|
DTAS
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
starkebn posted:DTAS Death to d20. The only thing that makes them good is Advantage, so what I'm saying is D&D Next is good for something
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
AXE COP posted:An extra 10% of your attacks doing 0 damage and having no effect certainly can't be a problem. No siree. I can't see any problems there. Just work better as a team! Have you ever experienced a really well synergized team before? At Level 1, a Monster will have [Level+14] AC (15) unless they are a Brute (Level+12 for 13) or a Soldier (Level+16 for 17). If you start with a 16 in your primary attack stat, that's +3, include a Prof bonus weapon of +3, that's +6, meaning to hit any Monster that is not a Soldier or a Brute, you must roll a 9 or higher on the d20. It's 7 or higher for a Brute and Soldiers are meant to be a little harder to hit so you'd need to roll an 11 or better. That is a 55% chance of success for Non-Brutes and Non-Soldiers, 65% against Brutes and 45% against Soldiers. If the Monster is granting Combat Advantage (Which it probably will if you're a Melee character tag teaming with other Melee characters or have a Controller who Prones everything) this increases to 65%/75%/55%. This isn't even counting racial, class, theme or feat abilities that can further skew this number to your favor (Humans getting a 1/Encounter +4 to an attack roll, Elves getting to roll twice on an attack roll once per encounter, Fighters getting a natural +1 to all Weapon attack rolls plus whatever their WIS mod is to Opportunity attacks, Expertise feats, Noble Adept Theme granting a 1d4+1 to a roll either you OR an ally makes, the list goes on and on and on). If you look at pure, raw numbers, yes, MAYBE 16 for your primary ability score is kind of sub-par, but certainly not unacceptable. You have to look at the big picture. Whoever said 4E was "Tracking Modifiers: The Game" couldn't have been more correct in their assumptions because you will never go a combat round without some kind of modifier to keep track of, and usually drastically in the party's favor. I will admit, however, that 16 may be sub-par when it comes to IMPLEMENT users. This is because the flat average of [Level+12] to secondary defenses across the board for monsters means that with a 16 in your primary attack stat you have a pretty steady 50/50 chance of hitting something unless you skew the numbers in your favor somehow. Which is hard to do for Ranged and Area attacks, a fact I will concede. At lower levels this can be a problem, but slackens as you get access to better feat selection, and even can be immediately improved by taking an Expertise Feat at the start. But generally you DO want your Implement users hitting more often than not because they're the ones that USUALLY make it easier for your team mates to do THEIR poo poo better. It's situational, but really, from a long time of personal experience it's not as bad as you guys are making it sound.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:It's situational, but really, from a long time of personal experience it's not as bad as you guys are making it sound. It's patently unnecessary even if you are running a class build where you want three good ability scores (in which case you are running 16/16/13 pre-racials in almost all cases, with at least one of those 16s getting a +2) and a very bad idea otherwise. "Leader needs to help me all the time" isn't good team-play.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
On the other hand, missing wastes your turn on most things short of Dailies (in which case, golly, you just downgraded a great power to an encounter power impact-wise). The extra +2 or whatever to your secondary stat (with maybe another +1/2 to a tertiary stat) is going to help with the riders on your powers (which hit less often with a lower attack stat) and the automatic damage/effect stuff from your, for example, defender features (which over a battle still won't add up to the damage you'd have gotten from hitting with one attack, unless you're the world's first dagger-and-buckler Fighter). It's not necessarily that having a lower primary stat is a huge boner-killer or anything; it's just that the trade-off isn't getting you anything that outweighs what you're losing. A miss is a miss is a miss is a miss, and working around it by having your team flank the enemy or defensively debuff them (because otherwise they weren't going to do that...?) is like saying it's okay for your leader to never use their heal features because potions exist. And if you were thinking tactically you wouldn't be taking damage anyway, would you.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:I will admit, however, that 16 may be sub-par when it comes to IMPLEMENT users.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
quote:If the Monster is granting Combat Advantage (Which it probably will if you're a Melee character tag teaming with other Melee characters or have a Controller who Prones everything) this increases to 65%/75%/55%. Having a 75% chance to hit with your attacks when buffed is not a decent chance to hit. The difference between missing 25% of the time and 5% of the time with your powers is gigantic unless you're doing nothing but farting out at-wills all game. I can't think of any miss effect or secondary rider good enough, even on dailies, that it would be worth giving up an 18 in your primary. Like you're literally saying "I want to accomplish nothing on an extra 10% of my turns." Imagine randomly getting stunned every one in ten turns, except even worse because you're also wasting your powers at the same time. It's not like having team buffs and having good ability scores are mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:It's situational, but really, from a long time of personal experience it's not as bad as you guys are making it sound. From a long time of personal experience, the marginal benefits you gain from setting up a weird array do not compare to the +1 or 2 to-hit that you can only get from your stats. All the teamwork bonuses you're getting, you'd still be getting regardless of your array. So what are you getting/think you're getting with your stat points that is worth 5-10% to-hit?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
By far the best status effect a controller can dish out is "dead". Honestly, I'm just not sure what you think you gain by having a 16 post-racial in your primary. What is the better thing those points are going to? Why wouldn't your perfect gaming group perform better with an 18 postracial?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
There are maybe extreme edge cases (which are not what we are talking about here) where you can find ways to add a secondary score modifier twice or three times while not being too concerned by your to-hit on your primary. These generally involve leaders, though, and leaders want to hit too.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It's patently unnecessary even if you are running a class build where you want three good ability scores (in which case you are running 16/16/13 pre-racials in almost all cases, with at least one of those 16s getting a +2) and a very bad idea otherwise. "Leader needs to help me all the time" isn't good team-play. And I can see your point. I don't disagree that having an 18 in your primary attack stat is what you want to shoot for, just saying that from experience starting with a 16 doesn't hurt a combatant quite as bad as some people think due to possible synergies between classes, race, etc. If a player doesn't know how or is unwilling to make up for their PC's deficiencies, though, yeah, I agree that having less than 18 in your primary is just setting up a bad situation. I would never make a character or recommend anyone make one without keeping the fact that if you take that risk, you're effectively -1 behind everyone else and attempt to mitigate that as much as possible. And note that I said "risk". It IS a risk: Just a risk that if you're savvy enough you can turn to your favor. Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:On the other hand, missing wastes your turn on most things short of Dailies (in which case, golly, you just downgraded a great power to an encounter power impact-wise). The extra +2 or whatever to your secondary stat (with maybe another +1/2 to a tertiary stat) is going to help with the riders on your powers (which hit less often with a lower attack stat) and the automatic damage/effect stuff from your, for example, defender features (which over a battle still won't add up to the damage you'd have gotten from hitting with one attack, unless you're the world's first dagger-and-buckler Fighter). AXE COP posted:Having a 75% chance to hit with your attacks when buffed is not a decent chance to hit. The difference between missing 25% of the time and 5% of the time with your powers is gigantic unless you're doing nothing but farting out at-wills all game. I can't think of any miss effect or secondary rider good enough, even on dailies, that it would be worth giving up an 18 in your primary. This is true, but you have to admit, a 1 in 4 chance to miss is STILL decent odds. Not optimal by any means, but still good odds. But yes, it's true that a miss is still a miss and sucks, and also why I really don't recommend lower than 18 for Strikers. In virtually any other class archetype, you're still going to do something on a miss, which is cool, but Strikers are very binary: Hit, do something, miss, do nothing. It's very difficult to justify a Striker having a lower chance to hit because that's what they do. Perhaps I was a bit hasty when I said they don't feel any burn if they have a Leader/Controller at their side, because yeah, I concede I'm very wrong there. Strikers aren't contributing if they are missing, and that's a fact. As for what you can gain by trading off, most of the examples I could give are fringe (Like my Fighter/Wizard build) or situational. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying you should take a 16 where an 18 would be better suited. I'm just arguing that you can MAKE it work. It takes effort, but you can. In the case of the Paladin, which was what started this back and forth, unless the Paladin is expecting to use nothing but Divine Sanction powers (Which require a hit), they should function well enough. With the extra CON, that's also one less surge the Paladin has to worry about sacrificing if he ever has to use Lay on Hands. Just make sure they have a +3 Prof Bonus weapon in their hands at all times and most definitely an Expertise Feat to go with it (And probably Melee Training as well for Opportunity Attacks). dwarf74 posted:You can make a Wizard who almost literally never needs to roll a d20 for attacks and still contributes. Also, this is absolutely true, and one of those fringe cases I was talking about. If "Wizard" counts as a fringe case that is.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
My WF Avenger had a main stat of 16 at 1 because the DM rolled stats and I got hosed (at least I had alright con and str...?) so am I hosed or can I compensate with the whole double-roll thing?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
killstealing posted:My WF Avenger had a main stat of 16 at 1 because the DM rolled stats and I got hosed (at least I had alright con and str...?) so am I hosed or can I compensate with the whole double-roll thing?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:You might not be mechanically boned as badly (on account of Avengers getting two attack rolls against their Oath target) but the fact that your DM rolled stats (and down the line, it sounds like? or didn't let you assign?) puts you in the hosed place for different reasons. Well we have a group full of newbies and back when we started we only just met so he didn't know I played 3.5 a lot so wasn't completely incapable
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Death to d20. The only thing that makes them good is Advantage, so what I'm saying is D&D Next is good for something Yes, the worst thing in play is the flat "curve" of the d20. A native 55% chance to hit in the maths is horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
killstealing posted:My WF Avenger had a main stat of 16 at 1 because the DM rolled stats and I got hosed (at least I had alright con and str...?) so am I hosed or can I compensate with the whole double-roll thing? Avengers use neither CON nor STR... You can technically compensate with the double roll, but it's tricky (And this is a situation where I would NOT recommend a 16 in the primary stat, and would honestly push for a 20). You can maybe make it work though. Avengers are a challenge to get working right in the first place because they are a Striker that goes against most traditional Striker ideals: They work alone. You're not going to be getting Combat Advantage from Flanking at the same time you'll get to roll twice so that's the tricky part. It also depends, I guess, on which Avenger Censure you chose as well as your OTHER stats. If you chose Censure of Unity, you'll get benefits for having friends adjacent to the target, at the cost of your Censure granted reroll. You'll definitely want an Expertise Feat of some kind at the very least. If you haven't chosen a race yet, I would recommend either Human, Elf, or Deva. Human for their Heroic Effort Racial Power, Elf for their Elven Accuracy Power, or Deva for their Memory of a Thousand Lifetimes. But to be honest, I would simply recommend you talk to your GM about letting everyone use the point buy system. It's there for a reason: Rolling randomly for stats is really swingy, and the game, by default, expects you to have certain numbers and averages baked into the very math of the game.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Yes, the worst thing in play is the flat "curve" of the d20. A native 55% chance to hit in the maths is horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Replace D20s with 3d6. Same average roll (10.5), much less swing. Critical hit if you get at least 2 6s, automiss if you get 2 1s. What happens when you get crit range boosters?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
I'd have to play with anydice to be sure of the math, but it feels intuitively like 'a six and a five or better' would serve. Further expansions of the crit range might be 'a six and a four or better' or 'two fives or better' -- I'm not certain of the odds for each off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Replace D20s with 3d6. Same average roll (10.5), much less swing. Critical hit if you get at least 2 6s, automiss if you get 2 1s. The math on this seems off to me. I believe the probability of rolling at least 2 6s is 16/216, or 7.4%, a decent bit more than the 5% base crit chance. Similarly, the probability of rolling at least 2 1s is also 7.4%. Based on the anydice numbers, the probability of rolling at least a 16 is 4.63%, the same as rolling at most a 5. Seems like those would be better values to use: 3-5 is a automiss, 16-18 is an critical hit. 15-18 is 9.26%, which is close enough for 19-20 crit ranges, and 14-18 is 16.2%, which is a fair amount off of the 15% crit chance of 18-20, but since it gives such simplicity of the rule, seems worth accepting. Any reason to complicate things with the other rule?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Klungar posted:The math on this seems off to me. I believe the probability of rolling at least 2 6s is 16/216, or 7.4%, a decent bit more than the 5% base crit chance. Similarly, the probability of rolling at least 2 1s is also 7.4%. Based on the anydice numbers, the probability of rolling at least a 16 is 4.63%, the same as rolling at most a 5. Seems like those would be better values to use: 3-5 is a automiss, 16-18 is an critical hit. 15-18 is 9.26%, which is close enough for 19-20 crit ranges, and 14-18 is 16.2%, which is a fair amount off of the 15% crit chance of 18-20, but since it gives such simplicity of the rule, seems worth accepting. Any reason to complicate things with the other rule?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Klungar posted:The math on this seems off to me. I believe the probability of rolling at least 2 6s is 16/216, or 7.4%, a decent bit more than the 5% base crit chance. Similarly, the probability of rolling at least 2 1s is also 7.4%. Based on the anydice numbers, the probability of rolling at least a 16 is 4.63%, the same as rolling at most a 5. Seems like those would be better values to use: 3-5 is a automiss, 16-18 is an critical hit. 15-18 is 9.26%, which is close enough for 19-20 crit ranges, and 14-18 is 16.2%, which is a fair amount off of the 15% crit chance of 18-20, but since it gives such simplicity of the rule, seems worth accepting. Any reason to complicate things with the other rule? We're starting to veer into halfway intelligent, easy to read up-or-down dice systems, instead of modifier madness.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:We're starting to veer into halfway intelligent, easy to read up-or-down dice systems, instead of modifier madness. I reckon you could so similar things with ranges on a d20 though. Pretty sure Some Heartbreaker does it. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 07:41 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
So I got a wild (and deeply foolish)bug up my rear end to tinker around with 4e. I was looking at Player HP and the MM3 expected damage. While a lot of people mention how combat gets bogged down at higher levels, I never looked at the math side of it. Sadly, 4e follows the d&d tradition of starting the difficulty on high, and easing off as you level. Which seems like one of the crappier ways of making players feel more powerful. Here are some charts! Typically, defenders get 15 + their con + 6 HP each level after, strikers and leaders get 12 + their con + 5 HP each level after, and controllers get 10 + their con + 4 HP each level after. MM3 monsters deal an average of 8+level in damage. Dividing a given level's HP by the expected damage and you get the average number of hits a character of that role and level can take. With a PC constitution of 10, that looks like so:  With a constitution of 18:  (ugh, ignore the monster damage line, the calculations are using 8+level and should be fine, I just made a mistake copy/pasting) You'll notice how in both cases HP outstrip damage to the tune of about half a hit to an additional hit from level 1 to 10.You'll also notice that at low levels constitution plays a fairly big role in determining how many hits a character can survive. I've never been a big fan of constitution as an ability score. I also never liked the drop in difficulty that PCs face as they level. So I made some tweaks to eliminate both. Defenders get 30 HP at level 1 and 6 more each level after, strikers and leaders get 25 HP and 5 more each level after, and controllers get 20 and then 4 HP each level after. Average monster grows slightly faster to keep up with HP. Average attacks now do 8+twice the monsters level. Putting that into the same spreadsheet and you get:  I haven't had a chance to run the numbers at higher level, but since the formula for monster damage and PC HP doesn't change I imagine the problem only gets worse.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Ideally team monster would have more going on in terms of status effects/terrain hazards as the PC levels rise, but yeah, 4e gets pretty easy (relatively speaking) for the players from Paragon on up. This isn't even because of the PC HP vs Monster Damage thing you're looking at; the wealth of options open to players to gently caress poo poo up is just enormous in later levels in terms of damage & control that encounters can be effectively decided in the first couple rounds. You probably already know this since you're looking at the math parts, just stating it for the sake of discussion. Only thing I'll add to the Con discussion is that, as a stat, it's made mostly unnecessary thanks to the 2 hp conversion backgrounds; players worried about their hp at low levels should be taking those anyway so low Con shouldn't be a big deal.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:So I got a wild (and deeply foolish)bug up my rear end to tinker around with 4e. I was looking at Player HP and the MM3 expected damage. While a lot of people mention how combat gets bogged down at higher levels, I never looked at the math side of it. Sadly, 4e follows the d&d tradition of starting the difficulty on high, and easing off as you level. Which seems like one of the crappier ways of making players feel more powerful. Here are some charts! 4E difficulty/upper level play typically doesn't come from pure math, but from exacerbating the use of "exception-based mechanics" to create dramatically powerful turns and bullshit effects. I.E. a monster has an attack that doesn't obey previously established rules. So you'll see: -Petrify attacks that don't give you resist all -Monsters with no-action autohit AOEs that trigger constantly -Monsters that ignore all your resistances no matter what they are My current DM has used most of these, pretty frequently, in the last five or so weeks, and we are low-mid paragon (and I often feel like he is building encounters around trying to stymie me personally, but that's another story). I had to put up with monsters dealing psychic damage that couldn't be resisted. As in 3E, effective parties typically front-load their actions on the first round to do alpha strikes and novas, but it's still less of a game of rocket tag than it is in 3E, since there's a fairly deep game of strategy and counter-strategy going on. If the alpha strike doesn't work (and there's many reasons it wouldn't) the PCs still need a plan and to cover their bases.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
But doesn't that just make the problem even worse? Since those status effects and so forth reduce team PC's attacking effectiveness, which make fights drag out longer, without necessarily ending the fight sooner. Especially since PCs also gain more resistances, healing, immunities, and get out of jail cards as they level?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:But doesn't that just make the problem even worse? Since those status effects and so forth reduce team PC's attacking effectiveness, which make fights drag out longer, without necessarily ending the fight sooner. Especially since PCs also gain more resistances, healing, immunities, and get out of jail cards as they level? Effects that draw fights out can be a problem with 4E, yes. A large part of the metagame is action denial, which can lead to players losing several rounds worth of actions (anti-fun) or fights that are clearly over only a few rounds in but are litigated further--unless the DM rings the bell for a stoppage.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:So I got a wild (and deeply foolish)bug up my rear end to tinker around with 4e. I was looking at Player HP and the MM3 expected damage. While a lot of people mention how combat gets bogged down at higher levels, I never looked at the math side of it. Sadly, 4e follows the d&d tradition of starting the difficulty on high, and easing off as you level. Which seems like one of the crappier ways of making players feel more powerful. Here are some charts! You're not the first person to have done this. Slightly different approach as they didn't touch player HP at all though. Note that the attack/defense math doesn't quite scale correctly as players level (hence a lot of groups giving out free feats as a houserule) and monsters start using more action denial as part of their standard abilities (i.e. you'll be taking more hits before you get any healing). There's also the flat 'ignores your defenses' bullshit that OneThousandMonkeys mentioned. The reason 4e bogs down at high levels isn't that the math doesn't add up, it's that there's a half-dozen situational modifiers floating around at a given time. Using the Character Builder can help a ton by baking in some of them, but there's a lot of things it misses (particularly the online builder which is notorious for leaving important descriptions out entirely). Some players also don't quite have a good handle on their characters, which leads to some delay as they try to figure out what their character can actually do in a given situation. OneThousandMonkeys posted:My current DM has used most of these, pretty frequently, in the last five or so weeks, and we are low-mid paragon (and I often feel like he is building encounters around trying to stymie me personally, but that's another story). I had to put up with monsters dealing psychic damage that couldn't be resisted. Don't show off early. I haven't revealed all the tricks of my character yet.  Or make better characters 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
isndl posted:You're not the first person to have done this. Slightly different approach as they didn't touch player HP at all though. Probably my favorite battle with this DM (which happened at a home game) involved an energy field trap (that we had to rescue someone out of) in epic that: -Could teleport you to a pocket dimension when you crossed in and spit you out randomly a round later -Automatically did 5 of every damage type when you stood in it and attacked your Will to try to slow/petrify/annihilate you, with worsening stuff happening on every saving throw. There was also an orb of annihilation floating around. I had resist 5 all, my Will was godly, and I could automatically negate save effects. So he dropped a dragon on me. When that didn't work, he dropped a meteor on me that would erase either me or the dragon from the memory of existence if I couldn't out-will the dragon. The dragon lost, but I still died. "Rocks fall, the player at the table who negated my encounter dies."
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Probably my favorite battle with this DM
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:I'm hoping you stopped playing with that DM. A couple of things: -It was the very last battle of an epic campaign -... It was the very last battle of an epic campaign. Also, I knew the dragon was going to show up ahead of time. He's really not bad, even good. But he counts XP, doesn't give out free Expertise or anything, and had to be battered relentlessly before he agreed to inherent bonuses. No one's perfect.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
I've got a stupid adventure creation question. How many consecutive encounters do you usually run your party's through before an extended rest? For some reason I figured that 4 would be reasonable but I'm pretty much pulling that out of my rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
4 is pretty much it though. Usually you can just about go up to 5, especially if one is a noncombat encounter.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:4 is pretty much it though. Usually you can just about go up to 5, especially if one is a noncombat encounter. 3-4 for my group. I have a player who will spend his daily at the first hint that a battle could go south, and another who will even hoard his action points.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Mine are all hoarders. Last adventure day I think I saw one or two dailies used between the six of them, action points I pretty much have to prompt ("you know you're getting a milestone after this fight, right"), and in three adventure days they haven't used a single item power even though they picked their own items. That's probably how you know you can get them through one more encounter but they do run out of healing surges long before they run out of other resources. Their problem, really 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Back when I ran 4e (we're kind of on hiatus) the best sessions I ran, in terms of everything from table efficiency to player enjoyment to the utterly meaningless metric of how much fun I as the DM had, were those adapted from the "Lair Assault" model. Depending on the adventure I'd alter it a little, something like offer a normal Short Rest as a trade off (after 3 rooms, you have to choose whether to go straight to the end or take a breather and deal with something harder) or as a reward of some sort, but in general it just seems like the *right* way to do something like 4e.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
This is a relevant question for me. I am planning to DM my first game in the near future, looking to run Keep on the Shadowfell. I read through it about a month ago, so details are hazy, but I believe there is a string of like 6 or 7 encounters on each floor of the dungeon. It never mentions a safe spot for the party to take an extended rest on the first floor. Players are expected to go back to town only once, and the scene when entering town has a combat encounter as well. Does that seem like a bit much to anyone else? Because to me it sure does.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
The answer is you shouldn't run Keep on the Shadowfell as written because it has outdated monster mechanics and would still be a terrible combat slog if it didn't.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:19 |
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:The answer is you shouldn't run Keep on the Shadowfell as written because it has outdated monster mechanics and would still be a terrible combat slog if it didn't. This. Keep on the Shadowfell was basically the module that caused everyone who heard "4E characters are superheroes who can't even die, look at all those hitpoints" to look at the Irontooth encounter and laugh a bitter, bitter, laugh.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 14:22
|
|
