|
Pathfinder is when you really want to be super simulationist but still have magic, 4e is more a group of murderous super hero hobos who bend reality by rolling a dice and rollplaying an explanation as to why standing on each other shoulders allow them to suplex the giant.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
A notable difference might be the way movement works, specifically Move being an action rather than "how much I can move during my turn, possibly doing other poo poo in the middle" Also, 5ft step aka shift 1 is a move action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:It's less of a rules thing than a gaming philosophy thing. Out of combat, 4e works best with on a "anything not forbidden is allowed" approach to problem solving, exploration, and social interactions. Pathfinder skills, abilities, feats, spells and items tend to be more cut and dry and more specific in terms of what they can or cannot do. For example, in 4e if a player wants to wall run the resolution is purely up to the DM and group to figure out. In pathfinder there are a hand full of dedicated wall running powers, so some players think they can only wall run if they have an ability that specifically lets them. The rules listed for jumping vertically in 4e piss me off enough as is. If my players want to jump 50 feet in the air and axe kick a giant robot, I'm not gonna tell them no! tzirean posted:Yes. My players started enjoying my games a lot more when I took down the screen and started rolling in the open. It's probably my gaming history but the very idea of the GM hiding his rolls from the players is baffling to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Prison Warden posted:It's probably my gaming history but the very idea of the GM hiding his rolls from the players is baffling to me. Before Masterplan, I rolled everything in the open. With the brand new Zeitgeist campaign I'm starting up next week, I'm not sure which way I'll go.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Wait, Axe Kick? Like, with an axe on their foot? Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Brewsuke posted:Wait, Axe Kick? An axe kick, in many martial arts, is a type of kick wherein you raise your leg straight up to eye level, and then bring your foot, heel first, down onto your target. Not unlike the way someone chopping wood brings up an axe and then chops downward. When it hits, it's pretty devastating. Error 404 fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:An axe kick, in many martial arts, is a type of kick wherein you raise your leg straight up to eye level, and then bring your foot, heel first, down onto your target. I like the other idea better though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:An axe kick, in many martial arts, is a type of kick wherein you raise your leg straight up to eye level, and then bring your foot, heel first, down onto your target. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bhfPU8v64s Andy Hug was famous for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Prism posted:I like the other idea better though. Now I do too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Prison Warden posted:It's probably my gaming history but the very idea of the GM hiding his rolls from the players is baffling to me. Same, but mostly because my group only has one set of dice. It's fine, though; if the d20 lands on the other side of the table when it's Monster Time, I get to ask the players do some attack rolls against themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
aegof posted:Same, but mostly because my group only has one set of dice. It's fine, though; if the d20 lands on the other side of the table when it's Monster Time, I get to ask the players do some attack rolls against themselves. We started doing this in my last campaign and it's hella fun. It creates an air of tension, and it means you don't have to ask for defenses!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Personally 4e is the only game that I use a screen in anymore. And it's not even about hiding my rolls(players will sit to the side of me and watch the dice.) My screen just has things like likely monster stat blocks, encounter/loot tables, and other stuff I may need to reference during the game. Because I really hate having to shuffle through printouts or books in the middle of a fight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Gau posted:We started doing this in my last campaign and it's hella fun. It creates an air of tension, and it means you don't have to ask for defenses! I am toying with the idea of static monster attacks and active player defenses. Basically, the monster's attack becomes a DC 10 + attack bonus, and the players get defense rolls which are the defenses - 10 + 1d20. That way they have to actively try to block/dodge/resist the attacks while I am just standing there spouting numbers like an rear end in a top hat accountant. Has anyone tried something like that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Rexides posted:I am toying with the idea of static monster attacks and active player defenses. Basically, the monster's attack becomes a DC 10 + attack bonus, and the players get defense rolls which are the defenses - 10 + 1d20. That way they have to actively try to block/dodge/resist the attacks while I am just standing there spouting numbers like an rear end in a top hat accountant. Has anyone tried something like that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
I will say this for 3.5 and by extension that method, when I played a session last year, it made for amazingly fast DM turns when he could just say "you three, roll a Reflex save DC 14, *roll* 12 damage, 6 if you pass" rather than roll one attack for everyone affected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
Yeah, I definitely read about it first in the 3E DMG, though I remember that it was opposed rolls instead of passing the attack DC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
Rexides posted:I am toying with the idea of static monster attacks and active player defenses. Basically, the monster's attack becomes a DC 10 + attack bonus, and the players get defense rolls which are the defenses - 10 + 1d20. That way they have to actively try to block/dodge/resist the attacks while I am just standing there spouting numbers like an rear end in a top hat accountant. Has anyone tried something like that? What I've taken to doing when I DM is having monster attack rolls as 1d20+1d8+monster level. That way you'd have fewer numbers to spout, since monster level should rarely be higher than party level+2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Rexides posted:I am toying with the idea of static monster attacks and active player defenses. Basically, the monster's attack becomes a DC 10 + attack bonus, and the players get defense rolls which are the defenses - 10 + 1d20. That way they have to actively try to block/dodge/resist the attacks while I am just standing there spouting numbers like an rear end in a top hat accountant. Has anyone tried something like that? I do this, and I like it a lot better. Let the DM call the rolls, and the players determine how they turn out (it's a fun reversal of the power dynamic that keeps players engaged and spreads the work out for the DM).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
How do goons around here feel about Superior Implement training? Does it basically qualify as a feat tax?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
I'd say that they provide enough benefits to edge themselves out of feat tax territory. Like, I don't feel cheated when I take a superior implement feat, because they always provide some sort of icing on the cake of a build. And they're certainly not necessary for effective characters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
I'm currently playing four characters that use implements and only two have superior implement training. It's not, imo, significantly different than Superior Weapon Proficiency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:How do goons around here feel about Superior Implement training? Honestly, I hate searching for feats so much, I am almost relieved when there is an obvious choice to take.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:How do goons around here feel about Superior Implement training? It's not a feat tax, but at the same time, it's another +1 to hit (because let's face it 90% of implement users will go after the accurate implement). Which in the grand scheme of things is something that most classes will focus on. It's a boring feat, and most likely mandatory, but not always.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Accurate implement is something I try to fit in before the end of Heroic, but I don't consider it a tax, and don't (particularly) feel cheated of it using a weaplement that doesn't qualify). Anything that's not +1 to hit is almost never worth having though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Awesome. I'm starting a new Zeitgeist game for my 4e group on Wednesday, and now I'm going to be a player in a 4e game starting Saturday. They need a melee striker, and I can't decide between Half-orc thief (maybe using spiked chain training?) or pixie rogue (fey beast tamer). I was leaning former - simple classes don't faze me, and I like the idea of a beefy jock "thief" - but I think I've talked myself into the latter because I want a blink dog steed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Awesome. I'm starting a new Zeitgeist game for my 4e group on Wednesday, and now I'm going to be a player in a 4e game starting Saturday. Honestly, I think the bigger to-hit bonuses and almost ridiculous amount of ways to get combat advantage with a Thief is well worth it. It makes up for the lack of Encounter or Daily powers with its maneuverability. Of course, I've never played past Heroic, so I can imagine its damage running a little thin higher up in levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Brewsuke posted:Honestly, I think the bigger to-hit bonuses and almost ridiculous amount of ways to get combat advantage with a Thief is well worth it. It makes up for the lack of Encounter or Daily powers with its maneuverability. Of course, I've never played past Heroic, so I can imagine its damage running a little thin higher up in levels. I really do like Thieves, though. They're a solid class with a lot of fun tricks. Man, I am so torn here...
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Well, if variety's what you wanna go for, then by all means go Scoundrel. Also, you can make a rogue that uses hammers, if you wanna be a dwarf and take a feat for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Brewsuke posted:Well, if variety's what you wanna go for, then by all means go Scoundrel. You could, but it would SUCK. You'd be down 2 or 3 points to hit (1 for weapon talent, 1 for prof, 1 for using a race without +DEX), and a huge wad of damage and accuracy support from using Light Blades, in order to pay a feat for a slightly bigger damage die. When, as a Rogue, your damage comes from Sneak Attack, and you need to HIT to land it. Use daggers, reflavour your daggers as *whatever you want them to be*.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
I love the idea of a dwarf rogue wielding tiny crafting hammers and striking enemies' pressure points with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
One of my players has made a paladin with STR and CHA 12 and CON and WIS 18. His reasoning is that he doesn't care so much about hitting as about soaking up damage and being able to Lay On Hands, and he's planning to take mainly powers with effects. I don't think this is altogether very sensible but I'm just gonna let him do his thing and prepare to provide ample opportunity to reassig ability scores for when he stops having fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
He will learn to care when he spends every loving standard action missing, or his allies get absolutely pasted constant because his Challenge and Sanction do basically nothing. There's no point attacking him when the only penalty is -2 to hit and tiny damage. Ignore him, mash his squishies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:One of my players has made a paladin with STR and CHA 12 and CON and WIS 18. His reasoning is that he doesn't care so much about hitting as about soaking up damage and being able to Lay On Hands, and he's planning to take mainly powers with effects. Let him go through a battle or two like that, and then, when he starts to get frustrated, offer him a chance to change his stats... and a minor bonus feat or somesuch to represent the toughness-and-strong-will that he seems to really want to convey. Maybe pop him Improved Defenses as a bonus feat, if he doesn't have it already. VVV: Sounds like a plan. girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
He spent a lot of time marking minions yesterday, so they did have a bit of an incentive to attack him - but then, that's only drawing fire from one minion. I am playing most of my monsters pretty smartly already in that I concentrate fire, target low defenses when possible etc. But he's pretty big on the idea that monsters and PCs should work roughly the same so I think I could also lead by example here. Introduce a dwarf Blackguard antagonist who effectively draws the PCs attacks by sanctioning them with high necrotic damage and puts his damaged allies back up all while hitting hard, and when he starts wondering how he could learn to do that I tell him all he has to do is swap STR/CON and WIS/CHA. But if this works for him and continues to work for him, I'm down. Just might reduce my XP budgets a bit to make up for the unexpectedly low damage output. My Lovely Horse fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
The other suggestion would be... change him to a Battlemind. Stats fit perfectly. Swap one of the BM features for Lay On Hands. Ubertough character with ubertough stats, but character which actually works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Awesome. I'm starting a new Zeitgeist game for my 4e group on Wednesday, and now I'm going to be a player in a 4e game starting Saturday. What level are you playing at? At level 1 thieves are the most damaging class in the game with only the barest of charge optimisation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
AXE COP posted:What level are you playing at? At level 1 thieves are the most damaging class in the game with only the barest of charge optimisation. I'm only doing moderate charop and don't want to make a charge-thief. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
The difference between top and bottom of the heap is pretty tiny at level 1, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The difference between top and bottom of the heap is pretty tiny at level 1, though. You know, after thinking about it, one of only other two PCs I got to run in 4e was a half-orc with a spiked chain - though he was a Tempest Fighter, not a Thief - so I think I'll go with the sprite...
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
If you want to optimise damage, you kind of have to pick a trick and stick with it unfortunately. Charging's a decent one, but multi-attacking is still king.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 18:47
|
|