|
Two warlocks in the same group in general is a bad idea due to how curses work tbh.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Two warlocks in the same group in general is a bad idea due to how curses work tbh. I know it's a kinda stupid feat tax, but Accursed Coordination would work if both warlocks got it, and it'd give them CA if they both had curses on the target. Actually, failing that, is there a feat that lets defenders take advantage of having CA against a target defensively?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Hybrids are ridiculously feat starved, though. I would say that party is missing a really good striker to take advantage of all the enabling you're doing, and could also use a good leader. Double warlock is difficult to manage and neither of those builds are striker builds - warlock is there to enable their catch-22 and mobility. Unfortunately strikers are the role that does best single classed. Look for a ranger or barbarian build of some sort, I would say. Something like Barbarian|Warlord or Barbarian|Fighter or even just go Ranger|Cleric. You could also cut the Swordmage|Warlock, it's a good build but questionable in some cases, like when there's another warlock. It also doesn't striker very well despite all of its good properties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Yukari posted:Actually, failing that, is there a feat that lets defenders take advantage of having CA against a target defensively? There's a feat called Defensive Advantage that adds a +2 AC bonus to CA. It's paragon-tier and requires 17 Dex. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
I'm remaking my own version of the MM3 math on a business card to 'build in' Level 1 damage forever and fix the monster HP scaling issue address here: http://dmg42.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/boot-on-face-of-level-1-damage-forever.html and http://blogofholding.com/?p=782 By my reckoning that changes the formulas as follows: Defenses & to hit - Same Damage: 7 + 2xlevel (this is slightly to high at paragon and epic), with % modifiers the same, round down HP by role: Skirmish: 24+5/lev Controller: 24+5/lev Soldier: 24+5/lev Bruce: 26+7/lev Artillery: 21+3/Lev Lurker: 21+3/lev Does this look right/playable? I'm converting WoTBS on the fly as I go so the MM3 business card concept makes it a lot easier, but I like the higher damage/lower HP concept. Cthulhu Dreams fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Does this look right/playable? I'm converting WoTBS on the fly as I go so the MM3 business card concept makes it a lot easier, but I like the higher damage/lower HP concept. Not like I've got a job to commit to. Edit Sweet, I've still got Revenge of the Giants. Never actually gotten to crack this one open for a group. girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Does this look right/playable? I'm converting WoTBS on the fly as I go so the MM3 business card concept makes it a lot easier, but I like the higher damage/lower HP concept. I used to use the "MM3 business card follow-up" HP levels that you linked to, but I've since gone back to just using the original MM3 business card math, or even just the default published HP count right on the book, because a well-optimized group is going to demolish your fights fairly easily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I used to use the "MM3 business card follow-up" HP levels that you linked to, but I've since gone back to just using the original MM3 business card math, or even just the default published HP count right on the book, because a well-optimized group is going to demolish your fights fairly easily. Ha, OK - I was inspired by a post in (your?) blog that referenced the MM3 followup math. I guess my design intent is to have very hard hitting fights and was hoping the much higher monster damage would offset the lower HP counts. In terms of context, e.g. about well optimised: * Running WoTBS * Got 4 players but leaving the number of monsters as per 5 players (except when they are using stupidly underlevelled monsters, then I convert them all to minions). * Using the MM3 business card math for the monsters to hit, HP and defences * Using the level one damage math. * Groups is well built, but not great characters. For example, everyone is either 20/16 or 18/18 in their attack stats and have intelligently chosen feats (Rogue/Warlord/Barbarian/Knight, with a ranger who shows up sometimes) but not lasting frost + wintertouched combo * Group is fairly tactically focused, particularly the Warlord. I have been really happy with it, but I have noticed that sometimes the fights are dragging on just a bit to long, often the players have got into a position where they cannot lose, but are out of encounters so spend a round or two using at wills to burn down the last couple of monsters, or I have the monsters run away if thematically appropriate. Then again, my games are only level 9 and 10 respectively so I haven't seen the high end novas that look possible in mid paragon and epic in action. Do you think I should leave in the fuller fat HP totals as the paragon/epic nova potential will be to much?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Ha, OK - I was inspired by a post in (your?) blog that referenced the MM3 followup math. I guess my design intent is to have very hard hitting fights and was hoping the much higher monster damage would offset the lower HP counts. It's been my experience that no matter how high the monster damage is, if they're disabled / killed before they get to attack, and then again before their attacks actually manage to score hits, then it doesn't really matter. But it's also been my experience that HP can only do so much about that - trying to mitigate it further would need mucking around with initiative and action-economy mechanics, as well crowd control/disable mechanics. All that said, the party you're playing with doesn't seem nearly as controllery as mine, so it's really up to you whether you want to use the MM3 follow-up for even less HP or just the plain MM3, bur I personally went back to "normal" published HP by around level 8 to 9 and would definitely do so by Paragon-level and onwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's been my experience that no matter how high the monster damage is, if they're disabled / killed before they get to attack, and then again before their attacks actually manage to score hits, then it doesn't really matter. Yeah, I basically told everyone to not play straight controllers and everyone has been down with that: Party 2 is a predator druid, ranged ranger, Warden, Elementalist and strength cleric. Good point though that I hadn't considered. I might just give it a whirl and see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
So I love 4e, but I'm debating on switching it for my Skype group, since I'm noticing I have a hard time ending battles when they are supposed too. Any advice for that? Also, because I have been using older modules for their story, and have been trying to translate their set piece battles into 4e's area control type, is there a resource for some standard set piece battles to pull from? Finally, is there a way to help the wizard engage with her character? Like a guide for newbies? She seems to get analysis paralysis and then ultimately defaults to using Magic Missile every turn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:So I love 4e, but I'm debating on switching it for my Skype group, since I'm noticing I have a hard time ending battles when they are supposed too. Moriatti posted:is there a resource for some standard set piece battles to pull from? Another fun trick I've found is an "attack check". Someone (or everyone) makes a roll as if it were a skill check, but with the attack roll for an MBA/RBA (as appropriate), and there are rewards or penalties as with any other skill check (Especially combat-related penalties such as losing a surge). It's a good way to skim through conflicts in older modules that are important thematically, but unremarkable mechanically. Moriatti posted:Finally, is there a way to help the wizard engage with her character? Like a guide for newbies? She seems to get analysis paralysis and then ultimately defaults to using Magic Missile every turn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Finally, is there a way to help the wizard engage with her character? Like a guide for newbies? She seems to get analysis paralysis and then ultimately defaults to using Magic Missile every turn. Poison Mushroom posted:Switch to another class with similar flavor. Sorcerer is the first one that comes to mind. A player with AP playing one of the most AP-prone classes in one of the most AP-prone roles, is a bad combination. The Elementalist from Essentials is probably a good place to start if she's spamming one move anyway. Then if she gets bored of that, tinker with Sorcerer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
To elaborate even further, Controller is also the least necessary role, and as you get higher level, becomes actively undesirable for bogging down battles without making them any more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Finally, is there a way to help the wizard engage with her character? Like a guide for newbies? She seems to get analysis paralysis and then ultimately defaults to using Magic Missile every turn. 1. If you end an encounter with an unused encounter power you have failed 2. Use dailies when in trouble 3. Use magic missile when out of encounter powers Reskin the slayer to be a ranged wizard? Some players just like to be able to say "I fight" as long as they feel they're doing it well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
That actually would work pretPoison Mushroom posted:Not that I'm aware of, but also related to the above, don't try to 1:1 battles with versions from earlier editions. One of the greatest mistakes about 4e new DMs make is filler battles. 4e combat takes too long for each fight to not feel important in some way. If you can't imagine anyone saying "hey, remember that fight where...", then you probably shouldn't make it into a fight. Maybe a roleplay encounter, or a skill challenge. Poison Mushroom posted:Reduce monster HP. (I believe the Paul fix is -3 HP per level). Poison Mushroom posted:Switch to another class with similar flavor. Sorcerer is the first one that comes to mind. A player with AP playing one of the most AP-prone classes in one of the most AP-prone roles, is a bad combination. Great suggestions guys, I'll try and do this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Now I'm starting to wonder if there's a way to, like, split the difference between Strike and 4e, to smooth out some of the bumps without losing the depth of character creation. Ideas???? - Reduce HP and damage to a much simpler, more tactical sort. - - For example: Lurkers, Controllers, and Artillery always have 7 HP, Skirmishers have 8 HP, Soldiers have 9 HP, Brutes have 11. (Elites x2, Solos x4) - - [W] = 2, and mod is reduced to 1. So 1[W] + STR = 3 dmg, 2[W] + DEX = 5 dmg, CON MOD = 1 dmg. This also goes for damage increases. - - A critical adds a flat 2 damage. - Leveling up increases options (you get your new powers and feats and whatnot), but modifiers and stats don't change. - Defenses don't change either. It actually... really reminds me of playing Epic 6 3.5e??? I think I really like this, holy poo poo. There's a couple flaws (weapon dice difference become irrelevant, and you don't have a huge reason to make your primary a 20 any more), but also benefits (you aren't quite so compelled to make your primary a 20 any more). girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:I have been really happy with it, but I have noticed that sometimes the fights are dragging on just a bit to long, often the players have got into a position where they cannot lose, but are out of encounters so spend a round or two using at wills to burn down the last couple of monsters, or I have the monsters run away if thematically appropriate. Then again, my games are only level 9 and 10 respectively so I haven't seen the high end novas that look possible in mid paragon and epic in action. Since the odds of players burning a daily in this situation are bordering on non-existent, the only thing those last rounds accomplish is maybe getting off a few more hits on the party to burn their surge count down. If you don't particularly value that, feel free to cut a little and maybe make up for it by adding another fight if it becomes an issue. Or maybe just make the enemies hit a little bit harder so they burn a few more surges in a shorter time. Moriatti posted:So I love 4e, but I'm debating on switching it for my Skype group, since I'm noticing I have a hard time ending battles when they are supposed too. My advice above also applies to your first question, really. From a metagame standpoint the end phase of a battle is only important for attrition reasons. So you can do smaller fights more frequently, or you can increase damage a bit while decreasing health, things like that. Or if you don't really care about attrition much, you can just wrap fights earlier and do nothing. Make the last of the castle guards run away or whatever. As for your second question, the answer is really just "Don't be a wizard". If you want to keep the arcane magic missile blaster feel while minimizing decision making you can just swap her over to Elementalist and she can basically spam RBAs while hitting like a hyper-accurate truck. On the more involved side she could also go Warlock and keep some control and some options while also being able to just bomb people with Eldritch Blasts and do decently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
End encounters when it's obvious it's over. For the love of God don't make your players slog through mop up rounds. It's cruel. Sometimes I'll even throw a monster out if a player gets within like three-five hit points of a monster's final HP - depending on whether it's crucial to the set piece or not. On an unrelated note, bloodied solo Dragons from the Monster Vaults are awesome and cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
My major factor in ending encounters early is "does this still have the potential to impact the party's resources". So usually it's at the point where one enemy's left that it's like, okay, let's see if you can drop him before his next turn, see if he hits anyone, and after his turn we'll call it a fight and say you ganged up on him with at-wills. e: not if it's named NPCs or boss monsters, somewhat obviously, those are getting done properly. e2: sometimes if it's obvious what that last enemy will do on their turn I preroll the attack and if it's a miss I end things right there. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
She's definitely more towards the elementalist end. As for ending fights early, I just have to remember to do it and figure out when.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:End encounters when it's obvious it's over. For the love of God don't make your players slog through mop up rounds. It's cruel. We've had situations where the DM goes "We can skip mop-up if you pay a healing surge," and no one bites because we know we are going to get off at less cost if we play it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:We've had situations where the DM goes "We can skip mop-up if you pay a healing surge," and no one bites because we know we are going to get off at less cost if we play it out. Yeah, basically. Mop up will probably take a couple rounds, so with a couple monsters left you're probably only taking out a surge or two, most likely from the defender who starts with like 10-12 a day. All you've done is made the encounter thirty minutes longer than it needed to be. Just narrate mop-up. Maybe the last two goons look at each other like "gently caress this" and run. Maybe focus-firing on the mage also takes out his magic zombies when he drops (party motto: Kill the Wizard First).
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:Yeah, basically. Mop up will probably take a couple rounds, so with a couple monsters left you're probably only taking out a surge or two, most likely from the defender who starts with like 10-12 a day. All you've done is made the encounter thirty minutes longer than it needed to be. Just narrate mop-up. Maybe the last two goons look at each other like "gently caress this" and run. Maybe focus-firing on the mage also takes out his magic zombies when he drops (party motto: Kill the Wizard First). As far as paying a healing surge, there's also the "I will let you skip this boring part at cost" aspect going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
I use the Escalation Die in my 4e game and I think we've only hit round 5 a few times so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:As far as paying a healing surge, there's also the "I will let you skip this boring part at cost" aspect going on. We usually just narrate the mop up without cost because it's boring for everyone including the DM
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Mecha Gojira posted:End encounters when it's obvious it's over. For the love of God don't make your players slog through mop up rounds. It's cruel. Something people often forget is that enemies that are not completely mindless will generally retreat or surrender once it is clear they are losing. If you keep mindless enemies fairly sparse, it's entirely fitting to have most fights end in what remains of the enemy running away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Obligatum VII posted:Something people often forget is that enemies that are not completely mindless will generally retreat or surrender once it is clear they are losing. If you keep mindless enemies fairly sparse, it's entirely fitting to have most fights end in what remains of the enemy running away. Yeah, I kinda miss the morale rules from pre 3.5 editions. I use the 2d6 roll under thing except minions don't count as people, and no-one runs away ever while a solo or elite is still fighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Obligatum VII posted:Something people often forget is that enemies that are not completely mindless will generally retreat or surrender once it is clear they are losing. If you keep mindless enemies fairly sparse, it's entirely fitting to have most fights end in what remains of the enemy running away. remember the flip side of this though if every enemy always runs away it's can be a real downer, let players narrate wiping out their enemies sometimes too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
My group would consider an enemy running away a net loss, because in their mind he's running directly to his superiors to raise the alarm. e: in fact I'll go you one further: one or two of them would consider it the DM screwing them over, because "we won the fight and we're getting a bad result." Although to be entirely fair, that's more of a question of what kind of people you play with. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
You can just flat out say "Okay, we're gonna wrap the fight here and say you kill everybody, because the wrapup is boring and we all hate it". You don't have to make them run away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
I feel like an enemy running away should be reserved for things with enough personality that they either might come back or the players might want them to come back. After all, there's a lot of ways people can retreat. There's the example of a general getting "defeated" by being brought to 0 HP and then ordering a retreat once the rest of his forces are all but slain, and then there's someone claiming that they've still got a hidden technique left that will blow the party's minds (said technique is RUN AWAY.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
My runners are typically less "warn the others!" and more "gently caress this; I don't even need this job." I'm not trying to cheat my players out of anything, and they know it, so generally we roll with whatever is thematically appropriate. Or whatever makes us laugh most. Guess as with anything, Talk with Your Players.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:My group would consider an enemy running away a net loss, because in their mind he's running directly to his superiors to raise the alarm. I dunno, you can consider that an incentive to not always nova right off the bat if enemies actually DID retreat and try to get reinforcements (when applicable, obviously not every enemy will have reinforcements to get and really will just go away) when things started looking bad. The last few rounds will go pretty quick when the enemy is just using all their actions to try and haul rear end out of there. It's not just a way to speed things up, it's also a legitimate strategic consideration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
My DM used to have guys run away somewhat frequently. We didn't go for it and would always go berserk chasing them. It was awesome and we got quite good at running dudes down. Became part of the puzzle of combat. "The last guy bolts, so you guys get.." "No gently caress that, I'm burning a daily to chase him." A crueler DM would take advantage of that behavior, but it was always fun. Like the one time in Scales of War where a guy was scripted to kidnap a plot character and bolt. We ran that demon down like a dog, just powered through three consecutive encounters before we had to take a short rest to restock powers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Our last one shot, the DM actually baited our party down a hallway and had enemies ready actions to focus-fire on us when we'd round a corner. It was pretty brutal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
It hasn't been necessary recently since my past few DMs haven't been ending fights by having dudes run, but you can bet your rear end I'd be bringing slow/immobilize powers if it was going to be a regular thing. Even if you ignore the chance of the escapee calling reinforcements or sending a warning, the murderhobo handbook does not permit the potential loss in XP or loot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
This discussion calls to mind the early days of WoW where you would have to be ready to Hamstring / Wingclip humanoid enemies because they'd bolt and flee at 25% health and "aggro" the next "pull" without giving you a chance to rest in-between. A Warlock was super-useful because Curse of Recklessness would cause them to fight to the death, but you also had to remind the Warlock to please use it because normally they'd be casting Curse of Agony for the damage. So there's definitely a thematic and tactical element to pulling that move on the players to force them to behave in a particular way. It's definitely not something you'd want to do all the time because of the "don't have too many trash fights" rule for 4e, or you'd have to restructure the penalty for letting them get away into something else (they miss out on loot, the next fights become harder, they take a plot loss if five enemies escape across the next four fights, etc.), but it'd be a cool gimmick to throw in every once in a while, either as a special event, or as a particular feature of a certain archetype of monsters: all "human bandits" are cowards and will bolt at 25%, much like all Kobolds can Shift as a Minor Action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
My problem with "Don't have too many trash fights" has always been that you have to have a certain amount of fights in order for the attrition built into the system of healing surges and dailies to work. If the adventure is "Go to the dragon's lair, defeat the dragon, rest on your laurels" then you get a weirdly unbalanceable fight where the usual "Don't just blow all your dailies right away, you might need them later" doesn't apply. Or you have to start going around the rules and saying stuff like "I know you're back in town but you can't have a full rest until you've had four fights, OK?" at which point the concept of "resting" becomes meaningless. I'd prefer if the resource (powers, healing surges etc) system was balanced around the encounter rather than the adventuring day, so you could have as many or as few fights and the game would remain balanced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
Hi all. I'm a fairly inexperienced GM with 4 fairly inexperienced players. I was looking to run a oneshot game with these guys online, can anyone recommend a good premade one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 09:09
|
|
