|
The Crotch posted:What unique flavour does ranger/rogue bring to the table that you can't get out of "rogue who trained nature"? It doesn't bring any unique flavour at all, it brings interesting mechanics. Ranger|Rogue can be good if you're really, *really* careful with it, but all too often it just ends up worse than either base class, because you can't get your striker features on basic attacks.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:My stupid son of a bitch party member did wizard/ranger. The biggest problem is that your defenses exist in a perpetual state of 'please god don't look at me', and even if you play games with Paragon Hybrid and Ranger Armor Proficiency, getting your AC to the point where even at-level things aren't hitting you the majority of the time once you run out of interrupts is loving hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Still easier just to go thief. MC Seeker for the nature skill and so you can add dex to your RBAs, take the kinda bizarre Ocular Adept and refluff it, or go drow for the Whatever Fang Paragon, because drow are the best rogues and thieves period
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:What unique flavour does ranger/rogue bring to the table that you can't get out of "rogue who trained nature"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Allstone posted:Iirc it was "I want to be good at skills and also dual wield and also have a greatbow" and then they chucked a hissy when I tried to help them stat out a Thief being all like "nah that doesn't make sense for my character it doesn't make sense to suddenly change between sessions" and then swapped over to some hybrid of arcane striker and one of ranger or rogue that was equally hot garbage That could easily just be a straight ranger, too, incidentally. Ranger|Rogue probably could technically work, but the multiclass feats are there for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
I feel like most of the problems grogs end up having with D&D 4e is when they try to play it like it's an old version, and refuse to listen to explanations about why it's a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Rogue is as good if not better than Ranger at debuffs. Really good if you focus it as a concept and exchange damage for imposing attack penalties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Pharmaskittle posted:My stupid son of a bitch party member did wizard/ranger. I've done this. It involved some grey area rules interpretations to use Magic Missile with Rapid Shot.  I was also a Pixie with a Raptor familiar for a mount so I flew around like a fighter jet making strafing runs, and all my missiles had Push 2, and I had three or four ways of getting an immediate action missile when someone tried to attack me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
For Paladin/Warlock hybrid, you have to take paladin armor training for your hybrid talent, right? Or is there room to take Channel Divinity instead? Actually, is it possible to take the Power of X feats if you don't have Channel Divinity? Yukari fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Sep 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Anyone with experience of using 3D tiles (like dwarven forge) able to give advice on how much 'table coverage' you need to be usable? I'm trying to finalise the pledge manager for the secret weapon kickstarter. Inputs: Core sets have 1.8 square feet of pieces (~1.5 for a DF set from KS 1 with all stretch goals, though DF has more 'set dressing') I run mostly 4E with some OSR and other games Kinda wondering how many core sets to get? Feels like 3 to 5 is the right answer. Crudely calculating (assuming 25% of the map is empty space) 4 sets would cover a 3 x 3 play area with some pieces left over, which almost feels like overkill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Yukari posted:Actually, is it possible to take the Power of X feats if you don't have Channel Divinity? No, unfortunately. You do need channel divinity. Otherwise Avatar of Storm would probably be literally the best Storm Sorcerer ED. As it is, it's still good, but requires a hell of a lot of hoops to jump through.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
berenzen posted:No, unfortunately. You do need channel divinity. That's different though. That one requires the "Storm Sacrifice" feat, which does require channel divinity, since it gives you a channel divinity skill. I was wondering about the first feat, which would affect some at-will powers and give you +2 to a skill check. It doesn't say it requires channel divinity, but it's a domain feat, so I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
No, domain feats don't require channel divinity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Well, that's cool. I had an idea in the back of my head for how to make the tiefling paladin/warlock, and ended up on having them mostly centered around fire and the avernian knight PP. Since I have to get an at-will from paladin, I was thinking of decking out Virtuous strike with the Arcana domain feat to make it arcane, and then admixturing it with fire in paragon, so I can always proc a Firewind Blade, and to abuse the crap out of white lotus feats, to make following a mark more painful. Avernian knight makes violating a mark do 5+con+cha damage, so violating a mark is pretty painful already. Unfortunately, that's about as far as the idea got as far as concept goes. Is it a workable idea or do you not get enough/any fire powers from paladin to make it worthwhile?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Yukari posted:Well, that's cool. I had an idea in the back of my head for how to make the tiefling paladin/warlock, and ended up on having them mostly centered around fire and the avernian knight PP. Since I have to get an at-will from paladin, I was thinking of decking out Virtuous strike with the Arcana domain feat to make it arcane, and then admixturing it with fire in paragon, so I can always proc a Firewind Blade, and to abuse the crap out of white lotus feats, to make following a mark more painful. Avernian knight makes violating a mark do 5+con+cha damage, so violating a mark is pretty painful already. Unfortunately, that's about as far as the idea got as far as concept goes. Is it a workable idea or do you not get enough/any fire powers from paladin to make it worthwhile? This is the 4thiest post I've ever seen, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Yukari posted:Well, that's cool. I had an idea in the back of my head for how to make the tiefling paladin/warlock, and ended up on having them mostly centered around fire and the avernian knight PP. Since I have to get an at-will from paladin, I was thinking of decking out Virtuous strike with the Arcana domain feat to make it arcane, and then admixturing it with fire in paragon, so I can always proc a Firewind Blade, and to abuse the crap out of white lotus feats, to make following a mark more painful. Avernian knight makes violating a mark do 5+con+cha damage, so violating a mark is pretty painful already. Unfortunately, that's about as far as the idea got as far as concept goes. Is it a workable idea or do you not get enough/any fire powers from paladin to make it worthwhile? I'd just use Eldritch Strike from Warlock. Already arcane so no need to burn a feat to arcanify it, and since it's a Warlock power you'd get curse damage procs out of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Khizan posted:I'd just use Eldritch Strike from Warlock. Already arcane so no need to burn a feat to arcanify it, and since it's a Warlock power you'd get curse damage procs out of it. I thought about that, but wouldn't Hellish Rebuke be more useful in that case? I suppose my choices were Eldritch Strike + Ardent Strike, or Hellish Rebuke + Virtuous Strike. Edit: Scratch that. Which is better between Eyes of the Vestige or Hellish Rebuke, because I didn't realize that you can pick up Twofold Pact at paragon and get another at-will. Yukari fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Depends on which way you want to go. Good thing about ranged at-wills on a paladin is it gives you the opportunity to enforce from a distance because Divine Challenge requires you to either attack or end your turn adjacent to your target in order to maintain it for a round, so with range you can poke them, keep an ally between you and them and force them to make a bad decision between attacking your ally and provoking your punishment or eating OAs to run over to you (Getting White Lotus Master Hindrance helps with this since they can't disengage easily). Twofold pact not only gives you the at-will, but also the pact boon as well, which means that you can get some prime power. Vestige pact has some good options for vestiges and the various vestige boons, so it's not a bad option, but getting both the at-will and the boon on Infernal means you have an at-will which forces the enemy to either attack you and get damaged or attack the enemy and get damaged, while the pact boon means THP for you to defend, plus the Shared Boon feat means you can give that THP to your allies and defend them that way. Basically, Twofold Pact (Infernal) is a no-fuss way to get your defender on, but Twofold Pact (Vestige) can also have some great options if you're willing to hunt through vestiges, especially at epic. You can also take Sorcerer King Pact at heroic to qualify for the excellent Mindbite Scorn feat and then go into Twofold Pact (Infernal) at level 11. And since you're MCing Fighter to go into Avernian Knight, you can also consider some of the sweet fighter support, like Hindering Shield at Paragon (Eldritch Strike now slows) and Overwhelming Impact at Epic (Eldritch Strike dazes if you use a hammer).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
What other ways are there to beef up your mark punishments? So far, all I can think of is just the generic punishment + Avernian Knight punishment + -2 to hit, in comparison to when they respect the mark, they're going to take cha + eldritch strike damage, which includes curse dice among other things + infernal punishments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Mark of Warding?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Yukari posted:What other ways are there to beef up your mark punishments? So far, all I can think of is just the generic punishment + Avernian Knight punishment + -2 to hit, in comparison to when they respect the mark, they're going to take cha + eldritch strike damage, which includes curse dice among other things + infernal punishments. You can't use White Lotus Master Riposte on anything you've marked, that was an errata change a while back. You can use regular White Lotus Riposte for some damage, just not Master Riposte. Paladins can get some beefy punishments with stuff like Avenging Smite (E3 immediate action attack against an enemy that attacks an ally adjacent to you), Price of Cowardice (E7 immediate attack that blinds an enemy that attacks an ally), Demand Respect (E23 immediate that blinds and prones an enemy that attacks an ally), Discipline the Unruly (D25, does no-action radiant damage to any enemy that attacks an ally, can sustain it), Bitter Challenge (Divine Challenge slows the enemy until the end of your next turn, which means anyone with World Serpent's Grasp can prone it), and Weakening Challenge at epic (sanction and challenge now weaken the enemy for the triggering attack, which is one of the best defender options around), and if you go into stuff like Hospitalier PP you can heal your ally when they're attacked. If you're a tiefling then Hell's Burning Mark feat at epic grants marked enemies Vulnerable 5 fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Yukari posted:when they respect the mark, they're going to take cha + eldritch strike damage, which includes curse dice among other things + infernal punishments. WLMR doesn't apply to marked targets. (e: beat) But for mark punishments, I like the Champion of Order PP. At level 11, adjacent marked enemies provoke OAs if they violate the mark, and you get the Certain Justice encounter power, which has an innate +4 to-hit and dazes and weakens something for as long as it's marked by you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
I'm using CBloader and occasionally get this weird bug - options won't appear in menus as selectable, but if I export the character to clipboard, use notepad to edit the power or paragon path in and re-import it displays fine I've ran the cleanup tool and rebuilt the DB and it keeps happening - any ideas? http://imgur.com/a/BPkTH ^ Example - dimensional vortex doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Is everything checked as available in your campaign settings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
I've had a similar problem with Monk powers, among other things not showing up at all. Are you running Windows 8.1 and is the Builder program located in x86/Program Files? If so, you're probably running into write problems with permissions, even if you run it as admin. The solution I found worked was just installing it somewhere else; in this case, a folder on my desktop, and everything displayed properly then. Might want to give that a shot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Do multiple striker abilities work in the same turn? For example, if a multiclass rogue/ranger (Just an an example) were to hit with a rogue and a ranger power in one turn do they get sneak attack and hunter quarry dice?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
IPlayVideoGames posted:Do multiple striker abilities work in the same turn? For example, if a multiclass rogue/ranger (Just an an example) were to hit with a rogue and a ranger power in one turn do they get sneak attack and hunter quarry dice? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Yeah, if you MCed into the class then it works (provided all other requirements are met like CA for Sneak Attack), though if you hybrid into the class then there's usually a restriction that limits your striker feature to powers from that striker class. It's why Striker|Striker hybrids are something you should do with care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Yeah, but you can still do something like Twin Strike into Low Slash and get Quarry and Sneak Attack on the same round. The Rogue|Ranger gets a looot of minor action attacks. Offhand Strike, Low Slash, Snap Shot, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
It also does some weird stuff with monks. Monk powers state that you can only use one full discipline power per turn. In 90% of monks, that just means "you can use the movement power and the standard power together, but you can't mix and match between full disciplines." Once you have non-monk powers, it gets...weird. Now you can use the movement power and follow it up with one of your other class powers - which means that Monk|Barbarian effectively has Shift 2 as a move action that it can do forever. It works well because, in all honesty, flurry of blows isn't all that great - you don't lose a lot by not doing it every round if you have a better option. Both Monk and Barbarian are similar in that their TRUE "striker mechanic" is the strength of some of their powers, thus why a hybrid works out well - it lets you mix and match the best of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Is everything checked as available in your campaign settings? Nope, this is ticked Lord Justice posted:I've had a similar problem with Monk powers, among other things not showing up at all. Are you running Windows 8.1 and is the Builder program located in x86/Program Files? If so, you're probably running into write problems with permissions, even if you run it as admin. The solution I found worked was just installing it somewhere else; in this case, a folder on my desktop, and everything displayed properly then. Might want to give that a shot. Hrm, I've got it on several computers and only some have the issue, but they have it installed in D:\My Docs\Documents\D&D Others have it installed in C:\D&D so I might try that. Weird.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
What are other good hybrids that include leaders that aren't STRclass/Cleric based? Also, any hybrids/builds that could play well with Accursed Coordination? DM was proposing a campaign where I make all 4 characters, and so I decided to try out the big 3 hybrid builds (cleric invoker, swordlock, tiefling paladinlock), and I'm wondering which 4th hybrid build would go well with this. First thought was Ranger/Cleric as discussed earlier, but I'm mostly wondering if there's any other really good options that I've overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
There's always the Lazylord. Stack INT and hybrid Wizard to get some AoE control options while you yell at the Barbarian to smash things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Bard/Black guard seems workable if you go fake Skald. Ranger/Shaman works and so does Ranger/Druid. Warlord/Ranger seems playable as well. The reality seems to be twin strike is insanely good and there are enough no attack warlord powers that you can get away with anything on one of those two. Warlord/Artificer is a classic OP build as well (Google killswitch) Yukari posted:What are other good hybrids that include leaders that aren't STRclass/Cleric based?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Leader/leader combos can get absurd - check out the whole "switch" series of builds, there's a few of them. They're based around jaw dropping novas, while not being slouches outside of their big turn. There are some Defender/Leader possibilities. Paladins can mesh well with warlords, for example, and maybe clerics, though I've actually never seen it done. It's a somewhat odd combo, but I've seen the occasional Runepriest|Fighter. Striker Leaders are almost always gonna be clerics or warlords in my experience. Notice a trend here? Warlord|Warlock can work real well. The best Controller|Leader is the Invoker|Cleric, but you can also make a pretty awesome one by being...just a bard. No hybrid needed! Multiclass into wizard and sprinkle swordmage and maybe warlock to taste, and go for Resourceful Magician as your paragon, and you're pretty much a Controller|Leader in of itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Yukari posted:DM was proposing a campaign where I make all 4 characters, and so I decided to try out the big 3 hybrid builds (cleric invoker, swordlock, tiefling paladinlock), I would not do two defenderlocks in the same 4man party, especially not with a controller. A 4 man group does not need that much control, and things will get boring. As it is your group is all tank and no spank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
With two defenderlocks they should each have good MBAs with Eldritch Strike + Curse, so a good enabler should let them throw out some attacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:With two defenderlocks they should each have good MBAs with Eldritch Strike + Curse, so a good enabler should let them throw out some attacks. ProfessorCirno posted:Leader/leader combos can get absurd - check out the whole "switch" series of builds, there's a few of them. They're based around jaw dropping novas, while not being slouches outside of their big turn. Then would something involving warlord be the right choice, due to them having the best enabling skills? Aside from that, chordswitch sounded like a good enabler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The only real problem with Cleric|Barbarian is that you aren't Fighter|Barbarian, which I feel fits better. Or Monk|Barbarian, which not only works, it works real well in ways it shouldn't. How does this work - strength/dex using monk mobility to set up charges? Or am I missing something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 03:33
|
|