|
One of my players isn't super satisfied with her Battlemind. From what I gathered, what she wants out of a character is: - should be able to create a strong incentive for enemies to attack her, if not downright force them to - should be able to do this to many enemies at once - if a Defender, should be able to punish far away enemies There's also a bit of dissatisfaction centered around her at-wills being not that great compared to her former character, but I tried to explain that when you go from a level 30 wizard specifically built to utilize Thunderwave to the fullest to a heroic tier defender, that's entirely within expected parameters. But it does tell me that she probably doesn't necessarily need to stick to the defender role. Another player knows her well and suggested she might have expected a defender to work more, or exactly, like a WoW tank (which it apparently doesn't so so much for that rumour!). She also really likes being able to do very effective stuff over and over and rarely uses encounter or daily powers, but I don't want to open the Essentials can of worms unless I absolutely have to. Anyway what do we have in 4E that works roughly like this? I was thinking about Wardens. Marking in a burst and pulling enemies closer all seem like she could get behind it based on what we discussed.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
Every word in that post says TIEFLING CHALADIN.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
I'm listening. Does whatever they bring to the table work with dwarves because I forgot to mention we'd most likely keep-but-rebuild-and-retcon the character than introduce a new one, and while I'm totally cool with refluffing a tiefling as a dwarf (duergar?) I don't think she is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Unfortunately, no. It's mostly based on Tieflings' ridiculous racial feats. A Dwarf Warden should work pretty well, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
What level are you? Because frankly, Battlemind is exactly what she wants if she wants a Defender. Lodestone Lure (L3) and Lightning Rush (L7) check all the boxes: effective, spammable, ranged lockdown. They're not great at mass marking, but mass marking is usually at odds with very powerful lockdown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
We're just entering level 7 now. Looking over her build so far, there's a pretty good chance she hasn't even cracked open Psionic Power. Lodestone Lure sounds exactly like the one Warden at-will power that made me think of them in the first place. Weapon attack vs. Will as well, that's nice. And yeah, if anything I would have thought psionic characters would be ideal for her, with all the at-wills. Right now her gameplan is to close the distance to one guy and spam Iron Fist for damage reduction, then they have a duel off to the side while the rest of the battle is going on elsewhere. It reliably locks one enemy down for the fight, but it feels like we could just skip both their turns, then at the end of the battle go "and you drop the guy you've been keeping busy."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Every word in that post says TIEFLING CHALADIN. Seconding this. Tiefling Chaladin is precisely that. Dwarf Chaladin does work, but not as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Did anyone ever put together a MM1 on a business card? Or publish some any sort of pre MM3 monster formula? Were pre mm3 monsters even built with a formula? I'm not interested in remaking mm1 monsters or anything, I'm looking to see if I can't glean a quick or simple conversion formula for a heartbreaker project.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:Did anyone ever put together a MM1 on a business card? Or publish some any sort of pre MM3 monster formula? Were pre mm3 monsters even built with a formula? The fact that there's a hard-and-fast formula for converting MM1 monsters to use MM3 mandates that MM1 monsters were made with a formula. If MM1 monsters weren't consistent, you couldn't just convert them, you'd have to completely re-write them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Gort posted:The fact that there's a hard-and-fast formula for converting MM1 monsters to use MM3 mandates that MM1 monsters were made with a formula. If MM1 monsters weren't consistent, you couldn't just convert them, you'd have to completely re-write them. Where can this formula be found? I've seen suggestions on various forums, but there is a lot of variance in those suggestions, which makes me suspicious of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
I forget where I read it, but I heard something about there being additional aspects to the mm3 math that aren't on the business card thing? Something about artillery doing more damage with area attacks, or maybe less damage, I don't even know. Also, in regards to the +25-50% damage on encounter powers thing, does that include recharge powers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
DMG, page 184 has the formulae for making Monster Manual 1 monsters.
Gort fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Flame112 posted:I forget where I read it, but I heard something about there being additional aspects to the mm3 math that aren't on the business card thing? Something about artillery doing more damage with area attacks, or maybe less damage, I don't even know. Also, in regards to the +25-50% damage on encounter powers thing, does that include recharge powers? The main changes are... * All monsters except Brutes do an average of Level+8 damage; Brutes add +25% to this. * All monsters use the standard Level +5 vs. AC or Level +3 vs FRW attack bonuses; previously Soldiers, Controllers, and Artillery had some bonuses, while Brutes had penalties. * Monsters still have varying defenses and hit points, but Solos only get x4 HP regardless of level, and neither Solos nor Elites get bonuses to Defenses. * AoE attacks are codified to do 25% less damage, but Elites and Solos can sometimes change that up. Limited-use AoE generally do standard damage, or standard +25%. There's some vestigial bits in there, too, where ability scores (especially Constitution) matter, but if you use the Business Card version, those fall by the wayside. Some other more ephemeral shifts in design philosophy... * All Elites have the ability to attack either multiple times or multiple foes at full damage. This is usually a Basic Attack or two, with an At-Will that lets them use their Basic Attacks twice. * All Solos get their action economies somewhat unfucked, letting them attack even more, usually including Minor Actions, Interrupts, multiple initiative points, etc. * All better-made Solos (MV and after) and some Elites get some resistance to various action-denial control tricks. * Lurkers have a purpose. They generally attack on alternating rounds, dealing somewhere around double damage, hiding or tanking in between. And yes, Recharge powers count for the bonus damage, but be a reasonable dude about it and don't use anything that recharges on better than a 5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Actually on the note of strikers, and ranged strikers, and specifically warlocks, I've never actually made one. I've made warlock hybrids, but never pure class, and given all my warlock hybrids are inevitably melee, I assume it's at least a little different. What's a good way to do i, assuming I don't want to use bullshit cheesy dumbfuckery (like spamming Hellish Rebuke then using an item to damage myself)? There's a class guide on the WotC forums but the last ten pages are filled with people saying it's useless so I don't even know. Are you asking to just do straight Warlock? Just make Int secondary to whatever you are doing. Avoid necrotic/poison until at minimum paragon, if you bother at all. Take radiant options as the easy route because radiant damage is vastly over-supported throughout the game. Poison/Necrotic becomes somewhat workable in paragon if you take: -The assassin feat that makes poison unblockable -The assassin feat that makes poison do +2/+3/+4 per tier -The warlock feat that makes you do poison whenever you do necrotic, and vice versa -The gloves that give you a bonus to necrotic damage Also, be a dark warlock if you are doing this. Keep in mind that trying to do control with warlock is often a trap option. Spike your damage, gently caress bitches. Resist temptation to just hybrid as bard or warlord. P.S. "You can write the monster math on a business card" is largely a myth propagated by this forum, for the reasons dwarf74 mentions and others (such as "powers are what make the monsters interesting.")
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
How many fights is a 4e party generally expected to face between Extended Rests?Gort posted:DMG, page 184 has the formulae for making Monster Manual 1 monsters. If I'm reading it right, it seems like the main difference then between release and MM3 was the attack bonuses and the HP levels, since AC/Defense scaling is still the same according to those DMG1 guidelines. Specifically that the DMG1 guidelines would result in so much more HP. Okay, I see where the problem is: On creating solos posted:3. Adjust Defenses. Increase up to three defenses, including AC, by 2. On the other hand: quote:5. All solo monsters have 2 action points. This means that the whole Legendary Action/Lair Action thing of 5th Edition to make boss monsters not be overwhelmed in action economy was not anything new, because 4th Edition already codified it right in the first DMG. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
So there's apparently an xampp utility to grab a local version of the Compendium. Anyone able to point me in the right direction? Google turned up nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure thats against the Wizards ToS and maybe is considered  , so I wouldn't suggest talking about that here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:So there's apparently an xampp utility to grab a local version of the Compendium. Anyone able to point me in the right direction? Google turned up nothing. Can't remember the exact link, but I'm pretty sure it's already been posted in the thread before, so it's just a matter of archive binging Mustache Ride posted:I'm pretty sure thats against the Wizards ToS and maybe is considered It's been talked about here plenty in the past with no mod intervention so I think it's safe to talk about
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
About Zeitgeist, how are the gun rules? More specifically, I'm starting a Zeitgeist campaign and I have a (new to 4e) player who wants to make a gunsmith Warlord and the standard action (move action at best /w a feat tax until lvl5) reload seems a bit harsh. Should I just give him the the gunsmith theme ammunition clip ability right out of the gate or otherwise reduce the reload time? I don't want his weapon choice to feel bad compared to other options. The other players are also new to the system so their characters aren't going to be very optimized either. The campaign also talks about occasional Naval combat later on. Are the rules for that viable and enjoyable? If not, should I make them just board the other vessels when combat starts or otherwise skip the whole thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Andrast posted:About Zeitgeist, how are the gun rules? My advice is to use the old Firearm rules, which turn reloading into a Minor action with Firearm Expertise. They are basically better Crossbows, until Gunsmiths make them cracked out and awesome. The naval combat... It isn't horrible, but it's not great, either. It requires more buy-in from the players than you might want to deal with, and it's pretty crunchy. I have a cheat sheet I can share.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
So I'm in 2 different 4e PbPs on the forums right now: one that severely limited races, and another that severely limited classes. I really like how both have turned out. Do the rest of you in the thread have any other similar "success stories" with reigning in the scope of 4e character building? Apparently in 5e, Mearls is now leaning towards "only use the PHB + one setting book, per campaign" which I think you might be able to backport to 4e, to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I ran a pretty successful Primals PbP (requires archives, images may be mising) here for a couple of years. Basically I limited classes to the Primal classes, and race had to be human. The setup was that the PCs all came from the same tribe, the Orh-Kalak, and it was a coming-of-age campaign. In this tribe, once a year all the young people who are at the right age to become adults go through some ceremonies and then are turned loose; they're supposed to go on quests, accomplish whatever they can, and then return to the tribe and tell what they did and have learned. If they accomplish enough, they get to join the elites; if they do not, they are consigned for life to the servant underclass, permanently honorless. (That was shamelessly stolen from an old Gary Gygax choose-your-own-adventure that someone LPed in the LP forums, by the way). The restrictions were very cool. Primal classes were fairly new at the time, so it was a fun way to explore them as a full primals party. I think my players had fun RPing awkward, coming-of-age people, not quite adults but no longer teens, in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness setting where survival was not at all assured, but risks necessary in order to avoid dishonor. The spiritual aspects were heavily emphasized as well; the shaman had his spirit eel-thing, which he knew was there to eventually eat his soul. The characters discovered an old shrine and went on a shared vision to meet the Great Crow, king spirit-of-all-crows, who showed them (cryptically, of course) where their path should next lead. Eventually I managed to kill the game by putting the players into an interesting dungeon but (huge mistake on my part) having them move round-by-round within it, because I had set up some triggered traps and events and stupidly thought it'd be best to actually track who was stepping where and when. In hindsight I ought to have just handwaved that a bit more, maybe have a skill roll to avoid or notice stuff, and otherwise just moved things along. A couple players had already dropped out, and that killed it. Most PbPs on the forums die eventually anyway, but it was sad to see it go. Anyway, I think a thematic campaign like that can really work well. I have always wanted to do a Divine campaign similar to the primals one: all the PCs would belong to the same religious organization, which could give them quests related to internal church tensions, external religious turmoil, etc. Having a shared interparty faith would allow me to focus on that specific god's aspects, shaping adventures around the theme. Other class-based stuff could be, like, everyone takes a dual-class with sorcerer being their second class, so you have a cabal of sorcerers who nevertheless can still cover the defender/striker/leader/controller gamut; or everyone takes at least one ranged at-will power, because your party is a team of military specialist skirmishers in the big war. Or just a class restriction: no arcane classes, because in this campaign setting, the use of arcane magic has been lost, (although magical creatures still exist). Or no divine classes, because your party are members of an anti-religious rebellion against the entrenched theocracy. A race-based campaign could also work pretty well. "You are all Goliaths, the last survivors of your tribe" or "You are all dwarves of the such-and-such clan; you must go on a quest to save your people" etc. You could use other restrictions, of course. "In this Underdark campaign, everyone must have at least low-light vision" or "In this magic-sword-themed campaign, everyone must be proficient with a sword or sword-like weapon." At the beginning of a campaign I always try to do group character-building with some world-building at the same time, asking players to describe relationships and even giving them the opportunity to define aspects of each-other's characters (ex: "Bob, tell me about a relative of Sarah's character," "Sarah, tell me about a time when your character and Bob's character got into some serious trouble," etc.). Having a themed campaign is another way to tie the party together more tightly from the get-go. The classic "you all meet in a bar, and are all total strangers" D&D startup isn't only bad because it's cliched, it's also bad because independently-created PCs sometimes find no common ground on which to glue the party together, which strains the basic premise of the game. Obviously everyone needs to be open to the restrictions, though. If you're just recruiting on the forums, you can just lay out the restrictions and those who don't like them need not apply, but for your home group you really have to make sure everyone's excited by the premise. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Andrast posted:The campaign also talks about occasional Naval combat later on. Are the rules for that viable and enjoyable? If not, should I make them just board the other vessels when combat starts or otherwise skip the whole thing? Here’s the Naval Combat cheat sheet I put together. There’s a lot of rules here that are only ever used for naval combat, and not every table really loves learning a whole new subsystem just to fight with boats. Mine has been decidedly lukewarm, and I’ve skated past some naval combats here or there which have seemed incidental to the plot. However, there's at least one finale which requires naval combat. And I do think it's added some fun at times. Give it a try and see if your players get into it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9qwm-rNX9YEMmhLRnRrYW1uU00/view?usp=docslist_api Okay, a few more notes on running Zeitgeist. First, one of the first houserules I implemented, was that all of your attack bonus and damage bonus feats add their bonuses to any firearms you’re proficient with. This has made pistols the default fire-and-forget ranged weapons of choice for the entire party. I’ve liked how it’s worked out, and it’s made it really easy to calculate everything. Second, watch the map sizes. Zeitgeist has *huge maps.* You can print them with the PDF poster thingy, but they will escalate in size dramatically. (You can even see this in Island at the Axis of the World, with the Coaltongue map.) If you’re not using Maptools or something, and you have limited table space, don’t be afraid to cut down the size.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How many fights is a 4e party generally expected to face between Extended Rests? From a lot of experience running the game, the magic number of encounters between rests is 4, and 1-3 of them should be actual combat encounters. You can adjust this number depending on the level of combat encounters, like say have one big Level+3 encounter amongst three skill challenges. Skill challenges are the most "eyeball it" that 4E gets because they're all about the presentation and how you run them, but are still important because they are effectively where your players receive story rewards. I usually don't plan skill challenges until the players actively attempt to do something that would take a level their skill or an expenditure of effort to complete. This is easy enough to do because you can whip them up on the fly in literally seconds. An example of what I mean: The players need to go from Point A to Point B, like say from a city to a nearby trading outpost in the desert. Normally I would just say they can do this with no rolling or problems if they simply choose to do this immediately. However, one of the players decides that maybe they should do a little preparation before heading out. Maybe buy a map so they don't get lost, or hire a guide, or seek out information that might not be all that common about the roads they plan to travel. THIS is where a skill challenge affiliated with their current task (Go from A to B) begins; Streetwise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Arcana, History, Skill Powers suddenly can come into play. It'd be a relatively easy one unless I, the GM have reason for it not to be (For example, perhaps there's a highly active thieves' guild that tries to misguide unwary travellers into ambushes by providing false information). The players can already get from point A to B without doing any extra work, and they still will even if they fail this skill challenge, but for success they get a reward of some kind for their efforts. Failure might mean, in the case of the thieves' guild idea, that they get ambushed on the way, opening up another on the fly combat encounter. The best part is that it was an idea that sprung from the players just being active in the game world, and now they might have a new nemesis/ally in the form of a thieves' guild that they might want to interact with now. That got a little off the question I suppose, but I guess my point is not to neglect skill challenges when thinking about the "Adventuring Day". And since they're very "on the fly" half the time and still eat up resources, they still factor into the number of encounters between extended rests. Generally plan one or two definitive combat encounters and maybe one definitive skill challenge and let the rest evolve organically. Combat Encounters should feel like exciting high points of the Adventuring Day, even if it's just one combat encounter between extended rests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How many fights is a 4e party generally expected to face between Extended Rests? IMO, this number is flexible. I think that a party should face an amount of encounters that is sufficient to stress their resources. If your party is sitting on 50% of their surges they haven't had enough encounters yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
also, take Daily power into consideration; they can turn fights around (sorta, kinda, depending...) so if they're low on Surges but still good on those, it might be ok to push it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Shouldn't be less than 4 encounters, usually you can go up to 5, occasionally 6. It's probably fine to go into the last encounter before an extended rest with something like only 1 or 2 surges apiece and one Daily power between everyone.P.d0t posted:Do the rest of you in the thread have any other similar "success stories" with reigning in the scope of 4e character building? Apparently in 5e, Mearls is now leaning towards "only use the PHB + one setting book, per campaign" which I think you might be able to backport to 4e, to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
I'm one of those people who'd allow almost anything official, and would be fairly accepting of third party & fan content as well(at least when it comes to Races since it's comparatively hard to make a race in 4e truly break the game and I'm a sucker for exotic races in D&D) Also digging through DriveThruRPG, there's actually a surprising amount of 3rd Party content available for 4e(although it's spread across like 3 different categories, including one not accessible through the categories menus for mysterious reasons), might be worth cataloging and reviewing some of it(already own some of it)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I don't use Dragon or Essentials stuff as a general rule. My current campaign has all PHBs + all ___ Power books + Adventurer's Vaults + races and classes and associated feats from specific settings. I think it's still too much. Had it been entirely up to me it would have been PHB 1/2 only with magic items only rarely, but my players like getting loot and using additional build options and playing Assassins. My experience with Paladins (specifically) is "never don't use Divine Power." Like, the last paladin or two that I built had more powers from loving Heroes of Shadow than PHB1  Other than that.... like, are the power books any good? All I can remember hearing was basically that "Brawler Fighter is a nice option to have" but the Martial books were otherwise kinda meh? I worry that the rest of the power books just "Officially Sanctioned Power-Creep™" I feel like an Essentials-only campaign could actually work, if for no other reason than the lack of absurd char-op and feat bloat, as long as the DM tailors it (which is kinda the whole point of this exercise) I also agree that Dragon mag should take a hike. Also, freely reassigning racial Ability/Skill bumps probably goes a long way to adding variety on that front.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Me and a pal love Arena Fighter conceptually at the very least just because on top of two free weapon profs that can even be superior, they get Improvised Proficiency which lets you throw sling stones for more damage than a sling (if less range) and beat someone to death with a pillow for 1d10 [W] damage. I know there are more optimal things, but I've been enjoying supplement stuff on my PHB1 Guardian Fighter (The wisdom secondary build) because if we ever loving reach paragon in that thread, That means I'll be able to stack my WIS mod three times for Damage on my AoO vs marked targets. I'm amazed Pit Fighter was never hit by any errata at all being a PHB1 thing, and the PHB1 is basically 90% errata these days. but I guess that's because since the +WIS damage passive, and "Deal +Level Damage for action point attacks" only applies to fighter and pit fighter attacks, nobody like rangers gave a poo poo. Section Z fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:My experience with Paladins (specifically) is "never don't use Divine Power." Like, the last paladin or two that I built had more powers from loving Heroes of Shadow than PHB1 Just because someone used powers from HoS doesn't make that remotely a good choice, there were very few good defender Paladin powers in HoS, because the HoS Paladin (the Blackguard) was nominally at least, a striker. For the most part, the 4e splats are either officially sanctioned broadening of options, or officially sanctioned fixing of prior errors. Dragon included. With some obvious exceptions (I'm looking at you, Staff Expertise - something which goes neatly with Arena Fighters, btw) there's very little actual power creep in 4e, except for making lovely classes creep towards parity. Most of the broken char-op stuff actually reduced in power as the edition went on, barring a couple of things which had some unintentional consequences like Firewind Blade. An Essentials-only campaign could well work with the right group, but Essentials is an issue because it was a clear attempt to get back to LFQW. The Wizard is basically the same as the Wizard from the PHB, but the Fighters have dramatically fewer choices level-by-level and round-by-round, and even less if you note that their stances are barely meaningful choices; you'll most likely pick one, maybe two, at first level and use them ALL THE TIME, then the levels and times where you could choose them, you'll completely ignore the new ones. Essentials characters are fine in the wider frame of 4e as a whole, but essentials on its own is a great way to go back to casters who do everything (but everythign is SLIGHTLY less than it was in 3.x) and martials who hit stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:never don't I think my use of double-negative confused you
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I feel like an Essentials-only campaign could actually work, if for no other reason than the lack of absurd char-op and feat bloat, as long as the DM tailors it (which is kinda the whole point of this exercise) There's one big problem with this: no Warlords. Never don't have Warlords.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:An Essentials-only campaign could well work with the right group, but Essentials is an issue because it was a clear attempt to get back to LFQW. No, no, Essentials was just an attempt to make 4e simpler for people who wanted it simpler! The fact that ONLY martial classes got simpler and wizards just got more powerful while remaining just as complicated and Warlords vanished is complete coincidence!
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Section Z posted:I'm amazed Pit Fighter was never hit by any errata at all being a PHB1 thing, and the PHB1 is basically 90% errata these days. but I guess that's because since the +WIS damage passive, and "Deal +Level Damage for action point attacks" only applies to fighter and pit fighter attacks, nobody like rangers gave a poo poo. I'm pretty sure it was originally just straight +WIS to damage, and it was errated to be Fighter and PF powers only. Pit Fighter is nice now, but it can't be used to MASSIVELY boost damage on pure strikers because it only applies to fighter powers. Except, of course, that Fighters can be very solid strikers by themselves, and just PF, Fighter and AP damage boosts are very solid. It's the PP I would take on an Epic Slayer, but not on a Paragon one because Draeven Marauder is +crits and you can really punch up Slayer crits. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Aug 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Has anyone any experience with any of the various modern age takes on 4e? I wanted to represent a group of players as a squad of soldiers, with some level of variation between them as it may last for a few sessions (or more if it works very well). There seem to be a fair few homebrew 4e Modern rule sets and at least one published set (Goodman Games Amethyst) but I'm not so sure what would work the best. If anyone's had any experience trying any of these out, or simply re-skinning, I'd love to hear how it went and grab any recommendations before just picking one and diving in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
If I let all races freely assign the +2 ability bonuses at chargen, should I give Humans an additional +2 to play with? Or does the extra feat balance that out? Realistically the second +2 would be going to your rider stat so an extra feat may (theoretically) balance that out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Honestly, I have no problems letting people assign a +2 to any three stats of their choice with any race (even humans) and get a +1 to three stats when you hit levels 4/8/14/18/24/28, because it lets you qualify for more things, use more features and stops the backsliding of your worst defense as you level. Similarly, in the case of characters whose stat pairs overlap on the same defense (Str/Con, Dex/Int, Wis/Cha), they can apply one of the stats to their other defenses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Dremcon posted:If I let all races freely assign the +2 ability bonuses at chargen, should I give Humans an additional +2 to play with? Or does the extra feat balance that out? I'd say humans could actually use two floating +2s nowadays; the alternate racial power they got in Essentials doesn't really cope with everyone else's boosts and Humans are a little behind these days IME.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:14 |
|
|
There were several Fighter PPs that got nerfed because they were AMAZING striker PPs for anyone, so they got changed to be Fighter poo poo Only. Of course, Fighters are almost full striker in their own, so it works out. Which is why I always laugh at the grog thought of "4e Fighters can't do any damage, they're just meatshields!" Then I sigh because that spreads and people who've never played the game repeat it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 19:37
|
|
