Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Looks like we're the grognards, now.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Looks like we're the grognards, now.

«‹›266 »

Generic Octopus: Mar 27, 2010

cybertier posted:

The most common criticisms you'll see of 4e (all classes are the same/play the same, too combat focused, feels like an mmo, etc) are from people who either never played the game or were just mad that 4e existed as a product. Some of the criticisms (ugh, after my Encounters are gone I just spam my best at-will) are also equally applicable to other editions (ugh, all I do is Basic Attack) but for some reason it's not an issue in those games.

I'm just tossing this 5e stuff out there because it's super likely your group will gravitate toward 5e, feel free to ignore:

You'll find a lot of us were disappointed in 5e because it's not really an improvement or iteration on anything. I wouldn't call it bad, just mediocre, and it's perfectly fine to play if you have a dm who can handle the swingy CR system for encounters/monsters and also encourage players to never play Fighter or Rogue (because everything they can do is done better by other classes, and they'll be easily outpaced after a few levels). Most of the counter arguments to the accusations of awful class balance you'll find are from players/groups who haven't played much at levels higher than 3-6.

Anyway, in 4e most of the classes are pretty well balanced and play very differently despite being built around the same basic core of At-wills, Encounters, and Dailies. The encounter math/design from the dm side of the board is really easy, which makes it a very simple matter to adjust the difficulty if/when appropriate. It's a very transparent system, all the math & crunch is pretty much on display.

That said, Feats in 4e are a mess. Some are necessary fixes to the game math (one example: Expertise feats, which give a bonus to hit, exist because it was realized monster defenses scaled too high; you basically have to take them to keep up, so it's a really common houserule to give those out for free), a huge quantity are niche, mostly useless trap options, and others are so good you'll see them on every character who can afford the feats.

Combat can get long depending on party comp. An optimized party can realistically decide an encounter in the first 1-2 rounds, 3 at worst; an unoptimized party would be fine in the same fight, but it could take 6-10 rounds.

The skill system is bland. It functions, but it's not very interesting, nor are Skill Challenges as written.

Epic Tier (levels 21-30) is a mess. It's very much on the dm at that point to make monsters interesting/stronger/more resilient, because team PC will be obscenely powerful.

There's a modified version of the old offline character builder that is super helpful. I believe Insider still exists but it's buried so deep in archived web pages there's no way you'd realistically be expected to find it.

cybertier posted:

Are there any "modern" concepts like "failing it forward" already built into the rules?
Can you make a minionmancer character? Preferably necromancer?

1) Sort of, failing Skill Challenges doesn't halt progress but some negative consequence is supposed to occur.
2) No, 4e doesn't have that. 5e does, and it's one of the ways to obsolete the fighter/rogue. Best you could do in 4e is hybrid a couple classes that have pets while taking a background that gives a pet and using summoning spells.

# ? May 31, 2015 19:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 06:39

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

I've written a lot of words on why 4e is good, but usually in juxtaposition with 3.5e/PF

quote:

I'd say there's more evidence pointing towards 4e being a natural evolution of 3.5 than a rebuild of the "engine" from the ground up.

D&D has always had "Daily" powers, except of course the fact that they were only mostly available to spellcasters. "At-will" powers have also always been available to players, whether in the form of an RC Fighter's combat maneuvers such as Smash, or explicitly in 3.5's cantrips. The newest feature was the "Encounter" power as a formal concept, but even that was introduced by as early as Book of Nine Swords.

Then you get to increased character HP and you can see that games like Hackmaster or the 3.5 Trailblazer supplement worked these in as written rules, on top of however many times this has been houseruled in however many home games to reduce the lethality of the game.

As to why lethality needed to be reduced? That then brings us to focus group testing done by WOTC in the run-up of 4e's development that the most memorable of combats were those with a cycle of "initial setback -> identified weakness -> dramatic comeback", which is only possible if monsters and players can stay alive for multiple monsters, necessitating the "roughly 4 hits to a kill" math model of HP-to-damage ratios.

Healing Surges were very transparently a way to enforce inter-encounter tension and get around the whole "Wands of Light Healing" and "15 minute workday" issues of 3.5
Which finally brings us to the biggest change of a shift from "spells" as the basic building block of the game to "powers", the conceptualization of where each class' powers come from as a "source", and the handing out of relevant powers (and rituals) to all classes. That's clearly trying to get everyone to catch up to Wizards and other spellcasters in relative power level by making everyone work off the same basic framework for interacting with the world (or at the very least, with the combat).

There's more that could be said about how D&D 4e's combat still resembles previous editions of the game more than it does the videogames that it gets frequently compared to (inter-encounter tension in the former, intra-combat lethality in the latter), as well as many of 4e's mechanics still being directly traceable back to 3.5e (5-foot-step/Shift and the rest of the action economy, the skill system, the unified d20 mechanic), but suffice it to say that 4e was resembled its predecessors more than it struck out at new ground.

gradenko_2000 posted:

"It's a boardgame" mostly comes from the fact that many of the game's mechanics, especially with regards to combat, are spelled out in a very technical manner that leaves very little room for misinterpretation. This is actually a good thing in the sense that there's not going to be that discussion from last page about what the gently caress Sneak Attack actually does.

"It's a rollplaying game" comes from the point I made earlier, that since the combat mechanics are so comprehensive, they people think you cannot (or should not) do anything else.

The thing is, 3rd Edition's combat was just as procedural. People just put their blinders on for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which were market forces (read: Paizo) deliberately trying to create a wedge issue by passing off 4e as some sort of "untrue to D&D video game"

The other thing to keep in mind is that D&D has always had very loose role-playing outside of combat. I mean, the original D&D didn't even have a task resolution system for skill checks! If you wanted to talk to the King and lie to him, either your DM made up a roll on the spot, or you resolved it entire by talking it out at the table.

3rd Edition? Again, no different. Whatever non-combat interactions you have would be decided by player or DM fiat, or come down to a roll of a d20+modifier against an arbitrary DC. A Game of Thrones-esque campaign would generally be a bunch of rolls against your CHA modifier, except when your DM decides to award you auto-successes or auto-failures.

"all the classes are the same/too similar" - this is the big one. This is not a bad thing. The entire CRPG/MMORPG genre has built an multi-million dollar industry around people being able to have fun because they're all able to contribute meaningfully to the group that they're playing with! Simply put, you'd only consider this a bad thing if you were coming off of previous editions where spellcasters were significantly better than all the other classes and wanted to retain that position of power to the detriment of other players who want to play a different archetype.

gradenko_2000 posted:

I think 4e is probably the best at it yet save perhaps running OSR D&D with all of the encumbrance and time-tracking and resource management rules:

* Damage-to-health ratios are balanced around a "4 hits to a kill" model, which prevents early game one-shot KOs while also reining in the length of a full combat (although that last part can be very variable)

* All other versions of D&D practiced conserving your offensive actions throughout the dungeon: do you blow that Sleep spell on this group of Orcs? What if there's a bigger one later? The Power Sources model just made it so that it wasn't just the Wizards who were doing this, but rather even the Rogue and the Fighter had a heavy-hitting attack that they needed to save up for an important round.

* The Healing Surge model is really the core of the whole thing: my health bar is only 4 hits "long" during an individual combat, but I'm carrying several health bars on my person, which I can tap into freely between battles, or within a battle via some healing power. I need to make that resource last until the very end of the dungeon. Any healing I use on myself now is healing I can't have when I'm finally at the boss, which means I want to play intelligently so that I don't have to spend any more Healing Surges than are absolutely necessary.

Previous editions of D&D only kinda sorta hinted at that: you were maybe supposed to ration the number of Cure Light Wounds your Cleric could cast, or perhaps the number of charges on however many Wands of CLW you could afford, or perhaps however many rations and camping supplies you had, and even iron pitons to secure the doors in the room of a dungeon so you could sleep inside, but 4e wrapped it all up into a single tidy mechanic that fit well with the rest of the game.

The short version is that 4e greatly improved and streamlined 3.5e's class balance, skill system, encounter mechanics and underlying math.

You'll want the Rules Compendium for sure, and either one of the Essentials books or PHB 1. The Essentials books are more up to date with errata, but the actual character class builds within aren't so hot from a gameplay/balance perspective.

# ? May 31, 2015 19:15

Kurieg: Jul 19, 2012; RIP Lutri: 5/19/20-4/2/20

cybertier posted:

Are there any "modern" concepts like "failing it forward" already built into the rules?
Can you make a minionmancer character? Preferably necromancer?

There are some powers, mainly leader powers, that have their buff/debuff utility tied to the Effect: line rather than the Hit: line, meaning that regardless of if you do damage or not your still doing you job. And almost all daily powers either do half damage on a miss, or are Reliable which means they aren't expended on a miss.

But as a striker it's your primary job to minimize missing at all costs.

As far as minionmancers, the Necromancer mage school is flavored as you summoning temporary ghosts/skeletons to do your dirty work. And refluffing is king in 4e. Have your character surrounded by ghosts, reflavor your bow and arrow as you hurling ghosts at people. Leave the mechanics alone but the flavor of "1d20+19; 1d4+8 and slow" is entirely up to you.

As far as DND Insider. It's now here, everything's still functional except for their cookies, so you have to log in every time.

# ? May 31, 2015 19:23

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

It's important to note that combat in 4E takes a long time, especially with players who don't know how to play their characters yet.

# ? May 31, 2015 19:31

girl dick energy: Sep 30, 2009; You think you have the wherewithal to figure out my puzzle vagina?

cybertier posted:

Thanks for your excellent reply.

About disadvantage number 4.
Is the game playable by two players with one supporting GM PC?
Are there any good options for a GM PC that can fill a support role without too many options, so I can have the character help the players without getting bogged down in a combat, by thinking what this support character should do?

Hm. That'd be tricky, but doable, I think. My first idea is a pair of hybrid classes (maybe a Defender/Striker, and a Striker/Controller), with the DMPC taking the Leader role. A good Leader in this case would probably be a 'Lazylord'. Lazylords are a type of Warlord, whose main gimmick (aside from healing) is to give other characters more melee basic attacks. It's a good character for someone who wants to contribute to combat without having to think too hard, which also makes it useful for a DMPC.

It'll still be tricky, though, and I'd recommend playing softball with encounter design at first until you really get a handle on what the players are capable of handling.

quote:

Reskinning and optimized building shouldn't be a problem. My players are used to reading guides for their 3.5 and PF characters, so expect some solid character from them.

It's mostly dead now, but there's a very hefty 4e optimization thread. Normally, I'd say to avoid maximum optimization, but with only two players, that might actually work out better, so they can punch above their theoretical weight class.

quote:

How quick is preparation? Can I think about some rough adventure plans and build up encounters when they show up in game (With heavy reskinning of course) or do I *have* to have them prepared in advance?

It takes preparation, but it's quick to adapt. Let's say you have a big encounter prepped with a group of Ogre Bandits for the next session (usually you've only got time for one encounter per session unless everyone plays VERY quickly), but the players instead go off into a cave system that you vaguely mentioned two sessions ago. Instead of tossing out that encounter, you can just reskin the Ogre Bandits into, say, Cave Trolls, with little more than changing the names, the minis, and maybe a couple minor powers or resistances.

What I will say is this: Do not bother with filler encounters. Each fight should be interesting in some way. 4e combat takes too long to constantly have random encounters and bar fights just for XP and what not. Think of it like a scene in a movie. No matter how many or few fight scenes a movie has, in a good movie, each of them is interesting and novel in some way. A good way to start designing an encounter is to think about how you want your players talking about it later.

Bad Example: "Remember the time we fought the goblins on our way to [City]?" "Which one?"
Good Example: "Remember that time we fought the goblins who had stolen a loving catapult and we had to fight our way up that hill while they were shooting boulders down at us?" "Haha, yeah, that was great."

quote:

"Inherent Bonuses" - Where can I find more of this besides whats written in the OP?
I assume that you get less loot but more mechanical meaningful loot? Like instead of regulary getting your +1,+2,+3-swords you at some point get your flaming sword, that scales because of Inherent Bonuses?

I think it's in the Rules Compendium, which is probably the best first book to get. You've about got the size of it. It makes giving loot about events, rather than "okay, you're level 8 now, I guess that means you need new armor."

Side note: One Rules Compendium, one Monster Vault (for all the neat monsters, pogs, etc), and one D&D Insider account will probably be all you'll need. Maybe one or two of the "Heroes of ____" books, if you really like building your characters at the table together.

quote:

Also I'd like to point back to my questions in my post before:

Others covered this one, anything I said would just be repeating them.

girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 20:08 on May 31, 2015

# ? May 31, 2015 20:04

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Inherent Bonuses are in page 209 of the Dark Sun Campaign Setting book, or page 138 of DMG2.

Would it be kosher to just replicate the table here?

# ? May 31, 2015 20:12

ImpactVector: Feb 24, 2007; HAHAHAHA FOOLS!!
I AM SO SMART!

Uh oh. What did he do now?; Nap Ghost

Poison Mushroom posted:

Hm. That'd be tricky, but doable, I think. My first idea is a pair of hybrid classes (maybe a Defender/Striker, and a Striker/Controller), with the DMPC taking the Leader role. A good Leader in this case would probably be a 'Lazylord'. Lazylords are a type of Warlord, whose main gimmick (aside from healing) is to give other characters more melee basic attacks. It's a good character for someone who wants to contribute to combat without having to think too hard, which also makes it useful for a DMPC.

It'll still be tricky, though, and I'd recommend playing softball with encounter design at first until you really get a handle on what the players are capable of handling.

Another idea would be to have each of the players make whatever characters they want, then give each of them a sidekick built using the companion character rules from DMG2 (or the old character builder). That way they aren't restricted in their choices, but fights should be more interesting for a small increase in mental overhead (companion characters are pretty stripped down, so they're fairly easy to run). Plus having two characters each could give them some interesting interesting roleplay opportunities.

# ? May 31, 2015 21:47

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

Summoner style is probably gonna be either druid or wizard; wizards have better powers overall and can fit the theme, druid can be way more built for summoning poo poo. Either way your actual summons are dailies.

In general having a ton of little guys under your command isn't something 4e really does for a lot of reasons. Summons were one of the things that took 3.x and snapped it over it's knee (and 5e unsurprisingly does the same) and tbh it can be a pain in the rear end as player or GM to wait for some guy to finish controlling his 5 different characters. I remember playing a Malconvoker in my 3e days and while conceptually it was rad, in play it was more then just a bit of a clusterfuck.

# ? May 31, 2015 22:43

Section Z: Oct 1, 2008; Wait, this is the Moon.
How did I even get here?; Pillbug

cybertier posted:

Is the D&D Insider subscription still a thing? When I went to their homepage everything looked very 5th-edition-esque. Do I still get access to the 4th edition tools and info?

While I wouldn't suggest bothering unless you get into 4th ed and are willing to blow the money. The 4th ed stuff is still there, magazines, art galleries, compendium, character builder. It is literally the only reason I've kept up my sub (that and the renew date is around my birthday), since I keep using it and referencing it for pals as well as myself. Even if they hadn't farmed out 5th ed character building as expensive DLC for a $40 3rd party program instead of making it part of the sub, I don't think 5th ed isn't complex or supplement filled enough for me to pay a sub for a charbuilder. Unless you were willing to pay that much for something to sorts through the spell list for you.

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/tools.aspx There is a subscribe now link at the bottom of the page. You can reach the 4th ed stuff from the DnD front page with the poorly labeled Product info/tabletop games/digital tools link.

I have no idea if you can activate a new sub or not right now? Their billing department seems to work on arcane witchcraft. Considering apparently my last few renews were put through with expired card data (and it just fails when I tried to update the expiration date). This completely baffled the support when I called them.

Guess I'll find out in late October if "Okay, we turned off auto-renew. just resub later and you should keep all your stuff" is true.

# ? May 31, 2015 22:43

Khizan: Jul 30, 2013

I'd probably just see if one/both of the players wants to run two characters. Defender/Striker/Leader or Striker/Striker/Leader can be perfectly viable parties, controllers are really fairly unnecessary. Could even make it something like "rogue owns a fighter-golem" to make the extra characters require little in the way of roleplay.

# ? May 31, 2015 23:03

thespaceinvader: Mar 30, 2011; The slightest touch from a Gol-Shogeg will result in Instant Death!

ProfessorCirno posted:

Summoner style is probably gonna be either druid or wizard; wizards have better powers overall and can fit the theme, druid can be way more built for summoning poo poo. Either way your actual summons are dailies.

In general having a ton of little guys under your command isn't something 4e really does for a lot of reasons. Summons were one of the things that took 3.x and snapped it over it's knee (and 5e unsurprisingly does the same) and tbh it can be a pain in the rear end as player or GM to wait for some guy to finish controlling his 5 different characters. I remember playing a Malconvoker in my 3e days and while conceptually it was rad, in play it was more then just a bit of a clusterfuck.

Most controller powers could trivially be refluffed as 'army of tiny minions at my command' - indeed, some of the Wizard ones have that as their default fluff, especially a couple of reasonable ones from (IIRC) Heroes of the Feywild.

Summoning in 4e is best done by Druids due to the Druid summons generally scaling well and having very favourable instinctive effects, but they're still limited, still daily powers, and still not generally as good as the equivalent non-summon in most cases.

# ? May 31, 2015 23:12

Kurieg: Jul 19, 2012; RIP Lutri: 5/19/20-4/2/20

Summon druid also gains access to Fire Hawk, which is either one of the most amazing at wills ever, or complete garbage. Depending on who's doing your rules adjudication.

# ? May 31, 2015 23:49

Section Z: Oct 1, 2008; Wait, this is the Moon.
How did I even get here?; Pillbug

Kurieg posted:

Summon druid also gains access to Fire Hawk, which is either one of the most amazing at wills ever, or complete garbage. Depending on who's doing your rules adjudication.

Dare I ask what twisted interpretations you have seen? Opportunity action and opportunity attack has always seemed pretty straightforward... Usually... _{(gently caress it, we are all idiots and keep forgetting Combat Challenge is an interrupt that doesn't get AoO bonuses. Might as well make it official)}

But Fire Hawk has always looked pretty simple to me.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 00:02

aegof: Mar 2, 2011

cybertier posted:

About disadvantage number 4.
Is the game playable by two players with one supporting GM PC?
Are there any good options for a GM PC that can fill a support role without too many options, so I can have the character help the players without getting bogged down in a combat, by thinking what this support character should do?

I've run a low-level two-pc game without the GM PC. It's totally doable if you've got a handle on basic encounter design and if you have an idea of what your players can do.

For example:
Play to the team's strengths. I had a Dragonborn Knight and a Skald. The Dragonborn was a heavy, front-line Defender class, with gobs of HP and defenses, and a minor action AoE that could pop minions very easily. I could throw monsters at him and swarm him with minions and be fairly sure he would eventually get through them all. The Skald was more lightly armored, but he had a good basic attack, could heal and buff, and was generally able to keep both of them on their feet.
The game has an "encounter budget" that basically means you can include one Standard monster for each player. So four Minions for each, and one Elite for both, and only use Solos for the biggest boss fights you half-expect the players to lose. If the team doesn't have any AoE attacks, go light on the minons. If there's no healer, go light on the damage and use more status effects. If nobody can hit hard, more minions and lower-hp standards.

You may have to fudge the dice a little, or constantly have a non-game-ending resolution for when the dice swing the wrong way, and I think creativity in encounter design is a bit more important with two players than with five, but my game was a good time and nobody really missed having strikers or controllers around.

All of this said, a GM PC (ideally a potion caddy or acolyte who only knows Healing Word) might be easier than all of that, especially for a first game.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 00:25

Kurieg: Jul 19, 2012; RIP Lutri: 5/19/20-4/2/20

Section Z posted:

Dare I ask what twisted interpretations you have seen? Opportunity action and opportunity attack has always seemed pretty straightforward... Usually... _{(gently caress it, we are all idiots and keep forgetting Combat Challenge is an interrupt that doesn't get AoO bonuses. Might as well make it official)}

But Fire Hawk has always looked pretty simple to me.

That's not the point of contention. The point in question is if you get the opportunity attack when they do an action that would provoke an opportunity action (E.G. they're standing off on their lonesome, and make a ranged attack or move without shifting) or if they have to actually provoke an opportunity attack from someone standing next to them for the druid to be able to use their opportunity action.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 00:44

Hwurmp: May 20, 2005

Kurieg posted:

That's not the point of contention. The point in question is if you get the opportunity attack when they do an action that would provoke an opportunity action (E.G. they're standing off on their lonesome, and make a ranged attack or move without shifting) or if they have to actually provoke an opportunity attack from someone standing next to them for the druid to be able to use their opportunity action.

The power says "any action that can provoke," not "any action that does provoke." Anyone who would pick the second one is wrong, and so is everyone who ever loved them.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 00:57

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Kurieg posted:

That's not the point of contention. The point in question is if you get the opportunity attack when they do an action that would provoke an opportunity action (E.G. they're standing off on their lonesome, and make a ranged attack or move without shifting) or if they have to actually provoke an opportunity attack from someone standing next to them for the druid to be able to use their opportunity action.

It seems like the favorable interpretation makes sense on a class that is ostensibly a controller.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 01:05

Section Z: Oct 1, 2008; Wait, this is the Moon.
How did I even get here?; Pillbug

Really Pants posted:

The power says "any action that can provoke," not "any action that does provoke." Anyone who would pick the second one is wrong, and so is everyone who ever loved them.

Yeah. So "they're standing off on their lonesome, and make a ranged attack or move without shifting" seems exactly what the power was designed to trigger on.

I can easily see people considering otherwise just from being used to otherwise, or just plain not liking it. I know that while some GMs will gleefully trigger AoO with their monsters, some will practically freeze up and refuse to do anything that would provoke something. So I could picture them just loving HATING Fire hawk, even though the secondary part of the power does not scale up at epic and is forever 1d8+WIS (if you land the extra hit roll in the first place) because it's another reaction they have to deal with.

Then again, I'm used to the sort of people who think they are being fair and reasonable when they tell me "It makes no sense for your your expensive immunity to poison and biological weapons to work. It just isn't fair to people who took attacks with the poison disadvantage" loving HERO. I barely remember how the mechanics work, but :psyduck:

rulings will forever have a place in my brain.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 01:21

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

A team member answered that it basically gives threatening reach in some faq that has disappeared from wizards site

# ? Jun 1, 2015 01:24

Kurieg: Jul 19, 2012; RIP Lutri: 5/19/20-4/2/20

Someone from WOTC customer service ruled that it only worked on actions that *did* provoke an opportunity attack. So there's two conflicting rulings.

I do know that someone used some half-elf tomfoolery to turn it into "Deal 4d8+whatever damage as an at will, and another 4d8+whatever if you do anything other than shift twice."

# ? Jun 1, 2015 02:18

Madmarker: Jan 7, 2007

Wizards customer service is not a rules source for anything, the customer service agents often give contradictory rulings and don't really understand the 4e system.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 02:22

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

well, if you can find rules faq 1905 it should be in there

# ? Jun 1, 2015 03:54

Scrree: Jan 16, 2008; the history of all dead generations,

For a new DM with new players, all mostly inexperienced with tabletop rpgs, would you guys recommend relying on a pre-existing adventure like The Slaying Stone or just making a simple 'You're heading to caverns of Stonetooth in search of treasure; Goblins on the road: roll initiative' with a couple of backup plots ready in case things shake out weirdly.

I already know about using MM3 math/inherent bonuses/feet tax freebies, the players will build characters from PHB1 (cause that's what I have) too keep it simple on that front. I'd just like to have a good first adventure set up and have heard that the early releases like Keep on the Shadowfell do not do the trick.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 05:17

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

I would look at doing a simple homebrew adventure: the problem with the published adventures is that they fall into the trap of too many fights that don't really mean anything except just be fights to hit the right experience notes, when you should really be going for fewer, more interesting fights that always challenge the players. As well, the published adventures still use outdated monster math, so you're going to have to do some reworking anyway.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 05:29

Section Z: Oct 1, 2008; Wait, this is the Moon.
How did I even get here?; Pillbug

Modules also love seemingly arbitrary DC checks, though I've found this to be an issue for any system anywhere, even cases of " made this system myself! This is the DC chart, and now I'm going to completely ignore it!". Not as much of an issue if you are willing to tweak those to be more reasonable or in line with your party at least.

A personal favorite example of :psyduck:

module DC is the opening encounter in Scales Of War. It's one extra move action to climb onto a table in the tavern. It is a DC 30 acrobatics check to climb on to the bar counter. Before errata, DC 30 is level 28-30 Easy. After errata DC chart, DC 30 is between Medium and hard for Level 28-30. To climb on top of the loving tavern bar.

Nice and stupid example, but not going to get anyone killed (like the "level 2" acid trap with paragon Tier DCs in the FG Campagin guide,...)

# ? Jun 1, 2015 06:04

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

aegof posted:

All of this said, a GM PC (ideally a potion caddy or acolyte who only knows Healing Word) might be easier than all of that, especially for a first game.

I'd sooner just give the PCs a magic item for healing before I resorted to GMPCs. Those are always bad.

# ? Jun 1, 2015 07:18

Whybird: Aug 2, 2009; Phaiston have long avoided the tightly competetive defence sector, but the IRDA Act 2052 has given us the freedom we need to bring out something really special.

https://team-robostar.itch.io/robostar; Nap Ghost

I'll also add that if you're looking for a game with 4e-style tactical combat and fail-forward mechanics outside of a fight, then Strike! is a goon-made RPG that has both of those things, and also goes a good way towards fixing many of the issues that other posters have identified with 4e (feat bloat, the need to assign ability scores to your class's strengths, slightly wonky maths at higher levels, long fights at higher levels)

# ? Jun 1, 2015 12:35

Blasphemeral: Jul 26, 2012; Three mongrel men in exchange for a party member? I found that one in the Faustian Bargain Bin.

Hi, 4e thread! Long time, no see.

I have a 4th edition epic-level game coming up, and I am building some trials for the PC to overcome in order to gain access to the peak of Mt. Mertion (Bahamut's mountain) within Celestia. They are intended to be "obviously a trial," but precisely what they are testing should be up to player interpretation.

I'd be very thankful for any suggestions you guys could provide for tests that the PCs could perform to demonstrate to Bahamut they've "got what it takes" as far as he's concerned. I've got a couple ideas that test their ideals of justice and such, but I need a couple more and I'd love to hear what you guys come up with.

In return, I'll post a write-up of their shenanigans after the session (a couple weeks from now).

Also, if you could spoiler them, just in case one of my players stumbles in (I know at least one has an account here) that would be great. Thanks!

# ? Jun 8, 2015 22:02

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Blasphemeral posted:

Hi, 4e thread! Long time, no see.

I have a 4th edition epic-level game coming up, and I am building some trials for the PC to overcome in order to gain access to the peak of Mt. Mertion (Bahamut's mountain) within Celestia. They are intended to be "obviously a trial," but precisely what they are testing should be up to player interpretation.

I'd be very thankful for any suggestions you guys could provide for tests that the PCs could perform to demonstrate to Bahamut they've "got what it takes" as far as he's concerned. I've got a couple ideas that test their ideals of justice and such, but I need a couple more and I'd love to hear what you guys come up with.

In return, I'll post a write-up of their shenanigans after the session (a couple weeks from now).

Also, if you could spoiler them, just in case one of my players stumbles in (I know at least one has an account here) that would be great. Thanks!

How does the use of spoiler tags stop them from seeing the ideas?

To contribute: It doesn't, it just draws attention to which replies are to your post.

Edit, further: One test, of course, is to see how they react to not getting what they want. Top of the mountain is empty, "Peace on Oerth" is all the treasure says, et cetera. Are they good for the sake of being good, or as a means to an end?

homullus fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jun 8, 2015

# ? Jun 8, 2015 22:18

djw175: Apr 23, 2012; by zen death robot

Blasphemeral posted:

Hi, 4e thread! Long time, no see.

I have a 4th edition epic-level game coming up, and I am building some trials for the PC to overcome in order to gain access to the peak of Mt. Mertion (Bahamut's mountain) within Celestia. They are intended to be "obviously a trial," but precisely what they are testing should be up to player interpretation.

I'd be very thankful for any suggestions you guys could provide for tests that the PCs could perform to demonstrate to Bahamut they've "got what it takes" as far as he's concerned. I've got a couple ideas that test their ideals of justice and such, but I need a couple more and I'd love to hear what you guys come up with.

In return, I'll post a write-up of their shenanigans after the session (a couple weeks from now).

Also, if you could spoiler them, just in case one of my players stumbles in (I know at least one has an account here) that would be great. Thanks!

Collect a rat tail to I don't know, prove their humility? I just feel like there should be a final fantasy reference here.

# ? Jun 8, 2015 22:20

Blasphemeral: Jul 26, 2012; Three mongrel men in exchange for a party member? I found that one in the Faustian Bargain Bin.

homullus posted:

How does the use of spoiler tags stop them from seeing the ideas?

It doesn't make it impossible for them to do so if they desire, but it does prevent them from accidentally spoiling our next session just by checking in on the 4e thread.

# ? Jun 8, 2015 22:27

slap me and kiss me: Apr 1, 2008; You best protect ya neck

Blasphemeral posted:

Hi, 4e thread! Long time, no see.

I have a 4th edition epic-level game coming up, and I am building some trials for the PC to overcome in order to gain access to the peak of Mt. Mertion (Bahamut's mountain) within Celestia. They are intended to be "obviously a trial," but precisely what they are testing should be up to player interpretation.

I'd be very thankful for any suggestions you guys could provide for tests that the PCs could perform to demonstrate to Bahamut they've "got what it takes" as far as he's concerned. I've got a couple ideas that test their ideals of justice and such, but I need a couple more and I'd love to hear what you guys come up with.

In return, I'll post a write-up of their shenanigans after the session (a couple weeks from now).

Also, if you could spoiler them, just in case one of my players stumbles in (I know at least one has an account here) that would be great. Thanks!

Load their journey up with some time pressures (e.g. get this mulligan to the top of the peak before next day's dawn), and present them with some seemingly insignificant encounters along the way. Do they pause in their quest to help the farmer put the wheel back on his wagon? What about give a coin or two to the hungry family? Easy things to for adventurers, but it might make them late. Judge their worthiness based on how they treat the unimportant (fix a wagon at level 25? But I'm king of three nations!).

# ? Jun 8, 2015 22:33

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Mcguffin, not mulligan. :eng101:

Edit: one's the Maltese falcon, the other's what you do when you shank your drive off the tee box. :v:

Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jun 8, 2015

# ? Jun 8, 2015 22:44

slap me and kiss me: Apr 1, 2008; You best protect ya neck

Drewjitsu posted:

Mcguffin, not mulligan.

Helping a a poor poster with grammar rather than fulfilling the quest? Truly, you are the hero of heroes!

# ? Jun 8, 2015 22:47

Khizan: Jul 30, 2013

Pfox posted:

Load their journey up with some time pressures (e.g. get this mulligan to the top of the peak before next day's dawn), and present them with some seemingly insignificant encounters along the way. Do they pause in their quest to help the farmer put the wheel back on his wagon? What about give a coin or two to the hungry family? Easy things to for adventurers, but it might make them late. Judge their worthiness based on how they treat the unimportant (fix a wagon at level 25? But I'm king of three nations!).

This is so obviously a "how do you treat your lessers" thing that I think you should do this the other way around and penalize them for stopping to help. Call it a lack of vision, inability to see the big picture, etc.

# ? Jun 8, 2015 23:39

Rohan Kishibe: Oct 29, 2011; Frankly, I don't like you
and I never have.

The best idea is to have the result be open ended, and not have a fixed "this is the right path" idea in the first place.

# ? Jun 8, 2015 23:55

Khizan: Jul 30, 2013

Prison Warden posted:

The best idea is to have the result be open ended, and not have a fixed "this is the right path" idea in the first place.

Ideally you'd screw them either way.

# ? Jun 9, 2015 00:48

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Pfox posted:

Helping a a poor poster with grammar rather than fulfilling the quest? Truly, you are the hero of heroes!

I'm not an ideas guy, I'm more of a Mechanics guy. I'm trying to help anyway I can. :unsmith:

# ? Jun 9, 2015 01:05

slap me and kiss me: Apr 1, 2008; You best protect ya neck

Khizan posted:

This is so obviously a "how do you treat your lessers" thing that I think you should do this the other way around and penalize them for stopping to help. Call it a lack of vision, inability to see the big picture, etc.

Correct. you'd need to blend it into the description of the background lest it become an obvious plot point.

# ? Jun 9, 2015 02:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 06:39

girl dick energy: Sep 30, 2009; You think you have the wherewithal to figure out my puzzle vagina?

Having either helping or not helping shouldn't be favored. Different benefits and complications, sure. Or using it as context to evaluate their motivations, sure. But a big picture/help everyone dilemma shouldn't have a binary right or wrong answer.

# ? Jun 9, 2015 16:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Looks like we're the grognards, now.

«‹›266 »