|
Free the post.
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:On a somewhat related note, how would you guys feel about a game where you just outright didn't allow Controllers? I don't really see the point; controllers don't fill a niche, so you can play with or without them without changing how the game works significantly. If you want to do something, just disallow Controllers until you have a Leader, a Defender and two Strikers. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Or apply +/- charges, if two party member with opposite charges get too close to each other they slam into each other and get electrified. Splicer posted:At the start of your turn you get pushed 1 by each same charged player and pulled 1 by each oppositely charged player This is making me want to trawl FF14 boss designs for mechanics to steal for 4E.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Arivia's arguments against Strike are so terrible it makes me want to argue with him. Arivia is not a guy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
I'm not, and you people should take the pointless loving Strike arguments to the Strike thread or the chat thread or PMs or anywhere but here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
It'd be really nice if Traditional Games had a moderator. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
If he's just forgetting he has Healing Word, remind him during the game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:I converted some Mass Combat Rules for DND, I made a formula for 4e, and used a chart for 5e, could you guys look it over, and tell me what you think math wise / play wise? This is insanely complicated when the GM could just make a bunch of monster stat blocks to use as units that then fight, with one side controlled by the players. You can either let PCs attach to units to give them a small stat boost, or have PCs be a unit on their own (still with a monster stat block) depending on how heroic you want the game to feel.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
The actual rules text is pretty clear.quote:When an ally who can see you spends an action point to take an extra action and uses the action to make an attack, the ally can choose to take advantage of this feature before the attack roll. If the ally chooses to do so and the attack hits, the ally can either make a basic attack or take a move action after the attack as a free action. The MBA/move happens directly after the attack. If the attack killed the target and nothing else is in range of a MBA, he has to take the move instead (or do nothing, obviously).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Early 4E monsters had way too many HP and didn't do enough damage. One of the things that was eventually changed was to cut their HP to make fights end faster and up their damage to make them more threatening to compensate, and it was a really good change.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
I might be running 4E reskinned as sentai/magical girl stuff soon-ish (using Gradenko's simplified modifiers, with Essentials banned, and possibly using level 1 damage), so I'm trying to come up with rules for transforming, super mode, and big flashy finishers that aren't horribly complicated. So far I've got: Transforming: characters are restricted to MBA/RBA and level 1 At-Wills until they use the Transform! power: quote:Transform! A bit hacky unfortunately, but it's very simple in application, so should be fine. I wish I could use the Stance keyword, but that would make it incompatible with actual stance powers. The +2 to-hit/defences and healing surge spend is part compensation for forcing players to use a move action, part genre emulation for the bit where the heroes tend to kick rear end for a bit immediately after transforming. Being able to regain its use is there so players aren't forced to spend the rest of the encounter with most of their powers locked away if they go down once. Super mode: quote:Overdrive This provides a reasonable power boost at a cost that's designed to make it so you have to think about when to use it. It's kind of boring, but I was trying to keep it simple. Increasing the dice size by one step is identical to +1 damage but should feel cooler and doesn't really introduce much complexity. Finisher: this is designed to be deliberately busted! Hopefully in a fun way. quote:Desperation Attack This last one ends up being a gigantic clusterfuck of rules but I can't really word it any more simply, I think. The intent is for Limit Breaks to auto-hit and auto-crit if you roll an attack roll (an interrupt could still prevent you from hitting if it prevents you from rolling to hit), maximise all damage including bonus crit dice, double all riders, not expend the actual Daily power, and have functionally infinite range. You still need to actually be able to use the power - i.e. if it takes a standard action to use and ends a stance, you need a standard action available and to be in that stance. Yes, I'm very conscious that this won't work with every power or even every class - it's going to require me to adjudicate on a per-power basis, and possibly ban the Barbarian. Dropping you to 1HP is there because it's thematic, and to stop players using this the moment they become Bloodied (since in-fiction, this kind of thing is often a last resort). If someone's already come up with something less complicated that achieves the same thing, please point me in that direction, because Desperation Attack is definitely way clunkier than I'd like it to be. e; thinking about it: the ultra simple solution is to make the Limit Break auto-hit/-crit only, but that's less fun. Still, I suppose I could do that if the stupid bloated monstrosity there ends up being too unwieldy to use in a real game. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Yeah, if/when I run this, I plan on posting about the maths - on paper it looks like a pretty great way of simplifying 4E a little so I'm interested in seeing if it works out in play. I'll have a mix of 4E veterans and newbies, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
Has anyone ever made a table of the min/average/max AC values for well-built PCs from levels 1-30? I'm debating just removing armour from the game entirely and giving PCs a flat AC value (increasing every level), since I'm fairly sure the practical difference between light and heavy armour is relatively small.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:This is actually fairly difficult, because it doesn't scale uniformly pretty much anywhere and there are a lot of choices that pop in at random levels that can boost it up significantly. Yeah, that's the main reason I asked first before trying to plot it out myself. I'll have a go at figuring it out, even if the results just have to go into a table because the curve isn't smooth enough for overarching rules.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Another thing: anyone have a backup of the offline CB? I seem to have lost my install last time I reinstalled Windows.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:Perhaps... Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
The RC specifically calls out immediate actions as a thing you can do in the surprise round if you're not surprised, but only when it's not your turn. It's page 191.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Gharbad the Weak posted:The Warmaster Tactical Awareness feature allows someone to act during a surprise round "even while surprised." So, even though you are able to act, you're still surprised, and so that creature would not be able to take an immediate action, correct? This one is up to GM interpretation but I would argue that Tactical Awareness lets you do everything you would be able to do if you weren't surprised, even if you're surprised. There's no reason why it would apply to one part of the list of things you can do on a surprise round when not surprised but not to the rest. Without Tactical Awareness: Surprising: 1 standard action OR 1 move action OR 1 minor action; AND free actions AND opportunity actions AND 1 immediate action (but not on your turn). Surprised: nothing at all. With Tactical Awareness: Surprising: 1 standard action AND 1 move action AND 1 minor action. Nothing else! Surprised: 1 standard action OR 1 move action OR 1 minor action; AND free actions AND opportunity actions AND 1 immediate action (but not on your turn). RAW, Surprising + Tactical Awareness means you lose free actions, OAs and your immediate action, but that's dumb and it should just give you a normal full turn when not surprised during a surprise round.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Themes (and backgrounds) are a free power increase with no costs so yes, if you include them in the game there's zero reason not to pick one. As long as everyone has them and the GM takes that into account while designing encounters, I wouldn't call them broken. And yeah, they're balanced very poorly against each other. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
What're some of people's favourite Heroic monster combos? I'm running a level 5 oneshot with a mix of new and veteran players next week, so I want some combat encounters that are challenging but not total bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Sounds like you should just run 4E, then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
You're the DM, just run what you want to run. If they don't like it, they can choose to GM or not to play. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:
Flavour text suggests the former but DM's decision, really. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Dec 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
I meant former and not latter. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
That's solid but I'd try to get one of the leaders to make sure they run a defender-y build. It's going to be difficult for a single defender and a single controller to do their jobs well against six PCs' worth of XP budget.
Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I loved its metaphysical setup Yeah, the Dawn War stuff and primal spirits and all that were cool setting details. Also, extraplanar elves. PoL was recognisably "a D&D setting" but also way more interesting than you would expect from something that appears to be generic D&D fantasy on the surface. It's a neat setting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
The solution is to just take all of the non-flavour feats out of the game completely.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 12:40
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:What else do you want them to be for? Narrative theme and flavour.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
Multiclass feats in general are a way better idea than the hybrid system. The hybrid system just adds needless complexity. Though yes, having to take extra feats to get extra powers sucked.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Worshippers of a particular god should get massive bonuses to checks regarding that particular god, if they don't just know them automatically. They should just know them automatically. You should never have to roll a check for this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
I wouldn't even bother with PHB1 - Rules Compendium has all the errata baked in and all the rules in one better-laid-out book, and you just use a builder for player options.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:I feel like people bounced off of 4th edition precisely because of DMs like this guy. It's extra funny because the DMG explicitly says "never adjust a monster's level by 5 or more."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Who is that moron? Neo-Nazi and OSR creep RPGpundit, who's credited in the 5e rulebook for providing ~design feedback~ (i.e. helping Mearls make it more poo poo). Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:O. I thought he was named Tarnowski or something. I must be out of the loop from the old grogs.txt days. He is, but he's paranoid about publishing stuff under his real name, so he uses a number of pseudonyms that he pretends are his real name (and Kasimir Urbanski is one of them).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:With reflavouring Wizard powers what would you guys suggest? I'm thinking suggesting stuff like bombardiers or even a Macguyver/Michael Weston (Garak if you want to be more on theme) type who improvised stuff and calls in favours. I would suggest asking the Wizard player what their character is doing and just treating it as what that character specifically is doing, instead of trying to systematically map D&D magic to a specific setting element (unless everyone else at the table wants to do that, obv). Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 12, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Khizan posted:This is a badly designed fighter. The real solution is to have him rebuild. Everything else is just building encounters around a lovely character build, and that never works out long term. Yeah, this is the right next step. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 23:28 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
If the Fighter lacks the ability to land mark punishment attacks and do damage, the Fighter is badly built and can't do its job properly. You don't need to throw everything out, just make sure the stat array is correct and they have Expertise feats and the right weapon. That's assuming the Fighter actually is built incorrectly, though. If it isn't, then there's nothing to rebuild. 
Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 23:26 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
They should have just made a 4E version of the Tome of Magic Binder instead.  It would have been pretty easy to make interesting, too: have an Encounter class feature that lets you manifest your Vestige for a minor benefit, then make a list of Vestiges that each have an Encounter and Daily power that you get access to at the normal levels, and have the class learn more Vestiges at levels 3, 7, 13, etc. 4E powers are already pretty clearly silo'd per build, so you'd just be essentially making a class that chooses packages of Encounter+Daily powers instead of choosing them individually, with the gimmick being that you can swap to a different Encounter+Daily for each encounter by manifesting a different Vestige. Lemon-Lime fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jun 29, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:They.. sort of have that. Vestige pact warlock. All your dailies are vestiges that give your at will power a new rider and give you a new pact boon. Yes, and it sucked. I'm saying there was an easy concept there for making a full class out of the 3.x Binder concept, which is what they should have done instead of making it a mediocre Warlock pact and then giving the name to an even worse Warlock pact in Essentials.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2018 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
The Cleric and Monk are also the best versions of their concept in any edition of D&D. e; and the Sorcerer.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2018 17:55
|
|