|
Is it a hot take that Heroes Of The Feywild is a Good Book? It goes back to the AEDU paradigm, and actually feels like a pre-essentials book in a lot of ways, but being more experimental by having stuff like the tiny-size Pixies, and dual-power-source classes like the Berserker. Also the skald is just the better version of the bard.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Heroes of the Feywild and Heroes of the Elemental chaos are both good books. Heroes of Shadows is very iffy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Man, what a coincidence. Two 4e things yesterday. An article - https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/07/dd-hey-im-sorry-but-4th-edition-was-great.html And a video - https://youtu.be/vOWTfnw71yY I don't vibe with all her points, but Alice is a YouTuber worth supporting. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
4E is being re-litigated in a lot of places, generally very positively. I just started my group of 5E-only folk on a 4E campaign and they're loving it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
Devorum posted:4E is being re-litigated in a lot of places, generally very positively. And oh that's awesome!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I think it helps that it's feeding back into new games: Lancer, Gubat Banwa, Pathfinder 2... any crunchy fight game these days draws from D&D4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Man, what a coincidence. Two 4e things yesterday. Love that the comments are just full of lovely grogs going "ACK-SHULLY I played D&D since 1976 and 4E is literally Hitler and killed my baby" or "u sukk it was wow for babby 5e is the best." e; and let's not forget the ones complaining that Bo9S was "unbalanced anime trash" (because it let fighters do things). Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jul 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Love that the comments are just full of lovely grogs going "ACK-SHULLY I played D&D since 1976 and 4E is literally Hitler and killed my baby" or "u sukk it was wow for babby 5e is the best."
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
I have better things to do with my life than read comment sections
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:I have better things to do with my life than read comment sections *rolls insight check*
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Had the itch to start up a game of 4e again recently, mainly because it's the edition that excited me more than any other, at first read. I tried to get one going just before Corona and it went... okay. We had one session which I'm sure was very boring because I structured the first session more like a slow-burn campaign start rather than just blowing the guys away with a kickass adventure, but the group seemed to enjoy it regardless. I think I'll run a published one-shot this time though - I saw the D&D Encounters stuff being recommended earlier, is that a good starting point? Bear in mind my total experience is of DM'ing one session of 4e. Also, are there any resources or tools to make the math-iness of 4e more friendly? It feels like there are a LOT of tiny little bonuses to remember and apply during combat, but also the recommended "math fix" tweaks people suggest are full of little things like giving people free Expertise feats and intrinsic bonuses and stuff, and it makes character creation and levelling up manually on pen and paper seem pretty overwhelming honestly. I'll run pregen characters for the oneshot anyway to reduce friction and get people playing, but assuming they wanted to carry on and build their own characters afterwards... I know that there's the old Character Builder thing I had, once upon a time, but that seems uh, only sort of still available and a hacky workaround to get running, and honestly that level of screwing around might be a bit of a barrier to some of the players, unless I'm overthinking how awkward it is to set up these days. Beyond that, I'll go the Rules Compendium/DMG/Monster Vault/PHB 1 & 2 classes route to keep things simple to begin with and hope for the best! I have been tempted to run 5e instead just for simplicity and because all the easily-accessible resources online are focused on it these days, plus a ton of actual play videos and podcasts cover it now that it's the flagship edition in the video age, but as much as I enjoy how streamlined it is in some ways (advantage rather than loads of stacking bonuses is great, imo), it just doesn't quite grab me in the same way for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Surprise T Rex posted:I think I'll run a published one-shot this time though - I saw the D&D Encounters stuff being recommended earlier, is that a good starting point? Bear in mind my total experience is of DM'ing one session of 4e. I started 4e with Encounters, and most of them were basically 10-20 minutes of RP followed by one encounter for the rest of the session. Decent for learning the system, but not something to build a campaign out of or anything. Though there is one exception: Season 11: The War of Everlasting Darkness. That one was actually designed to feel like a campaign on fast forward. You leveled up every new chapter, and rather than one big fight most sessions, it would instead spread out several smaller ones that basically amounted to one (for the sake of this working, you only got a short rest at the end of every session, and a long rest every 2). And it had interesting setpieces like a session where you have to convince the king of the orcs to side with you, and if you fail, one of you has to go into the arena alone and fight a monster, but the others can help cheat if they want. It also had the players level up after every session, so they actually got to experience higher end powers. It's the one Encounters season I was involved in that I might still recommend today. Could be used to explore the system a bit, or you could rework it a bit into a full campaign with regular fights and all that. As for other adventures I've run, I rather like Reavers of Harkenwold. It's a somewhat non-linear adventure where a bunch of lovely mercinaries have taken over a small valley and are ruling over them like a bunch of lovely fascists. The players' job is to solve local problems, get everyone together, and mount a rebellion. I'm currently running a modified version of it (doing a campaign in Droaam, the country of monsters in Eberron where the idea is that they're monsters mostly fighting lovely humans, so this fit right in), and everyone seems to be having a really good time with it. It starts with players at level 2 and brings them up to 4, so up to you if you want a separate intro adventure or just have them start at 2. The other I've run is Seekers of the Ashen Crown. Overall, I liked it, but it is a rather linear adventure that made a few odd choices at times. Like it just assumes that when the fantasy CIA asks the players to help them interfere with international politics, they'll be all on board. But it has good fights, fun setpieces, and there are parts of the plot I rather like. If you run this, ignore anything that's like "If your players aren't level x yet, then use some of these following encounters." Just use milestone leveling. Otherwise, it'll get a bit bogged down. This is another that starts at level 2, but if you want to start at 1, there's an adventure in the Eberron Campaign Guide for 4e that you can start with. And thinking about it, that level 1 adventure, while still a bit linear, is a pretty good intro to 4e and to the Eberron setting. However, it's very much designed around Eberron and might be hard to get to work with more traditional settings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Oh hey, that's a lot of good recommendations, thanks! I was considering using Eberron as the setting anyway, and just had a little look over the adventure from the campaign guide and it seems decent enough, with enough to go on for further adventures if we decide to carry on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 08:39
|
|
|
Gao posted:The other I've run is Seekers of the Ashen Crown. Overall, I liked it, but it is a rather linear adventure that made a few odd choices at times. Like it just assumes that when the fantasy CIA asks the players to help them interfere with international politics, they'll be all on board. I've always felt that stuff like this requires a certain level of good faith from the players. If you're playing in a module you should make a character who's willing to go along with the module. Otherwise, why are you playing the module?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
Khizan posted:I've always felt that stuff like this requires a certain level of good faith from the players. If you're playing in a module you should make a character who's willing to go along with the module. Otherwise, why are you playing the module? It goes both ways, I think, and there's a certain degree of expectation management involved. If you're running a module about supporting the fantasy CIA then you need to make sure the players know about that in advance so they can generate a character who'd be on for that. Equally, if your GM tells you the module is about supporting the fantasy CIA then it's on you to either generate a PC who's cool with that, or have the "hey is there a way they can be blackmailing my PC because they'd never work for them of my free will" conversation with your GM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
potatocubed posted:Yeah, I think it helps that it's feeding back into new games: Lancer, Gubat Banwa, Pathfinder 2... any crunchy fight game these days draws from D&D4. And Tom of Lancer fame just released a playtest for ICON, which is "Lancer but fantasy", which is... even more like 4E.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
I'm going be running War of the Burning Sky, after a long time away from home, so to speak (I got started in this hobby with 4e). My game group and I have spent the last decade playing a lot of rulesets that are comparatively light on the rules side (like Call of Cthulhu and Blades in the Dark). I mention this because I'm asking if anyone has had any experience running 4e without using feats. Would that screw with the expected math, assuming I'd be giving out the feats considered taxes and Inherent Bonuses? My general aim is to minimize the amount of things my players need to keep track of so they can keep all of their mechanical focus on their powers - if anyone has any suggestions beyond cutting out sections of the game, I'd be all ears!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
Expertise will be the big difference. Let me know how it goes - I would be reluctant to cut them, no matter how much I hate them, because so many pseudo-class-features are wrapped up in them, and they can elevate some subclasses (like Str clerics) to par. But I sympathize, and would love to hear how it works out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Expertise will be the big difference. They mention they’d still give the feat tax feats at least and using inherent bonuses, so the math should work out well enough. As you say, certain builds will be impossible to do without feats, so maybe you split the difference and give two feats per tier or something to cut down on some of the bloat without completely shutting down avenues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
Fixing the math is only half the reason the expertise feats are given out for free, the other half is that spending your regular feat slot on it is locking you out of a big character customization choice. Stuff like 'reduce enemy resistance to my elemental damage' becomes important when you want to specialize in a damage type and are picking powers for that. As far as the math goes, I'm sure the game will be perfectly playable without feats, especially in Heroic tier where you could get away without the expertise feats at all thanks to smaller disparity, but I think the game will stagnate somewhat as you get to higher tiers because you're missing all those synergies and build options from feats. You can continue to fudge some of it, like telling players they get a free multiclass for PPs and EDs, but at the end of the day there's a ton of cool things you can do with feats that aren't just +1 to damage rolls. One time I made a character centered on a racial feat to Dominate enemies for a turn on a crit and then oriented the rest of the build to roll 2 to 8 times on the attack roll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
My group is a couple of sessions in. They're sitting in a wagon, having just gotten off shift for caravan guard duty on the way to their next location. There's been some intra-party drama, so I have an NPC in the wagon. A half-Bugbear mercenary. He gives them a pep talk about how an adventuring group is a family, and family is more important than anything and he lost his group and so on. The players, and I don't know how I didn't see this coming, immediately decided he was Dom from the Fast & Furious series of films. I just took a deep breath and and named him Din Vissal. He lives his life a quarter dungeon at a time. I even opened up Photoshop for the first time in years and used my (lack of) skills to make an extremely cursed image of Din. Anyway, my group is absolutely loving 4E and the regular DM is pretty set on switching to it or a 4E-clone entirely after my campaign is over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
You're not allowed to say things like that without sharing said cursed image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:You're not allowed to say things like that without sharing said cursed image. I'm so sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
That's incredible
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
In honor of my group finally getting back into 4th edition I created a terrible meme in paint3d to remind them of my encounter design philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
It's a fine philosophy. I always had most fun with 4E when both the players and monsters were hitting a lot and doing and taking lots of damage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
Anyone have good homebrew monster mechanics that are useful for incentivizing players to utilize more space in a large battlemap? I have these awesome huge maps, but my players tend to prefer spending their time in one small corner of them. I mean, if not, not a big deal. We're still having fun. Just hoping there might be some interesting mechanics to explore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
1. Teleports can do wonders. Try them as reactions. 2. Set conditions on the battle. Like, you need to bust up or skill roll at things on various parts of the map. 3. Waves. Bring more monsters in over time. 4. Mark areas of the map that'll do bad things at the end of a given round.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
You can also just give your monsters forced movement powers and slide your PCs out of their little cubbies. Encourage PCs to use forced movement as well by placing hazards and traps they can use to their advantage. Perhaps make them mobile to keep them moving.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
Also, area attacks. Huddle in the corner and get fireballed, poison clouded and mass hallucinated. e: and as well, just your regular artillery behind cover. Or the fun skirmishers that get to move a certain distance and attack everyone they move past. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Aug 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 06:08
|
|
|
We had our second session last night, and eventually got to our first combat. I used a modified Copppernight Hold from Dungeon Delve because it has a good mix of enemy types (minion, artillery, brute, etc) and each encounter ramps the difficulty up. Seemed like a decent tutorial experience. It went very well, and the party loved it. They took to utilizing the map and terrain quickly...the rogue dropkicking a crumbling statue onto a couple of kobolds being the highlight for the players. The entire group is pretty much in love with the system, so far. They all raved about how combat felt difficult, but fair, and they had to think about what they were doing each round. The Swordmage learned early on that getting swarmed by minions can be deadly. And also that getting swarmed by minions makes a wonderful opportunity to use Flame Cyclone. I hope I can keep their enthusiasm this high throughout the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 08:27
|
|
|
Archer enemies from multiple directions that snipe the PCs from afar and need to be chased down? For added fun, throw in a lurker to leap out and gobble someone up if they try to split up to take all of them down at once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 08:30
|
|
|
Don't start your party on a map edge. I know it's tempting to be like, "You're just going into the dungeon when combat happens" but if the party loses initiative to a bunch of melee enemies when they're on a map edge, your entire combat will be in the doorway to the dungeon. Start your fights with the party in the middle of the map, at least that way they'll have to move a bit to get into a corner. Then you can hit them with the D&D equivalent of the Left 4 Dead special zombies - a guy who charges in and carries someone off, a guy who has a long-ranged pull attack, a guy who spits down an area of constant acid damage and so on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 11:56
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:Anyone have good homebrew monster mechanics that are useful for incentivizing players to utilize more space in a large battlemap? I have these awesome huge maps, but my players tend to prefer spending their time in one small corner of them. Consider using terrain mechanics that incentivize both sides of the fight to get proactive about exploiting terrain advantages (or, failing that, proactive about denying the other side the opportunity to use them).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 12:41
|
|
|
Monsters with powers that create zones are very very useful. MMO jokes and all, yeah, but "don't stand in the fire" is useful advice in 4e, too. Slingers that throw oil pots that force players to grant CA, fire zones that deal tons of damage, even just like repulsive orbs that push PCs away from its center, forcing them to reposition the hard way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:Anyone have good homebrew monster mechanics that are useful for incentivizing players to utilize more space in a large battlemap? I have these awesome huge maps, but my players tend to prefer spending their time in one small corner of them. Fundamentally, this comes down to one thing: your players will make what they see is the optimal move. There may be some considerations from roleplaying, but generally players will make what they see as, at least, a "not-bad" move. How this shakes out in combat results in what you're seeing here. Of course PCs are going to bunch up: it allows them to limit the paths the enemies can safely take to reach them, it allows them to move into flanking positions for each other, and just generally stay nearby each other for any sort of special effects. After all, powers that say "+2 to attack rolls for all allies not within ten squares" don't exist. And if it's good to stay near your allies, you're not going to move far unless it's towards them. So, to get your players to move, you have three choices. 1) Force them. Whether it's through the battlefield itself changing or enemies moving the PCs around, one way to get your players to poke at different corners is to shove them into different corners. This is the brute force solution. A variant on this combined with the below is having ranged enemies that have to be taken care of and refuse to move closer. These can be frustrating, though, since you have to figure out where the balance is between "shoot them enough to make them care" and "don't shoot so much that they all die if they don't immediately run for the archers". 2) If PCs are staying in one place because it's the best move, then the answer is to make moving the best move. Shifting bonuses from glowy magical fields or something is the obvious one, but even just finding cover from a moving and shooting enemy could do it. You could combine this with some sort of objective that's running away from the PCs, so they have to balance these two concerns. 3) Finally, you can tempt them. If staying in place is the right move, tempt them into making the wrong move. Maybe there's a treasure chest that's slowly slipping into lava on the other side of the map. Maybe there's an NPC who will be less grateful the more they get injured. Maybe one of the players has an irrational hatred of zombies and then a zombie pops up sixty feet away. Whatever it is, you're daring the player. The more you can work this into their characters' motivations and backstories, the better. Not every single fight needs to have a dramatic "save your friends or the astral diamond" moment, but instead litter things with small temptations -- a platinum here, a diamond necklace there, etc -- that someone may want to break away and grab. And hey, maybe they will, it's just some goblins, everyone else will be fine for a round or two...until suddenly it's a big and important fight and now chasing after that prize means you're risking letting one of your teammates die. Regardless of what they choose, it'll make for a great story. In short, your players are staying in one small corner of the map because they want to stay there. You have to either make them want to move there (by forcing them away), make them want to stay elsewhere (by incentivizing moving elsewhere), or make them want to move somewhere else to the detriment of the group. Look at your encounter through the lens of "What do I, as the player character party, want from this fight. How will I accomplish my objectives best?" and adjust things until the answer is what you want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:Anyone have good homebrew monster mechanics that are useful for incentivizing players to utilize more space in a large battlemap? I have these awesome huge maps, but my players tend to prefer spending their time in one small corner of them. 1: Use artillery monsters. When the monsters do a lot of damage at range and not a lot in melee smart players will mug the archers rather than fight them at range. 2: Set the ground on fire. They have to move then. 3: High ground with cover in the center of the map. Or other advantages. 4: Put the monsters by traps or by e.g. the edge of the dock or the open sewers. Invite the players to push them in. 5: Few monsters all with AoE attacks so the players want to spread out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
It may also just be a function of your party makeup. If you've got a party of nothing but ranged characters with powers that buff specific zones, creating a fort and standing in it might be a very optimal move.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 09:03
|
|
|
Gort posted:It may also just be a function of your party makeup. If you've got a party of nothing but ranged characters with powers that buff specific zones, creating a fort and standing in it might be a very optimal move. Gotta go 3d and have monsters lob poo poo at the party from behind intervening high ground. Also a quick check rules check: am I supposed to tell the players which monsters are minions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Also a quick check rules check: am I supposed to tell the players which monsters are minions? Couldn't say if there's a rule one way or another, but I certainly consider it good manners. Otherwise a player's gonna lob a single-target daily power at a minion sometime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2021 10:51
|
|