|
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? 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 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 05:27 |
|
I've written a lot of words on why 4e is good, but usually in juxtaposition with 3.5e/PFquote: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. 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. 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: 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 |
|
cybertier posted:Are there any "modern" concepts like "failing it forward" already built into the rules? 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 |
|
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 |
|
cybertier posted:Thanks for your excellent reply. 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. 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? 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? 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: girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 20:08 on May 31, 2015 |
# ? May 31, 2015 20:04 |
|
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 |
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.
|
|
# ? May 31, 2015 21:47 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
cybertier posted:About disadvantage number 4. 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 |
|
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) 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 rulings will forever have a place in my brain.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2015 01:21 |
|
A team member answered that it basically gives threatening reach in some faq that has disappeared from wizards site
|
# ? Jun 1, 2015 01:24 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
well, if you can find rules faq 1905 it should be in there
|
# ? Jun 1, 2015 03:54 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Blasphemeral posted:Hi, 4e thread! Long time, no see. 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 |
|
Blasphemeral posted:Hi, 4e thread! Long time, no see. 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 |
|
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 |
|
Blasphemeral posted:Hi, 4e thread! Long time, no see. 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 |
|
Mcguffin, not mulligan. Edit: one's the Maltese falcon, the other's what you do when you shank your drive off the tee box. Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Jun 8, 2015 |
# ? Jun 8, 2015 22:44 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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.
|
# ? Jun 9, 2015 01:05 |
|
Khizan posted:
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 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 05:27 |
|
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 |