[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: Dragon fight 2.jpg (112 KB, 1468x1802)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
Dragons not in dungeons Edition

For Fourth Edition D&D and all the other games inspired by D&D4e, such as Strike!, Valor, Heroes Against Darkness, etc.

>4e Trove
https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20and%20Dragons/AD&D%204th%20Edition/index.html

>Compendium
http://funin.space

>Prettier Compendium
http://iws.mx/dnd/

>Grand Index of Dungeon and Dragon Magazines
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xykIN7bAV5iUhZ7ZRQn1Ijwf-i-Lk7nz7IqXBvUJK_U/edit?usp=sharing

>Pastebin (Expanded with more resources!)
https://pastebin.com/aHehiH58

>Thread Question
What's a common houserule in your group?
>>
>What's a common houserule in your group?
Along with the expertise feat of your weapon group you plan to use, and the improved defenses one, we also houseruled that if a minon has been attacked by the same character three turns in a row without dying, the minion automatically dies on the fourth turn.

It's helped speed things up a bit.
>>
>>66238182
>What's a common houserule in your group?
Playing 5e so we don't have to deal with minions, infinite treadmill advancement, autistic combat bookkeeping, once per day fighter powers (fewer of them, anyway), feat bloat, lack of multiclassing, and autistic hp bloat.
>>
>>66238261
ITT: Smug wizardfag is mad that games exist where he CAN'T just throw a spell at all his problems.

Also
>Implying 5e doesn't also have god-awful HP bloat that makes the game borderline unplayable after level 10.
>>
File: 1427466400201.png (12 KB, 500x294)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
>>66238261
>don't have to deal with minions
So you have five hour long fights?
>infinite treadmill advancement
You still have that in 5e
>autistic combat bookkeeping
5e has way more of that
>once per day fighter powers (fewer of them, anyway)
Kek
>feat bloat
literally your only point
>lack of multiclassing
Hybrid characters are way better than the mangled bullshit 5e calls multiclassing.
>autistic hp bloat
You get more HP/level up in 5e, are you retarded?
>>
>>66238237

I do not like the idea of handing out Improved Defenses for free. It undermines the idea of individually taking the Superior Fortitude, Superior Reflexes, Superior Will, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will line. Some builds, particularly defenders, might prefer to do that instead of simply taking Improved Defenses and calling it a day.

I personally use a much more elaborate series of inherent bonuses in my own games.
>>
Edition wars are dumb. All editions have their merits and flaws.
>>
>>66238333
You do know that taking improved defenses doesn't disqualify you from taking those, right?
>>
>>66238360
No! Pathfinder is best!

t. every autistic furry weeb on /tg/
>>
>>66238365

Yes, but there is less of an incentive, and it eliminates interesting dichotomies like, "Do I take Improved Defenses, or do I spend a little more to pick up two Superior NAD feats?"

This can be solved by handing out a free defense feat of the player's choice. Of course, I do not think it necessary to hand out such feats for free in the first place.
>>
>>66238733
I personally find dichotomies like "Do I take this feat that hugely changes my playstyle, or that one, that hugely changes it in a completely different way?". I think it's a shame people don't get to make more of those, because about three of these are basically locked in by the system. Giving the players free feats just gives them more options to choose.
>>
>>66238261
Obvious bait aside, 5e is worse about HP bloat than any previous edition I've played, and I've gone back as far as 2e.
>>
File: 1418568582957.jpg (198 KB, 892x1213)
198 KB
198 KB JPG
>66238360
here is nothing remotely good about 4e
>>
>>66238308
>wizardfag
Shut the fuck up, queer. I've literally never played a wizard. I played a ranger in 4e and 3 fighters in 5e so far.
>unplayable past level 10
Funny, cause the campaign I'm running is at level 12 and things are still going fine. But then, you've never actually played past 3 or 4 I'm guessing so you just parrot theorycrafted memes from morons.
>>
>>66238325
>15 hit points orcs take so much longer to kill than 1 hit point orcs
The different is negligible when you're dealing 8 to 10 damage per hit. Have fun playing a game where you start out with 25x the hp of your enemies, though, and a literal sling sling from a child can kill one. Hell, just line up 20 children and have them throw rocks at your level 10 minion and watch as one nat20 hit kills it instantly.

What a fucking retarded game.
>>
>>66238387
Pathfinder is complete shit. 4e isn't much better though. Pathfinder is a great idea that fell apart, like a wedding cake that was accidentally made from shit instead of cake. 4e is a terrible idea that was well executed, like an expertly stacked cake made of shit. The problem is, they are both shit.
>>
>>66238902
>Obvious bait aside, 5e is worse about HP bloat than any previous edition I've played
Confirmed for never actually playing it
>gone as far back as 2e
No one cares you tried it once cause your uncle had it in his attic you fake ass grog.
>>
>>66238237
I almost feel like if a single minion has survived over 3 turns, they should escape the battle to return again later, since Fate has clearly decided they're a thorn in the character's side.
>>
>>66240211
>This one minion keeps showing up in battles
>The Fighter can never seem to kill him and forbids the party from trying
>The minion keeps pledging his allegiance to the new villain of the current arc
>>
Wew anti-4e shills are in full force today.
Here's a hint fags, we'll still be here, still having fun with our superior rpg long after you're bored. Also when we btfo your meme arguments every thread it gets more people to try 4e. Please stop, my groups are all filling up too quickly these days.
>>
>>66240312
Someone dropped an over-blown "4e was the perfect RPG" thread a day or two ago, that I think riled people up.

Hilariously, it also meant that last thread there was almost no 2hu until the end, because he was in the other thread.
>>
How often does /4eg/ have enemies retreat or surrender?
I've always kinda assumed the monster math assumes every fight is to the death and to the last man. So I am wondering how being more realistic about it affects your encounter design?
>>
So, I know the meme of "orcs have more health than a Fighter!" is basically garbage, but I'm actually curious: what are the different orc statblocks in 4e, and how much HP do they have?

And how does that compare to both a 1st level Fighter and to a Fighter of Equivalent Level?
>>
File: orc savage.jpg (282 KB, 777x500)
282 KB
282 KB JPG
>>66240509
>>
File: orc.jpg (197 KB, 551x439)
197 KB
197 KB JPG
>>66240643
>>
>>66240386
2hu is a blight on this thread.
>>
>>66240502
"Killing, routing or capturing" an enemy are explicitly noted as being functionally equivalent for XP gains.

Normally, I wouldn't have an enemy consider retreat or surrender until at least bloodied, and most wouldn't try until at least half that as well.

>>66240509
This will take a little bit of time to answer, so let me grab my lunch, and I'll go through the numbers with you.
>>
File: Elf armored robes.jpg (62 KB, 946x1431)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
>>66240502
I have the minions surrender or flee if the big boys are dead or otherwise incapacitated, but this far I haven't had any non-minions who were willing to surrender and running away is difficult because of my party composition so they tend to figure it's best to stay and fight, or die trying to flee.


>>66240509
As Anon in a way showed, it depends on the orc and their roles. A Fighter with 13 CON would be sitting at 28 HP(25 with 10 CON) and the two level 1 orcs in the Compendium are at 26(Orc Bolt Thrower) and 28(Orc Bombadier) HP. The Fighter has a Second Wind which heals him for 7 for a standard action while the orcs have Warrior's Surge which heals them for 6 HP. For a comparison to the ones Anon posted, a Fighter of level 4 with 13 CON would be sitting at 46 HP and 11 HP per surge.

What you have to keep in mind is that these orcs aren't necessarily ''normal'' orcs like the level 3-4 ones Anon linked and could well be a part of an encounter with the level 3 and level 4 orcs. Or the DM might come out with a level 4 solo orc out of his imagination.
What I'm trying to showcase here is that this argument doesn't really make sense in 4e due to the way it was created.
>>
>>66240312
>superior
Superior to Pathfinder and FATAL. That's about it. And even that's debatable. 4e is crap that relies on arbitrary rules kludges to work. The combat is crap and fighters are 1/day memes.
>>
>>66240643
>hp: 1
>falls 5 feet and instantly explode I it spaghetti
Gotta love 4e.
>>
>>66241197
>hurrdurr minions actually have 1 hp and aren't just that in regard to the paragons of heroism and combat prowess
>>
>>66241197
you don't take damage unless you fall at least 10 feet
>>
>>66240707
Back.

So let's get down to business, >>66240509

First, let's discuss what I think of as "the great bump-up": basically, with 4e, a BUNCH of monsters, especially weaker humanoids, got bumped up in power. There's no more CR 1/8th or CR 1/2 monsters, instead, minions serve to form the idea of fractional CRs. Because of this, there was a general increase/re-arranging of power levels. Orcs are no longer intended as a main enemy for level 1 adventurers: Goblins and Kobolds are. This is just a design reason for why the lowest level orc in the core books is a level 3 enemy.

Now, in terms of 'the different orc stat blocks, in 'core' materials (ie, the Monster manual, and the Monster Vaults) there are 22 Orcs statted out, ranging from Level 3 to level 10 elites.

WE'll discount the 3 Minions from the count, since they'd throw it off, as well as the 5 Elites and the swarm, (meaning there are only 12 distinct 'standard' orcs) since none of those are really wise to count. And, to save time, we'll grab 3 examples across the spectrum.

We'll do the level 3 Battletested Orc from >>66240658

The level 5 Reaver from the Monster Vault

And the Level 8 Half Troll from Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale.

For a comparison, we'll assume a fighter with...15 Con. Primary Strength, secondary Con and WIs, with a slight lean toward Wis, putting it at 16 at level 1.

This fighter starts with 30 HP, and gains 6 HP per level. We'll assume the fighter spends all their FEATS on non-HP related matters, and there are, to my brief search, NO items that increase maximum HP. However, let's say that at level 4, the fighter increases his Con to 16.

Now all we have to do is compare the totals.

(cont)
>>
>>66239869
If the difference is negligible why does it make you so salty?
>>
>>66241308

The Battletested Orc has 50
The Reaver has 63
and the Half-Troll has 92

Meanwhile, at level 3, our fighter will have 42 HP. Less than the Battle-tested, but not by much.

By level 5, the fighter's base HP went up by 1 thanks to the Con bump at 4, leading to his total now being 55. Again, under the relevant Orc, but within single digits.

Level 9's a worse story for the fighter, as he's gained 18 HP, putting him at 73 to the half-troll's 92.

So a level 9 half-troll will have three times the HP of a level 1 fighter, and 19 more than a comparable fighter.

However, what almost none of these orcs have is an innate ability to regain HP (excepting the Half-Troll's regeneration, which we'll get to in a bit), while the fighter has healing surges. And while a Leader could of course help him spend them, let's keep this in a mano-a-mano situation.

The Fighter at level 3 has a healing surge value of 10. Since he can second wind once per encounter, that makes his effective HP 52, 2 points higher than the Orc.

Level 5, he's up to 13, so his EHP goes up to 68

At level 9, it's increased to 18, putting him at 90, JUST UNDER the half-troll.

And while there aren't items that increase your Max HP, there ARE several that increase your healing surge value, raising your EHP. Several of which are available at or before level 9.

So, technically, a fighter with mild optimization is over, or roughly on par with, an orc of his level.
>>
>>66241559
Sorry, didn't have space for the final note:

The half-troll represents an irritant in terms of effective HP totals, because of the "pass-fail" nature of regeneration: a fighter with access to flaming or acidic weapons will treat the half-troll as only slightly more arduous than a normal orc, while one WITHOUT such effects will face a very frustrating opponent indeed.

However, this is covered, at least in part, by the way 4e designs enemies and encounters. A fighter shouldn't be facing a single Half-troll alone. He should have a party, and the troll should have allies. thus, In a situation where the PARTY lacks acid or fire effects, or possesses them in limited quanitity, the party can focus down the other targets, then 'pile-on' the half-troll, whittling it down until they can deliver the final blow.

But that's a big mechanical mess.
>>
What's the target priority in a typical encounter?
>>
>>66241646
As a DM or Player?
>>
>>66241674
Player.
>>
how is it?
>>
>>66241709
Geek the wizard never stops being viable but its the matter of getting to him. If you can't take him down fast enough always focus on the same target. Its better to burn down one than apply damage evenly across everyone. Member, this is D&D, 1hp fights just as hard as 1000 push comes to shove.
>>
>>66241265
>fall 10 feet
>80% chance of death
I love 4e.
>>
>>66241872
Pretty fun as long as you can get your players to buy into the setting. I especially like the fact that 4e allows you to have healing without divine. Makes up for the lack of God's quite well.
>>
>>66242218
Better than AD&D did, in fact, where you were forced to include faux-priests in the form of Templars and Elemental Clerics to grant you access to healing magic. Warlords, Ardents and Shamans *really* support the Dark Sun feel.
>>
>>66242339
Yeah, and 4e also naturally supports dray (dragon born) and half-giants (Goliath). Also making the templars into warlocks was a cool thematic change that really drove home the wrongness of arcade magic and the sorceror kings.
>>
>>66241709

It's a matter of range, Danger-to-squishiness ratio, and a couple other facets.

Consider the encounter of
Orc Chieftain (elite leader)
5 orc warriors (minions)
1 dire boar
2 ogre skirmishers

The Chieftain gives bonuses to bloodied allies, and commands allies. But he's also the meatiest member of the squad: for the time it would take to kill him, you could drop BOTH the ogres.

In this specific fight, the kill order is probably
Controller/Ranged Striker: Gank minions, then take out ogres
Fighter: pin down ogres and/or boar to stop their skirmish ability/charges, then move on to Chieftain.
Melee striker: Assist fighter

Now, if we replace the ogres with a Bloodrager, another Elite orc whose attacks heal itself while bloodied, is much closer to the Chieftain in HP, AND gets to attack whenever attacked, then you definitely want to drop the Chieftain first, because otherwise the bloodrager is going to get a LOT of value.

>>66241872
Divisive, as many 4e settings were. Many think it's quite well-done, while others think it misses out on some of the more grueling aspects of the original setting. personally, I relatively like it, though I think its exotic weapons are a little overtuned. (probably because they were introduced alongside a "and here's how to break these weapons" set of optional rules.)
>>
>>66238237
That honestly sounds like more work than just tracking HP at that point.

Another houserule we use is tacking some lengthy extra rules about rituals on; the tldr is that rituals half your level or lower can now be cast in a short rest if they'd be longer, surges can be used to further shorten that, and surges can be used to pay for component costs (for non-permanent/item-creation style rituals).

Made minor utility rituals usable in the heat of the moment without being TOO point&click, and people didn't feel shortchanged picking up or using rituals instead of cutting into their New Sword budget.
>>
So, 4e really did a great job with the various races it introduced; it had awesome fluff for playable Bladelings and Gnolls, Shardminds and Wilden were neat, it made Gnomes, Halflings and Svirfneblin all distinct and interesting, gave solid crunch to Goblins and Kobolds, etc.

But what races do you wish had managed to make it into 4e from past editions?

For example, I really liked the Diaboli, a fiend-like race from Mystara. Admittedly, I could probably pull them off taking the tiefling, trading Fire Resist for Psychic Resist, and replacing Hellish Rebuke with a Poisonous Tail Sting racial encounter power. But still, I would have loved PC stats for Aranea, or Lupins.
>>
>>66241243
So how many hit points do they have for the purposes of falling?
>>
>>66245745
Any amount south of the average for that level of that type.
Regardless of that, fuck off. Fuck right off with your intentionally wrong understanding of both 4e and media as a whole. When the fucking boss has his goddamn minions come out to help him confront the fucking heroes there isn't a fucking 10 foot goddamn drop. They're not going to fall down a flight of motherfucking stairs. You want to shove them into fucking pits of fire or off a goddamn cliff face then sure but stop fucking pretending that any single fucking instance of using minions there is a snowball's chance in hell of them getting shoved off a drop where the concern is them living afterword. Orc falls 10 feet, he's fucking fine doesn't goddamn matter the positioning is important not the 5 damage. The orc falls 50 feet then he's already out of the fucking scene. Orc falls 30 feet he collapses into a heap after hitting his head on the motherfucking ground, can still be heard moaning in pain because zero fucking HP doesn't mean instant death you fucking cunt.
>>
>>66240211
This is what I do
A surviving minion gets a name (named by the players) and shows up again in the next adventure
>>
>>66241178
>seething
>>
>>66241646
Controller handles the adds while Striker, Leader, and Defender all gank the biggest threat tends to be the best strategy ime.
>>
>>66245163
Did Araneas have PC stats, back in the day? I only started playing with 3.0, so I only knew them as a monster.

I suppose, if only for a perverse sense of completionism, I'd have liked to have seen all the remaining "primary" races from the Races of Books (so, the illumians, the Spellscales, the Raptorans,) and maybe a couple of the 'Terrain' line races. (The Darfallen (orca-people) or Hadozee from Stormwrack, the Neanderthals from Frostburn,etc.)
>>
>>66247559
They were introduced as a PC race in AD&D's Red Steel - they had an appearance as monsters in Mystara before that, but yeah, they were a PC race originally.
>>
I'm going to play a battlemind as my first ever defender and I'm excited about it. I can't wait to be bullied by the DM.

>>66238182
Any race that normally gets +2 to two set stats instead gets +2 to any two stats.
>>
>>66247900
>Any race gets +2 any
DO NOT do this. Many races have ungodly levels of support only barely balanced by their statline.
>>
>>66247900
Have fun with the Battlemind, and be sure to tell us all about your experiences here.
>>
>>66247900

Battleminds are very poor defenders from levels 1 to 6. They are forced take Melee Training, their Blurred Step is a poor deterrent against enemy mobility (and is shut down by difficult terrain) short of improving it with feats, and their Mind Spike both triggers only on an enemy hit *and* usually deals mediocre damage even if it does trigger.

If you are starting at levels 1-6, do not play a battlemind.

At level 7, the Lightning Rush at-will power instantaneously salvages the class becomes the battlemind's de facto method of mark punishment from that point. It is especially useful with a source of actual lightning damage and the Mark of Storm feat, because that allows it to potentially slide an enemy making a melee attack against an ally, thereby negating the triggering attack.
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Lightning-Rush.html

Some might prefer Forceful Reversal over Lightning Rush, since it can be more reliable at times.
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Forceful-Reversal.html

By level 13, the battlemind becomes a vicious source of damage due to the Brutal Barrage at-will power, which can be a menacing source of damage between damage-boosters such as Headsman's Chop, Shocking Flame, and the Lyrandar Wind-Rider.
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Brutal-Barrage.html

One surprisingly good hybrid battlemind build is a Constitution/Charisma-based battlemind|paladin. It picks up Virtuous Strike for a proper melee basic attack, and Valorous Smite makes a great level 1 encounter attack power. It can still use tricks like Lightning Rush/Forceful Reversal and Brutal Barrage, and during the paragon tier, Bracers of Mental Might and Certain Justice with Battlemind's Demand permanently cripple an enemy for an entire encounter. A fighter multiclass and Dizzying Mace can help here, though such an investment has its own downsides, and I do not think it is especially necessary.

>race modifications
This is a very bad idea for >>66248689's stated reasons.
>>
>>66240211
Minions are supposed to be the faceless extras of the big cinematic battle. When one of them refuses to lay down and die when the heroes pound down on him, he ascends past the status of minion.
>>
File: jxzsbfx2q2u01.jpg (38 KB, 900x397)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>66238182
>What's a common houserule in your group?

We deliberately steal the Escalation Die from 13th Age. Combat never lasts more than an hour.
>>
>>66250584

I am not a fan of the escalation die because it benefits some classes significantly more than others.

Avengers, for example, are not exactly stellar strikers at the heroic tier. Gaining a scaling +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6 means less for an avenger than it does for, say, a ranger swinging away with multiattacks.

Similarly, consider a rogue, which is a little better off than an avenger, but still is not quite a balance-breaking striker. Between Rogue Weapon Talent, combat advantage, Nimble Blade, and NAD-targeting powers like Piercing Strike and Low Slash, a rogue can often hit on a natural 2+. Gaining a +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6 attack bonus will not be of much use compared to what a generic multiattacking ranger stands to gain.
>>
>>66243043
>arcade magic
I know that's a typo, but now I imagine a wizard conjuring a big yellow sphere to eat the monsters.
>>
>>66252175
his somatic components include him doing DDR steps.
>>
bumo
>>
>>66251088
Not him, but I'd happily accept that for the sake of avoiding battle slog. Everyone is getting the same bonus, regardless of which classes already hit harder or utilize it more effectively.
>>
>>66251088
Letting a leader get their on hit effects more often is a fine trade for Strikers not giving a fuck what the ED's current value is. The striker can't strike when they're fucking dead after all.
>>
>>66247900

Don't be too worried about the points made by 2hu, anon. Always remember that 2hu plays a very highly optimized game, and has a particular thought process vis a vis optimization, balance, and player options. While low-level Battleminds are more difficult to pull off over other defenders, they're not the worst.

If your DM is open to it, you can see about maybe adding some slight upgrades to make the class more effective, such as "changing Mind Spike's range to match Battlemind's Demand".

This change gives the Battlemind a more apparent "defender niche" of creating a "zone of punishment". The Fighter locks down one or two targets, keeping them close to him and preventing them from leaping (without teleporting), the Paladin does less damage, but can enforce his mark at extended range, and the Battlemind creates a zone of higher damage punishment, at the downside of not 'sticking' to enemies very tightly.
>>
>>66256803
Played a low level battlemind from 1 to 5. It was fucking ass and I hated it. Switched my character to paladin and I don’t regret it. Friends don’t let friends play low level battleminds.
>>
>>66254787
>balanced even if only some classes get a good deal from it
Brainlet.
>>
I'm glad I gave this edition a chance, had a lot of fun. It's definitely not perfect, of course. Two problems I have is that combat is admittedly quite slow, and that there's just very little focus on stuff to do outside of combat.
>>
>>66238261
>Playing 5e so we don't have to deal with minions
What's wrong with minions?
>infinite treadmill advancement
Leveling up is a bad thing, now?
>autistic combat bookkeeping
Everything you can do in 4e is almost entirely laid out in front of you. Can't say the same for 5e which is a clusterfuck of rulings.
>once per day fighter powers (fewer of them, anyway)
5e has a million "once per short/long rest" skills, only reason you don't notice is because your selective memory specifically thinks "once per day" rather than "per rest"
>feat bloat
5e has the opposite issue where most feats are worthless and not worth picking up.
>lack of multiclassing
Good, multiclassing is dogshit in every edition of D&D BESIDES 4e because they realize no one actually likes delaying their entire class progression for the sake of taking a few toys out of an entire class's toybox.
>and autistic hp bloat.
This coming from a 5e fag is rich.
>>
Are there any games recruiting?
>>
>>66239828
>3 fighters in 5e so far.
I guess you hate 4e because the fact you have options besides "attack" scares you.
>>
>>66258060
>What's wrong with minions?
They are unnecessary, both because 1 HD monsters die in 1 hit anyway, and because the constantly scaling of 4e is unnecessary. What's the difference between a low-level and high-level minion? What's the point? They are enemies that die in 1 hit but still have a chance to hit the PCs. Guess what? This exists in 5e as well.
>Leveling up is a bad thing, now?
That's not what infinite treadmill means you stupid fuck.
>Can't say the same for 5e which is a clusterfuck of rulings.
Lol, how so?
>5e has a million "once per short/long rest" skills, only reason you don't notice is because your selective memory specifically thinks "once per day" rather than "per rest"
No, it has a few of them, whereas 4e is entirely structured around them. In both cases it's just arbitrary bullshit garbage by fucking faggots who can't design a game properly, but still.
>Good, multiclassing is dogshit in every edition of D&D BESIDES 4e
LMAO if you think multiclassing is not part of nearly every "meta" 3.5 and 5e build except maybe straight wizard/cleric/druid in 3.5.
>This coming from a 5e fag is rich.
Why? There isn't hp bloat in 5e at all and if you'd actually played the game instead of reading memes about it you would realize this. I've played 4e up to 8th level. You've done jackshit.
>>
>>66258152
Except they are all battlemasters so they did have options besides attack.
I also played a fighter in 4e. Got to level 8. Yeah I used my at-wills, encounters when I should, and dailies. Still boring as fuck. And enemies that have 1 hp is just fucking sad, it's like learning your dad let you win at chess when you were little, it's just stupid arbitrary faggotry to make the game even easier and give fat neckbeards a feeling of "accomplishment" like they do when they "pwn mobs" in DOTA 2.
>>
>>66254787
>>66255383

You misunderstood my point in >>66251088. Amongst strikers, for example, the ones who gain the most out of this are those strikers who are already among the strongest (e.g. generic multiattack rangers), whereas more middle-of-the-pack (e.g. rogue) or below-average (e.g. heroic-tier avenger) strikers gain less from it.

>>66256803

I would also advise giving battleminds an actual melee basic attack by default, and letting Mind Spike punish on a hit or a miss.
>>
>>66258434
Sure, but that is an across the board thing thanks to the nature of the classes. You could hand out static attack bonuses in the form of magic weapons to everyone in the party and get the same result.
>>
>>66258323
>They are unnecessary, both because 1 HD monsters die in 1 hit anyway, and because the constantly scaling of 4e is unnecessary. What's the difference between a low-level and high-level minion? What's the point? They are enemies that die in 1 hit but still have a chance to hit the PCs. Guess what? This exists in 5e as well.
Okay? I still fail to see the issue.
>That's not what infinite treadmill means you stupid fuck.
I apologize not understanding your meaningless buzzwords. Please tell me what it means, thanks.
>Lol, how so?
When I say "clusterfuck of rulings", I mean the rulings are either extremely vague or downright contrary towards each other. 5e's PHB is badly written.
>No, it has a few of them
No, it doesn't. A good chunk of skills in 5e are literally built around being used a limited number of times per short/long rest.
>whereas 4e is entirely structured around them.
Yes, there are powers that are built around per encounter (i.e. short rest) and day (i.e. long rest). Again, same exact shit with 5e.
>LMAO if you think multiclassing is not part of nearly every "meta" 3.5 and 5e build except maybe straight wizard/cleric/druid in 3.5.
Imagine thinking I'm referring to the mechanical benefits of multiclassing, and not the fact multiclassing is an incredibly poorly designed system. You want multiclassing done right? Play Shadow of the Demon Lord.
>Why? There isn't hp bloat in 5e at all and if you'd actually played the game instead of reading memes about it you would realize this.
Why are you blatantly lying? I've played multiple games that get to high level, and combat is the most dreadful aspect because UNLESS the party is specifically optimized for damage dealing, fights will go on forever because DPR can only get so high otherwise.
> I've played 4e up to 8th level. You've done jackshit.
I've played both systems.
>>
>>66258499

Static damage bonuses would favor multiattackers even further.
>>
>>66258592
>I apologize not understanding your meaningless buzzwords

Not him, but I guess that the "infinite treadmill' is the notion that in most cases in 4E, the level-appropriate monsters are balanced against players having access to level-appropriate equipment and powers, and that as such, you will usually hit or be hit on the same kind of range at level 1 and at level 30 against those monsters.
>>
>>66258733
Okay, thanks for being clear with me. Yeah, I guess I can understand why that would be a problem for some people.
>>
>>66258323

>5e has a million once per short/long rest skills
>no it has a few of them
First, let's be more precise with our arguments.
Are we referring to short/long rest abilities in general, or to specifically MARTIAL short/long rest abilities? Because you're still wrong. (we'll of course discount spells per day, and similar effects, though those make up the backbone of many classes and subclasses, since people who bitch about daily abilities never really count them.)

MARTIALS
Barbarian rages are per long rest.

Fighters have Action Surges and Second Winds (short long), and Indomitable (long) . Indeed, all unique fighter abilities are 'per-rest'. Battle Master Superiority Dice are per short/long rest as well.

Rogue: Stroke of Luck.

PSUEDO MARTIAL
Monk Ki Points are a short/long rest.

CASTERS
Bards: Bardic Inspiration starts per day, then becomes per Short rest at level 5.

Clerics: Channel Divinity is a per short/long rest ability.

Druids: Wild Shape is a per short/long rest ability

Paladins: Divine Sense, Lay on Hands, Channel Divinity, Cleansing Touch.

Sorcerer: Tides of Chaos

Warlock: Spell slots are a short rest refresh. Fey Presence, Misty Escape, Dark Delirium, Dark One's Own Luck, Hurl Through Hell, Entropic Ward and various invocations.

Wizard: Arcane recovery, at least one ability per school (except Necromany, and technically Evocation.)

The ONLY class that has no 'per day/rest' abilities in 5e is the Ranger...assuming you discount spells.
>>
>>66258761
>I guess I can understand why that would be a problem for some people

To be honest, that phenomenon only happens if you fight creatures that are in your level range, and in that case it's understandable. Adventurers start with goblins and orcs, then switch to dragons and giants and end up battling elder wyrms, demon princes, archdevils and even gods (the MM3 has Lolth fully statted).
Of course they're going to steamroll normal goblins once they reach paragon tier, and if they try to challenge Orcus at level 5, they're going to die very quickly; it's not a Skyrim-like scaling situation.
The alternative would be either to make monsters more and more difficult to hit/more likely to hit level-appropriate adventurers as their level increase (which would slow combat, make it less and less fun and, ironically, make the players feel less and less powerful as they level up) or to make them less difficult to hit and likely to hit (which could feel boring and anticlimactic, making high-level threats look like jobbers). Of all of these possibilities, the balanced approach is probably the best.
Moreover, even if the static defenses and attack rolls stay usually in the same range, the feat/power conditional bonuses are becoming bigger and can make the situation swing a lot more in some circumstances.
>>
>>66258654
That's the point. He's saying multiatacckers are the upper crust and will ALWAYS BE the upper crust no matter what static benefits you apply to everyone. Giving everyone the same bonuses or not won't change the fact that multiattackers will out pace their usage for other classes. It's a given, which is why it doesn't matter.
>>
What's the best way to play a Dragoon in 4e?
>>
>>66259305

And I am saying that they do not need to be given even more toys than they already have.

>>66259324

I would look into a pixie or a dragonborn (draconian). Their respective flight abilities are less about altitude-limited flight, despite the name, and more about super-jumps. There is a reason why they are two of the strongest out-of-the-box races. Their flight mechanics let them avoid plenty of terrain and some opportunity attacks, and they are difficult to knock prone.

It is easy enough to create such a character who leaps and dives down into melee this way.
>>
>>66259536
Everyone gets the toy. I could give a fuck less what happens with the ED mechanic for strikers when it keeps fights nice and short. Doubly so if the players are still having fun.
>>
>>66259105
>Indeed, all unique fighter abilities are 'per-rest'.
Yeah, because the poison of 4e lingers on in 5e. It's still more tolerable than hordes of barely-different "maneuvers".Hell, they couldn't even put auto-scaling damage into the game as a mechanic so they bloat it with even more maneuvers with cool names and nothing else cool about them. At least they kept the few things that actually made sense as requiring a rest, like Second Wind and Action Surge that were based on tiring you out. Still hasn't been explained to me why my battlemaster can decide to disarm someone after his crossbow bolt hits, and why he can only do it 4 times between resting (haven't gotten Relentless yet). Wizards of the Coast are COMPLETELY incapable of designing any other kind of trade-off such as penalties or the like because they literally cannot do math (See: D&D 4e until the MM3 came out) and they do not understand situationality (hence why most 3e abilities were shit) so they just make more per-rest abilities because it's the only thing their small brains know how to do.
>>
>>66259605

Keeping battles short is less about artificially inflating attack bonuses and more about players gaining the experience with which to know how to make ideal tactical decisions. Blowing up attack bonuses is just a band-aid.

Keeping fights short is also about actually optimizing for static damage bonuses, as explained here:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/66079395/#66080563

>Doubly so if the players are still having fun.
I doubt it is fun for, say, the rogue's player to realize that the inflated attack bonus does not actually help the rogue much of the time, while it is helping the generic multiattack ranger a fair bit.

>>66259675

Brute Strike and No Mercy are poor examples due to being among the weakest level 1 and 29 fighter daily attack powers.

These, conversely, are the premier level 1 fighter daily attack powers:
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Driving-Attack.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Tempest-Dance.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Villains-Menace.html

Meanwhile, depending on whether you prefer encounter-long pressure or spikes of nova damage and hard control, these are the two best level 29 fighter daily attack powers:
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Force-the-Battle.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Sudden-Onslaught.html

Now, you might be wondering, "Wait a minute, if these are so much better than Brute Strike and No Mercy, then does that not mean that 4e has quite a few trap options in its power selections?"

The answer to that is, "Yes, yes, it very much does. For just about every class and every power selection level, there are weak options and much stronger options. 4e is not as well-balanced as some like to claim it to be, but that is simply something that 4e players have to make peace with."
>>
>>66259727
>having the pasta ready just in case someone post that picture
Based
>>
>>66259727
When people are the table are not turbo autist optimizers, a bandaid suffices. Some of us don't give as much of a shit that the crunch is perfect, so long as it scratches the itch sufficiently and doesn't become a slog. You're seriously barking up the wrong tree with that shit here dude.
>>
>>66259790

Actually making an effort to efficiently play out turns and to create characters who keep up with the game's math is an organic method of solving combat length, as opposed to artificially shoehorning in an upgrade that genuinely benefits only certain types of characters.
>>
>>66259790
>arguing with 2hu about character optimization
Oh shit nigger what are you doing
>>
>>66259124
>Of course they're going to steamroll normal goblins once they reach paragon tier, and if they try to challenge Orcus at level 5, they're going to die very quickly; it's not a Skyrim-like scaling situation.
This.
I am also partial to restatting monsters on the Solo-Elite-Normal-Minon-Swarm scale relative to the Party's level, as it is pretty easy to make a new monster based on an existing monster with the proper monster math

For example, a Bone Golem is a level 12 Elite, so lets imagine the whole campaign or recurring subplot in the Campaign involved a cult of necromancers, and i have a few bone golem minis that I want to get good use out of
At level 1, this guy is a skill challenge or some other form of non-combat encounter just to get away from, I think it is fine to say that "This guy is too mighty for you" and if they insist, just use the level 12 stat block as written, sucks to be them.
At level 7 or 8 solo based on that as the ultimate work of some neophyte to the cult.
When they do get to level 12 or so, and they are starting to fight the elites in the cult, Bone Golems will be more common, but still rare and typically accompanied by more level appropriate undead (Maybe a Bone Archivist, and some Shadowguard Sentrys, for example).
By high Paragon, when they are taking on the masters of the cult, creating Bone golems is fairly trivial, they can affort to treat them the same way the early members were treating basic skeletons, just normal foes, equivalent to about one party member.
By early epic, the Lich Lord that was secretly behind the cult can just throw them as minions.
And if the Lich has managed to call his evil master into this world and the party has to stop him to finish off their epic levels, this god can call dozens of these things with but a word but it takes a large group (a swarm) to be of any meaningful threat.
>>
>>66259841
Look, while I'm not going to deny that, as the DM, I've got more important shit to do than make sure the players are perfectly twinking their builds. I'll use a cheat option that works sufficiently towards my ends and the players are content with it. I don't care what the RIGHT answer is. I care that something is easy and works.

>>66259874
I'm not arguing about optimization. I'm stating that I don't give a shit about it.
>>
>>66259900
>I'm not arguing about optimization. I'm stating that I don't give a shit about it.
Sorry, my mistake. Let me rephrase my earlier comment.
>telling 2hu that you don't need to optimize characters
Oh shit nigger etc etc
>>
>>66259944
What, am I feeding the troll basically?
>>
>>66259536
>And I am saying that they do not need to be given even more toys than they already have.
Multi-strikefag already hits more often then I do. If I myself suddenly get to hit more often, the fact that there's still a gap between us isn't going to keep me up at night.
>>
>>66259727
>Keeping battles short is less about artificially inflating attack bonuses and more about players gaining the experience with which to know how to make ideal tactical decisions. Blowing up attack bonuses is just a band-aid.
Literally just a personal preference at that point.
>>
>>66259881

I am fond of the way D&D 4e Zeitgeist handles ranks of enemies: by ripping off the "troop" mechanic from Pathfinder and representing large numbers of enemy troops as swarms.

Depending on the party level when they are encountered, a dozen regular troops might be a level 9 soldier of Large size, a hundred regular troops would be a level 17 soldier of Gargantuan size, and two hundred regular soldiers plus spellcaster support would be a level 24 soldier of Colossal (yes, Colossal) size. They can all break up their occupied space as needed, forming it into different shapes as long as they occupy the same amount of contiguous squares.

I will not post any of the statistics blocks, because the numbers are, quite frankly, screwed-up, but I really like them in concept.

I prefer this method of handling minions significantly more than 4e's actual minions, which often wind up as fodder for automatic damage effects (e.g. Winter's Wraith, Corrosive Mist, Dragon Sorcery Tattoo) and hardly live up to their advertised XP value unless sparsely spread out as artilleries.

All the same, for those interested in homebrew monster conversions, a handy guideline is that it is +5 levels to go from solo to elite, +4 levels to go from elite to standard, and +8 levels to go from standard to minion.

Thus, a meerak nerra is a level 18 minion, but could also be a level 10 standard, a level 6 elite, or a level 1 solo, all with roughly the same XP value.

>>66260002

Except that in the case of, say, a rogue with a dagger and the usual accuracy suite that rogues are known for, the character is not actually gaining much out of the attack bonuses.
>>
[cums on 2hufag's face]
Slurp it bitch.
>>
>>66259841
>genuinely benefits only certain types of characters.
But that's wrong. It just benefits certain types more. "Genuinely" is just a term of personal estimation here.
>>
>>66260037
>Except that in the case of, say, a rogue with a dagger and the usual accuracy suite that rogues are known for, the character is not actually gaining much out of the attack bonuses.
I'm also not bothered at all with my teammates suddenly doing better, even in comparison to myself.
>>
>>66259957
2hu is our resident autistic charop wizard. He's pretty much top tier in these threads when it come to making the best of your character ideas.
However, he's got a bit of a tunnel vision about character optimization, which can lead him to flat-out ignore your arguments about how you don't 'need' to take Flail Expertise and Mark of the Storm and a Lightning Weapon and Dragging Flail when you play a fighter since you don't play with a full team of dedicated hyper-focused optimizers. Doesn't help that his own circle of players and campaigns is massively houseruled.
>>
>>66260105
>Doesn't help that his own circle of players and campaigns is massively houseruled.

I'm kind of offended that he'd argue against my houserule knowing this.
>>
>>66260056
>>66260072

It is a solution with holes in it, is what I am saying, and I cannot see how it is more ideal than a more organic solution that requires less in the way of house rules.

>>66260105

If you are playing a generic fighter (weaponmaster), do you need to take up a Flail Expertise/Mark of Storm/Dragging Flail/Lightning Weapon build? No, probably not, but it is an easily-acquired fighter build that comes online at low heroic.

If you do not want to take it, you cannot take it (because dragonmark feats are banned ala Living Forgotten Realms), or you have a different build in mind, then it is as simple as taking something else. Perhaps you will take just Flail Expertise and Dragging Flail, later supplementing it with Lashing Flail at paragon, for example. Or perhaps your character is coming into play at paragon, and you want to try a Polearm Gamble build instead.

Yours is a weird example that illustrates little point.

4e's optimization paradigms are heavily segregated by tier. The kinds of builds one would recommend for a heroic game are different from those for a paragon game, let alone an epic game. Paragon is where optimization gets decidedly crazier, and the epic tier turns high optimization into full overdrive.
>>
>>66260186

I am a proponent for house rules in 4e campaigns.

On the other hand, I do not like house rules that are unnecessary, and that promote the already-strongest builds over less remarkable builds.

There is no contradiction here.
>>
>>66260190
>It is a solution with holes in it, is what I am saying, and I cannot see how it is more ideal than a more organic solution that requires less in the way of house rules
As another Anon said, the chance to focus attention as a DM elsewhere is both liberating and helpful. The organic way might be better if the players themselves don't dig the band-aid solution, but if it's all the same to them otherwise then there is no functional problem, just a personal one.
>>
>>66260190
>I cannot see how it is more ideal than a more organic solution that requires less in the way of house rules.

Incremental +1 to a max of +6 over the course of several turns. It's easy to implement.

Learning proper optimization takes time. Time some people might not have to dedicate to the game system wholly. This is an issue of real world time and effort, not in game efficiency.

>>66260212
Fair enough. But it's still a non issue and you need to let it go. Not all of us care.
>>
>>66259900

Maybe I'm old school (no maybe about it, I started playing B/X back in 1981) but when I ran 4e we didn't worry about charcater "optimization". As a GM, it was my job to scale encounters and threats to the PC capabilities, not the other way around.

This whole optimization argument and idea of needing to hand out free feats to beef up characters to match "monster math" just seems so ass-backward. It's been a decade or so since I ran 4e, but adjusting the monster math by stripping 1/3rd level or so from attack and defense bonuses scaled most monsters to an acceptable threat without worrying about "inherent bonuses".
>>
>>66262842
That's a good point. I GM 13th Age now and again, and re-balancing encounters for a given party is by far the easiest solution, barring a magic item here and there. Is it just harder in 4e or something? It seems weird more people don't try it by default.
>>
>>66262842
>>66263225
How is rebalancing every encounter easier than giving everyone a few free feats?
>>
>>66260212
Isn't 4e 2hu posting banned?
>>
>>66263434

A GM should be balancing every encounter for the party. If you are writing your own adventures and scenarios, rather than running pre-published ones, you are doing this anyway. There is no extra effort.

Even if you are running or adapting something published, is it that hard to subtract 1/3rd monster level from attack, defense, and skill bonuses? I mean, you can do that in your head on the fly.
>>
>>66263434
In Age at least, it's extremely simple to adjust encounter difficulty up or down in terms of level and raw monster vs PC firepower. A lot of enemies have optional "nastier special" traits that make them more dangerous if you check that box. There are no proficiency feats for weapon types, all that is built into your class. Aside from a short list of general feats anyone can take, all feats function as a sort of DLC option that expands a specific attack, spell, or other ability your PC has. Because most feats are so specific, it's way easier just to fiddle with how many monsters of such and such a level and what role combinations you're going to throw into the next battle.
>>
>>66263652
>There is no extra effort.
Sure there is. You are still mostly using the published monsters.

>is it that hard to subtract 1/3rd monster level from attack, defense, and skill bonuses?
It's not that hard, but it's still harder than just saying "You get these feats for free" at the beginning of the campaign and nt having to worry about it ever again.
>>
>>66263787
Not him, but handing out the feats doesn't sound like the hard part, it's perusing all the options and figuring out which feats to hand out vs pulling up the calculator app and dialing in a few numbers.
>>
>>66263787

When you design encounters for your own scenarios, do you ONLY use the monsters at the levels they they are listed at in the books? What if the Mind Flayer in the book is scaled at level 18, but you want to use him in a level 10 encounter? You're going to adjust the math anyway. What if you want a level 10 kobold dragonshield?

Seems like awful limited and lazy GM'ing to restrict oneself to using certain monsters only at certain levels.
>>
>>66264152
>When you design encounters for your own scenarios, do you ONLY use the monsters at the levels they they are listed at in the books?
Yes, mostly. In the case of a very specific monster, like the Mindflayer, I'll probably hold off using it while with something more generic, like a kobold dragonshield, I'll probably just refluff an appropriate level monster of the same role.

Besides most monsters come in a nice level band, so it's not like you are forced to only use them in very specific levels.
>>
>>66263628
No. 2hu himself was banned, and then banned again, following a ban evasion, because 2hu is rather stubborn. I do not know how or why he was allowed back on.

>>66262842
You're conflating a couple things here, so let's break them apart and inspect them.

>it's my job to scale encounters and threats to teh PC capabilities, not the other way around.

This is accurate. However, PCs SHOULD, barring intentionally bad choices, hit a certain baseline of ability.

THIS is where the monster math issue comes in: the actual math of monsters compared to PCs is slightly off. And that point, "slightly", is important. The monster math is not off, as you suggest, by 1/3rd of the levels, but closer to 1/10th. (Specifically, it outpaces player attacks and defenses by 1 at every level ending in 5.)

To use a metaphor, yes, it's important to tailor your encounters and threats to your PCs, like picking the toppings of a pizza. however, the 4e math issue is a problem with the pizza DOUGH: it's just a little chewy. The free feats are a way to soften up the dough.

Inherent bonuses are a different thing. (Specifically, they are a method to run 4e without its reliance on magic items for a portion of its mathematical values.)

>>66263225
>Is it harder in 4e or something?
4e monsters are more complicated than 13th Age monsters, and their encounters are structured more rigidly.

Further, there's a non-zero number of people who have a...reluctance to rely on homebrew and/or fiat in such situations, because they become fully responsible for the 'fairness' of what ensues. Some believe that a DM is, while an invested crafter of the narrative with the players, also meant to be an impartial arbiter of the rules during play.
>>
>>66264152
>Seems like lazy GM'ing to restrict oneself to using certain monsters only at certain levels.

Or, it reflects that a given monster has a relatively consistent threat capability, one that fits with the reputation of various monsters built over the years.

Should I just let level 2 PCs overcome a Great Wyrm dragon in direct combat? Or a Kobold to be more powerful than a God? These instances strain credulity and verisimilitude.

This is reductio ad absurdum, of course,but it represents the fear many GMs and players see your argument devolving into over time.

>>66263860
Except that you hand out the feats once, at a given level, rather than change the math for every monster for every encounter for the entirety of the campaign.
>>
>>66265252
>4e
>great wyrm
>>
>>66238261
>(fewer of them, anyway)
You mean none.
>>
>>66238308
It doesn't, there are level appropriate monsters than can kill your tank in 2 rounds.
>>
>>66266042
Indomitable.

>>66259105
>>
>>66258060
>5e has a million "once per short/long rest" skills
Everything a fighter has recharges on a short rest, by definition that's not a 1/day ability.

>your selective memory specifically thinks "once per day" rather than "per rest"
That's because a short rest is one hour, retard.
>>
>>66258592
>A good chunk of skills in 5e are literally built around being used a limited number of times per short/long rest
And the vast majority of the long rest abilities are magic, which makes it 100% fine.
>>
>>66258592
>UNLESS the party is specifically optimized for damage dealing, fights will go on forever because DPR can only get so high otherwise.
That sounds like a failing of your DM rather than the system.
>>
>>66238182
>What's a common houserule in your group?
playing 5e instead
>>
>>66266060
And as you level, you can use it more often, which makes sense. Unlike LITERALLY ANY mundane ability in 4e that's daily. To be clear, when I say daily, I mean once a day, not something that's recharged after what's typically a night's sleep. A martial, nonmagical character having a 1/day ability that doesn't improve is retarded.
>>
>>66259727
>the premier level 1 fighter daily attack powers
Fighters shouldn't have daily anything, every one of those is an example of fail.
>>
>>66266167
>not something that's recharged after what's typically a night's sleep
You do realize that when 4e says "daily", it means something that recharges after what's typically a night's sleep, right?
>>
>>66266276
I doubt it.

I sincerely doubt that these people understand that. They've failed to understand it the last three times it was explained, and they'll continue to not understand it.
>>
>>66266327
>I sincerely doubt that these people will admit to understanding that instead of being intentionally obtuse to get more (you)s.
ftfy
>>
File: your%20opinion.jpg (83 KB, 394x406)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>66266204
>fighters shouldn't be able to make a heroic effort that can't be repeated until the character has had a full night's sleep
>>
>>66238182
why are all the threads filled with low effort bait?
>>
>>66266408
I mentioned my guess early on. Some cunt started a hyperbolic "4e was the perfect RPG, 5e sucks, and will be replaced with a 6th edition more like 4th, just as 4th was replaced by one more like 3rd" thread on Saturday, which seems to have riled everybody up.

If you go back, the last couple actual generals didn't have much of this type of arguing at all. We just moved on without acknowledging the bait. But this thread, everybody's snapping at it.
>>
File: 4e_Players_Handbook.jpg (241 KB, 400x550)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
Weep! Weep, O ye unworthy, ye ungrateful, for the Perfect Roleplaying System, abandoned by its fickle creators and spurned by the benighted masses! Weep for Fourth Edition, cruelly slandered by ignorant fools who could not comprehend its genius, its daring, its mechanics unsurpassed in elegance—its setting, more usable and adventureable than any worlds before it! In jealously and in spite, they turned on it, attacked its blameless superiority, and O woe! O sorrow! It was supplanted by the wretched and malformed 5e, an edition no different in design and in spirit than the unspeakable and unbalanced 3.5!

Yet even now there is hope, for we the Enlightened, we farsighted few, able to see the True Form of Roleplaying Games, keep the faith! Look to the future, Chosen Ones, for though the world is perverse, it cannot deny True Beauty forever! May Wizards of the Coast guide Dungeons and Dragons back towards the Immaculate RPG—but slowly, slowly, to avoid overwhelming the feeble intellects who could not appreciate it in its full form!
>>
>>66266492
it was this >>66266760
>>
>>66266760
>It was supplanted by the wretched and malformed 5e, an edition no different in design and in spirit than the unspeakable and unbalanced 3.5!
I love this pasta
>>
>>66266765
Yes, I know.

Moving on,
I've started a math itch, and I'm wondering how deeply I should scratch it.

A preliminary assessment of the relative "HP bloat" of 4e and 5e turned up some interesting data, so I think I want to do a deeper dive into it.

The question is: I want to stick to PHB only for the character options, just for a more stable comparison.
But do I count ONLY 4e's PHB 1, or are the others fair game? In short, do I take Weapon Expertise or not?

If I don't, I'm giving 5e a free 'hit', but I'm also keeping things more even: 2 books for each edition.
>>
>>66266963

D&D 4e is really not that good a system out-of-the-box, with only the Player's Handbook 1, the Dungeon Master's Guide 1, and the Monster Manual 1. Paladins are nigh-unplayable, classes are arbitrarily screwed out of basic attacks, Expertise feats and defense feats are nonexistent, and combat takes forever due to a lack of item and dragonshard bonuses to damage rolls and the opposition being the worst-designed of generation 1 monsters.

Given that 4e effectively had a run of 5.5 years between the publication of the Player's Handbook 1 and Dragon Magazine #430, and that D&D 5e will likewise turn 5 years old in three months, I would say that it is fair to compare the full breadth of 4e to the complete span of 5e.
>>
So, I hear 4e Martial classes are designed after Action Movie heroes. What are the most "action movieish" martial exploits, in your opinions?
>>
File: Capture.png (21 KB, 568x295)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
>>66267173
>>
>>66267173

I am generally a fan of out-of-turn powers, because they lend a sense that the PCs are competent heroes who can see danger careening their way and react to it appropriately. For example:

http://funin.space/compendium/power/Guardians-Counter.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Vengeance-is-Mine.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Disruptive-Strike.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Darting-Strike.html
http://funin.space/compendium/power/Startling-Offensive.html
>>
>>66267234
According to the errata, your character is legally obligated to say "Not today, my friend, not today." when using this power.
>>
>>66267234

Good concept, poor execution. There should at least be a bonus to defenses against the opportunity attacks provoked here.

Given such a bonus, this power may be appealing as a level 1 warlord *encounter* attack power, considering that Vengeance is Mine already exists and can likely be used early on.

http://funin.space/compendium/power/Vengeance-is-Mine.html
>>
>>66267173
The Bloody Path, for a Rogue, is often cited as a very Action-movie-style ability, as it's essentially an extended Jackie Chan bit. It's also very controversial for the anti-4e crowd, so it's a fraught topic to discuss.

(The power works as follows: you take a movement, and every enemy that CAN make an attack of opportunity against you DOES...but against itself instead of you.)

>>66267071
While that answer may be useful for future comparative forays, it is NOT useful for this one. This specific endeavor is VERY focused. It is comparing one core class against one iconic monster. Thus, again, the question is "Is it fair to let the 4e character take Weapon Expertise, even though it's not in the PHB 1"? Can we treat the absence of the feat as a 'publishing error', in short?

However, my frustration in attempting to phrase that has reminded me that it's a relatively trivial matter to just build a character without the feat, and then say "and with the feat, the numbers change in X ways".
>>
I must be the only person who bought Essentials instead of the main rulebooks.
>>
>>66267922
There's probably a dozen or so, just not here. Most people bought Essentials after buying the core books, or bought the core books after buying Essentials. But there is a small, dedicated fanbase of the 'Essentials only' type of 4e. They tend to crop up in strange places.
>>
>>66267285

I think it is somewhat of a pointless project. D&D 4e and D&D 5e both separate PC statistics from NPC/monster statistics, and for good reason.

4e is a game that spans from levels 1 to 30. The 4e fighter is a defender first and foremost, specialized in forcing enemies to stick to the fighter. Amongst generation 3 math orcs, the weakest is the level 4 minion orc savage, and the strongest are the level 10 elites Queen Msuga and Rohka the Blood Witch. Meanwhile, tanarukks are level 17 to 18 standard monsters.

5e goes from 1st to 20th level. The fighter is a striker first and foremost, primarily focused on outright killing enemies. Its orcs range from the CR 1/2 plain "orc" and orc nurtured one of Yurtrus, to the CR 4 orc blade of ilneval and orc war chief, to the CR 5 tanarukk.

Different games, different assumptions, different combat roles for fighters.
>>
What are the most interesting hybrids 4E made you want to play?
>>
>>66268130
Both games are conceptually quite different.

4e is a Medieval Marvel Avengers. From level 1 characters can teleport around and face challenges that would overrun a village. At level 30 they face universe-threatening foes, common orcs doesn't even pose a threat, heroes fight hordes of demons (minions)

5e is Lord of the Rings. Level 1 must use smarts, stealth and tactics to survive against half a dozen bandits. At level 20 they're at the Black Gate: Powerful, but still mortal and can be overrun by common orcs.

Both are two distinct styles of play, none are wrong.
>>
>>66269401
>At level 20 they're at the Black Gate: Powerful, but still mortal and can be overrun by common orcs.
>What is a level 20 onion druid?
>>
>>66269482
>conceptual style, prone to bugs
>>
>>66268130
A good thing I never said I was talking about fighters, then, isn't it?

Sometimes, I swear, it's like you're a chatbot that just spouts things without actually knowing what they mean.
>>
>>66271618
>entire conversation is about fighter vs orc
>I-I-I-I wasn't talking about fighters, I swear!
>>
>>66271618
I'm struggling to figure out what you are really going on about.
As much as I dislike agreeing with 2hu about anything, 4e had some considerable problems out of the box that were more or less resolved as time went on. Deciding on an arbitrary point means you are denying the devs the ability to fix their fuck ups.
5e also has gotten a fair bit of errata to fix exploits and issues, and I would feel it a disservice to ignore them, as well.
>>
>>66272973
>errata
>Crawford shit
>>
>>66272627
There are two ways I can respond to this:

The first is to point out that nothing in the current conversation is connected by replies back to the discussion about fighters vs orcs, and therefore there's no reason to assume they post is about that topic.

However, you're also right that it was needlessly aggressive of me to react like as I did, when it's easy to make the connection, since it's a conversation ABOUT HP in the SAME THREAD, and I should have been more specific if I didn't want people to think I was talking about it.

And you're completely right. I fucked that up. Hilariously, I'm actually the guy who WROTE the Fighter vs Orc HP breakdown. I'd just mentally moved on through the following topics so I didn't even CONSIDER it as part of his reasoning. (I literally didn't know why he was citing Orc CRs in that conversation) My only defense, which is incredibly meager, is that 2hu has a habit of repeating the same points and examples almost verbatim whenever a given topic comes up, so I thought he was doing it again. (His point about about the Fighter dailies was made last week, and I've seen the points in his first paragraph here >>66267071 at least 3-4 times in the last 3 weeks)

But, again, It's my fault for not being clearer. Sorry, I was not intending on continuing the fighter conversation. I'm instead comparing "striker" damage output to high-level enemies.

Specifically, A max-level Rogue vs Demogorgon. I didn't reveal that in my posts last night out of a desire to avoid nitpicking and a desire to "surprise" you guys with the outcome. I should have been a little clearer on what I was doing. Again, my bad.

In the interest of being more transparent:
My preliminary results are that a highly (but not maximally) optimized 5e Rogue deals 9.5% of Demogorgon's max HP per hit, while a minimally optimized 4e Rogue deals 6.6% of Demogorgon's HP with a level 29 daily.

So now I'm working on more detailed numbers.
>>
>>66272973

>errata
I view explicitly labeled errata as being a part of the given text. It's an error, that has been corrected.

But 4e never explicitly labeled their mathematical feats as errata. They were simply "options".

Thus, if I include them, I'm opening a can of worms that will allow 5e fans to say "Well, if he gets to use feat X from another source, why can't you give the 5e rogue weapon Y from another source?" And I don't want to spend the next 3 days poring over EVERY book from TWO editions just to make perfectly optimal characters. By limiting the scope to the two PHBs, I forestall complaints that I'm not being 'fair' from 5e posters. Further, and this is a contestable point, it falls into what I consider a "fairer" scope of optimizing: any group that plays their given game of D&D has a very high chance of having the PHB of the given edition. They may not have the rest of the books, but they have the PHB. So using the options of the PHB gives us what can be achieved at functionally ANY table in the given system.
>>
>>66273309
I understand you, but on the whole, I feel that a comprehensive view of both systems serves better for such an endeavor, rather than a portion of them both.
I view it like mathhammer in 40k.
>>
>>66273124
>>66273309
Ok let me give you some help. In high optimization 4e environments it is a common thing to multiply the hp of enemies to account for the level of damage the party is capable of. Combat still tends to last only 1-2 rounds despite that. High op 4e has the opposite of hp bloat. Even if you gave a 5e rogue every conceivable option it would pale in comparison to a high-op 4e rogue, and hp is overall lower in 4e.
>>
>>66273124
Demogorgon isn't even gen 3 math you dweeb.
>>
>>66273480
Aren't rangers the big dick nova strikers?
>>
>>66273591
Rangers and rogues are the big dicks in the damage business
>>
>>66273610

Rangers are the ones with the out-of-the-box multiattacks. Rogues generally have to put more effort into it, though powers like Low Slash can certainly help.

A generic archer ranger is arguably the single simplest AEDU class in the entire game, and yet it is also among the strongest out-of-the-box striker builds from levels 1 to 30. An archer ranger demonstrates remarkable results against all but the cheesiest of epic-tier nova striker builds.

This is not to say that rogues are not strong as well, of course, though it is mostly concentrated in builds like generic Brutal Scoundrels, or the odd level 16+ Arena Champion.
>>
Anons? What race(s) and/or class(es) that 4e gave a fluff rework did you approve of? And why?

For example...

I really liked the 4e rendition of gnomes. Old-school gnomes just feel like this weird mixture of elves, dwarves and halflings to create either a "shortfolk" mage race or a comic relief race. 4e kept their "traditional charm", but gave them a far stronger identity.

Same deal with 4e's halflings; I liked the way 4e fully pushed them away from the sedentary, non-adventurous thinly veiled hobbits of old. Plus, tying them to the rivers and swamps was actually a pretty neat idea.

Bladelings were another awesome changeover, in my book; they went from generically mysterious planetouched huddling away in the most inhospitable part of the planes outside of the planes of vacuum and negative energy, where they murdered anybody who came to visit, to the betrayed scions of the god of war, striking out against their former master and carving a niche across the planes - they even got to be a PC option!

I loved what 4e did with Barbarians. I always disliked them as "angry primitive fighters" in 3e, but the Primal Spirits really solidified their theme. The thunder-screamer subclass was just crazy enough to be cool.

Finally, I'll be in the minority here, but I actually liked 4e's rework of paladins to godly champions. The "knight in shining armor" archetype was pretty one-dimensional, and also easily filled by just being a Lawful Good Fighter. Making them the defensive-militant branch of all the godly faiths really opened them up... and got rid of the need for the blackguard as a lame "anti-paladin" concept.
>>
>>66273124
The start of the more detailed numbers

First, some ground rules: I am not running a full combat between the respective rogues and Demogorgons. I am simply looking at the Rogue damage output relative to the health of Big D.

We'll start with 5e, since that's the simpler one.

Because PHB 5e does NOT have magic items, which are "an optional rule" in the DMG, and there are no feats (also an 'optional rule', AND there are no feats in the PHB that help damage), the ceiling for optimization of a 5e rogue's damage is pretty low. It comes down to "wield a rapier and get 20 Dex" or "wield a Longbow and get 20 strength". since both items deal 1d8 piercing damage, the difference is negligible for our purposes.

The only other advantage is in the Assassin archetype, which makes every attack from surprise a crit, and at level 17, gives you a chance to double that crit damage if the target fails a Con save.

Compared to Demogorgon, the math is pretty in favor of the Rogue, generally. The rogue has a +11 to hit, against D's 22 AC, and has advantage when attacking from surprise. The rogue can have a +17 to Stealth versus Demogorgon's +11 Perception, so while this is not technically guaranteed, it is fairly reliable.

When attacking from hidden, or otherwise surprising D, the Rogue has an amazing DPR of 79.8, roughly 16% of D's max health. (an average damage per crit of 84 with a 75% hit chance, and a 10% chance for Dem to fail his save and take double damage.)

WITHOUT surprise, the rogue's damage drops precipitously. If the rogue can get combat advantage reliably, they sit around 39.69 DPR (8%), but without allies, that's unlikely, and the rate drops to 28.2 DPR, roughly 5.6% of Dem's max HP

The rogue has no other combat options.

Next up, the 4e Rogue.
>>
>>66266062
>Everything a fighter has recharges on a short rest, by definition that's not a 1/day ability.
Why are you lying? Unwavering Mark, Fighting Spirit, Warding Maneuver, Indomitable, and Strength Before Death all require to be recharged via long rest.
>>66266067
No, it's not fine. Because 5e's "4-6 encounters per day" game design is fucking retarded.
>>66266073
>5efaggot will tout how 4e is a shitty broken system for hours on end and ignore every possible resolution
>but when pointing out a flaw with the 5e system, suddenly it's the "DM's fault"
You're fucking disgusting. To address the ignorant notion that 5e doesn't have "HP bloat", you are just factually incorrect. Tell me how you think it's acceptable how a CR 2 monster like an Ogre has 59 HP when your very best damaging option as a Fighter at that point is maybe a 2d6+3 swing? Hell I'm referring to EARLY game, not late game where everything you fight at that point is a shit brick, and your damage just isn't up to par unless you're carrying a lot of magical shit.
>>
>>66274712
>>66274897
Not the guy you replied to.

You are going in with the faulty assumption that the 5e book doesn't lie to you. It does. Feats and magic items are absolutely not optional. How the fuck could a system that is responsible for roughly 1/3rd of your damage be optional? What the fuck were the designers smoking?
>>
>>66274441
>Making them the defensive-militant branch of all the godly faiths really opened them up... and got rid of the need for the blackguard as a lame "anti-paladin" concept.
This, also the Avenger as a church-mandated spy/executioner to do the dirty jobs
>>
>>66275006
5e is terribly designed dogshit, yes.
>>
>>66275088
I wouldn't go that far, it's just nowhere near as transparent as 4e.
>>
>>66274712
The 4e rogue needs a lot more details established, since it has more rider effects, feat requirements, and so on. So we WILL be doing a build inspection on the rogue.

So first, a disclaimer: This is INTENTIONALLY not a 'perfect' build. I do not purport to be a perfect optimizer, nor do I wish to be. Further, given the increased complexity of 4e's optimization options versus 5e's, I wanted to extend 5e further opportunity to outpace/match 4e capability. As such, not every choice made in this build optimizes for this conflict specifically, or even for dealing damage As a direct example: I have chosen the Artful Dodger Rogue tactic. While not optimal for this, I think the increased numerical bonus over scoundrel would attract more players, and raise the odds of the rogue getting to Demogorgon. (Not a concern for the 5e rogue, in the sense that "buff dex as high as possible as soon as possible" is really the primary build need.) Finally, by my inspection, there comes a point in building the character that it is impossible to add more (especially in regards to feats: you simply run out of useful feats before you run out of feat slots using only the PHB.) As such, I will mark build options that are intentionally or inferior with an asterisk*

Continuing with that point, I used a point-buy array of 17, 14, 12, 11, 10, 10, 10, because I wanted to take certain feats, though it will end up costing me one point of Dex modifier by level 30.

I chose Halfling* for the race. Elf would be a slightly superior option, given the usefulness of Elven accuracy vs Second Chance, but I felt the build I will use is more halfling oriented.

After racial mods, the scores are
Str 10 Con 12 Dex 19 Int 10 Wis 11 Cha 16

After leveling, they're Str 14 Con 16 Dex 27, Int 14, Wis 16, and Cha 20.

The build is a pseudo-crit-fishing build, built around the lack of Weapon Expertise forcing me to prioritize accuracy, and the Rogue class feature giving +1 to dagger attacks.

(cont)
>>
>>66275006

I am aware of these facts, and I believe that the loss of them is roughly on par with the loss of other options for the 4e build.
>>
>>66275108
5e pretends to be "simplistic on the surface, but has a massive layer of complexity underneath it all", but in reality it's just simplistic baby shit.
>>
>>66274712
>Because PHB 5e does NOT have magic items, which are "an optional rule" in the DMG, and there are no feats
The absolute state of 5E
>>
>>66275128
As such, we'll be building Artful Dodger* to Daggermaster to Deadly Trickster.

Daggermaster gives a potential dagger attack or damage re-roll instead of an extra action, extended crit range on dagger attacks, as well as dagger crits reapplying combat advantage for repeated sneak attacks.

which reminds me, I have to take a step back for another disclaimer: the 5e rogue actually has no method for re-establishing advantage, or a way to gain sneak attack, WITHOUT an ally or hiding again, even FURTHER killing their DPR. So that is another free benefit we're giving to the 5e character: a 'dummy' ally that allows them to access Sneak Attack.

Back to the 4e build.

Deadly Trickster gives three daily re-rolls, the ability to force an enemy to take a 1 on one roll, and keeps encounter and daily powers from being expended if their first attack roll is a natural 18 or higher.

Featwise, the character takes
Improved Initiative, Nimble Blade, Backstabber, Weapon Focus (light blades), Two-weapon fighting, Quick Draw (not strictly necessary, but not quite asterisk worthy). Light blade precision, Danger sense...and then there are no remaining useful paragon feats, so I took Far Throw* (figuring this gives the rogue a pseudo ranged option with the daggers), Uncanny Dodge* and Evasion* (to match the 5e rogue's class features and increase survivability), and Defensive advantage* (if we're going to be constantly applying CA, may as well keep milking it.)
Then, the build takes Triumphant Attack (a crit applies a -2 to enemy defenses, save ends), Blind-fight* (just to maintain CA in case of invisible enemies), and...some semi-useful feats that minimally apply to the combat (Unfettered stride, Underfoot, Two-Weapon Flurry, and Secret Stealth)

The Rogue's Items are mostly ignorable, with only 4 being relevant: two +6 Duelist daggers (or a duelist dagger and any other +6 dagger), Helm of Battle, and Gauntlets of Destruction, to offset the dagger damage die.

(cont)
>>
>>66275380
I had a question: does this theoretical work includes errata that has been written about the 4E PHB? Because in that case, Triumphant Attack is not (save ends) anymore.
Anyway, seems interesting, so please continue
>>
>>66275380

At this juncture, let's look at what we've built.

The Rogue will automatically get CA if it wins initiative, and it has a +30 to the roll (+15 from level, 8 from Dex, 4 from feat, 3 from item) AND rolls 'with advantage", against Big D's +24

The Rogue has a +36 to hit as long as it has CA (+15 level, 8 Dex, 6 enhancement, 3 proficiency, 1 class buff, 2 CA and 1 Nimble Blade)

It has a +20 to weapon attack damage against Demogorgon (+6 enhance, 8 dex, 3 feat from Weapon Focus, 2 untyped from LB precision, and 1 untyped from Two weapon fighting.)

Excuse me, I have to step away and medicate one of my pets, I'll be back briefly.
>>
>>66275462
Oops, well spotted, I thought I had caught all the errata, thank you.
>>
File: 4e Bladelings.png (5.32 MB, 1385x1700)
5.32 MB
5.32 MB PNG
So, I was randomly thinking about how I would have done a "4e 2.0", and the realization has struck that I would have pulled apart the PHB+s and the Heroes of X and stuck them together with the X Powers to create something more akin to the Races of X line from 3e - that is, my "Tomes of Power" series would have included PC races particularly appropriate to that power source, as well as class-related crunch and an examination of how that power source fits into the world.

Does anyone else think this might have been a good idea?

If yes, what races would you have assigned to a given "Tome of Power"? I have a couple of thoughts (Tome of Martials: Orc, Hobgoblin, Minotaur, Bladeling - Tome of Primals: Gnoll, Lizardfolk), but not enough to fill out the list.
>>
>>66274712
>Demogorgon

4e Demogorgon isn't even gen 3 math you dweeb.
>>
>>66275957
Which means it has slightly more HP/defenses than after the math fix, so the rogue doing well against it is even more impressive.
>>
>>66275494

I've returned. Also note that ALL our melee damage is Brutal 1 thanks to our gauntlets. Most of our powers can be used as melee. Those that do not gain this bonus will be marked with ^

So, let's also do a fairly typical "constant upgrading" pattern, so that our Encounter and Daily powers are all the highest level they could be.

So, for my Rogue's powers, I have
At-Wills
Piercing Strike (vs Ref, deals 2d4+20, or roughly 26 damage per hit, without sneak attack)
Sly Flourish (which deals 2d4 +25, or 31 damage without SA)

Encounters
Hounding Strike (3d4+20 damage, CA and +5 to defenses against the target)
Critical Opportunity (minor action, on a crit, 3d4 (brutal 1)+20
Steel Entrapment ^ (blast 5, vs Fort, 3d4+20 and immobilized
Perfect Strike (vs AC, Fort, AND Ref, 5d4+20, +1d4 if hits two defenses, +STUN if hits all three)

Daily
Feinting Flurry (vs Will, 5d4+20, and target takes -5 to all defenses until end of next turn, sustain penalty with a minor)
Deep Dagger Wound (4d4+20, ongoing 10, ongoing 20 if crit)
Ghost in the Wind (6d4+20, turn invis, move adjacent, and gain CA. )
Assassin's Point (7d4+20, and if you have CA, double crit damage and/or Sneak attack damage)

You can already see a large number of synergies, and constant applications of CA.

Utilty powers we won't fully enumerate, but we will note

Epic Trick (Daily, Minor, Choose one: Regain all HP & surges, save against all current effects, regain all OTHER Dailies, or regain all encounter powers)
Meditation of the Blade (Daily, minor: increase dagger damage by 1 die for rest of encounter)
Raise the Stakes (your crit range becomes 17-20, but you get crit on 19-20)
and
Close Quarters (enter the square with a large or bigger enemy. You gain CA, and they take -4 to hit you until they shake you off.)

With ALL the set up FINALLY out of the way, let's look at the math of the 4e assault.

And remember, as we do this, as
>>66273536
>>66275957
notes, this Demogorgon is overtuned.

(Cont)
>>
>>66276149
>>66276370
Gen 2 doesn't have more HP/defenses you dumbasses.

A gen 2 level 34 dude is way way way weak.
>>
>>66274441
Uhhhhh, pretty much all the ones in the PHB1, and I guess PHB2 and 3, uhhhh, I wasn't really into the shadowfell style races but they seemed a good adaptation.

4e just had good races all over, man. Even the MM rebootings were on the whole really good and thought out. Cyclopses, man. Fuckin' cyclopses.
>>
>>66274712
>there are no feats in the PHB that help damage
Crossbow Expert exists.
>>
>>66276370

Now, ambushing this Demogorgon is a little more fraught, as I haven't invested...really ANYTHING into increasing the rogue's stealth. The Rogue sits at +28 Stealth vs Demogorgon's +28 perception. Luckily, just adding a ring of invisibility and Boots of Elvenkind increase our stealth to +33 with relative ease, since it would be better for the initial explosion of effort if we started our turn already adjacent, or could close to adjacent during surprise.

Now, In addition to not being a perfect optimizer, I am not a perfect tactician. Thus, if the actions I take in this ensuring battle seem to be weaker than you think they could be, I welcome you to revisit them. I've given you all the data.

I think it's no surprise that I start with meditation of the blade, and Assassin's point. As I said, we're quasi-crit fishing, so we'd like this first blow to be a crit, just for PEAK opening damage numbers, like the 5e hero got.

Without any dice manipulation, here's the math for our Assassin's point.
45% chance hit, 15% chance crit

On hit: 7d6(brutal 1)+20, +5d8(also brutal 1) (doubled) or roughly 98 damage

On a CRIT, hoo boy. 142 damage, plus 6d8 (as far as I can tell, still brutal 1)(doubled) For an average crit of 202 damage

Taking the odds of those results, we get a weighted expectation of 74.1 damage, or 5.9% of Demogorgon's max HP.

Which is much less impressive at first, but there are 3 things worth noting:
1.We didn't use any of our re-rolls. My math indicates that each reroll increases our damage potential by around 50%, and we have FOUR of them.

2. That's only one of our potentially THREE attacks this round, if things go well.

and Third, I may have done that out-of-order, since the defenses penalty from Hounding Strike is an effect, so I may want to open with that, then action point Assassin's Point with SA for a better hit chance.

But I actually have to head out, so either someone else run the numbers, or wait for later, maybe tomorrow.
>>
Any way to download the prettier compendium without needing a DDI account? I want a backup in case the site goes down
>>
Autism incoming
So, one of my favorite builds is the Lazylord, having made one after A) I realized I could, and B) having spent a short campaign as a cleric where is missed EVERY encounter and daily power and became convinced I should be making attack rolls. But I’ve never taken one to very high level.
I’ve looked at a 1-30 Lazylord and, while there are times where you have to take a power of a lower level, it’s mostly fairly doable in terms of Warlord powers (even if you have very few choices)
My sticking point, has been Paragon Paths, as all the obvious ‘Warlord’ ones give you attacks of some kind or another.

After messing around with Funin, I realized I can search for PP that have “Hit:” (with the colon) in there, which gets me a list of all PP that grant powers with a Hit: effect (and thereby attack roll), from there I can get a list of all PPs, and then run a diff on those lists to get the ones without a “hit:” in one or more of their powers, which is 36 of them.
From there I manually looked at those 36 and removed all the ones that’s powers, while not attacks themselves, allow you to make an attack or trigger when you hit with an attack or what have you, or let use a power and gives it a damage bonus (Because none of your powers directly do damage), or when they granted you non lazy powers indirectly.

What I found were 8 Paragon paths that fit the bill, 6 of which required an essentials class, which I don’t think you can qualify for with multiclass feats (but I might just be missing something), not that it really matters because Stalwart Knight (Shielding Blade) was really the only good one and that required you to use a Heavy blade, when, in my opinion, you want to be using a One handed Spear/Pick and Shield so you can use the Ninth Legion Student feat.
There are also 6 “Honorable Mentions” that either just barely miss the mark, or are questionable if they are truly “lazy” or not.
>>
>>66278886
The two ‘true’ lazylord Paragon Paths:
Catalyst: Requires Multi-classing into Ardent, which does open up the opportunity for Ire Strike, Revelatory Slash, and Exhilarating Strike via Psionic Dabbler (although the later two don’t key off your primary stats). Your ‘Goading Action’ ability is not going to be doing anything for you unless you DM is feeling nice and lets it work when an attack you GRANT with an action point misses. Those two issues aside, Catalyst is all about buffing your team and making them do the work for you and generally falls in line with the Lazy Lord theme. While its power source is psionic, it still is more subtle and grounded and more easily refluffable as just more of the inspirational type of stuff that powers the rest of the Warlord’s powers than compared to the next PP.
Dark Watcher: Requiring only being one of the Good Alignments, this PP is easier for our Lazylord to Enter, and has absolutely no abilities that are wasted. It’s not particularly strong, but if you are going 1-30 without picking a single attack roll power, you’re not going for high char-op anyway. It also shits out blinding magical light and teleports around, which kinda messes with the mundane theme of the warlord even more than Catalyst does, but again it is very easy to get into and the only paragon Path for a Lazy Lord where EVERY ability directly helps with your goals.
>>
>>66278932
The ones that come just shy...
Adroit Explorer: This came so close to joining Catalyst and Dark Watcher above, in fact, I only moved it hear to honorable mentions as I was writing it up for that category when I realized, its daily is basically useless. All LL encounter Powers target your allies, and thus, none really fit the bill of being used “against the triggering enemy.” If you talk with you DM and he agrees that “Hey my powers target my allies but if they use the attacks I give them against the triggering enemy does that count?” There are a few powers that fit the bill. In that case, while it requires being Human, it probably is the most pure martial option on the list.

Chameleon: Requires being a changeling which can even be a +int +cha race which is what you probably want as a lazylord (although Eladrin has better feat support). None of the powers it directly gives you are attacks, but what they do do is let you mimic an encounter, utility and daily of your allies. Going out on a limb here, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that your likely non leader allies even collectively have an encounter attack (level 11 and under) and a daily attack (level 20 and under) between them that fits your lazylord theme, and if you are going to high levels, their paragon path 11 encounter power (assuming they got one) may very well be the only power that qualifies for the encounter power one. Now, if you are coordinating with your party and know their PPs will have something to give you, or are only going Lazylord so you can dump strength and are willing to take some Int or Cha based attacks from them, this can work.
>>
>>66278950
Half-Elf Polymath: This is a weird one. First off, it requires you to be a half-elf, which doesn’t give you the best stats, but we can live with that if it is your concept. Next, the level 11 Encounter is ‘use a power, if you hit, damage buff’ although this one is limited to your Dilettante power, And it’s daily is a stance that gives you all the at wills of your allies within 10, which I can guarantee gives you non-lazy powers, either of these would probably have eliminated it from my list. It also gives you another at-will from any class you don’t have at level 16. Given its focus on At-wills, I decided to mention it as an excuse look to see what non-warlord at wills qualified for laziness. I found:
Ire Strike: A variant on commander’s strike from Ardent.
Flame Arrow: Gives extra fire damage to ranged attacks weapon attacks to you and allies in a close burst 1 until the end of your next turn. If you have a lot of ranged weapon users, this might actually be decent as a Dilettante power.
Magic Missile: Arguable how lazy this one is. If it is only about not making attack rolls to you, it counts, if it is about not attacking, it doesn’t.
Storm Pillar: No attack roll, up to you if you consider planting a big ass pillar of lightning that damages enemies that get close as too much of an attack for you or not
(Funin also calls Sun’s Glow an attack power for some reason, but HotFL calls it a utility which in practice is what it is.)
I can maybe see this PP working in a party that has a wizard with one of the above wizard at-wills bunch of ranged weapon attackers, where the Half-elf Lazylord takes Flame Arrow as their Dilettante (or takes Knack for success instead of Dilettante as there is no actual requirement to have Dilettante for the PP), takes Ire Strike for the level 16, and then the daily stance they use the wizard’s at wills. The thing is it needs a whole party for it to work and even then Practiced Dilettante is still going to be useless.
>>
>>66278966
Rimetongue Caller: This requires you to be a Wizard and Speak the Primordial language. It also depends on your definition of Lazy if this even qualifies, since this is a summoning focused PP.
You plop down a big wall of ice that can damage people, but doesn’t have an attack roll. You also summon a creature that requires you, the player, to roll attack rolls for it, although your character isn’t technically doing the attacking there. In addition, pretty much all the abilities of this PP buff your summoning, but the only summon it actually gives you is the capstone daily. There might be some weird “I technically never attack directly” Summoner Wizard|Lazylord hybrid that likes this PP, but really it isn’t for the Lazylord, even if it qualifies by a very loose definition

Shadow Dancer: Requires a Teleport At-will or encounter, plus training in stealth, being an Eladrin gives you the teleport, and your background can give you stealth. One of the passives gives you combat advantage when you teleport, which is kinda useless, but overall I kinda like the PP. The reason this is just an honorable mention is Shadowy Tendrils. Shadowy Tendrils has you teleport and make a basic attack, and then teleport and daze the target hit by the attack. Unfortunately, the closest you can get to getting either Commander’s Strike or Direct the Strike to function as a basic attack is with Ninth Legion Student, and even then it is only on opportunity attacks for Direct the Strike, so unfortunately that’s a no go.
If you can convince your DM to let you use CS in place of a basic attack for the purposes of that power (teleporting behind someone is probably a fairly reasonable distraction that your ally could capitalize on to get an extra hit in), it is perfectly serviceable for an Eladrin Lazylord who wants some increased combat mobility, but by RAW, it’s a no go.
>>
>>66278978
Soul Binder: Requires you to multiclass into a arcane, divine, or shadow class, and worship Nerull
This one is wonky, one of the ones from a Dragon Magazine and one of those ones that justifies why DMs don’t want anything from Dragon based purely on how vaguely written it is. Like the Caller above, it is a summoning Paragon Path, so if this is lazy or not depends on your exact point of view. Unlike the Caller, however it at least is self-contained.
You get a Bound Soul (or 3, with the daily power), the power just indicates “When the soul makes an attack roll or a check, you make the roll using your statistics, not including any temporary bonuses or penalties.”, but it is a bit unclear if they benefit from things like your Melee training feat, and it further does not actually specify if they are armed and what damage they deal. There’s not really much you can do with them other than have them make Basic Melee attacks which, since they use your stats, they are probably not very good at.. You also get a minor action encounter power at level 12 to dismiss one and give all allies in 2 10 temp HP.
Ultimately, all you can really use them for is positioning shenanigans and providing flanking. Which fits the Warlord playstyle, but the fact that you are supposed to be attacking with them, and the lack of support for the lazylord playstyle delegates it to honorable mention.

Honestly, it’s quite possible I overlooked one either by mistake or my methods of tracking these down just wasn’t complete enough, but those are the ones that stood out for me.
>>
>>66269276
>Avenger|Wizard
This is the greatest of gishes
>Monk|Druid
When you want to play a Naruto ninja
>Psion|Warlord
Why would you ever lift a finger?
>>
>>66278932
Addendum: The Dark Watcher's Righteous Vigilance is probably useless to you unless you are forgoing using Ninth Legion Student and actually making an AoO yourself.
It's still on theme as an ability for a Lazylord, and the Paragon path still mostly contains abilities that are useful to you, I just missed it in my first pass.
>>
>>66274441
Tieflings and Dragonborn sucked until 4e. The primal power source finally gave me a reason to like those classes and the Monk being psionic seems like it should have been obvious. Of course my favorite change is making Paladins the shield of their deity, mostly because it opened up a space for the Avenger which is just the best.
>>
Dead Thread
Dead Game
>>
I want to run a Last War eberron campaign.
I have
>Eberron campaign guide
>Adventurer's guide to Eberron
>Eberron player's guide
>4e DMG Deluxe
>4e PHG Deluxe
>Monster Manual
Is this all that I should need or is there more? That seems like a lot of reading material, what's the minimum I need?
>>
>>66282349
>gen 1 math
Please no, use gen 3 math only.
>>
>>66277042
I see you all opted for "wait for later". Wise of you, I suppose.

Now, let's get back to it. As a quick aside, the average damage of a crit with Assassin's point IS equal to 16% of Demogorgon's HP, meaning that if you push for a crit with the power, and then hit with another attack, you're guaranteed to outdo the 5e rogue.

But how feasible is that? And is there another way?

Let's take two different approaches. First, let's make our life a little easier. INstead of opening with Assassin's Point, let's open with Feinting Flurry, to soften Big D up.

Feinting Flurry targets Will instead of AC, so it's already much more likely to hit, with a 15% crit chance, and a 55% chance to hit without critting

We won't use our sneak attack on this, since we intend to sink it in on the double effect.

So the damage is simply 5d6(brutal 1)+20, or an average of 40 on a hit, and (30+20+6d8, brutal 1) 80 on a crit. (weighted average damage of 34)

Then, a -5 to all Demogorgon's defenses. The assassin's point follow-up now has a much higher chance to hit.

The weighted average there become...((98*.55) + (.15*202) 84.2

That's an average of 118.2 damage from those two attacks, or roughly 9%. But, we are not necessarily done. Firstly, if EITHER of the proceeding attacks were a crit, the character is already entitled to another attack. And if neither of them were, then we can spend our re-rolls to try and MAKE it happen.

And, fun fact, with 3 re-rolls (one was lost to give us the first (or second, however you want to frame it) attack), the odds of us getting at least 1 18 or higher is 47.8% Between that, and the odds of the last roll being a hit, the average damage of the Assassin's point spikes up to 150.46

Leading us to our last attack, The Critical opportunity, a minor action attack. The math here gets funky, because, again, we only get the attack if we got a crit from either (or both) of our previous attacks.

(cont)
>>
>>66283103
Thus, there is a 44% chance we don't get to use it at all. But a 56 percent chance we DO.
With an average damage of 32 baseline, and 62 on a crit, it adds an weighted average of 15.06

Bringing the total round average to 199.52, 15.83% of Demogorgon's HP.
Compared to the 5e rogue's 16.08% of Demogorgon's HP.

0.25% under.

That's how much worse a partially-optimized 4e rogue is, on average, compared to the "best" a 5e PHB rogue can do.

Making this character an Elf instead of a halfling puts it ahead, since Elven accuracy gives us one more re-roll. Hell, technically, the odds of having an extra re-roll or two for the third attack probably raise it over, but I do not have the capabilities to do that math.

And if he crits with Assassin's point, he can use it again the next turn, EVERY ability he crits with refreshes. There's a non-zero chance (1 in 300 or so, without re-rolls, but still), that the character crits with all 3 attacks, meaning he spent NOTHING. And if he DOES spend them, he ALSO has Epic Trick, which will allow him to get Feinting Flurry and Assassin's Point back...as well as fucking Meditation of the blade! SHIT, That fucks up ALL OF MY MATH.

If he Meditations, Epic Tricks, and Meditations again, then his daggers are d8 brutal 1 weapons.

Again, I'm not a perfect optimizer, or a perfect tactician, but even with janky limitations, a non-optimized build, limited items, and a spree of other limitations, this build is roughly on par with the best that 5e can do.

(Technically, I need to re-do the math including Crossbow Expert as >>66276689 notes. On average, the 5e rogue gains...6.9 damage per round if he has advantage.)

then again, I also fucked up the math in favor of the 5e guy. I didn't notice until midway through >>66283103 that NONE of my weighted averages were technically right, since I forgot to remove the overlap between hit and crit, and started fixing it from that point on.
>>
>>66283373
And if you look at this argument, this comparison, you see the actual core of the problem.

The entirety of the 5e rogue's optimization fit in one post, and does NOTHING. You max one stat, and you attack every turn.

The 4e Rogue's functionally identical level of damage took coordination, picking the right order of abilities, and could be EASILY improved even further. I had options I wasn't using, combat tricks that were MEANINGLESS for this fight.

It's not that 5e monsters are THAT much meatier than 4e monsters. It's that you don't interact with them in a mechanically interesting way, so they FEEL longer. "My turn? I shoot Demogorgon again." "My turn? I move to hide and shoot Demogorgon"

You're rolling all these damage dice (the 5e Rogue is, on a crit, rolling literally 22 dice for the one attack. The 4e rogue rolls 21 dice over three attacks.)

It's the simplicity of the design working against itself. Like how bounded accuracy and suggesting players roll abilities means some character will start the game with their stat already maxed.
>>
>>66283373
Didn't bother to read it all but 5e Demogorgon has legendary resistance to pass the constitution save and avoid double damage.
>>
>>66283373
Crossbow Expert's big draw is having another opportunity to sneak attack in case you miss the first, while also being able to hit twice unlike when taking the hide action.
>>
File: monster math.png (56 KB, 765x211)
56 KB
56 KB PNG
>>66282349
You should read:
>Eberron campaign guide
>Adventurer's guide to Eberron (not exactly necessary, but it's just 66 pages of not that much text)
>Eberron player's guide
>4e DMG Deluxe (maybe DMG2 also, but not required)
>Rules Compendium(includes all the up-to-date rules in a clean format, great for reference after reading)
Like Anon said use gen 3 math(MM3, Monster Vaults).
You should find all the options in the game from one of the compendiums(linked in the OP) and for player options you can see them in the CBLoader enhanced Character Builder application(also in the OP), so I wouldn't worry about reading anything for options.
>>
File: image.jpg (133 KB, 640x396)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
I explain gaining XP and growing in power in my setting as the PCs gaining and accruing 'Gahum', that is spiritual power, by experiencing new things, killing things, and gaining heads. The major thing is that: the PCs have to be DOING something of their own volition. Not just someone who is reacting or not making their mark upon the world.

Characters are also somewhat supernaturally powerful. Anyone that has a great amount of Gahum (ie. Level 1 Characters) can use their font of spiritual power to renew themselves and heal their wounds. ie. Healing Surges and Short Rests.

In the setting's history, the Patron Spirit of Warriors anointed four veritable warriors with monikers: Striker, Defender, Leader, and Controller.

Do any of you guys have cool ways to explain usually unattached game mechanics in-setting?
>>
File: Raven Queen.png (3.78 MB, 1909x1808)
3.78 MB
3.78 MB PNG
>>66285267
I'm running my game in my version of the Nentir Vale and the way I explain the PCs gaining power so fast(a level every two or three sessions) is that they have a divine spark within them given to them by a deity whose divine sparks are unique in that they lead to demigods and minor deities more easily than the sparks of other gods and that it enhances their original power source rather than becoming their main one.
I mainly went with this to justify why they were only level 1 before the campaign and still had life experience.

Later on the players will get chances to discard the spark for something else which justifies their rapid ascension. If they keep the spark they go along the route of the Demigod epic destiny or if they pick up another epic destiny that will dictate what they're getting their powers from.
>>
>>66274712
I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm digging all this awe-inspiring number autism, but I've never seen a 5e game without magic items. There's no "treadmill" but the monster math still assumes they exist (hello, all the damn monsters with resistance to non-magic weapons). Additionally, newly created high level characters in a "standard campaign" or "high fantasy campaign" start with magical items, and the standard setting is high fantasy, all according to the DMG.

Also, Adventurers' League is the "quintessential 5e experience" WOTC aims to market, and it's fairly heavy on magic items too. Likewise, feats in 5e are optional, and so is point buy, but the games that ban feats or roll stats (let alone do both!) might as well not exist.

In the end though a +3 crossbow probably wouldn't change much, I suppose.
>>
>>66281714
I wouldn't mind talking about other 4e-adjacent systems.
>>
>>66285511
what if they go with Hordemaster?
>>
File: Nerull.jpg (175 KB, 681x1120)
175 KB
175 KB JPG
>>66286774
I'd have to figure it out with the player personally when it came up, for example I'd bring up distributing the spark to your followers but I'm not against going through epic tier with a character who completely discards the spark along with every other magical way of becoming immortal and just wants to be a really radical guy like the Hordemaster(s).

I'm expecting none of the PCs to become Demigods at the end of the day because they're rebellious enough to go against it on principle as far as I've seen, but it's still a running theme until epic tier because of plot reasons unless the PCs completely bin what I have set up and want to bend the world over their knee using methods I haven't even dreamed of, which is highly possible.
>>
>>66284845
cbloader has been having issues recently. not sure if its been fixed since last reported but figured id give a heads up.
>>
What do people think about having 17 in your primary and 15 in your secondary (Both preracial mods)
You come out ahead of a 16/16 or 14/18 split on half the levels (including the final three), but have the worst of both worlds on the other half of levels
>>
>>66286539
Then anyone have any thoughts on Heroes Against Darkness? Seems like a cool take on 4e.

http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/Heroes_Against_Darkness-Game_Rules-Plain.pdf
>>
>>66287142
You end up exactly the same place at lvl 4, and until then you suck compared to the other options.
>>
>>66286304
Oh, I know they're not truly optional. But they're also not counted in the PHB, which was part of the limitation of the exercise. (Which was mostly to save me time, and it STILL took me all damn day to make those calls and run all that math. Building an epic level 4e character is a SHIT-TON of choices.)


>>66284100
Another reason I wanted to limit the options. I KNEW about legendary resistance, and I still forgot to apply it.

That's actually very rough for the 5e rogue. It drops his weighted average from 79.8 to 63 (or 12%)

>>66284134
Which he then more than recoups, to my surprise, through the use of Crossbow Expert wielded properly. A fucking addition of 22.5 average DPR in the surprise round. (That "if this hits, but the first attack missed, so this one gets the sneak attack is a HUGE boost to the DPR.)

Then again, as noted, if you go by this chart >>66284845
Demogorgon in 4e has...7% higher HP than he should.

His defenses are roughly in the right sport, however. They'r actually slightly low. Only one of the three is the recommended 46, the other two are 43 and 44.
>>
>>66275774
I think it's an interesting idea.


I think the names could be changed a little

Tome of Conflict (half-orcs, Warforged, Bladelings*, Hobgoblins)
Tome of Light and Shadow (Devas, Revenants, Vrylokas, Shades, Shadar-Kai)
Tome of the Wilds (Wilden, Satyrs, Pixies, Gnolls, Lizardfolk, Shifters, Goliaths, Gnomes)
Tome of the Mind (Gith, Shardminds, Kalahstar?)

The biggest issue I see is that Primal is snatching up a lot of the races, so maybe some of them (looking at you, Gnolls and Lizardfolk) would be better moved to, say, Martial, and that there's not a lot of races for Psionic.
>>
If someone were to remake 4e with the 5e/3.5 OGL, what would happen and how hard would it be?
>>
>>66289257
That's a somewhat confusing question.

If I may clarify, I think you're asking "How difficult would it be to get 4e moved to the OGL rather than the GSL, and what would be the result?"

And the answer to that is...fairly hard, I would guess. You'd need to get Wizards to change a previously established, probably legally acted upon license, for little benefit to themselves. Barring that, you'd need to...I guess straight up BUY 4th edition off of them, which probably wouldn't be cheap or easy either. You could conceivably push them, with enough money, to do something like "June 7th or whatever, 2023, in honor of the 15th anniversary of D&D 4e's release, we're moving the system to the OGL!"

The result would be that there'd be a potential uptick in independent or third party publishers revisiting the system, or making their own tweaks for it, and those products could tie more closely to canon 4e products.

Because there's not really a way to 'remake 4e with the OGL' in a mechanical/physical sense: the fact that it's NOT OGL precludes you reproducing the mechanics.
>>
>>66287938
>page 3
>uses dice instead of die
DEAD TO ME.

I do think the first couple pages have some interesting content in the sense of being very plain-spoken and direct in laying out their design goals and principles.
>>
>>66290474
Mechanics are not copyrighted. Your card game can have a mechanic where you tilt the card to mean something. You just can't call it "tap".

4e OGL involves using OGL to rewrite terms. Fighter is OGL. But Martial Power, not. But call it Military Prowess (Arcane Prowess, Wyld Prowess...) and you're good to go.

The problem is: 4e is already available on the internet. Ergo, else you modify it, or it will be a lot of work for little return.
>>
>>66245910
This is not an argument.
>>
>>66291082

Well, that's where things get complicated.

Mechanics aren't copywritten, correct, but the explanation of them and arrangement of them can be.

So, a 4e "OGL remake" would have to completely rewrite the entire process of making a character in order to include it in the text.

You'd have to structure your powers differently, your monster stats would have to be laid out differently, your character creation process would have to be distinct from 4e's, etc etc.
>>
>>66292249
Yes, unless it is in the OGL as well.
And that's the main problem. Rewriting everything to fit the OGL when the pdf are readily available?

Either an autist creates a Bible with everything available already errata'd (useless since there is the CBLoader)
Or it modifies it enough to justify all the work and hours spend (but will face an uphill battle to gather attention and players since anyone who likes 4e mostly will keep playing 4e)

It's a lose-lose scenario.
>>
Is there a good repository for premade adventures? I want to see how they set things up.
>>
>>66295537
There's the trove that has the modules: https://thetrove.net/Books/Dungeons%20and%20Dragons/AD&D%204th%20Edition/Modules/

There's also Living Forgotten Realms:
http://www.livingforgottenrealms.com/
>>
File: i love you mushroom.png (349 KB, 915x811)
349 KB
349 KB PNG
>>66295775
Thanks.
>>
>>66292249
>>66293460
Yeah I meant remaking 4e mechanics within the OGL.

I mostly wanted to publish my own setting book for it but 4e GSL is shit, so I was wondering if I could remake 4e mechanics within the OGL, making it different enough to fit within the OGL, and then similar enough so that other 4e materials can be used for it (if I can't do that, then some conversion texts).

But then again that all sounds like way too much work for no gain, so whatever.
>>
File: 600px-Bane.jpg (91 KB, 600x600)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
What would happen if I outright banned the Arcane Power Source from my setting (a la, Dark Sun banning Divine). Thanks to the wealth of options, I'm sure players wouldn't mind it right?

Although of course, some Arcane classes would be allowed if the character really wants it. I'll add it into a sidebar or whatnot.

On a completely unrelated question, my players swear an oath under the Iron General, Bane. Seeing Bane is an Evil Deity in the Nentir Vale cosmology, what things could this entail?
>>
File: Weapon Types.png (78 KB, 384x425)
78 KB
78 KB PNG
Weird question, can anyone tell me where the stout weapon property is actually listed in the books?
Funin says "Adventurer's Vault" and even says some weapons from AV have stout, but looking in the AV I only see Brutal and Defensive (pic related), and none of the listed weapons from AV have Stout.
It does have the MAGIC item enchantment stout, but not the weapon property.

I mostly am just confused about it, but also want to be able to point a GM to it in case it ever actually matters
>>
>>66296552
Bane is pretty fabulous.
>>
File: stout.png (6 KB, 808x82)
6 KB
6 KB PNG
>>66297068
Strange. It should be in AV, although looking at the other compendium it has no page listed.
>>
>>66297286
So apparently the whole property was added purely in Errata. That's kinda weird, but whatever, you can find the property in print in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting book.

My only real remaining point of confusion is why Spiked Chain Training also gives the double weapon spiked chain version the Stout property according to Funin and the offline compendium, but the dragon magazine annual makes no mention of that.
They both mention the change was made on 11/23/2009, but I can't actually find that anywhere in an errata document.
It also strikes me as odd that they would bother to errata a Dragon Magazine feat at all but I guess it was in the annual
>>
>>66296552
>What would happen if I outright banned the Arcane power source?

Relatively little. The only thing I can think of offhand MAYBE needing some tweaking is that a lot of magic items aren't very well connected to primal or divine sources, so coming up with an explanation for how martials make magic items/adding some details about like, Forge Clerics and Druid Woodcrafters to justify it might be wise.

>My players swear an oath under Bane
That's a little trickier. It depends, I guess, on what KIND of oath it is.


Like, if they've sworn to follow Bane, or Aid some of Bane's forces, they're going to find themselves in morally questionable situations.

If they just, like, made an oath in Bane's name, that's pretty normal by Nentir Vale cosmology. The only things I'd maybe explore with it is the idea that Bane believes that Might makes Right, so the oath might not be as binding as the party thinks, if the other guys are strong enough to screw them over. (in a sort of "I didn't betray anyone if everyone who I betrayed is dead." sort of logic.)

On the other hand, if one side screws the other over and fails to eliminate them, THEN Bane might send some extradimensional knee-breakers over to even the scales.

It'd be a interesting point: if the other side screws over the players and leaves them for dead, but the players survive, like, a Devil shows up to help them. "No no, no trick at all. An oath was sworn. The Iron General heard it. And you're alive. That means they...to use the common expression, "fucked up." I'm here to help you deliver recompense, and the punishment for a broken oath."
>>
>>66239869
>Have fun playing a game where you start out with 25x the hp of your enemies
Most monsters have signifigantly higher HP than the average PC, actually. They aren't built on the same chassis, and part of that chassis is higher HP.
>and a literal sling sling from a child can kill one. Hell, just line up 20 children and have them throw rocks at your level 10 minion and watch as one nat20 hit kills it instantly.
That's not how HP work or what they represent at all. If something is not capable of injuring someone badly enough to take a normal person out of a fight with one properly telling blow IRL, it shouldn't be represented with HP damage at all in the first place. A the annoyance/distraction of a child throwing a rock could be represented a number of ways in 4e, but HP damage wouldn't be one of them. However, your idea of a group of 20 children throwing rocks together could work as a swarm monster.
>>
>>66297417
it's in the mass errata document. Funin.Space, and the sources in general, are a bit iffy. The actual rules for Eldritch Strike as an alternative to Eldritch Blast don't actually exist anywhere but the builder and Funin.Space (even the Errate PDF) despite both claiming it came from something.
>>
>>66297766

>most monsters have significantly higher HP than the average PC, actually.

That depends on what you mean by "significantly". Monsters are essentially built on a over-tuned defender chassis, somewhere around 125-135% of a fighter's HP of equivalent level. You can see this in the earlier orc vs fighter math, and it broadly holds true: a standard (ie, non minion, swarm, elite, or solo) monster has the same or a little more health than a fighter's max HP + healing surge.

Which means they'll have about 40% more HP than a 'normal' character
>>
>>66297783
>>66297926
So I found both of these in the huge Complied Update Document. ( https://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateCompiled.pdf )

It seems like they were both shit out in obscure one off updates, but they both exist.
>>
>>66298002
Meant for >>66297783 and >>66297417
Eldritch Strike is on page 127 Spiked Chain Training is on page 32
>>
So bois, how /4e/ is Star Wars Saga Edition? I've heard that it's fairly similar to 4e.
>>
>>66298113
Skills are pretty much identical, you got three static defenses rather than saving throws. but I'd say it's more like 3 than 4 personally. multiclassing and prestige classes are very much 3. There is the second wind ability too. Force powers are encounter abilities.
I'm a little fuzzy on the details because I haven't played saga edition in a long time.
>>
>>66298113
SW Saga is somewhere from 80% to 90% bog-standard 3.PF OGLd20, with a hint of 4e.

If anything, it's one of the things that warped people's perceptions of what 4e was going to be, since it was very much heralded as a sort of soft-playtest for 4th, and was itself a fully OGLd20 game, while 4th very much was not.

Personally I was dissappointed when SW-Saga came out for the same reason, since I'd been hoping for almost a decade that D&D would finally branch out from the same OGLd20 fair that had dominated the borders gaming section, and I thought SW Saga was an indication that it was going to be just another incremental adaptation of 3rd edition (which, apparently, is what most people wanted.)
>>
What’s your favorite class for flavor reasons in 4e?
>>
>>66298475

I am a great fan of the shaman conceptually. I wish it had a less fragile chassis (e.g. hide armor and a light shield at the very least, ala the bard and the warlord), Wisdom/Charisma in place of Wisdom/Constitution (with Constitution or Charisma for AC and Fortitude), actual ritual casting (druids have ritual casting but not shamans?), and a more in-depth spirit-talking ability rather than just Speak with Spirits (or failing that, three Primal Attunements from Heroes of the Feywild).

The shaman at-will powers (aside from Spirit Infusion), and really, shaman powers in general, could have stood to be higher-powered.

>>66285267

I generally run 4e under what amounts to wuxia logic, which, by the way, is something proposed in page 137 of the Dungeon Master's Guide 1. Essentially, all player characters and all but the lowliest of NPCs and monsters are using outright magical and supernatural abilities.

The martial power source may be subtle and seldom flashy, and it may be attained through worldly training and battlefield experience rather than esoteric meditations and spiritual studies, but it is every bit as magical as the psionic power source. In this sense, martial and psionic are two closely related power sources with a blurry line betwixt them; they revolve around cultivating internal energies, but their methods of attaining that power are quite different. In fact, much as certain battleminds may not be consciously aware that they are cultivating psionic magic, so too are some assassins (executioner), barbarians (berserker), bards (skald), fighters, paladins, rangers, rogues, and warlords unaware that they are cultivating martial magic.

Encounter and daily powers represent techniques whose usage depletes specific wells of mystical power. These wells take time and rest to replenish.
>>
>>66298720

Yes, this means that martial powers do appear on Arcana checks to detect magic. Of course, so do the great majority of monster powers, which helps reduce the ambiguities caused by monster powers lacking power source keywords.

I treat all hit point damage as near-misses and grazes that are performed awkwardly and desperately, thereby draining stamina. Temporary hit points, then, represent extra wells of stamina to draw upon. Attacks that bloody a creature leave a nasty wound, like a huge gash across the torso or a cracked ribcage. Attacks that drop a creature to 0 hit points, short of deliberately nonlethal knockouts, are mortal wounds, like a slashed-open throat, disembowelment, or a completely crushed ribcage.

This is where healing surges come in. They represent actual bursts of personal regeneration fueled by a character's power source(s), be it the cultivated internal energies of martial or psionic magic, Astral Sea energies coursing through a divine character's soul, primal spirits mending wounds, or what-have-you. (This healing also repairs scars and even clothing and equipment.) It takes effort to jump-start these surges, like a second wind or a short rest, but some characters possess powers with which to rapidly active these magical healing processes. A druid (sentinel) or a shaman sends forth little spirits to prime these regenerative bursts, whereas an ardent, a bard, or a warlord's words are laced with such sublime magical power that they alone are sufficient to spur dormant the healing energies.

Yes, this is embracing the "everyone is a caster in 4e" meme and running with it. It helps that there is very little antimagic in 4e, short of the trashier elements of third-party settings like Zeitgeist.
>>
Apparently inspired by 4e, has anyone tried out Unity?
>>
>>66298475
Every Primal Class is my favorite, as I love the idea of Primal Classes in general. Currently, I love both the mechanics and fluff of a Warden. A Primal Defender that manifests Nature's Might in a bunch of different aspects. I love that fluff.

Another favorite is definitely the Avenger. Being a Sword of the Gods is such a cool concept, and I like how they got to roll their attacks twice.
>>
>>66298720
>Encounter and daily powers represent techniques whose usage depletes specific wells of mystical power. These wells take time and rest to replenish.

This is actually close to how I model my powers as well. Each Martial calls upon their Gahum reserves to execute powerful techniques. Warlords infuse (either knowingly or unknowingly) their commands and shout with health-rejuvenating vigor that magically does suture wounds and enhances the Heroes' combat capabilities.

>I treat all hit point damage as near-misses and grazes that are performed awkwardly and desperately, thereby draining stamina. Temporary hit points, then, represent extra wells of stamina to draw upon. Attacks that bloody a creature leave a nasty wound, like a huge gash across the torso or a cracked ribcage. Attacks that drop a creature to 0 hit points, short of deliberately nonlethal knockouts, are mortal wounds, like a slashed-open throat, disembowelment, or a completely crushed ribcage.

I do the same as well, although major wounds are also visible every time a character is Bloodied.
>>
>>66298475
Wizard is my favorite in every edition, but in 4e specifically? The Swordmage. This took the flavor and feel of my AD&D Fighter/Mage and made it WORK in a way that neither 3e nor 5e can do, and without needing to jump through hoops like I had to in AD&D.
>>
>>66239869
You don't know how to use minions.
A minion to a level 15 party is not a minion to a level 1 party.
>>
>>66287938

I do not like the design goals and principles behind Heroes Against Darkness. It is as if an OSR game with plenty of OSR sensibilities decided that it suddenly wanted 4e level scaling and powers. It is an unsatisfying mix of both worlds, and the build-your-own-power subsystem is a heavy strike against actual class roles. The ability score system is also very primitive, with Intelligence and Charisma being relegated to noncombat uses for the most part.
>>
>>66298475
Avenger and Barbarian
>>
>>66298787

Unity is a somewhat serviceable RPG. The grid variant in the appendix is definitely better for a tabletop than the default range bands.

I exchanged a long line of email messages with the author. At the moment, past the book's publication, the entire team currently curating the Unity RPG is just a single person. There are some strange design choices behind Unity.

It is deliberately designed to accommodate only one type of campaign structure: the kind wherein the PCs set off into the wilderness, slowly deplete resources, and then run back to the safety of civilization. The resource system simply cannot handle, for example, an urban adventure wherein the PCs stick around in civilization, or an adventure that goes from town to town.

A few options deliberately wound up underpowered because the developers either could not figure out what to do with them before the release date, or had no room in the page to fill out a better version. For example, Presence (i.e. Charisma) is acknowledged as weak because the developers could not figure out how to make it better, and Thrill of Battle was thrown as a bone to players who liked to gamble, but they failed to make it strong enough. Likewise, the mystic's Scholar was supposed to do a little more, but they could not fit it onto the page.

The one design choice that struck me as the strangest was that the driftwalker (i.e. warlock) was deliberately designed to be front-loaded and overpowered at the lower levels, mostly through Demonic Constitution. This was to simulate the allure of power from dark pacts. Even if the game lacks a multiclassing mechanic, I think that this is fairly cancerous design that flies in the face of inter-class balance.

There are a few more points we had exchanged via emails, but they are a bit long to go into.

If you are fine with playing the *one* kind of campaign that Unity is designed to handle, and you can accept the weird design choices and the book's rushed mechanics, then play it.
>>
>>66298861
>everyone is a caster in 4e
>>
>>66287142

The 17/15 method is ideal from levels 4 through 7, from levels 11 through 13, from levels 18 through 20, and from levels 24 through 27.

It is less optimal from levels 1 through 3, from levels 8 through 10, from levels 14 through 17, from levels 21 through 23, and from levels 28 to 30.

There is nothing wrong with the 17/15 method. It all depends on your character's current level. For example, if you are playing a one-off mini-campaign intended to go only from levels 4 through 7, then you may as well use the 17/15 method.

It does, of course, benefit Dexterity primary or Intelligence primary characters more than others, given how much those ability scores can contribute. The 17/15 method is worst for characters who wear light armor and need their secondary ability score for AC, since the 17/15 method can cause them to lag behind in AC at certain level ranges.
>>
>>66298787
>Gridless combat
why is it that so many "4e inspired" games have this when the positioning seems so important in 4e.
>>
>>66282349

You might want to try looking at the two generation 3 math Eberron adventures from Dungeon Magazine: "Dark Lantern" from Dungeon #214, and "Dead for a Spell" from Dungeon #206. Both also contain plenty of Eberron creatures with generation 3 math, preventing you from having to convert them yourselves.

>>66295537

Have a look at the Dungeon Magazine adventure indices in issues #200 and #221. You will want to stick to generation 3 math adventures, however, which are from issues #180 onwards. (No, #179 is not actually a generation 3 issue, even though the Faarlung's Algorithm monster blocks use the new format.)

I would also have a look at the Slaying Stone and Reavers of Harkenwold as fine introductory adventures. I am also a great fan of two of Daniel Marthaler's adventures, the Gauntlgrym Gambit and That Which Never Sleeps, both set in Neverwinter and the low heroic tier. The enemy selection is not particularly inspired, but the encounters in these adventures make splendid use of interesting terrain. The Runecutter's Ruin, by Logan Bonner, also has some interesting terrain effects, such as a battle wherein a sealed primordial constantly claws away at the earth, gushing forth flame and geysers.

Madness at Gardmore Abbey is generally acknowledged as the most well-constructed, full-length 4e adventure.

If you want an adventure path with generation 3 math, I would look into Zeitgeist, a third-party product. That is an entirely different rabbit hole with its own nuances, however.

>>66296552

Page 9 of the Dark Sun Campaign Setting has a sidebar covering divine characters in Athas. You say you are doing the same for arcane, so there are few issues there.

From a mechanical perspective, you obviously shut out certain builds, but nothing quite falls apart.

>>66297783

Eldritch Strike and a few other powers originally came from the 4e power cards.
>>
>>66299011

Presumably because they like certain aspects of 4e, but not the grid. Unity uses range bands by default, which I find as clunky as can be, but the appendix contains a grid-based variant.
>>
File: uhhh.png (75 KB, 885x317)
75 KB
75 KB PNG
I'm very confused by this. Is this essentially saying that DC checks scale with your character?
>>
>>66299233

That is a heavily outdated table. For all purposes related to skills, skill checks, skill DCs, and skill challenges, you want to ignore every rules source except for pages 124 to 163 of the Rules Compendium.

Likewise, the compiled errata document should contain an updated table for damage values by level, which should replace the damage values in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

As for your inquiry, purely in terms of RAW, yes. They do scale with the creature's level, as opposed to the encounter's level, unless otherwise noted.

Rules Compendium, page 126:
>The skill entries in this chapter give sample DCs for common uses of the skills. Some DCs are fixed, whereas others scale with level. A fixed DC represents a task that gets easier as an adventurer gains levels. By the time an adventurer reaches the epic tier, certain tasks become trivial. In contrast, a DC that scales with level represents a task that remains a little challenging throughout an adventurer's career.

>The Dungeon Master can use the suggested DC for a task or set one using the Difficulty Class by Level table. The table provides DCs at each level for three categories of difficulty: easy, moderate, and hard. When choosing a DC from the table, the Dungeon Master should use the level of the creature performing the check, unless otherwise noted.

Rules Compendium, pages 130 to 131:
>Typical Uses and DCs: A skill description describes typical ways that the skill is used. Each description provides sample DCs and specifies the kind of action that is usually required to use the skill. Some of the descriptions specify the consequences of success or failure.

>If a skill provides a sample DC that says "easy," "moderate," or "hard," use the DC on the Difficulty Class by Level table that corresponds to the creature's level.

In other words, yes, by RAW, using Acrobatics to escape from bindings or using Arcana to detect magic scales to the performing creature's level. Some tasks key off other values.
>>
>>66299374

Even by RAW, however, some tasks key off other values, like Bluff vs. Insight, Perception vs. Stealth, Intimidate vs. Will (one of the single most broken facets of 4e's skills due to how Intimidate can force a surrender from a bloodied creature, which can be optimized crazily), and Insight vs. studied creature's level.

That said, a fairly common reinterpretation and revision is for skill checks that would normally scale to the character's level to instead scale to the encounter's level, or to a single important enemy creature's level.

4e's skill system mostly falls apart when skill substitutions come into play. It is possible to have a level 14 wizard, for example, with Arcana +41, beating a level 30 hard DC on a natural 1. They can also use Arcana in place of Bluff, Diplomacy, Endurance, Insight, Intimidate, Perception, and Stealth, either at-will or very frequently. Additionally, this character has *7 more Arcana* then Vecna the lich-wizard-god, who has only Arcana +34. Lolth has Bluff +34, Diplomacy +34, and Intimidate +34, but this character can manage an effective Bluff +41, Diplomacy +41, or Intimidate +41, shooting up to +43 when dealing with aberrant, elemental, fey, immortal, and shadow creatures. Torog has Endurance +31, but this character has an effective Endurance +41, a full 10 higher.

Skill substitutions are extremely cancerous and should have never gone into 4e.
>>
File: confused gina.jpg (56 KB, 469x470)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>66299374
The whole logic behind scaling DCs seems kind of backwards and arbitrary in the end. Like as if its going out of its way to be "balanced" rather than logical. Could I just simply apply a fixed DC to everything and be done with it instead?
>>
>>66299431

In practice, yes, you could, and that is what virtually all premade adventures do, even from Wizards of the Coast themselves.

The skill check DC guidelines are still helpful for other tasks. They generally let you know what a level X character considers an easy DC, a medium DC, or a hard DC. They help you set DCs for skills like Insight (where it is not contested by Bluff) or Diplomacy. They have myriad valid uses.
>>
>>66299479
>They generally let you know what a level X character considers an easy DC, a medium DC, or a hard DC.
See, I'm fine with that. Which is why I find it so odd that it's defined as "What your DC value would be if you perform a task at [X] level" rather than guidelines to the general competency of a character per level.
>>
>>66299633

It is simply sloppy writing. Simply replacing the phrase "corresponds to the creature's level" with "corresponds to the task's level" would have gone a long way in reducing confusion.
>>
File: Human battlemind.jpg (200 KB, 599x1082)
200 KB
200 KB JPG
>>66298475
Battlemind, a Fighter with a big enough ego they can replicate magic with it is too anime for me not to love.
>>
>>66299731
I agree with this, and do it this way explicitly.

>>66298934
My setting lends itself well to it, so might as well.


It helps that it is somewhat similar to Exalted, wherein all the Exalted technically are casters.

>>66298920
That's unfortunate. Not many things can live up to 4e standards it seems. Which seems to be expected, considering the budget and playtesting and research brought into 4e.
>>
So are there any big differences class-wise/mechanics-wise/system expectations wise between the tiers: Heroic, Paragon, and Epic?
>>
>>66300424

I have mentioned it before in this thread. 4e's optimization paradigms are heavily segregated by tier. The kinds of builds one would recommend for a heroic game are different from those for a paragon game, let alone an epic game. Paragon is where optimization gets decidedly crazier, and the epic tier turns high optimization into full overdrive.

Level 11 is the magical number in which a vast number of builds come online due to paragon feats and paragon paths. Level 21 is much the same, due to epic feats and epic destinies.

Relative class balance shifts around significantly at level 11, then once more at level 21.

For example, come the paragon tier, the warlord establishes dominance over the vast majority of other leader builds with the Combat Commander paragon feat, which ensures that the party will almost always win initiative. Similarly, level 11 opens up the Champion of Order paragon path, which lets a handful of builds completely shut down a single enemy once per encounter using Certain Justice (and potentially Bracers of Mental Might). Level 11 also opens up Polearm Gamble, Draconic Arrogance, Versatile Master, and many other paragon feats that utterly define builds. Level 11 offers Lasting Frost, whereas level 16 opens up the infamous Morninglord radiant vulnerability.
>>
MARTIALS! DESTROY THE WEAK LIBRARIAN ARCANES! PROVE THAT STEEL IS STRONGER THAN DIVINE FAITH! CUT THE BRANCHES OF THE PRIMALS! PROVE THAT MATTER IS BETTER THAN PSIONIC MIND!
>>
File: 1452215392884.png (22 KB, 520x390)
22 KB
22 KB PNG
>>66301304
Elemental and shadow are okay though, not just shitty afterthought power sources, r-r-right?
>>
>>66301304

It is said here as a joke, but there is a sliver of truth to this. Speaking in terms of power sources as a whole, martial is generally the single strongest power source in 4e in terms of raw combat power and flexibility.

Fighters are remarkable defenders (roughly on par with paladins), even if the defender role is not particularly noteworthy. Rangers demolish enemies with their multiattacks, and rogues are no too shabby as strikers either. Warlords, be they pure-classed or hybrid, enable attacks like no other leaders, and Combat Commander at paragon almost always ensures that the party wins initiative.
>>
>>66301616
NAY! THE FLACCID AND UNSTABLE ELEMENTAL TREMBLES BENEATH SWORD AND SHIELD, STEEL AND MAIL, NONE CAN MELT OUR BULWARK!

AND SHADOW? WHAT DOES SHADOW HAVE AGAINST THE BURNING IRE OF MARTIAL PROWESS?! NO AMOUNT OF SHARP EDGE NOR CHOKING GLOOM CAN OBFUSCATE THE GLORY OF MILITARY MIGHT!
>>
>>66298475
It's Warlord, the flavor of just being the guy who has all the plans and keeps people in the fight long after they should have gone down through grit and determination, is half the reason it is my favorite class in the first place.
>>
>>66298974
Right, those were my general thoughts although I forgot that 4e got the +1 to two ability scores at levels ending in 4/8 instead of multiples of 4 like where other editions got their +1 to one so that messed up my estimations of the higher levels (mainly because every 4 levels would get you 7 of those +1 to two instead of 6 which would have you come out ahead at the end)
>>
>>66299011
I would personally guess that it's an attempt to correct for the market. Despite, as many note, the fact that there is a definite implicit grid in 3.X, and that failing to use a real one will actually imbalance the game FURTHER in the favor of casters, many tables did, for a lack of desire to spend $25 on a reusable grid.

Thus, many complained when 4e came out that it required a grid, and these games are presumably attempting to bridge the gape between the two markets: using some design principles from 4e, while allowing groups to forego mats.

Alternatively, they're seeking to reduce the complexity of 4e, and saw combat positioning as a place they could do so.
>>
>>66299233
Yes and no.

What it is saying is that "these are the DCs that you should present characters with at this level".

It is not, for instance, saying that a poorly locked simple wooden door has an open DC of 25 because your characters are 28th level when they encounter it. It is saying that, for characters of 28th level, opening a DC 25 door is easy, and that you should not require a roll for anything under that, as it is functionally a waste of time.

Thus, if you have the party come across a challenge, and do not know what DC to give it, it should match these DCs, or, if it fails to do so, it is not an appropriate challenge.

>>66299431
Personally, I like the idea of the 4e approach more, but I do wish there had been a page or two of examples tied to the DCs, to give DMs a better understanding.

Like, Do a page chart of what, say, DC 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 'look like' for the respective abilities/skills, so the numbers have a broader context. I mean, sure, you have to come up with...119 examples, but a lot of them are pretty easy. (Athletics already has the "number of squares jumped" math, for instance.)
>>
>>66301681
>tfw no real martial controller to put arcane classes in their place once and for all
>>
>>66304867

There is the ranger (hunter), though it is half-primal, and it is not that outstanding as an actual controller. It is an Essentials basic attacker and nothing more.

An all-martial party can most definitely make do without a controller if only due to raw striking power, and an archer ranger can pop spread-out minions.
>>
>>66304867
Honestly fighter has enough support to make a solid controller. With feats like polearm momentum and mark of storm combined with the rushing cleats items you can knock enemies prone all over the place. Forced movement and proning is one of the most effective control options in the game played well. Course wizard is still incredible comparatively, but fighter's do well.
>>
>>66305233
>mark of storm
Get out.
>>
>>66301681
>even if the defender role is not particularly noteworthy
In your opinion, what would need to be done to change that? How do you make defenders more important in a game like 4e?
>>
>>66307787

It is tough to say how to "fix" defenders.

There are some impressive defender builds out there, like Brutal Barrage battleminds and Champion of Order paladins, but the trick is that they rely less on marks and defender class features and more on raw powers to become strikers or hard-controllers. I suppose you could make the argument that a Champion of Order paladin is still reliant on defender class features, but there is nothing defender-like or catch-22 about Certain Justice: It is just a raw debuff no matter what the enemy does, making it more akin to hard control.

So I do not know. It is very build-dependent.

If nothing else, I would say to improve defender NADs, which are on the mediocre side compared to, say, their AC. There is also the possibility of improving their stickiness and mark punishment against paragon- and epic-tier enemies, but those require more extensive repairs, and it might overpower builds like Certain Justice abusers.
>>
If I wanted to make a character that wielded a sword in one hand and a spear/polearm in the other, would that open up anything interesting mechanically? I can already see a lot of problems with having to support two weapon types, but are there any niche feats or paragon paths that support that kind of gimmick?

I've been really digging the sword and banner look recently and it'd be neat to somehow make that into a character.
>>
>>66308433
2hu, lend me your expertise on these concepts as how to fix Defenders.

First, on the Martial side, you usually complains at at higher levels the stickiness wears off. Too much teleportation, flight and ways to avoid being close to a defender.
My take would be including a throwing weapon.
The other is refluffing the teleportation of the Swordsage on a Dragoon jump mechanic.

So, we could have a Dwarf (or Human) Fighter making a ranged attack with a throwing axe (or dagger), or an Elf Fighter literally jumping into the fray when an ally is attacked by a marked creature. Maybe use a chain much like a Get Over Here Scorpion.

Dumb idea?
>>
>>66310366
My first thought was to just build in anti-advanced movement techniques into defender punishment mechanisms.

So, like
Combat Superiority: You gain a bonus to opportunity attacks equal to your wisdom modifier. An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack. If it still has actions remaining, it can use them to resume moving.
At level 21, any non-shifting movement from an adjacent enemy provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

Or

Combat Challenge: as normal, adding

Starting at 11th level, you may spend a minor action to impose your mark on a single target you can see. You may make a melee basic attack against the target as if you were adjacent to it, if it attacks an opponent that isn't you.

It's not a very clean ability, but it does let them point it out.

I'm also considering a scaling of mark penalties. (Like, it's -2 at heroic tier, -3 at Paragon, -4 at Epic, or something.)

But these are very much just IDEAS, not anything truly established.
>>
>>66310207
That concept sounds like it might work a lot better as a mechanically re-fluffed monk. I know they have some rediculousness when stacking the benefits of multiple feats that talk about "wielding" certain weapons.
>>
>>66310207
potentially some fun options in the Martial Power 2 book with the weapon style feats being able to take advantage of multiples although maybe not at one time.
>>
>>66305474
It's such a fun feat though! Sliding enemies a dozen squares is super enjoyable. Plus with refluffing being so easy you don't *have* to have it be a real dragonmark. Honestly I don't even really know what a dragonmark is.
>>
>>66312746
>I don't...know what a Dragonmark is.

Dragonmarks, in the original Eberron cosmology, are a series of magical birthmarks that marked the bearer as being A: part of a distinct bloodline, and B, somehow connected to the Draconic Prophecy (the grand foretelling of the path(s) existence can/will take, writ in the beginning by the confrontation of the three great dragons that form existence). A given mark gave specific magical abilities that aided you in a particular field.The Mark of Shadow, pretty logically, made one adept at manipulating Darkness, creating Illusions, etc.

There are technically 13 marks but one of the bloodlines is dead, the last heir of the mark undead. It's unknown if killing them would erase the mark from history, or if reality would simply force a new bloodline to carry the mark.

Over the millennia, those with a particular mark have banded together into a large sprawling family/guild structure, basing their guild around magical effects from, or items tuned to the presence of their dragonmarks, ensuring their monopoly on the trade.

The Mark of Storm, for instance, is the mark of the Half-Elven house of Lyrandar, who use their magic to, well, control storms and winds. They use this to manage naval transportation, both of goods and troops, to sabotage or improve farming conditions, AND, most recently, to control elemental airships, the navies of the sky.

In 3.5 the marks explicitly only occured on people with a specific bloodline, and only of the right race: the mark of storm is ONLY borne by Half-Elves related to Lyran. 4e loosened this restriction, to mixed reactions.

Moving to the point, The other anon's implicit complaint is that some of the dragonmark feats are overtuned, with some posters believing that the REASON such feats are overtuned is that they carried baggage insetting, and that taking them out of that setting is...problematic.

This is an ongoing argument in /4eg/, with vocal points on both sides.
>>
>>66313195
>Moving to the point, The other anon's implicit complaint is that some of the dragonmark feats are overtuned, with some posters believing that the REASON such feats are overtuned is that they carried baggage insetting, and that taking them out of that setting is...problematic.
What fucking argument is there? They're not feats for you to just take, they're feats for a DM to give to your character to represent plot and setting development.
>>
>>66313263
Here's the argument:
Default fluff doesn't matter. In fact, default fluff is just pointlessly restrictive in what character concepts I can achieve. If I can use the same mechanical applications of a feat, power, or whatever to represent a different character fluff, why shouldn't I? It helps make more interesting characters, and also helps prevent characters from turning into snowflakes of disparate abilities. The dragonmark feats aren't any different.
>>
>>66313195
Personally I wouldn't consider any of the dragonmark feats overtuned. Sure a fair bit make builds possible, but those builds aren't even the best in their respective role. The exception is mark of warding, but really I'd consider most defenders too weak without it.
>>
>>66313489
>Mark of Healing
>>
>>66313322
>Also helps prevent characters from turning into snowflakes of disparate abilities

That...does not sound accurate. If anything, this implies the opposite. Taking options from whatever setting and source you want regardless of their meaning sounds to me like EXACTLY a "snowflake of disparate abilities"

Are you claiming you don't see anything wrong with the equivalent of a character with training from the Dread Pirate Roberts, the Sharingan of the Uzumaki clan, a Warder cloak, and a Buster Sword who was sent BACK in time by a Shapeshifting Master of Evil walking up to the table and saying "What? all of those are tied to my combat ability, so they're fine."

My personal stance is...well, it's been a controversial point of contention over several of the last few threads, so I'll try and rephrase it here:

I have no problem with, say, a Storm sorceror taking the Mark of Storm.
I have no problem with any Eberron Character taking the Mark of Storm.
I have no problem with a Swordmage taking the Mark of Storm.

I don't like the idea of a Fighter taking the Mark of Storm, to then use the fact that wielding Lightning Weapons makes his normal, non magical techniques and blows 'Lightning effects', and then he can use the power of the storm to tap into HIS affinity for storm magic...to make his lightning weapon do more.
That doesn't track for me.

Now, if we're in a Wuxia world like
>>66298720
>>66298726,
I'm more okay with it.

Hell, if you created something like

Feat

Warrior of the 9 Winds
Benefit: When you gain this feat, choose a damage type keyword that is not Force, Radiant, or Necrotic. This choice cannot be altered without retraining the feat. As a free action, you may add the keyword to an attack with a weapon you are currently wielding.

I'd be perfectly okay with a Mark of the Storm fighter going to town with a weapon he willed into lightning.

It's a very precise line, but it's the one I have.
>>
>>66313501
Oh right I totally forgot mark of healing; since I mainly play high optimization where end of next turn is actually more powerful than (SE), so most leaders don't even take it due to the relative rarity of save ends effects. Yeah no that one totally qualifies as being op in most scenarios. Funnily enough it doesn't even work with Eberron's artificer.
>>
>>66313613
See what you're doing in that example is using the default fluff. For example the fighter I play is a threatening reach fighter. If I used default fluff he'd be using nature spirits to augment his physical form to get longer limbs while also using martial stances to be able to intercept enemy movements from a distance, while having trained in odd fighting techniques increasing the reach of his spiked chain further, in addition to being a part of House Lyrandar granting him the ability to use wind to knock his opponents around. With refluffing though, all that becomes: He has a gun enchanted to deliver electric charges through rubber bullets, allowing him to nonlethally subdue opponents. He relies on a technique granting him great reflexes and quick aim, although it decreases his effective range. Do you see how much more cohesive it becomes when you discard the default fluff?
>>
>>66313732
>Do you see how much more cohesive it becomes when you discard the default fluff?

First off, No. I don't. That explanation is so uncohesive I believe you're either joking, or I'm suddenly in a very dangerous place of shitting on the hard work of a developmentally disabled person. For fuck's sake 'I have a gun that MAGICS ELECTRICITY ONTO RUBBER, that only shoots 15 or so feet because his gun kata makes him move too fast'? Why the shit didn't you go with "Magitech tentacles", if you wanted to explain your bullshit?

Second: Yes, I am using the default fluff. Because that's what goes on the character sheet, at least to start. Because that's what's in the books you're taking from. Those are the rules. You can massage them and justify your frankenstein of a build however you want after the fact, but you still went in and built that shit, and wrote those things down, when they DIDN'T match. You're still a fighter multiclassing warden on paper, who gets to use his wind powers because he bought the right spiked chain. You built your monster, Victor.

And that's fine. It's perfectly fine at your table, and in your game, to build whatever works for you and your friends. My complaint is actually like it's perfectly REASONABLE at EVERY TABLE for your party to need magic rubber lightning bullets to justify your build.
>>
>>66238182
>common houserule
Using Valor's scene meter mechanics..

Which reminds me--Valor's coming back from Forgotten Indie Game Oblivion with a new adventure/setting book, called 'Best in Class'. You play students in a prestigious modern-day-with-magic Knight academy. Should be fun.
>>
>>66314001
Well, it actually shoots 25 feet, which isn't a bad effective range at all when you consider he's reacting to enemy movements fast enough to potentially shoot a dozen or more over the course of six seconds. And magitech tentacles would've been another possible explanation, but not the character fluff I was going for. I wanted to make a quickfire gunslinger type who for other story related reasons needed to fight in a nonlethal method, and this is the best and most fun way I could conceive of doing that.
Also, 4e kind of makes a big point of saying the fluff is not the rules. It's why the flavor text is put on its own in powers. The build options do match to form a cohesive character, when you don't autistically insist on using default fluff in a system that you don't have to. And yes, this extends to items too. If you have problems with lore, change it, simple as that.
>>
>>66314584
In the interest of bumping the thread, what are Valor's Scene Meter mechanics?
>>
>>66298475
Sorcerer. At long last it's not just the wizard's little retarded brother
>>
>>66238182
I've been considering using the 4e framework and then hacking it up for my next campaign. My group likes 4e, so I'm hoping it'll work.

The idea was to make it even more like Final Fantasy Tactics, in that you choose which of your classes you want to allocate XP to, and you don't know what powers or abilities you'll get from a class until you invest into it. I was also considering secret classes and things that you only unlock via sidequests or obscure class combinations.
>>
>>66313613

I can definitely understand this sentiment. Essentially, you do not want characters' builds to be utterly reliant on a single, specific magic item.

It is true that, for example, a low heroic fighter with Flail Expertise, Mark of Storm, Dragging Flail, and a Lightning Weapon is completely and wholly reliant on that Lightning Weapon for a significant portion of their build. Replace the Lightning Weapon with something else, and the build does not work.

Your feat solution is an interesting one, though it technically allows a staff-wielder to make the feat work with implement powers. I am curious about the choice of damage types you offer. I can understand banning radiant, but why are force and necrotic so egregious? They do not offer the cold optimization of Lasting Frost, Wintertouched, and Gloves of Ice. They do not enable a Firewind Blade.

>>66313639

"High optimization" does not necessarily mean that the DM uses nothing but the cheesiest monsters for their respective XP values. Otherwise, well, you end up with ridiculous encounters like this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qpAKEzshITb4nTsNP9elmtgviacuJw2MfM1QDibm22w/edit
(And yes, I am aware that a select few builds can handle this, like shamans with Protective Roots.)
>>
>>66259675
why dont you just join a game where everyone is level 50 to start youll be happier
>>
>>66323694
>Why are force and necrotic so egregious?

They aren't, really. The feat was thrown together in-the-moment as I wrote that post, so the choice was a spur of the moment decision:

In my head, it went "Radiant I KNOW is a problem, so I shouldn't allow that. If I'm not allowing radiant, it flows from a narrative sense to not allow necrotic, since they're semi-oppository energies."

Then, I thought "well, that leaves Force as this weird outlier where it's not a 'natural' energy type like the others, being a little more thematically connected to radiant and necrotic", and I couldn't remember if there were any special force keyword interactions (ie, force damage in 3e overcoming incorporeal) in the moment, so I decided to err on the side of caution.

With the benefit of hindsight, you're right that from a broad perspective, you'd probably be better off just banning Radiant, or maybe springing for Radiant, Cold, and Fire, but that's the difference between hammering something out in the moment, and actually weighing and considering your options.
>>
>>66323694
Why do these level 1 minions have +6 to hit with "Seed of Madness" when the linked picture says they should have level+1 to hit which should be +2?
>>
>>66323694
Oh sorry 2hu, my group pretty much exclusively uses homebrew monsters to keep up with the optimization level of the party, so comparing the type of monsters we fight to official compendium stuff is generally not a very helpful thing.
>>
>>66327462
new thread



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.