|
Spiteski posted:Double post but I've managed to convince my 5e group to try 4e. Were going to go with essentials for now, but I have access to ddi so as I understand it I have access to everything except the artwork?. Also, I have nothing but praise for the entire Zeitgeist Adventure Path, and Adventure 1 would be a great intro to 4e. The biggest problem is the rather insane size of the map during one major encounter. (But! If you stick with it, you may get to re-use it.)
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:My 2 cents on Essentials is that, while the classes have limited options on a round-by-round basis, they remain effective members of the party, and some people are more comfortable with the limited toolbox. Using an Essentials Martial like the Scout, Thief, or Knight/Slayer doesn't result in the same awkward power gulf that exists in 3.5e or 5e. The primary complaint is that they become boring, but if you don't find them boring then it's not a big deal. My hot take on Essentials classes is that they're the most boring poo poo to play alongside. I dreaded our Slayer's turn coming up because without fail they'd use a charge attack, or if prevented from doing so throwing a knife at the enemy. That was all they did in every encounter in the game until that character was retired.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Eopia posted:My hot take on Essentials classes is that they're the most boring poo poo to play alongside. I dreaded our Slayer's turn coming up because without fail they'd use a charge attack, or if prevented from doing so throwing a knife at the enemy. That was all they did in every encounter in the game until that character was retired. Thief and Elementalist work out better, IME.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Just make sure you don't mistake the Heroes of Shadow classes for regular Essentials. Or if you do, only give them to people who can handle a little complexity. IME, a lot of the HoS classes are actually more complex to run than a regular PHB class. In particular the Executioner has really weird rules based on what ninja weapon you're using and the Blackguard has a lot of modifiers to keep track of based on a bunch of different triggers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Also, I'm wondering if at least, like, half the problems with the Slayer are really just an extension of the problems with Charging. Especially if you can build up a charge kit, it's just such a dominant option that it's tough to argue for doing anything else. Ideally, a Slayer should be a Str/Dex warrior who can freely swap between short and long ranges, at least. You know, the whole making-use-of-the-environment/versatility shtick that should work great in 4e with its focus on interesting combat terrain. But charging is just always the right choice. It's like Psions spamming Dishearten Augment 2, but at least the Slayer doesn't make the whole fight boring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
My hot take on 4th edition PCs is that they're the most boring poo poo to play Pathfinder spellcasters alongside. I dreaded each encounter coming up because without fail they'd use the same powers in the same order, or if prevented from doing so throw a knife at the enemy. That was all they did in every session in the game until that system was replaced by Pathfinder. (If you can't get it up for anyone's turn/game that isn't not thoughtful or interesting enough for you, it's your fault. If the player of the essentials class/system were bored with their gameplay they would switch, if they are engaged and you are not your choices are get engaged like them or be bored and keep your sense of superiority.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Well, I'm getting ready to start a new 4e game with a group. We're playing a campaign he found wherein we play as part of a colonial group landing in in fantasy south america. I was kind of wanting to play an invoker and pair up with another divine player(s) to be the Fantasy Spanish Inquisition. Everyone else kind of went the opposite direction and went Warlock/Minotaur fighter/Shaman so I wound up not really having anyone to play Radiant damage tag with. So I wound up instead rolling as a human arcanist wizard specializing in forced movement and using my enemies to attack themselves. Took Implement Expertise (orb) and the School of Enchantment Apprentice feat out of the class compendium as my bonus human feat. One of my at-wills, Beguiling strands is now a close blast 5 with push 6 that is ally safe. Granted it's only doing my int bonus in damage, but still. I'm pretty sure my DM is going to try and DM slay me before the end of the first session. DeathSandwich fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:If the player of the essentials class/system were bored with their gameplay they would switch I'm perhaps not one to talk since I put down "please don't use Essentials classes" as a rule in the 4e campaign I'm running (despite me wanting to play a Knight if I'm ever a player for a 4e game), but I do agree that it's best practice to let players rebuild their characters from the ground up if the character they build isn't interesting or engaging for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:My hot take on 4th edition PCs is that they're the most boring poo poo to play Pathfinder spellcasters alongside. I dreaded each encounter coming up because without fail they'd use the same powers in the same order, or if prevented from doing so throw a knife at the enemy. That was all they did in every session in the game until that system was replaced by Pathfinder. Wait what? You had 4e Essentials and Pathfinder spellcasters in the same party? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Wait what? You had 4e Essentials and Pathfinder spellcasters in the same party? I think what they're saying is "4e players would always default to a set sequence of abilities, one after another, without fail. If they couldn't, they'd just throw a knife. When Pathfinder came out, those players played that instead, but still exhibited the same behavior"
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Nah, the context is the PF players at the table next to mine at the FLGS smugly saying 4e was a boring videogame system with samey powers and if they had any brains they'd play a more demanding game. It sounded so similar! When I stopped running games there I reckon they thought it's because PF killed 4e. slydingdoor fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Meanwhile I'm sure any Fighters or similar classes at their table really made sure to vary what they used from among their many options and powers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
They were smug PF players of course they were all playing spellcasters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
I briefly DMed a game with mixed "regular" and Essentials characters and the thing that stood out most was how the Essentials guy managed to bump his attack bonus to 5 higher than everyone else's using all the pre-Essentials feats and items that gave bonuses to basic attacks. I wouldn't say it's very well integrated in some aspects. Also not a big fan of all the "this is what D&D should be like" that oozes from between every line what with all the items named things like "real portable hole" or "actual decanter of endless water" let alone the class design itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Also not a big fan of all the "this is what D&D should be like" that oozes from between every line what with all the items named things like "real portable hole" or "actual decanter of endless water" let alone the class design itself. Yeah that was just Mike Mearls being a huge dick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Probably all they could do to keep him from putting in "proper wizard" as the class name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
It's come up repeatedly in the 5e thread that one of the advantages of that system, for better or worse, is the simplification of the rolls: [d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus] I tried to come up with what that would look like for 4e, and ended up with this chart:  With the additional note that a Weapon attack would also require you to add your weapon's proficiency bonus (or you could probably just give all weapon attacks a +2 to-hit, with maybe +3 reserved for special weapons) So a level 3 Warlock with 18 Charisma, attacking with an Eldritch Blast, would roll: [d20 + 4 Charisma modifier + 3 Proficiency bonus] And that would include their half-level bonus, their "+1 per tier" bonus represented by the Weapon Expertise feat, and the +1 from having a +1 magical weapon Similarly, a level 10 Fighter with 22 Strength, attacking with a Reaping Strike, would roll: [d20 + 6 Strength modifier + 8 Proficiency bonus + 2 weapon proficiency] Defenses would be calculated as: [10 + ability modifier + Proficiency bonus] AC for Light Armor would be calculated as: [10 + Dexterity/Intelligence modifier + Proficiency bonus + armor bonus] AC for all other armors would be calculated as: [10 + Proficiency bonus + armor bonus] By my reckoning you wouldn't even need to hand out items under this model, except for their activated powers. Is there anything I'm missing or numbers I'm miscalculating, though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Also, I'm wondering if at least, like, half the problems with the Slayer are really just an extension of the problems with Charging. Especially if you can build up a charge kit, it's just such a dominant option that it's tough to argue for doing anything else. My Lovely Horse posted:I briefly DMed a game with mixed "regular" and Essentials characters and the thing that stood out most was how the Essentials guy managed to bump his attack bonus to 5 higher than everyone else's using all the pre-Essentials feats and items that gave bonuses to basic attacks. I wouldn't say it's very well integrated in some aspects. A player/DM friend of mine pointed me to some essay on the internet about Basic Attacks in 4e (I think it was titled "not-so basic attacks" or something) Pre-essentials, they were sort of necessary as "thing you do when you Charge or make an OA, etc." whereas Essentials flips the equation to where, for a lot of classes, Basic Attacks are the only thing you do, and then powers are stacked onto them to produce effects/utility or otherwise make them interesting. So having pre-essentials crap that piles on bonuses to charges and/or basic attacks (i.e. powers you're not expected to actually use) of course causes problems when mixed with Essentials classes. The real mindfuck is like, with post-MM3 math making monsters more deadly and Essentials making classes pretty dull (and in some cases having poor survivability), what the gently caress are you supposed to do, besides dip into other sources of player options, to try and patch things up? Dumb bullshit like Dragon mag adding in Hybrid rules for Essentials classes and power swap feats, and wrapping it all up with an online-CB bow just exacerbated the problem. It was sort of a tacit admission that Essentials couldn't stand on its own two feet, particularly in a mixed party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
The fact that a lot of Essentials classes are still picking level 1 abilities at level 17 should say a lot about their design. I have always wanted to try out a berserker as the fifth man in a party, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:By my reckoning you wouldn't even need to hand out items under this model, except for their activated powers. You could smooth out the curve a little by following the inherent bonus and the old expertise feat progression (where bonuses kick in at 5/15/25).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:the old expertise feat progression (where bonuses kick in at 5/15/25). Can you point me towards these feats specifically?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Can you point me towards these feats specifically? It's why I never bothered with giving out free feats until level 5. That's obviously where they noticed the math started to slip. And if you map things out that's about right IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Just had a great idea for an encounter in the vision quest my party is on: spirit animals modelled after the old 3.5 ability score enhancement spells. Bull represents Strength. He's a Brute with high Fortitude. Probably charges around a lot. Cat represents Dexterity. She's a high Reflex Skirmisher. Bear represents Constitution. Soldier, Fortitude. Owl represents Wisdom. High Will, her gimmick is being the enemy side's spotter - hiding and benefitting from concealment is very hard or even impossible as long as she's around. Artillery, cause it's what's left. Metal Gear Solid 3 jokes: very likely. Fox represents Intelligence and is a Lurker, high Reflex. And Eagle represents Charisma and is a high Will Controller. Good thing we have six PCs, it just fits. e: Owl could also be a Leader who grants attack bonuses against any one PC she spots that round.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Idea for a second encounter: fight a d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and a d20. Man this meta-game mechanical stuff just writes itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Idea for a second encounter: fight a d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and a d20. Man this meta-game mechanical stuff just writes itself. So, Modrons?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Wasn't part of the plan, I guess, but it is now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Idea for a second encounter: fight a d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and a d20. Man this meta-game mechanical stuff just writes itself. Who would've guessed that Trad Games poster My Lovely Horse was secretly Grant Morrison all along?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Is there anywhere else to download masterplan besides the link in the op? I get nothing but dns errors trying to open it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:The fact that a lot of Essentials classes are still picking level 1 abilities at level 17 should say a lot about their design. Berserker honestly isn't that essential-y except for the Defender Aura which for my money is a more interesting mechanic than marks for non-magic-based defenders anyway. Berserker is pretty solid IMO. You go Desert Heartland, cloth armour, spiked chain proficiency (NOT training), MC Fighter, Do Flailcheese.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Berserker and Skald have the advantage of being from the book Mearls didn't have anything to do with, and surprise! They're way better designed!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
I love the Bard in general and Skald is pretty cool with all the stuff you can seamlessly bolt onto it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:Berserker and Skald have the advantage of being from the book Mearls didn't have anything to do with, and surprise! They're way better designed! Suddenly the lack of yet another wizard in Feywild makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Except Heroes of the Feywild did have another wizard in it: the witch. It's probably the worst version of the wizard in the game. And I like defender auras conceptually, save for the anti-synergy with polearms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Worst wizard I thought was bladesinger? Witch's feature set is just not as good but has all the powers. Whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Rohan Kishibe posted:Who would've guessed that Trad Games poster My Lovely Horse was secretly Grant Morrison all along?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
The 13th age bestiary has gelatinous tetrahedrons, hexahedrons, octahedrons, and dodecahedrons. Each round they make one of 4, 6, 8, or 12 random attacks. Dice Battle is a good thing is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Worst wizard I thought was bladesinger? Witch's feature set is just not as good but has all the powers. Whatever. You've got me there. I completely forgot bladesinger existed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:I completely forgot bladesinger existed. As should we all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:The 13th age bestiary has gelatinous tetrahedrons, hexahedrons, octahedrons, and dodecahedrons. Each round they make one of 4, 6, 8, or 12 random attacks. Dice Battle is a good thing is what I'm saying. I hope the gelatinous tetrahedrons are virtually unable to roll, and are a threat only to those who fall on them from above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
I can't even tell what they were trying to do with the bladesinger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2016 05:19
|
|