|
5e has definitely not seen any strides against crappy official adventures, either.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
I can assure you that 5th edition has no mechanics that will help with the problem of "turns taking so long because the group keeps collectively mulling over their plans for far longer than what would be realistic in a 6 second span"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
The only things that will ever help with analysis paralysis is a.) rules clarity and b.) social contract. 4e is a mixed bag in the former capacity. The rules are clear in terms of their function so you never run into weird corner cases where the DM has to sit in a little bubble and ponder the philosophical ramifications of a rules call before making one. On the other hand it isn't always terribly clear what a power is supposed to do until it's been very cleanly read through ("well, it pulls the target 2 feet, and the it does XdY damage, and then I teleport as part of the effect line, and then...") which means making an intelligent decision requires you to read each line of each power. Of course, every edition of DnD is guilty of this as far as spellcasters are concerned, and if we're comparing it to the analysis of 2e or 3e's spells than 4e's powers are much clearer, it's just that everybody at the table has to read roughly the same amount of text to make a decision. The social contract part is harder to deal with. Most people optimize their actions because they want to win, and because they don't want to let down the party. Each choice therefore has the weight of, "Oh poo poo am I going to gently caress over Jim's character if I don't flank this guy?" every time everybody makes a call. Everybody has to agree to not be a poo poo about it when somebody makes a bad choice, including the DM, because otherwise you're incentivizing endless planning. Once you've set the basic ground rules ("Don't be a poo poo, roll with the punches") you then tell everybody to make quick, off the cuff decisions. 5e could be a faster game if everybody played martials but that a lot of its own problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:If you don't like "fighters hit things," you won't enjoy 5e. 4e's class balance, power diversity, and specializations are almost completely gone. Combat will take just as much time if you try to run it RAW, too. This. Combat takes just as long but everybody who isn't a caster is relegated back down to "hit man with sword".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Khizan posted:This. Combat takes just as long but everybody who isn't a caster is relegated back down to "hit man with sword". It's actually a little worse if you are playing a fightymans. The 4e model was everyone's turn (DM included) takes about the same length of time to play out, call it 5 minutes. For 3 players and a GM that means: a full turn takes 20 minutes, everyone waits 15 minutes between each of their turns, and everyone is the active player for about 25% of the time. In the 5e model you end up with the caster and DM's turn taking 9 minutes each while the fighter and the rogue take a minute each. That is, the caster has to wait 11 minutes to play but the fighty types each have to wait 19 minutes, IE, the caster and DM are each active for about 45% of the round and the other 2 are active for about 5%. Now to compound all that, we usually give the simple fightyman classes to new players who are trying out the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:It's actually a little worse if you are playing a fightymans. The 4e model was everyone's turn (DM included) takes about the same length of time to play out, call it 5 minutes. For 3 players and a GM that means: a full turn takes 20 minutes, everyone waits 15 minutes between each of their turns, and everyone is the active player for about 25% of the time. In the 5e model you end up with the caster and DM's turn taking 9 minutes each while the fighter and the rogue take a minute each. That is, the caster has to wait 11 minutes to play but the fighty types each have to wait 19 minutes, IE, the caster and DM are each active for about 45% of the round and the other 2 are active for about 5%. I agree with this comments and would add that my experience is once you swing past level 11, fighters turns are not even that fast in absolute terms if they are being played by the people that cannot quickly make decisions and add up. Was playing a fairly high level game with a dude who was slow to add and his turns were fairly straightforward but took FOREVER "I shoot at the dude." *contemplates using sharpshooter* "Nah, will attack straight up" *Roll to hit* "Does AC 22 hit? No?" *contemplate using precision*, "Okay I will use that maneuver that lets me add a superiority dice to my roll" * roll precision* confirm he's hit, roll damage, add that up, then REPEAT THREE MORE TIMES. Very, very annoying. GM gave serious consideration to making all his attacks average damage to speed things up. Edit: Not that you don't get this in 4E but multiattacks are sparer on the ground. Cthulhu Dreams fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Five minutes is an absurdly long time for a player to take their turn. Even turns where the player has to look up how a power or mechanic works doesn't take that long in any of my games. Turns only ever take that long for us when a character is on the ground bleeding out and everyone has to coordinate to keep them from getting coup de graced.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Edit: Not that you don't get this in 4E but multiattacks are sparer on the ground. To this day I despise multiattack focused poo poo in 4e for this reason. 4e (and Tome of Battle) taught me to hate having to roll a trillion loving dice every goddamn time. It's impossible for me to go back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:"I shoot at the dude." *contemplates using sharpshooter* "Nah, will attack straight up" *Roll to hit* "Does AC 22 hit? No?" *contemplate using precision*, "Okay I will use that maneuver that lets me add a superiority dice to my roll" * roll precision* confirm he's hit, roll damage, add that up, then REPEAT THREE MORE TIMES.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:To this day I despise multiattack focused poo poo in 4e for this reason. 4e (and Tome of Battle) taught me to hate having to roll a trillion loving dice every goddamn time. It's impossible for me to go back. In principle agreed. In practice I'm playing a Tempest Fighter and loving all the multimarking I can do easily, but we're also playing on Roll20 so I just wrote up macros to roll out the entire attack in one button press, baring crits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
When I played a ranger I just used d20s color coded with damage dice and rolled everything at the same time. Works great for simplifying multiattacks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:
Put trigger warnings on your posts please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 19:10
|
|
: "Sorry... flip flip flip ... I need to look up the exact ... flip flip wording of this ... read read read read read hmmmm.... no, I think instead I'll ... flip flip flip-flip-flip flip hmmm, no.... okay. I'll just cast um ... Magic Missile."
|
I have a CharOp question/request: a while back I asked about whether Strikers are capable of getting attack roll bonuses so high that they can't ever miss except on a natural 1. I'd like to be able to specifically see how one might accomplish that with an actual build, as early/low-level as possible. Specifically, I'm interested in seeing it done with a Ranger or Rogue, or a Fighter if it's at all possible with Fighters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
a level 2 pixie (or revenant that was a pixie in life) with 20 in their primary and a +3 prof weapon, streak of light, an expertise feat and the +1 from inherent bonuses gets a +14 when charging, meaning that they can hit an at level enemy on anything but a 1. With a free expertise feat they can also pick up nimble blade if they're dex based, which gets them up to +15 on a charge. If they're a thief they can pop backstab for +18 on a charge, meaning they hit a level 5 enemy 95% of the time at level 2. So, uhh, I think that's the earliest you can do it, though I'm not a charop master. edit: A level 1 pixie scout with streak of light can get +13 to hit a large or bloodied enemy on a charge, so there's a way to do it at level 1 though it's conditional. Jolyne Cujoh fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Apr 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I have a CharOp question/request: a while back I asked about whether Strikers are capable of getting attack roll bonuses so high that they can't ever miss except on a natural 1. I'd like to be able to specifically see how one might accomplish that with an actual build, as early/low-level as possible. At low levels it's a lot more difficult. But... why do you want to? If you have someone who's so frustrated by missing that he doesn't want to play, you need a different game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:At low levels it's a lot more difficult. This is more theoretical than practical, I will admit. I know it's possible in 3.5e at around level 9, and I asked if it could be done in 4e and I wanted to see how one might build for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
In 3E it almost happens naturally. In 4E, generally take a charge rogue with a +3 prof weapon, as mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Jolyne Cujoh posted:a level 2 pixie (or revenant that was a pixie in life) with 20 in their primary and a +3 prof weapon, streak of light, an expertise feat and the +1 from inherent bonuses gets a +14 when charging, meaning that they can hit an at level enemy on anything but a 1. With a free expertise feat they can also pick up nimble blade if they're dex based, which gets them up to +15 on a charge. If they're a thief they can pop backstab for +18 on a charge, meaning they hit a level 5 enemy 95% of the time at level 2. So, uhh, I think that's the earliest you can do it, though I'm not a charop master. Brawler fighters get an automatic +2 enchantment bonus at level 1. If that helps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Drewjitsu posted:Brawler fighters get an automatic +2 enchantment bonus at level 1. If that helps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
I know Fear immunity removes the power's effects, but what about effects from feats that key off stuff besides the Fear keyword? Also, does the immunity extend to the damage of Fear keyed powers? Finally, Is there anyway for a PC to bypass/pierce Fear immunity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
The only keyword immunity that nullifies damage is Poison, because poison is just super terrible for some reason. I don't know of any way to bypass Fear immunity RAW, but there's probably no reason a DM couldn't throw their PCs a bone and write up an item for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Paladin with Paladin's Truth lets you ignore any resistance or immunity a marked target has when you attack it. It's an epic feat, but it allows for some fun things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Poor poison. At least there's some feat that lets a PC ignore resistance and immunity with those powers if memory serves. Still unsure about whether if I have a feat that says "when you hit with a power that targets will, that is Divine, that is Class, on a slowed enemy, etc. (not Fear) then inflict such and such effect, and I use a fear power that meets those requirements, does a fear immune creature also ignore the effect(s) from that feat?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
I would say the feat's effects would still go through, unless they depend on the Fear power's effect actually happening first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Poor poison. At least there's some feat that lets a PC ignore resistance and immunity with those powers if memory serves. According to page 225 of the Rules Compendium: Rules Compendium posted:Immunity So if it's immune to fear and you hit it with a fear power then the only thing that happens from that power is the damage. It can still trigger other feats and items and the like so long as it's not fear-based.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Thanks! This character isn't completely hosed by Fear immunity now!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Hello. I like 4th Edition. I had a good experience with a 4E campaign a few years ago and have recently been interested in getting a group together, but I worry that 4E has become stale for many of the people I'd want to play. It even got pretty stale for me towards the end, and afterward they stopped supporting it, so it's not like it got better. What I like about 4E is a tactical combat system where everybody has cool moves that they can do. None of the rest matters all that much, but I enjoy the combat system and the wide variety of powers available. What I didn't like was that the developers didn't really understand the difference between a good power and a bad one, which created some enormous imbalances. It was trivially easy to fulfill your role as some classes, whereas others had a huge number of trap options that you could easily sabotage yourself with. Also monsters weren't that well suited to fight against optimized characters. It's a flawed system and one that takes some work to improve. What I'm really looking for is a system that delivers on tactical, turn-based combat with a defined moveset. Hopefully one that will feel fresh for a while and not have 4E's balance problems. Is there anything good for that? Or is 4E still the best base available?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Our lord and savior Jimbozig created just the thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
I gotta back former forums user Mikan for making the best game ever
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Neat. Strike! seems pretty close to what I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Has anyone used this 4e monster builder before? http://asmor.com/programs/monstermaker/index.php
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
As a purely mechanical question, what do the various alternatives to skill challenges actually do? How are they similar and how are they different from the RAW?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:As a purely mechanical question, what do the various alternatives to skill challenges actually do? How are they similar and how are they different from the RAW? Better approaches to skill challenges give players 1) an opportunity to use their skills, 2) a way to be relevant if they don't have training in that skill, and 3) choices. Compare Strike!'s Team Conflict rules, for example. Skill challenges RAW do #1 and occasionally do #3.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
I'm aware vampires kinda suck, and one of the biggest reasons for this is because they lack the ability to throw out striker-tier damage when compared with everyone else. I also notice they're the only striker that doesn't get either a multiattack or a passive +damage effect of some sort. If you just stuck sneak attack or warlock curse on them, do they become playable but subpar rather than AVOID AVOID?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
They get a passive damage bonus, +Cha+[integer] to all damage or something. Their problem is pretty much down to taking only one turn per turn.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:They get a passive damage bonus, +Cha+[integer] to all damage or something. Their problem is pretty much down to taking only one turn per turn. Huuh. What kind of steps would you need to take to make the vampire a tolerable option for someone who really wanted a vampire, then? They have some mechanics are cool so I feel their present design is a bit of a shame.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Huuh. What kind of steps would you need to take to make the vampire a tolerable option for someone who really wanted a vampire, then? They have some mechanics are cool so I feel their present design is a bit of a shame. You take the multiclass feat on a different class.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Huuh. What kind of steps would you need to take to make the vampire a tolerable option for someone who really wanted a vampire, then? They have some mechanics are cool so I feel their present design is a bit of a shame. You play a Vryloka, or take the Vampire heritage feat. Or just say 'yo my character is a vampire and whatnot'.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Or a Revenant.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Vampire|Rogue. It's not as good as a pure rogue, but it works and rogue is a good thematic fit for Vampire. Dex/Cha is a great rogue statbase and Martial Vampire is easily the best surge generator a Vampire has. It can be fairly surge efficient in practice. You have 2 surges, and can generate 3 surges via powers in the course of a fight. If you finish a fight with more than 2 surges you lose the excess surges and heal back to full. And you can bum a surge off of an ally to heal for bloodied value after the fight is over, which is double-value for a surge. If you're careful with it it's pretty possible for Vampire|Rogue to sill be going strong surge-wise when the rest of the party is starting to feel the bite.  .The Vampire|Rogue is basically all the flavor of the Vampire with enough Roguey goodness to stay competitive. If you're like me and you hate the idea of refluffing, it's easily the best Vampire option. I've played it a few times and would play it again.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:02
|
|