|
Prison Warden posted:I remember liking most of the Zeitgeist Paragon POaths when I read it, and it's one of the things that made me sad I couldn't get my buddies to try more than one session of it. I think I like the one that gives you powered armour or the one that lets you argue with the universe so hard that it conforms to your desires the best. We're getting a Monk Steamsuit Pilot, a Warlord Urban Empath (surprisingly potent), and some others. No Logos anymore, sadly.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Design stuff aside, my players have hit paragon tier in our 4e game. poo poo is about to get real. I'm looking at that one for the assault Swordmage I'm planning to build when/if our group finishes its current campaign and moves on to Zeitgeist. I completely skipped it on my first reading because it sounded so fiddly and complicated, but after actually reading it I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to implement through the offline builder as a set of power cards. Also it'd make opportunity attacks actually interesting beyond dealing damage, which had been one of my big concerns about trying out a defender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Give it however much stock you want or however little you want, but going by ICv2, 4e was still top of the food chain until the D&D team underwent some "restructuring" that put Mearls as lead, prompting him to release Essentials, at which point 4e sales sank like a rock. Allowing Mearls to immediately slide int 5e, the edition he actually wanted to make. I always got the impression Mearls flat out did not like 4e (there were interviews and such that painted the D&D team as not all being aboard a lot of 4e stuff, such as with the wizard arguments), tried to warp it into his own image with Essentials, and more or less killed it with that, allowing him to transition cleanly into making 5e. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Can anyone give me specific references on the D&D Insider in 2013 still making a lot of money thing, and the ICv2 stuff that ProfessorCirno mentioned? I mean, if you have direct links handy. Google is returning a lot of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Design stuff aside, my players have hit paragon tier in our 4e game. poo poo is about to get real. Polyhistor is pretty potent from stacking basic attack bonuses, making it really good for fighters and some essentials classes. Monument of War is probably the most "eh" of the Paragon Paths, and Urban Empaths lose a bunch if they're out of urban environments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Give it however much stock you want or however little you want, but going by ICv2, 4e was still top of the food chain until the D&D team underwent some "restructuring" that put Mearls as lead, prompting him to release Essentials, at which point 4e sales sank like a rock. Allowing Mearls to immediately slide int 5e, the edition he actually wanted to make. It really speaks to the culture at Wizards (and how little they and Hasbro think of D&D) that Mearls was immediately allowed to start a new flagship project after basically killing an entire product line. I mean, I guess that's how the world works, but normally you have to obfusicate that poo poo somehow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:Polyhistor is pretty potent from stacking basic attack bonuses, making it really good for fighters and some essentials classes. Monument of War is probably the most "eh" of the Paragon Paths, and Urban Empaths lose a bunch if they're out of urban environments. I haven't read much of Zeitgeist, only the intro book, but since the Paragon Path was created for a specific published adventure path, I just assumed that the writers would have taken that into account and gave a good mix of urban/wilderness environments, so that the Urban Empath has time to shine. They certainly seem to have really built up the main city as an important place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:It really speaks to the culture at Wizards (and how little they and Hasbro think of D&D) that Mearls was immediately allowed to start a new flagship project after basically killing an entire product line. I mean, I guess that's how the world works, but normally you have to obfusicate that poo poo somehow. The last crunchbook for 4e, however, was the Neverwinter book which was designed as a tiein to the MMO. It includes a bunch of new Warpriest domains(which are good) and the Bladesinger which is yet another wizard but is designed in such a way where it's very weak if you play by the rules, but broken if you can figure out a way to char-op out of the intentional drawbacks of the class. I hope that some of the latest stupidity from 5e manages to actually blow back onto him, cause his caster supremacy poo poo is getting kind of ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Can anyone give me specific references on the D&D Insider in 2013 still making a lot of money thing, and the ICv2 stuff that ProfessorCirno mentioned? I mean, if you have direct links handy. Google is returning a lot of stuff. ICv2 stuff you'd have to look back at previous reports and follow them from the start of 4e up to Essentials' release.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Prison Warden posted:I haven't read much of Zeitgeist, only the intro book, but since the Paragon Path was created for a specific published adventure path, I just assumed that the writers would have taken that into account and gave a good mix of urban/wilderness environments, so that the Urban Empath has time to shine. They certainly seem to have really built up the main city as an important place. It's less about the time to shine and more about the idea that once you leave the city limits you lose almost all of your path features, your encounter power becomes worse than an at-will and your utility power becomes a party trick. Some neat options when you're in a city, but is it really worth basically not having a paragon path once you're out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:What are some examples here, because I've yet to find anything that does crunchy tactical combat anywhere near as well as 4e, and the only suggestion I've heard when I've asked for something before is WHFRP, which costs like $200 for the basic set. I've heard that RuneQuest is supposed to be capable of tactical combat, and I know that GURPS is also capable of it, but my problem with those two games is that building NPCs/monsters to create balanced encounters is a lot more difficult than with 4e's very straightforward method.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
most people who say they can't roleplay in 4e are probably saying it because you can't just write wizard on your character sheet and have a million spells to cast out of combat that effect everything around you
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:20
|
|
starkebn posted:most people who say they can't roleplay in 4e are probably saying it because you can't just write wizard on your character sheet and have a million spells to cast out of combat that effect everything around you I don't think so, Tim.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:What are some examples here, because I've yet to find anything that does crunchy tactical combat anywhere near as well as 4e, and the only suggestion I've heard when I've asked for something before is WHFRP, which costs like $200 for the basic set. Well, there's the 4e board games that work. The Iron Kingdoms RPG seems worth a look. I'll be honest, there's less of them around than I thought. The short answer is 'probably boardgames', since they generally dispense with any rules for RP in favour of mechanics themselves, with no obfuscation. What's interesting is that board games can also be some of the best RPG's available. For example, Space Alert or BSG.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
starkebn posted:most people who say they can't roleplay in 4e are probably saying it because you can't just write wizard on your character sheet and have a million spells to cast out of combat that effect everything around you Half my group likes Pathfinder and has never given me an actual answer as to why you can't roleplay in 4e. It's something about the skill system, I think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:and the Bladesinger which is yet another wizard but is designed in such a way where it's very weak if you play by the rules, but broken if you can figure out a way to char-op out of the intentional drawbacks of the class. I'm curious as to how the Bladesinger could be broken. edit: I mean broken in a way other than "really bad"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:I'm curious as to how the Bladesinger could be broken. Get multiattacks, a way to get a full dex damage MBA so you can ignore intelligence entirely, and figure out a way to regain bladedance every combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't think so, Tim. How is roleplaying any more or less supported in 4e compared to other editions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 04:11
|
|
starkebn posted:How is roleplaying any more or less supported in 4e compared to other editions? That's not what I said. I said that I didn't believe that people say "you can't roleplay in 4e" because they view having utility spells as roleplaying. I think CPP/AaF's idea that it's because 4e made the mechanics much barer than they had been in previous editions is probably more likely, (along with, probably, contamination from GNS and 90s White Wolf, the marketing of d20 as the end of roleplaying games, etc.) but even if it isn't, I have read a lot of edition warring in my time and people didn't, don't make it all about casters when they talk about roleplaying. Indeed, they often explicitly complained about wizards/clerics being nerfed alongside complaints about how you can't roleplay.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not what I said. I said that I didn't believe that people say "you can't roleplay in 4e" because they view having utility spells as roleplaying. I think CPP/AaF's idea that it's because 4e made the mechanics much barer than they had been in previous editions is probably more likely, (along with, probably, contamination from GNS and 90s White Wolf, the marketing of d20 as the end of roleplaying games, etc.) but even if it isn't, I have read a lot of edition warring in my time and people didn't, don't make it all about casters when they talk about roleplaying. Indeed, they often explicitly complained about wizards/clerics being nerfed alongside complaints about how you can't roleplay. What I said was stretching it (what? on somethingawful.com forums?) but the fact is there never has been any real 'support for roleplaying' in D&D and it's just something to say to run 4e down, most of the time without any basis other than tummy feels
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Get multiattacks, a way to get a full dex damage MBA so you can ignore intelligence entirely, and figure out a way to regain bladedance every combat. Is there a build or anything?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
starkebn posted:What I said was stretching it (what? on somethingawful.com forums?) but the fact is there never has been any real 'support for roleplaying' in D&D and it's just something to say to run 4e down, most of the time without any basis other than tummy feels I've already gone over that the skill challenge is an awful mechanic both in how it is balanced and how the modules use it for everything, but if we're being honest it's not really the skill challenge that's turning off diehard 3E players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:I think Attorney at Funk said it best in another thread, that the problem with 4e (that led to statements like the above) is that 4e is the first D&D to most transparently express the truth that's been present in all D&Ds prior: your character, as far an RPG rules set is concerned, is a collection of mechanics. When they're well-designed, or presented within a consistent system, it peels aware the layer of self-deception that lets a person think that roleplaying is something inherent to the sheet or system to begin with. Which understandably rustles some jimmies when you're a lot more used to, and comfortable with, being lied to. My experience with trying to strip/distill 4e down to its mechanical core is that people don't "get" what you're supposed to do with it. But, when you take a cluster of mechanics that sound Roguey and say "yep it's a Rogue" and slap d20 onto the whole system, people are a lot more receptive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:Is there a build or anything? Here's some of the builds. Most of the ways you can get extra uses don't kick in until epic unless you abuse magic item creation rules to make yourself an infinite number of wands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:My experience with trying to strip/distill 4e down to its mechanical core is that people don't "get" what you're supposed to do with it. This basically comes back to that 'dissociated mechanics' chestnut that polluted the internet like a turd in a swimming pool. For some reason if you tell people that this is game, and here is what you take it you want to be a rogue, and everything you can pick from in the rogue portfolio will make you more roguey, that's bad and you should be ashamed of yourself. When you're told that 'rogue' is a defining trait of people in-universe who have taken up the vocation of thief and describes something fundamental about the world your character inhabits on some kind of metamechanical level, that's good and something we should strive for. Never tell people playing DnD that it's a game I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Yeah for a lot of people character class is explicitly a job description that exists in the world and that people know about and more often than not go to school for. I have a player who introduced herself, in character, to an NPC only as "dwarf battlemind." Still wondering if I should just ignore that or say, gently caress it, somewhere in dwarfland there's Battlemind Academy I guess. Quite how it impacts roleplaying positively I couldn't tell you because surely if every rogue is the same (they all know traps, they're all backstabbing bastards, they're untrustworthy thieves by virtue of class choice alone) that would keep you from putting your own spin on things but I guess no one ever claimed all this was rational.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Yeah for a lot of people character class is explicitly a job description that exists in the world and that people know about and more often than not go to school for. I have a player who introduced herself, in character, to an NPC only as "dwarf battlemind." Still wondering if I should just ignore that or say, gently caress it, somewhere in dwarfland there's Battlemind Academy I guess. Rogue/any class still has a huge amount of variety inside the class mechanically and flavor...ly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Oh in 4E and other good games, absolutely, but ask an associated mechanics person what a rogue is and see what you get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Yeah for a lot of people character class is explicitly a job description that exists in the world and that people know about and more often than not go to school for. I have a player who introduced herself, in character, to an NPC only as "dwarf battlemind." Still wondering if I should just ignore that or say, gently caress it, somewhere in dwarfland there's Battlemind Academy I guess. If there's one thing Dungeon World has taught me it's always be asking your players about their characters. What is a battlemind? How did you train? Why did you choose to become one? How are battleminds seen and treated around the world? Do the dwarves have a different attitude towards them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
4e's skill system was really just a modified version of 3e's skill system. Or rather, compare 4e's skill system to Pathfinder's skill system: d20 + half-level bonus + attribute bonus + 4 potential trained bonus d20 + skill ranks + attribute bonus + 3 potential "class skill" bonus You're really just trading away the ability to have a bonus somewhere in between "sinking all my points into this skill" and "putting no points into this skill at all" in order to gain convenience, but even then 3.5's Unearthed Arcana had a variant rule where you'd simply pick x skills and skill ranks would be replaced by character level for those skills, pretty much exactly how 4e does it. And yes, the skill challenge system might not have been great, but D&D's skill systems have always been silo'd enough from the rest of the game that you could replace it with DW's 2d6 mechanic or HeroQuest's roll-under-d20 mechanic or pretty much anything else you like including pure LARP if you really wanted to and it'd probably work just as well. Skill challenges would not have been any better even with 3.5's skill system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Class is just what you can do. Your backstory should explain why you can do it. Maybe it's not a generic rogue school sneak attack. Maybe it's your family's long kept secret double dagger technique that you only use when no one is able to see. The warlock in particular doesn't lead itself very well to "class as vocation" based thinking. The pact is a very personal event, and the hows and whats of shadow walk and warlocks curse were left intentionally vague. I usually enjoy my character more when I come up with a concept first and then figure out what kind of character I can make to fit that concept.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
My players took to roleplaying like fish to water with 4E. We jumped right in, all of us 100% newbies and it came naturally. I would throw up the occasional skill challenge, but they were talking to NPCs, interacting with the environment, and investigating things like champs even in the first session. In one session they talked down every encounter but the very last with some skill rolls and good roleplaying. My players were tactical wargame people, cRPG guys and boardgame people before this and they loved 4E's tactical combat but I think they had just as much fun getting into character and having hijinks. Basically, I don't think the system hinders or doesn't support roleplaying. But maybe my players were just really into it. I do think 4E lacks mechanical support for out-of-combat things to do, but if you're more into freeform, that can actually be a plus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Seriously, I've been collating all of the themes I can find, and what's becoming more apparent to me as time goes on is that Themes are would have been a great way to flavour all sorts of various things. For example, I think the Vampire class should have been a theme. The advantage is that you can say straight up 'I'm a rogue.' It literally is a job description that gives you bonuses to doing rogue stuff. You don't even have to be a striker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Echophonic posted:Half my group likes Pathfinder and has never given me an actual answer as to why you can't roleplay in 4e. It's something about the skill system, I think? I'd say it's just the one, really. The DM and the Avenger agreed at our last big discussion that the only real difference between PF and 4e for roleplaying was that the length of 4e's combat was longer and therefore you had less time to spend on roleplaying, which is pretty much a true fact even if we disagree with them on whether or not it's a worthwhile tradeoff when the alternative is just going to be "more time to spend rolling Diplomacy." It's mostly just the Paladin who doesn't think 4e RP is possible/good despite the rest of us seeming to do fine at it, and I'm pretty sure we're not convincing him. Regarding playing 4e: So, uh, Blade of the Eldritch Knight from the Eldritch Panalopy, AV2: Does this actually do what I think it does? Your standard and AP melee attacks just have a range of 5? That seems a bit crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
It's pretty good, but it doesn't apply to OAs or defender punishment so it's less crazy than it might seem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
One thing that bothers me about this is the apparent false dichotomy between combat and roleplaying. It suggests that they are they are two separate entities and that you can't roleplay in combat. It's interesting, because 4E has more control for roleplay in combat than in its skill system. The inherent issue of skills is one of player narrative control, I.E, the rules only have so many "hard outcomes" that are determined by your roll. Basically, a lot of the skill system is DM fiat, the DM choosing whether such an outcome happened. With combat however, there is more player narrative control, with the concept of powers giving you a bunch of options, and the attack roll dictating those options as happening, without DM fiat. In other words, your attack hits, and you deal damage plus a hit modifier, and the DM must allow this under the rules, unless of course said DM has a power to counter it. This allows more creative freedom in combat; and with my Monk for example, allowed some fairly advanced choreography, such as these examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghp8-KKdwNc&t=124s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLWPdsA7rUY&t=302s Lord Justice fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
The view of tactical combat (or any combat) as something separate from "roleplaying" has been around for a while and yeah, it's one of those toxic memes that murders good discussion. Every action you choose to have a character take is "role playing", even when it's just "hit that guy".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
The problem is that if, as a DM, you set up a combat with particular combatants/terrain in mind, and your players decide "nope, we're gonna haggle our way out of this instead" the DM's effort has been completely wasted, unless the DM can meaningfully recycle that fight concept later on. Sometimes you wanna be able to go "look, just fight the stupid kobolds/gnolls/orcs/whatever."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
It's sort of a given, though, that the players aren't going to see all of the stuff you prepped, even if you're not running a hexcrawl.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:The problem is that if, as a DM, you set up a combat with particular combatants/terrain in mind, and your players decide "nope, we're gonna haggle our way out of this instead" the DM's effort has been completely wasted, unless the DM can meaningfully recycle that fight concept later on. Sometimes you wanna be able to go "look, just fight the stupid kobolds/gnolls/orcs/whatever." If you can't meaningfully recycle it later on, the campaign is properly over. I don't think I've come across a fight in 4e I couldn't think of a way to refluff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:00
|
|
