on one of >>54003352 's pieces of advice.

>Don't use the normal XP system
This should be to not use it FOR PLAYERS. The XP system is ingrained into encounter construction, so at least pay attention to it when making fights. It's probably the one item that makes building combat encounters on the fly so easy.

>>54003352
Is there something mechanically flawed about the XP system? I've never noticed a problem before but that could just be from some lack of experience.

>Two blade ranger
>Picked up battle awareness multiclass feat
>Might grab heavy blade opportunity
>Thinking about shock trooper for paragon path

I'm currently level 6, is this a dumb idea?

>>54004008
No more than any other edition of D&D, it's just not fun tracking that stuff. It sucks when you finish a big adventure with an epic finale, and find you're still not quite to the next level yet. I've never used 4e's suggestions for handing out XP, but in previous editions it defaulted to "insanely fucking grindy" especially at mid to late levels. Like the designers assumed you were going to play a 2 hour session every single day or something.

It's almost always better to just hand the levels out when the group feels it's thematically appropriate, or when they've started getting complacent with their powers and it's time to expand what they can do.

>>54004012
HBO is kinda dumb unless you make not attacking you attractive. Pick up two rapiers/short swords, Rain of Blows, go to town with triple taps.

>>54005076
RoB sounds great, though I didn't think of that when I was going through and while my dex is still alright, I wouldn't want to be getting my to hit/damage bonuses with it compared to strength

Unless I'm misremembering it

>>54005410
Nah, you want it really close unless you've heavy armor and even then you still want a 20 at least.

251 9 63 10

File: FateCards.png (266KB, 414x300px)

266KB, 414x300px

Reminder that fate cards existed.

>>54007839

I kept seeing things referring to them on the builder or funin, but I had no idea what they were. I could guess a little from context, but the whole concept seems weird and kinda ill fitting.

>>54007839
>>54007882
I've never heard of them but judging solely from that picture, no more weird or ill-fitting than encounter or daily powers, I'd imagine.

I'm too lazy to look them up, so, alas.

>>54007913

It seems way more ill fitting to me. A random allocation of abilities in a system which is otherwise pretty well balanced and built around specific resource allocations seems like it wouldn't add much in terms of character building, just a gimmick that increases randomness.

>>54003607
Thank you! The advice is very helpful, and I hadn't even gotten to encounter design yet. I did figure that was player XP, but now that I've read on the encounter XP thing, I'm glad for the distinction. In had worried it was as useless as 3e's CR system.

>>54007882
It was.
Now each player is playing a subgame to give themselves buffs out of nowhere.

What do you guys picture a Shadow Defender would be? I can't really come up with a clear idea of it, though I reckon it'd use Dexterity or Constitution

>>54009603
Maybe each time a marked target attacks someone else, you could get an OA through their target's shadow? At least as far as the punishment part of the concept goes. Maybe even give At-Wills that count as MBAs for that purpose.

>>54009603

I could see it being a blend between Warden and Swordmage. Lots of zones and mass marks, combined with trickery and bullshit rather than direct in your face defendering.

>>54001858
not a lot of progress

i remembered using maptool back in the day and writing macros to do attack/damage rolls for my character's powers
the version of maptool i used supported what eventually became campaign frameworks but i stopped playing before the community support was there to build them
i downloaded the .cmpgn files for the popular 4E frameworks and will look at them when i have free time

i'm probably gonna switch from translating 4E character creation process to (abstract) classes from the ground up and instead build some characters to try a top-down approach.
a character snapshot at X level can basically be represented as a monster stat block without needing to know all the details about what race/class/feature provide which modifier/power/skill

>>54010046
>>54010065
I can picture it being a ranged Defender of sorts - very hard to hit because of high defenses/obscuring effects, can place "shadows" on enemies, if they attack someone that's not him, Immediate Interrupt to drag them away or something.

>>54009603
I'd do it as a position manipulator; pulling allies out of harms way, maybe swapping places with them.

>>54011483
Hmmm, all very interesting ideas.

>>53873881
>http://www.mediafire.com/download/xuf1a608bv05563/Portable+Compendium+New.rar
Thank you kind anon who made this, and anon who shared it!

>>54010712
>>54011483
I dig the idea. Maybe use tentacle shadows, and the class feature may choose between tentacles that hit marked enemies or tentacles that slide allies out of harm.

>>54009603
Actually, Vampire would have worked great.

It already has an alternate tanking mechanic in the form getting surges from enemies, and then it could have a bunch of mark punishment options, like dominating the enemy to stray his attack/stab someone else, summon swarm of bats to protect allies, or shoot three fireballs or something.

Would have been loads better than the shitty striker we got.

>>54015252

Honestly, I think Vampire would have worked best as a very hard melee controller.

>>54015369
Eh, that's sort of what a defenders are anyway, so it's just how deep you go in either direction.

>>53874943
>It's a similar problem with how some games might put combat manuevers (disarming, tripping, etc) or whatnot behind explicit feats or class features (other recent DnDs do this, but original DnDs did not) - this basically says that such things are not-allowed unless you have that ability.
5e has tried to remove this, trip attack for example is a way to use the shove special attack without sacrificing an attack for it and disarming attack lets you do damage as well as disarm. Standard actions (disarm is in DMG but still) allow it, the class features just let you do it more easily. With spells it is very rare that this is followed though, and there are exceptions outside that too.

>>53875557
My group is planning a 13th Age campaign as a sequel to our recently finished one, with the icons being surviving PCs, important NPCs, villains and so on. I haven't read a lot of it yet but what I have is pretty clean and elegant. The magic item system with everything being sentient and the one unique thing is also a cool idea.

>>54016430

I've always found it hard to wrap my head around this idea. I can't deny it's a common assumption a lot of people make, but it's never made any sense to me.

That the ability to do something is defined in one place doesn't necessitate that noone else has the ability to try, it just obliges the GM to ensure the defined version has advantages over people improvising to achieve the same end. A lot of the time this is easy, you ask for a skill roll or have them do so without a bonus/with an additional cost. Bam, your PC's have just as much freedom, except you've got a mechanical framework to work from and there's still a reason to pick up those specific abilities, because they offer an easier or more reliable alternative to the default improvisation anyone can attempt.

>>54016612
Yeah with the right mind set as GM it is a non-issue, but for new GMs it can be deceiving. And utility spells as mentioned do not follow this at all and can require a lot of effort from the gm to come up with a way to replicate a spell's effects.

>>54007839
>>54007882
>>54007913
http://funin.space/compendium/theme/Fatedancer.html

This shit also existed.

>>54007839
Anyone got a big file with these cards in it? Want to take a look for myself.

>>54016612
>>54016820
This is why the improvisation table is so good.

Also adding a "make something up!" power card is a common suggestion.

>>54021541

Yeah. It's a shame they never released a tweaked version of the improvisation table to keep up with the new math.

Do you think it'd be hard to figure out an updated set of values?

>>54008319
Very welcome, anon. Go forth and make some cool fights for your players.

>>54016612
Eh, I suppose, it's just...
What's the improv attempt supposed to be, in 5e?
"Look at the defined one (if you know it exists), and just make it somehow worse, whatever way you think is appropriate?"

Not very good way of doing things, imo. It feels half-assed, but maybe that's just in how they presented and explained it. As it is, it truly does just feel like "nah you can't do this stuff unless it says you can, because it's a special ability like the wizard slinging fire balls."

It'd feel a bit better the way Shadow of the Demon Lord did it - have a list of alternative "attacks" that are common (aggressive, defensive, 'extending'/reach, etc and they impose a to-hit malus with other effects) then have a generic 2 paragraph of "you can impose some form of condition but they get a malus to hit if they are also causing damage, and no malus if it's just the condition." Then nobody feels awkward about anything and there are some simple rules to follow.
Shit, maybe 5e has a section like that, I dunno. I didn't read its DMG beyond knowing it decides to lock "Disarm" behind some optional (?) rule in the DMG.


And 4e has its own stuff, of course, with a fairly different paradigm in design...obviously. DMG pg 42 with its tables, interesting attacks by default, and so forth.

>>54017737
If those cards are shit like +2s as above and you can play one/round (is it a free action?), then goddamn.

>>54021642
Probably not.

>>54021642
I think the rules compendium one is okay, maybe?

If you are playing with an optimized party that can take higher level stuff, just adjust the table by as much as they punch above their weight. Maybe have improvised actions always count for riders (so you get to mark as a fighter, sneak attack as a rogue, etc.) as well to really sweeten the deal.

I kind of feel like the Psionics could've been more akin to the Monk as a whole and they'd've been far more interesting. Power points as a whole just aren't that interesting, I feel.

>>54023603
I like power points, it's just all too often the first thing someone sees isn't "that's versatile, neat!", it's "so I can min-max for one power and I never have to stop using it?"

>>54024441
Yeah, that's their big failing. I can't really figure out how to make them not that without adding some really cumbersome restriction, though.

>>54021655
>If those cards are shit like +2s as above and you can play one/round (is it a free action?), then goddamn.
Most cards can be viewed as roughly the equivalent of an Encounter power, generally as a triggered free/no action (e.g. play at start of turn, play when performing a type of action, etc.). It's definitely power creep from that perspective since it stacks on top of the action economy.

The +2 cards are pretty tame but there's some with legitimate strategic choices. Off the top of my head there's one that lets you stay standing when dying until the end of your next turn but you cannot be healed until it ends, there's a Feywild one where you plant the card down on the table and it becomes a zone that grants combat advantage, and the Underdark series had a lot of stuff that pinged off allies doing things (for "treachery" points). I don't even know the whole extent of options, those are just ones I've seen from playing at the LGS.

>>54009603
Blackguard can take sanctioning powers.

So I might be getting a chance to play not one but two 4e games soon. The parties will be very small.

Any ideas for great, mid to high optimized duos?

So, I hope this ain't being too demanding, but can anyone hook me up with decent pics of the Catastrophic Dragons from Monster Manual 3, Dragon Magazines #424 and #425?

I wanna make a page for Catastrophic Dragons on 1d4chan and I'd really like to emphasize it by providing copies of the artwork the seven breeds got.

File: blizzard dragon.jpg (47KB, 640x465px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 640x465px

>>54028795
You just mean this stuff?

>>54028711
4e is not really at it best with duos. Maybe something like both of you having the feytamer theme to at least have the numbers, then a leader and a striker, both with strong secondary roles.

File: volcano dragon.jpg (127KB, 640x487px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 640x487px

>>54028795

>>54028832
There'll be a third player (no clue what they'll play), just trying to figure out what'd be a really good, synergistic duo.

>>54028854
Optimized charger+charge enabler is the usual iconic duo of high-op 4e. Above that, depends on tier. Building for morninglord or having frostcheese on everyone definitely helps.

File: typhoon dragon.jpg (411KB, 640x786px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 640x786px

>>54028795

>>54028826
>>54028843
>>54028891
That's it! That's three down, if you can score me the last four, I'd be very grateful.

Gods, I love 4e's fluff so much. I hate it that we lost the chance to get a Draconomicon: Catastrophic Dragons or anything officially related to Scourge Dragons because it got shut down.

5e just ain't the same mechanically, and in terms of fluff, it's a huge let-down.

>>54028914
Yeah, I tried running a 5e game and was pretty disappointed by it. Its okay I guess.

As far as the others... do you want me to just take screenshots from the dmags? Can't seem to find any on search.

What are scourge dragons again?

File: earthquake dragon.png (727KB, 946x726px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 946x726px

>>54028885
I'm familiar with charge builds, but what would a charge enabler be like?

>>54028914
Oh and this one.

>>54028938
Screenshots from the Dmags are fine; that's literally the only artwork there is, as far as I'm aware.

Scourge Dragons were supposed to be embodiments of plague and disaster, Shadowfell type dragons in comparison to the more primordial/elemental Catastrophics, but they never materialized. They got mentioned in the MM 1 and/or the Chromatic Draconomicon, not sure which.

>>54028948
Thanks, that's just the Tornado, Wildfire and Avalanche to go.

>>54028972
Ah I see. I gotta go for an hour or so, but you shouldn't have trouble googling the pdfs.

Yeah 4e lore is the best in my viewpoint, although I do like a few 5e elements (sphinxes, lamias, expansive definition of celestials, and the new lore linking certain high and low CR monsters).

>>54028997
I have the PDFs, I just don't have the know-how to pluck the Wildfire and Avalanche Dragon Pics from the docs without ending up with a big mess of wasted white on the image. Still, thanks for your help.

And I'll admit, there are some gems hidden amongst the dross of 5e's lore, but mostly it's inferior to what came before.

Seriously, don't get me started on gnolls. Or giants. Or the return of "Always Good" monsters.

>>54028948
>I'm familiar with charge builds, but what would a charge enabler be like?

Just someone who gives out free charge attacks, less ideally MBAs, like a warlord with Lambs to the Slaughter, or Ardent with Forward Thinking Cut.

>>54029027
Ya don't like 5e's gnoll fluff? I like the heavy emphasis on different demon lords.

> without ending up with a big mess of wasted white on the image.

Paste it into paint?

>>54029175
Thanks.

So I'm confused, can summons with "standard action" stuff, or "minor action" stuff take OAs?

>>54029958
IIRC if something would provoke an opportunity from them, you can use an opportunity action to command them to make an MBA (assuming they have one).

>>54029886
I absolutely despise it. It is literally the most shallow and mono-dimensional fluff they've had in any single edition; Basic, Advanced, 3rd or 4th.

We went from the brilliant fluff in Dragon #367, to gnolls being essentially Hollywood Cannibal Rage Zombies. It's a massive let-down.

How many of you guys are also /osr/? they seem unrelated, but I'm getting the feeling there is more crossover than I thought

>>54031188
Not sure if it counts, but I have a bi-weekly group where we mostly play modules. The last two were DCC, had an OD&D one before that. I have been enjoying them. This Friday we are playing 5e... as long as I don't make the mistake of making a rogue again, it should be good.

>>54031188
There's absolutely a crossover, and I'll tell you where the crossover comes from: people who started with 2E. I run 4e A LOT, both online and in-person, and I can tell you that 2e grognards love 4e, and I've never had a table that didn't have at-least one (other than myself.)

>>54031928
This is absolute truth.
My first 4e dm was a 2e grog, as am I, but am way younger than he. I love how it hammered down the team aspect that I feel is essential to the D&D experience that most games really gloss over.
In 4e, you are the Team of Heroes Greater than the Sum of It's Parts. Together, you are a nigh unstoppable force.
Together, you can change the world, now put on the boots and get to it.
That is D&D to me.

>>54033081
So long as you can stop the rogue from pickpocketing the bard while he shags then dragon, yeah sure

>>54033081

This is why the 'Not real D&D' complaints never really made any sense to me.

4e abandoned a lot of structure and mechanical details, sure, but the nature of the gameplay captured the essence of D&D in a way I hadn't seen done before.

>>54031928
>>54033081
I can understand why. I'm too an AD&D player and love 4e liked 3.0 when it came out, and like 5e because it is a whole different approach than 4e.

0D&D was about the dungeons, the feeling of exploration. The protagonist is the world.
AD&D the protagonist is the party. It is about adventures and adventurers.

I think that's why 2e grogs love 4e. It is about the party, the interaction and integration of its members.

>>53882647
If you have the Immortal Origin, it lets you understand (but not speak) all languages.

>>54031188
I played with an /osr/ DM, but I started with Shadowrun before moving to D&D at 4e, and played with that group for a long time. We also played some Rolemaster, that was hilarious.

Bumping this. What are some lore aspects that 4e added that you really liked, especially in comparison to their previous counterparts?