|
One of the problems I always had with Essentials characters (particularly Martials) is that they require characters to immediately grock Melee Basic, which is not as Basic as it appears. I have one friend that I tried to include as a guest in 2 different sessions of my 4e game. AD&D reigns supreme in his memory and while I wouldn't call him groggy he does have a certain willful ignorance about him with regards to newer editions. Anyway, he said he wanted to play something 'simple' on two occasions. The first time we made him a Monk and he loved the poo poo out of it. Power cards immediately transmitted what he was supposed to do. Play a card, do a thing. Our experience with the Slayer was radically different. "So I have to activate a stance and then... attack? Am I like a toaster? Do I have to be in bagel mode before I can attack?" It requires fewer choices but it's still loaded with jargon. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Feb 14, 2014 |
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
SeraphSlaughter posted:One of my players for a campaign I'm just starting expressed interest in bringing some lycanthropy traits into his character. I want to encourage it since he's building up a lot of backstory for it, but I don't want him to have more abilities right out of the gate than other players. Does anyone have any resources/homebrew stuff/advice for handling something like this? I was thinking of either reskinning a Shifter as a lycanthrope since it's almost the same thing, and letting his racial ability cover it, but it doesn't seem like quite enough to cover the effects of lycanthropy. I'll probably be categorizing this as a racial feature for him anyway, so if we come up with something homebrew, it'd be replacing whatever other racial abilities he would've had. Are you using Themes at all? There's actually a Werewolf/Lycanthrope Theme that would work really well. Alternatively tell him to play a Druid. Beast form Druids pretty accurately replicate being a Werewolf. I've used Druids to represent both Werewolves and Vampires in my Castlevania game and they both worked really well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Isn't Pacifist Cleric a thing? I mean it's not a great thing, but I'm sure I've heard of it as a build before. I think the real problem you'd run into is looking for powers that neither a.)deal damage or b.)heal. Priest only needs so much healing. At a certain point you're just pouring HP down a hole and hoping it hits something useful at the bottom.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Torquemadras posted:Regarding monster encounters: what's so special about MM3 and more recent versions? When I gave it a quick look, it just seemed to change the layout a bit. Or does it have some important mechanical changes? Basically, under the hood, monsters have some fairly reliable guidelines about their Defenses, Damage, and HP that stays true for most monsters of their level/type with a little variance between them. The assumptions that guide MM1/MM2 were a little different from MM3, the net result being MM3 fights tend to be quicker but bloodier. MM1 in particular is notorious for monsters that can take a ton of damage but do not really threaten the players in a way that is interesting or exciting, since they tend to do very little damage and the effects are predictable and dull. As to your practical question, there's no easy way to answer that. Players will burn surges in response to damage, so the easiest way to encourage tension is to ensure damage is being metered out properly - avoid low damage Soldiers, using Brutes and Artillery liberally to ensure players are paying their taxes. You figure, in general, players will spend a Surge only if a monster deals damage equal to (or more often in excess of) their Surge value. Defenders will spend more than other players (typically) assuming you aim for the NADS, and back row casters will spend fewer surges. Since you can't really control how much damage a monster deals or how timid the players are, it's difficult to speculate. My players typically spent most of their surges between combats getting back up to full HP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
I think the shrouds-as-separate-damage instance is dumb if only because it requires you to optimize the assassin in a very narrow and specific (and unintuitive) way. Like usually I come to a board like this to answer a question about whether a character class is poo poo based on some poor noob who wants to play one in my game and I'm not going to hand him a binder full of acceptable options that narrowly work within the confines of an ambiguous ruling. Houseruling the assassin is both easier and more fun.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Cerepol posted:How hosed am I if I decide to run a 3 player campaign? Everything seems to be hard around the 5 times being there. I ran a 3 player castlevania game for years that was quite successful. It featured a Paladin (Defender/Leader), an Avenger (pure Striker) and a Druid (mostly built for Striker, light Control). What I did to ensure I didn't get too many TPKs was: 1.) Even fights. If you want to have more monsters, use lower level monsters (like 2 or more levels lower than the party) or minions. Even then, keep in mind your action economy, which often creates a harder encounter than the numbers would tell you. 2.) Because it was Castlevania, I had a sub-weapon system that basically gave everybody access to Minor-action attacks. There are a bunch of little trinkets out there that let you do stuff with Minors, so consider sprinkling them in to boost the party's action economy. 3.) Potions, particularly if you have no leader. Don't be scared to sprinkle in potions that are 'too good' for the party, either, since without a leader they're going to want to use their own Minors to heal. 4.) Consider encounters that offer advantages to the party under certain circumstances rather than just challenges to overcome. Traps they can activate to defeat monsters, boulders they can push over, power-ups they can collect and so forth. These can help make up for the lack of other players. 5.) Companion characters. They don't need to be complicated - you can have them follow a very simple, transparent script. For instance, if you have an NPC cleric that can attack, turn undead, or heal (1/Encounter), have it a.) retreat if injured, else b.) heal a wounded ally, if able else c.) attack the nearest undead else d.) melee.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
It is possible, it should be noted with sufficient system mastery to make a Cleric kind of Striker-y or make a Paladin sort of Leader-y. They'll never be as good at your desired off-role as a class that is designed for that role and they'll probably trade off some of their primary role capability to boot. But it's possible. I played a Cleric who beat things to death with his hammer almost as well as the Blackguard in the party, provided excellent defensive bonuses to the melee characters, usually helped set up CA from flanking and could still heal 4 or 5 times per combat. This is pretty unique to Cleric which has massive support (some of which is for a pure STR character) but it's certainly possible to tweak a class to fit multiple roles awkwardly. If your goal is to play a pure Striker Cleric though I agree with the general advice that you're better off taking another class entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
I think the thing that consistently makes Hybrids a bad choice is that the really obvious synergies turn out to be nonbos that have actually be cannily excised by the developers - e.g., you can't actually use a Warlock's hex with similar class features from other Striker classes, even though at first blush it looks awesome. A strict understanding of the rules is required to figure out what will or won't work and often times poaching a single Encounter or Daily from a different class is what makes a hybrid actually worth it, something a new player can't possibly do without an encyclopedic knowledge of multiple classes. This, and almost every Hybrid can be better reproduced in concept/theme by a pure class anyway. I believe in keeping classes pure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:My experience with trying to strip/distill 4e down to its mechanical core is that people don't "get" what you're supposed to do with it. This basically comes back to that 'dissociated mechanics' chestnut that polluted the internet like a turd in a swimming pool. For some reason if you tell people that this is game, and here is what you take it you want to be a rogue, and everything you can pick from in the rogue portfolio will make you more roguey, that's bad and you should be ashamed of yourself. When you're told that 'rogue' is a defining trait of people in-universe who have taken up the vocation of thief and describes something fundamental about the world your character inhabits on some kind of metamechanical level, that's good and something we should strive for. Never tell people playing DnD that it's a game I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:This. This exact thing happened to me on our local Meetup like a year ago. I don't get it. I mean, I do get it, but even if I were accommodating it's not like having the knowledge and or books to run 4e instantly gives me the same ability to run 3.5. I couldn't run a Pathfinder game if you paid me to, I know almost nothing about the system.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 07:42
|
|
"
|
Create monsters that have about the same or even less health than normal that require specific setups or conditions to defeat efficiently, and make those tactics interesting or obvious. A monster that can freely teleport except when hit by a Cold attack, or one that is quickly defeated (Vulnerability maybe) when actions are taken in the environment. Monsters that do increasingly nasty things to characters suffering under various conditions can be fun at higher levels when your Leader probably has a way to throw out free saves, or failing that, provide an environmental way to get free of the Condition. I once did a fight that was just three minions and a unique Elite. The three minions were crows made out of ice than would explode when killed, causing vulnerability to cold for one round; if the character was adjacent to a fire or other heat source at the end of any turn, I made it go away. The Elite could slow and then stun characters who were vulnerable/slowed respectively (and with increasingly larger bonuses to hit and damage) which made for a fiddly but manageable fight centered around quickly removing conditions and positioning near fires or characters that could create fires.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
The only issue I have with minions (and 2-hit minions, as a result) is that it renders the damage irrelevant. That wouldn't be a huge issue in and over itself, but a huge number of powers, feats, and items interact with damage, particularly teamwork powers. By rendering the actual damage irrelevant you're making those other things irrelevant too. At least with a normal minion you know you only need to hit it so hard, and it dies. I like the idea of minimum damage threshold to one-shot a normally two-hit mook but I'd want to avoid making a big list of exceptions and explanations. Minion systems should be relatively simple IMHO. What sort of threshold would you use? 1/2 a normal monster (Skirmisher) HP for that level? Level x (N) HP?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Just spitballing but you could make a character that 'stores' abilities against the monsters being fought. Consider an encounter power that lets you 'store' a monster's damage expression after being targeted by it. Your next attack becomes (X), which is the damage that the monster used against you. It could be the dice size you store, or the actual amount of damage, or the bonus the monster gains, or something. Consider another encounter power that lets you store the non-damaging portion of the attack, or a Daily power that just lets you pre-preemptively steal any power from a monster you're fighting. I could come up with some great stuff and it'd all fit into AEDU but I'm not sure how balanced it would be. EDIT: The can of worms is that monster powers aren't balanced around other PCs; they're balanced around other monsters. So anything that borrows attacks from monsters is going to explore unintended design space and that could be either really lackluster or really broken. I'd recommend anything that lets you adjust your powers based on the monsters you're fighting, though to what extent would require a lot of testing.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Still working on my gambling themed dungeon. At one point, the party has to win the Boss Key from a slot machine. Because its a magic slot machine and the spirit who powers it is loving bored, it summons monsters if you lose. You can spin the reels while you're next to the machine. It's a 3d6 roll to determine the result. Once you've started playing, you can hold any number of reels in position and respin. Each time the reels stop, though, the result creates an immediate effect, mostly summoning monsters but with a few beneficial effects (that are mostly there to distract the player from the actual goal, the Boss Key). I would consider some kind of failsafe, just in case. It is hypothetically possible they'll get 6-6-? and just keep spinning that last reel dozens of times, which could get pretty tedious. Other than that it sounds pretty cool!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Radiant warlocks are a lot of fun post-errata. They can be kind of a headache if you need to squeeze every last bit of functionality out of them , but they are largely long range and can provide monsters with a lot of fun catch 22 scenarios for light control.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Noxin of Shame posted:Noob question regarding multiclassing: 4e is fairly strict about silo'ing class powers into the intended class without massive investment. That means cherry-picking is basically impossible but the upside is that classes are allowed to be internally balanced instead of having to balance every single power against every single other power in the game. If you really want to mix and match powers, you need to look into hybrids, but I would ask the thread about that before diving in if you really wanted to do it. Hybrids are usually more trouble than just reflavoring powers to taste.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
It's been a long time since I've run 4e but. If I recall correctly a mount is not an extra character, but rather a creature that has, at most, one extra power that the player can use instead of their own. Basically you get increased movement rate and a single cool power that the monster can use (but it uses the player's action). You have to find mounts in the monster manuals to get a feel for it. There might be a feat you need to get into it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
There will always be some choice that is better than others; it's pretty much impossible to have a game that doesn't work that way and certainly not in something as complex as DnD. The key is, how much better is the optimized character versus the unoptimized one? and what is the minimum level of optimization required to participate?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:Who'd buy it? Serious answer: Paizo. Though who knows if they have the money. I think it's pretty funny the White Wolf's IP is hot enough for biggish video game companies to fight over the it but nobody is buying DnD. I have to imagine WotC has had offers. Maybe they're just stonewalling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:As I understand WotC is a massive pain in the rear end to work with if you're trying to make a video game for them, which is probably why you'll never see another Baldur's Gate. None of the established RPG developers want to play second fiddle to WotC when they can just make their own fantasy setting, and the "D&D" brand logo is worth exceedingly little for video games. Dragon Age was pretty much the death of D&D titled video games. I will literally never understand this. EA would run the DnD brand better than WotC ever could in the videogame world, let alone a developer who might actually do something cool with the license. I wish somebody would figure out that 'DnD' doesn't have to mean either 'Forgotten Realms' or 'generic as gently caress fantasy'. Games like The Witcher or Dragon Age are better DnD games than WotC will ever make but it's just depressing to think that way. Why are those games more fun than DnD games? Because they create their own universe and roll around in it like pigs in slop instead of worshiping decades old ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Indeed, to some extent they're lovely in large part because they're NOT feat starved - they never got the same design love that other classes did, and class feats are a HUGE part of optimisation. Yeah absolutely true. I mean as a way to specialize the minutia of class features I get it. Some of the things feats do to a fighters mark are cool but not signicant enough to warrant the cerebral overhead of packing those choices into core class design. They're bad though because they were used to shore up weak class features and put players into a bad dilemma. Spend a feat doing something neat, or building down a very specialized path that maybe makes one class feature competitive with the baseline?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:I'd look at Sorcerer for area damage. Warlocks are okay at this as well. They're neither great controllers nor great blasters but with the right power selection they can def do both at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
This probably sounds like I'm dodging your question but I think a lot of it depends on what you mean by 'bad'. Blackguards and Vampires are actually not terrible in play but they're not fun to play or level and typically require particularly strange char-op techniques to even be serviceable. In fact I'd say that's my criticism of a lot of Essentials design. Even the good classes benefit a lot from complex char op requiring lots of system mastery which is the exact opposite of what those classes are supposed to be. Take even a 'good' class, like the Slayer. It benefits from all kinds of poo poo that makes your basic attacks better. It benefits a lot from a charge kit, which is not something a new player would ever really know about. Compare that to a vanilla Warlock. I think the Slayer is probably a better striker than the Warlock but I also think the Warlock is a lot more fun to play even if you have almost no understanding of the game in either case. Burglar's summary is good and I think even the 'good' Essentials characters can be pretty dull to play. Thief is probably the most enjoyable of the lot. Maybe Nethermancer, even if it's not particularly good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Question about Avengers: does their damage as a striker just kinda suck til they hit Paragon and grab Painful Oath? Seems like before then they're basically banking on being a more "reliable" striker, but without any actual bonus damage mechanic. In my experience Avengers do play a little different than other strikers but they don't lag behind to a noticeable degree (unless we're comparing them to Rangers or something). Their crit-fishing amazing and the accuracy bonus they can pull out from Oath is itself a passive DPR boost. Avengers also have a lot of utility and are pretty sticky depending on which Oath you're rocking. They are amazing in a radiant mafia but I guess anything is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
I wonder if wizards thinks this will force people to play 5e?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
There is Neverwinter online. Its not a great game. It puts a lot of names from 4th edition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Eopia posted:Problem is that I'm not really sure what my preferences are, this monk I'm playing is the first character I've played with in 4e since it was first released so I don't really have the experience to say. For my money Avenger is probably my favorite class. It's the Divine Striker class and appears in PhB 2. They are essentially the angry, wrathful arm of any given religion. If you want to roleplay Castlevania this is your go-to class. *Their core mechanic has them roll two d20 against a specified target instead of 1. Why not intrinsically exciting on its own it means you're much less likely to miss and twice as likely to crit. *They are extremely sticky, regardless of which Avenger build you make. They pull their marked targets closer, teleport after them, grow wings and fly after them - it's pretty hard to escape an Avenger. *While w'ere on the topic they have some of the best inherent fluff/SFX of any class I've ever played. I almost never felt the need to refluff their powers because they're all so cool. *Again, Castlevania.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Vinchenz posted:
Honestly talk to the player. Controllers are great. They can neutralize high priority targets like Brutes and Artillery. Just make sure his expectation is not to specifically render a dragon unconscious for an entire fight because that's dumb. A well played controller already contributes to boss fights by assuring that the other characters have spent fewer daily resources before getting there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Iny posted:Yeah, you don't ever ever want to specialize in (or, really, ever use) bull rush unless maybe you have some broken feat combination that makes it do triple melee basic damage or something. It's a last resort for pushing people into bottomless pits if you have no other forced movement, and is otherwise basically worthless. I'm glad bull rush exists for really niche cases (a STR based character with no push effects native wants to knock a goblin off a bridge, for instance) but yeah it isn't a good go-to for anybody. It feels a little bit like an artifact from 3e when everything under the sun needed to be an intrinsic melee ability to justify its existence, but it has a purpose. Just not a good one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:What makes encounters fun for you guys? I want it to be more then "You hit them, they hit you, oh watch out for this trap / hazard." 1.) Gimmicks. Monsters that stack increasingly worse conditions that have to be removed either through powers the players have or through some other environmental factor. Monsters with circumstantially avoidable powers. Environmental effects that change from round to round or under specific (but ever-shifting) circumstances. 2.) Stakes. It's not enough to say, "you walk into the room, these monsters attack you." Why fight them? Because there's something the players need on the other side? Because they have to protect something? Because they monsters are protecting something? Goals in the combat besides 'slay the other side.'
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Beatbox the Rappin' Robot (Warforged Bard) was a big hit back during the Wednesday encounters group. When I think of robot bard all I can think of is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmY2wf7T428
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
I don't get it when DMs get frustrated by their encounters being easier than they thought. Sure it's tense and fun to get the PCs against the ropes only to have them pull it out at the last minute, and once you've tasted it you might end up chasing that high for the rest of your career - but fie, I say! That way lies disappointment and self destruction. Stop worrying and learn to love the AoE control.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
I think leaders and controllers both let a party hit higher on the encounter chart than numbers would imply. A good controller and leader probably let a party take on at least one additional on-level monster each than the encounter guidelines suggest.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
I would honestly suggest against the lazylord unless they are very ambitious and proactive with regards to learning the rules. Getting the most out of a lazylord requires careful positioning and co-operation, and can easily lead to, 'no no, stand here, so I can have you do this and furthermore...' situations. My suggestions: 1.) Player a Cleric, preferably a melee Cleric. Clerics have great buffs both to AC and attack, enabling your companions do to a lot of the really cool stuff. Strength-based Clerics are totally viable and a blast to play. Be a dwarf, grab a Mordenkrad and give people Combat Advantage. Your heals and AC boosts will help shore up their weaknesses and cover their mistakes. 2.) Player a Paladin. You can get a lot of mileage out of maxed Paladin, but it requires you to do some work (which sounds like something you want!). You aren't playing the Striker or the Controller, here, so it's not like the fight is about you but you have enough clutch buffs, heals, and defender-y stuff to help catapult the team to victory. Probably less flashy than being a Fighter, too, if you're worried about stealing the show. 3.) Play a Warlock. Vanilla Warlocks aren't great Controllers or great Strikers but they can fill either role in a pinch, which lets you be flexible. Just like my opinion, man.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Or you could still do melee cleric. Just sayin. Giant hammer STR cleric is amazing and fun up through level 15-16 and even then it falls back to merely pretty awesome. Also doesn't require bizarre MAD hybriding.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
This kind of thing is quite prevalent in 4e and is yet another case of 'please refluff." Like if an enemy goes 'prone' to avoid incoming fire, they're dropping to their bellies to make a smaller target. If a fighter knocks a dragon 'prone', it hasn't literally fallen on its rear end (or maybe it has, depending on the tone of your game). It just means the Fighter has knocked him off balance. It's a little bit more difficult to reconcile the ranged penalty of 'prone' under this circumstance but I usually just posit that the Fighter is in the way or something. 'Prone' is shorthand for a variety of different status effects in the same way that 'Daze' isn't literally the same effect when it comes from a thrown rock or a psychic blast even if the mechanical shorthand is the same.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
~*sounds of hissing and scratching of claws*~ Seriously though, thanks for the heads up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
I love warlocks and consider them one of my favorite classes - probably one of the most fun to actually play, for my preferences. But they are absolutely some kind of whacky controller/striker combo and can't really be compared directly to pure strikers like a Barb or a Rogue (and don't compare them to a Ranger, that will just make you depressed). They excel at creating catch 22 situations for the DM, where no matter what choice they make a monster is going to take some damage. They're pretty durable with the right powers and are fairly self-sufficient while still managing okay to good damage. Also, and this is just a general rule, it's not fair for a DM to compare the at-will damage of a caster class to the at-will damage of a weapon-based class. Implement casters just don't do as much at-will damage as their weapon-wielding counterparts, striker or not. This is supposedly balanced against the fact that casters usually target NADs, and maybe it is, but comparing the round-to-round charge damage of a Barbarian to the at-will powers of a Warlock is never going to compare favorably.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
sysdefect posted:Anyone ever try homebrewing a dungeon crawl like system into 4e? I've seen some of the lair assaults and I've seen people talk about 4thcore and those seem to get the closest but I want to incorporate specific older elements from D&D and elements of roguelikes . For instance, I want to add scrolls, and wands with use magic device type checks to allow adventurers to build up that ready for any occasion type arsenal. Some ideas: One of the issues with old-school play in 4th is the idea of attrition. By default there are two resources that are going to dwindle over the course of the adventuring day in 4th - surges and dailies. Old school play adds elements of resource management, which are hard to do in 4th. Part of this is that if you're building encounters correctly players will rarely try to avoid them; and avoiding fights was a great source of resource management in old-school play. Also, older versions of DnD added elements of time management to play; the longer you stay in the dungeon, the more you're going to burn through torches, rations, and other survival elements. One of the time-critical factors was the decision to rest. Not only was resting dangerous, but it could result in additional monsters. A problem you could run into there was that a.) 4th doesn't really have an appropriate random encounter mechanic (but you could make one) and b.) longer fights can make random encounter mechanics a little tedious. So, off the top of my head: - Because you want players to feel under pressure for resource management, make encounters harder than normal, but end them more quickly; whether that means cutting monster HP in half or just having them run away, that's your call. This will make the first round or two tense but end fights more quickly, allowing you to sprinkle more in over the course of the day (including random encounters.) It may also make them question whether or not it is wise to engage a particular monster. - Add random encounters if you want to, but remember that 4th is balanced around the assumption that players will have access to at least their encounter powers. - Additional consumables are easy to come up with. There are a bunch already but pulling from other material shouldn't be difficult. You can do random treasure parcels if you want but I think it would probably suit you better to do something a bit more focused, giving them weird consumables that are unique to the kinds of problems you want them to overcome.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I think the main thing is that 4e's combats take too long for the amount that you'd expect to happen in a classic dungeon crawl, unless you do some significant rejiggering like implementing a morale system. Yeah this. I think that would be your first obstacle. And I think a morale system or messing with HP is a good bet. A lot of it depends on the level of the group. 6-8 rounds may well represent a full hour (or more) of combat. I recommend shooting for 2-3 round combats.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 01:48
|
|