|
I see, guess I wasn't reading that properly.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
man was the agenda behind MME just "let's gently caress up the remaining balance before we give this edition the boot" or what
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:man was the agenda behind MME just "let's gently caress up the remaining balance before we give this edition the boot" or what MME. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, or... Mike Mearls Edition?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Greater Dancing seems weird. It's not just a "better" version of dancing, but rather a similar concept that does different things. It animates in a single place and stays there until you spend a move to direct it to fly somewhere else, only takes OAs (except for once a day when you have it make a MBA), and it can be attacked itself to knock it out of the air.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
It's probably mostly that they couldn't call too many things the "True _______ Item".
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Dancing weapons were a thing in 3rd Edition (I know this because it came up in prep this afternoon), so it entirely fits the Mike Mearls Takes the Reins of 4e narrative for MME to go "No, THIS is how Dancing works"
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Dancing weapons were a thing in 3rd Edition (I know this because it came up in prep this afternoon), so it entirely fits the Mike Mearls Takes the Reins of 4e narrative for MME to go "No, THIS is how Dancing works" Yeah, but the 3.5 version almost perfectly matches the normal 4e version (fights on its own, can't take OAs), not the "Greater" version from MME.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Sure, but it's a Sustain Minor power and it only autoattacks within 2 squares. At most you're getting 3 attacks but you'd be immobile and enemies could just give you a berth. Congratulations, you're a controller's zone now. Or you could walk around with two of them which if your MBA is good enough (hello Essentials!) might even be sort of worth it as a gimmick idea. Might be fun to explore this more if you throw a leader that grants extra attacks and/or movement into the mix... Yes, you can sustain multiple powers at once. Playing my Shaman|Cleric in big fights I sometimes wound up spending a turn doing up to 5 sustains (one from Sustaining Cloak) all to good effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:man was the agenda behind MME just "let's gently caress up the remaining balance before we give this edition the boot" or what Unknown Quantity posted:MME. Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, or... Mike Mearls Edition? Yeah, it's this. It was less intentionally loving up the balance and far more Mearls being extremely salty about 4e and desperately trying to crowbar it back into 3e. My Lovely Horse posted:It's probably mostly that they couldn't call too many things the "True _______ Item". Case in point, look at how often he tried to change items to be their 3e equivalent while "subtly" dissing the 4e version. And people wonder why Essentials did so poorly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Sure, but it's a Sustain Minor power and it only autoattacks within 2 squares. At most you're getting 3 attacks but you'd be immobile and enemies could just give you a berth. Congratulations, you're a controller's zone now. Or you could walk around with two of them which if your MBA is good enough (hello Essentials!) might even be sort of worth it as a gimmick idea. Might be fun to explore this more if you throw a leader that grants extra attacks and/or movement into the mix... Don't forget Revenant cheese for additional minor actions. After it's mostly seeing what you can do with 3+ minor action attacks per turn, which ought to be easy enough for a seasoned charopper.  I don't see any reason why you can't sustain multiple powers as long as you have the actions to spend. I would say using one action to sustain multiple powers is a no-go though. The item power being Daily isn't an issue if you're playing with Inherent Bonuses, just buy a ton of the low level version and take Quick Draw or similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I think there's a hard limit on daily item powers even then (that no one pays attention to).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
That's been errata'd out for a while. It is an uncommon item though. That's been errata'd in. e: and the lowest level version is still Lv20 and costs 125k.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I think there's a hard limit on daily item powers even then (that no one pays attention to). If you're using item rarity rules from Essentials, you can freely ignore them because they are nowhere in the Essentials material and the DM is controlling the availability of all such items. If you're going full magic-mart, then yeah, you should enforce those hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
No, don't, they're dumb. Use the item rarity rules, but mostly, don't care too much about them. There are very few truly overpowered daily items, and using multiple of them together is usually difficult because they occupy slots. If your players want to use endless Trollhide Bracers or whatever, have a discussion with them about what they want out of the game, because they're clearly not interested in having their characters killed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Quoting myself because I somehow didn't find this thread before:Synnr posted:So is there a specific 4e thread anymore, or is this the place to bother folks? I had a couple friends who were curious about 4e after we had some confusing conversations about their pathfinder game and I was wondering if there was a decent lowish level and short thing for new-to-the-system folks I could run them through. Mostly the conversation came out of the fact that I was used to (and enjoy) playing 4e like a little tactical rpg chess thing and they play pathfinder in a less restrictive/rigid way (if that makes sense) regarding stuff like action economy and all that. We didn't get very far in this birthday game they ran in pathfinder (my first) and it still felt kind of bloated and too 3e for my taste so I didn't get a complete picture of how they play. But hey, they were curious about the way I described 4e (and seemed to like what they saw in the players handbook I lent) and wanted to try a little short thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Reavers of Harkenwold is a pretty good low-level module. It starts at 2nd level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
I ran The Slaying Stone in one long 6-hour session. I thought it was a good intro to the game. It doesn't railroad you, there's a light investigation aspect and a penultimate encounter that's a roleplaying/skill check scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Seconding Slaying Stone. It does a good job of showcasing what 4e does well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Ohhh is Slaying Stone the one with the wolves chasing you in the muddy field and theres a lady in a tower across a bridge? I think we ran that as part of a thing in a campaign way back and enjoyed it. That muddy field/bridge fight really stuck with me for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Ohhh is Slaying Stone the one with the wolves chasing you in the muddy field and theres a lady in a tower across a bridge? I think we ran that as part of a thing in a campaign way back and enjoyed it. That muddy field/bridge fight really stuck with me for some reason. I don't remember those specific details, but Slaying Stone is about as good of an intro to 4e as you can find.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the first encounter presented in the Slaying Stone. You later end up infiltrating an enemy-occupied village in order to track down a MacGuffin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Auralsaurus Flex posted:Yeah, that's the first encounter presented in the Slaying Stone. You later end up infiltrating an enemy-occupied village in order to track down a MacGuffin. And might walk into the place where it is right away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
I'm not particularly find of the existing myconids in MM2 and they're old math and the wrong level anyway, so I'm trying to come up with my own for a level 9 party. The basic idea is that they usually come in threes - a Controller, a Brute and a Soldier. These groups would always be part of an encounter, be it that there are other monsters or nasty traps, but they'd have a set tactic. Controller: puts down a zone that hinders enemies and gives the Brute an advantage. Something like an area burst (sprouting mushrooms) that deals poison damage and slows PCs, or maybe pulls them together in a neat bunch. Brute: has a close blast attack that's more effective when you're in the controller's zone. I figure, I can either have the zone impose a condition that comes with combat advantage, or just key the Brute's ability off the zone itself and have him deal extra damage. Soldier: goes after PCs that try to take down the Controller, particularly strikers. The MM2 soldier takes away standard actions, but I might just use regular Fighter mechanics here. They also all have that ability from MM2 where they can split damage one member takes among themselves. Seems like a neat passive effect and since they work best in a group, this keeps the whole group around that much longer. The Brute has a regeneration ability in the book, I'm debating whether to keep that (he's got no Soldier to protect him, after all). Party has two defenders (Paladin, Warden), a Valor Bard, an Invoker and two strikers (Assassin, Fey Warlock). Like I said though, they wouldn't ever meet only the myconids. I'm also trying to keep things fairly simple with not too many special powers or conditions. Would appreciate any input. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
homullus posted:And might walk into the place where it is right away. It's very DnD
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
So here's an odd question: I'm currently working on a short story which involves a group of roleplayers, and the plot is partially interwoven with their campaign. One major factor that could be useful for me to be thinking about is finding a monster that would be thematically and/or symbolically interesting, not to mention something that would just be more fun to write about. I have a couple of criteria, plot-wise, that I need to consider. The monster (or 'enemy'/humanoid/whatever) is responsible for killing a PC (by the group's consensus, as one of the PCs had to take over as DM mid-campaign). While his motivations for doing so are meant to be a breadcrumb for a subsequent adventure or possible modular dungeon later down the road, one of the players will not be dissuaded from giving immediate pursuit, leading to some amateur improvisation by the new DM. What I'm looking for is a creature that's kind of ambiguously intelligent. Its capacity for strategic thought, intelligent communication, and the like should be a potential point of contention in an argument between the player and DM. I'm thinking something along the lines of a creature that might be used as an assassin by a more major villain, but when you think about it more closely it seems a little questionable that they'd even care or possess the faculties to be able to be involved in a purposeful mission like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Anonymous Robot posted:So here's an odd question: I'm currently working on a short story which involves a group of roleplayers, and the plot is partially interwoven with their campaign. One major factor that could be useful for me to be thinking about is finding a monster that would be thematically and/or symbolically interesting, not to mention something that would just be more fun to write about. I have a couple of criteria, plot-wise, that I need to consider.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
An elemental, or anything less-than-corporeal, would probably introduce some complications because the climax of the story involves a fighter character (unexpectedly) subduing the creature nonlethally and attempting to interrogate it, which is why an ambiguous intelligence is required. (The group's DM has been murdered, and the players are finishing his campaign as a form of memorial, but one of the players has taken the PC-killer for a surrogate of the real murderer and is trying to coax an explanation from it as a form of catharsis. The novice DM is caught off-guard by his insistence on this and doesn't have anything planned out to tell him, on top of being a more weak-willed person compared to him in general, and so he tries to cop out by saying the monster had 'no reason'.) I guess there's nothing to say that an elemental can't be corporeal, though. Or maybe a golem or something. After all, the true dungeon master, is me
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Anonymous Robot posted:An elemental, or anything less-than-corporeal, would probably introduce some complications because the climax of the story involves a fighter character (unexpectedly) subduing the creature nonlethally and attempting to interrogate it, which is why an ambiguous intelligence is required. I was also going to suggest golem/homuculus/low-INT undead, yeah. An earth elemental would definitely be corporeal, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Anonymous Robot posted:An elemental, or anything less-than-corporeal, would probably introduce some complications because the climax of the story involves a fighter character (unexpectedly) subduing the creature nonlethally and attempting to interrogate it, which is why an ambiguous intelligence is required. Why can't a fighter nonlethally subdue an elemental or noncorporeal enemy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
If it's a smaller fire elemental, it could be subdued by clapping a jar over it and only poking teeeeny tiny holes in the lid. But maybe that's torture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:If it's a smaller fire elemental, it could be subdued by clapping a jar over it and only poking teeeeny tiny holes in the lid. But maybe that's torture. The question of fire elementals is conclusively answered by Quest for Glory 2. quote:Fire Elemental (first appears on Day 5):
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
A golem sounds like a better fit than an elemental to me.My Lovely Horse posted:myconids Area burst 2 within 10 Hit: X poison damage, and slide the target 1 square. Effect: The burst creates a zone that lasts until the end of the encounter or until the myconid uses this power again. Any nonplant creature that enters a square within the zone takes 5 poison damage. X = probably relatively low. The idea is to bunch enemies together and discourage them from scattering. Then a brute comes in and lays down a close blast 3. Thoughts: - is it too much to make the zone difficult terrain as well? - alternative effect: Any nonplant creature that enters a square within the zone for the first time during each of its turns takes 10 poison damage. Less easily negated through cheap potions, less of an advantage for crafty players with slide powers ("I slide this nonplant enemy 5 squares back and forth within the zone").
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
No, difficult terrain and damage is fine. Check out the caltrops power the Orc Grenadier uses from Threats to the Nentir Vale for a good example of such a zone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
I'm running War of the Burning Sky which means I need to redo all the monster, because the monster design is dumb. Given I cannot sign up to the online tools, what is the bet approach to get this done these days?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:I'm running War of the Burning Sky which means I need to redo all the monster, because the monster design is dumb. Given I cannot sign up to the online tools, what is the bet approach to get this done these days? MM3 on a business card and think of powers as schticks. It doesn't take long per monster if you're going from scratch unless you're doing a solo when you're best off stealing from the book.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
I've heard generally good things about War of the Burning Sky. What's so awful about its monsters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
I do it by hand. I have a Google Doc set-up that lets me pull baseline numbers for a monster of any given level and role.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:I've heard generally good things about War of the Burning Sky. What's so awful about its monsters? Ryan Nock is pretty good but some of the other module authors do not have a great grasp on encounter design. For example one module uses tons and tons of underlevelled bad guys instead of minions for filler. Would have been better if they were replaced with minions. The solos are a train wreck as well. More broadly I think some of the monsters are a bland. For all these knocks I've been just using the MM3 on a business card and it's pretty good though Zeitgeist is about 4000 times better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I looked at some of the higher level WotBS monsters, and they're just bland, terrible stat blocks with damage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
Currently reliving my past by downloading the 4e Character Builder and CBLoader A lot of the links in the old CBloader thread are broken, does anyone have a link to the .part files for Homebrew and 3rd Party content? Edit: Ignore me, I found working links -Fish- fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 18:03
|
|
