D&D 4e General

4E retroclone when?

Someone on SA was working on one, but I don't think it went anywhere.

And no, Strike! doesn't count.

Stop shilling Strike!

Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike!?

Because it's good.

Back on topic though, if you aren't using 13th Age's escalation die with 4e you're doing it fucking wrong

Strike! is also from SA I think. Ran under the codename "Sacred BBQ" for a while. You sure that's not the one you are thinking of?

Besides that, I find you can just add back whatever you miss from 4e rather easily anyway. Benefits of being so basic/bare I guess.

I don't like it very much, but people always compare it to 4E. Figured I'd get it out the way.

It was a thread/post about "making a true 4E retroclone" or something like that, so probably something closer to the source material.

However, it seemed like the guy really wanted to change a few things about the game rather than make an accurate retroclone, so fuck that.

>escalation die with 4e
This, and remember to let monsters auto-recharge abilities when the Escalation Die reaches the recharge value. Solo monsters likewise get access to it.

>Strike!
>good

>implying it's bad

Shit, this thread makes me want to run 4e again. I ran it a grand total of once and never even got to use monsters with rechargable abilities, it's depressing

I can see the appeal of Strike, but I don't think it's a 4e retroclone. It's a rules light fantasy RPG with a tactical combat system, but it lacks a lot of the depth and complexity which made 4e interesting, IMO.

I've been working on and off on a 4e rewrite with a few friends. Aside from the standard stuff (fixing the math, removing the need for tax feats), we're playing with a few ideas for changes-

Splitting Utility powers into In Combat and Out of Combat, and giving every class progression in both so people always have interesting things they can do outside of a fight.

Making themes a core part of the game, the heroic tier equivalent to your Paragon Path/Epic Destiny (so at each tier you get your class benefits, plus something else.)

Possibly removing or changing the way racial stat bonuses work, still being considered, but it is sorta lame the way certain combinations are just outright worse and less interesting to play.

Finding a way to make Str/Con, Dex/Int or Wis/Cha classes to work better. Possibly giving every class with a stat combo that only enhances one save the option to replace one of their weaker saves with the modifier of a good stat.

This one is being argued over, but I'm advocating replacing the standard D&D stat progression with just the modifier. Because a -1 to +5 scale works almost as well, requires less bookkeeping and makes more sense in chargen.

New to 4e here. Are Essentials feats meant to be more powerful than the usual ones? It's just that ones like Master of Arms and Heavy Armor Agility are either very good in their own right or make pre-essentials feats redundant.

I was actually on the development team for Strike!, although I had only ever spoken with the main author, and I had by far the least input on the game due to entering development just a couple of months before the game's release. I make zero money out of anything related to Strike!

There is quite a bit I dislike about Strike!, such as the entirety of its noncombat system (save for perhaps chases and team conflict). I personally think I could brush up even its combat side and repackage it into my own rewrite of Strike! for free.

Essentials Expertise feats are some of the most powerful feats in the game because they are supposed to ease the burden of having to take an Expertise feat as a tax. Why Wizards of the Coast did not just patch in Expertise into PC math, nobody knows.

Improved Defenses and Superior Fortitude/Reflex/Will are also there to ease the blow of having to take tax feats to shore up non-AC defenses. Again, why this was not simply integrated into PC math via errata, none can tell.

Most of the other feats in the Essentials line (e.g. Resilient Focus, World Serpent's Grasp) are certainly quite useful, but they are not much stronger than the top-tier class feats exclusive to each class.

Basically every game I've ever played has given a free Expertise and free Improved Defences at first level.

>such as the entirety of its noncombat system

Some people say 4E "isn't a role-playing game" and others say "you don't need rules to role-play", but I legitimately could not tell if Strike! was trying to be a role-playing game or some other kind of game.

I think what I read was some kind of beta or quickstart guide, so that might have had something to do with it.

>There is quite a bit I dislike about Strike!, such as the entirety of its noncombat system (save for perhaps chases and team conflict). I personally think I could brush up even its combat side and repackage it into my own rewrite of Strike! for free.

Hear hear.

What would you change (aside from doing something about backstabber thieves at level 1)?

...

I'm not working on a clone, exactly, but my game [Dragon Forest] is heavily inspired by 4E. It is maybe closer to 4E in many respects than Strike! is, but still not an accurate clone. Not shilling, just answering your query.

Can't be too hard to adapt. Just divide HP in half and increase damage a little bit, right?

Don't touch HP. That is completely unnecessary. But yeah, do with damage what said.

Good deal! Thanks.
MM3n on a business card is so goddamned useful.

My collection is a bunch of online character builder character files I will never get to use.

Now that 4E-clones have been brought up, would it be acceptable if I post the latest version of my 4E hack to get input from you guys?
There's quite a few major points where I want to keep my game different from 4E, if only for purposes of keeping it legally distinct and achieving a certain kind of feel.
But I also know I need to rear things back. If I could get some suggestions on things I should cut, add, or adjust in order to make the game a little more faithful to 4E, I would greatly appreciate it.

How about it, guys?

Well, the general seems somewhat dad otherwise, so go for it.

What are you guys' favorite hybrids?
I'm partial to sorcerer|barbarian and sorcerer|fighter.

Paladin|Warlock and Paladin|Fighter.

Also, Vampire|Monk is pretty funny.

Okay.

So, what I set out to do with this game was actually to invert D&D's reward mechanisms in order to achieve a different kind of feel. Instead of killing monsters to accumulate XP, you start out with a pool of doom points that the GM spends to send monsters after you, and you are trying to get rid of all your doom points to level up. And instead of questing to collect gold and treasure, characters in [Dragon Forest] live in a sort of post-apocalyptic world where gold is worthless and everybody starts out with powerful magic items called Dark Gifts. There's more of an emphasis on easing one's burdens.

I chose 4E to apply these ideas to, as opposed to oldschool D&D or 3.5, because 4E makes for the strongest contrast.

So, it isn't a straight 4E clone.

Bard/Paladins.
You're playing as a chivalrous knight who sings. It's like link related:
youtu.be/woA_SfURbt0

And the mechanics aren't bad, either.

Thanks for reminding me of paladin warlock! Hero's poise, that one warlock feat to make a save on radiant attacks, and a radiant at will that gives +2 to saves is a really fun leader-y combo.
And, of course, touch of command and/or eyebite on a defender is hilarious.
How does the monk|vampire operate?

The monk-pire is actually kinda bad (even if you rule that Desert Wind disciple is available for hybrid monks so CHA and DEX mesh) , I just find the combination funny for some reason. Probably because we were making characters with a player and was like "I kinda like the monk but this character is kinda bland..." and so we decided to throw weird shit at the wall and had a good laugh at Vampire|Monk actually having multiclass feat support.

Then I read the dragon mag it's in and it turns out that vampire hybrids have multiclass feats for like everything, so it's no big deal actually, but it stuck with me.

It always struck me as a shame that the Shadow classes are so bad. Assassin has a great theme, but its features and powers generally suck, while Vampire is just all over the place.

A friend of mine had the idea of reworking the Vampire as a close range Controller more than a Striker, dominating and hypnotizing people with its presence and dark power alongside the blood draining. Then again, if you took the concept both ways, you could likely make two Vampire variants, one Controller and one Striker, each of which would work better than the rather muddy middle of the road option.

Shadow being all strikers all the time is such a pity exactly because there's so many ways that it could have been done; vampire could also have been a great defender, his "mark" being a hypnosis and blood drain/regeneration instead of high defenses as well.

Which is why I really like Strike's approach of class+role.

I can appreciate the idea of Strike's approach, but it still seems like it lacks depth. Sure, there are loads of combinations, but each combination has a lot less to it than a 4e class.

For a single book it covers a lot of bases, probably more than the entire essentials product line combined. That said, I wouldn't mind more variants, for both classes and roles.

Say; striker variant that gets more accuracy instead of damage, or dots, or a copy of the Assassin's shroud mechanic, Necromancer that can teleport when the cursed target goes down to cover Feylocks, a Swarm form for Shapeshifters, etc.

Even then, increasing the variety doesn't stop each individual combination lacking depth, which is what makes me less interested in Strike. It feels like you'll reach the end of what each combination is capable of quickly, that you'll run out of options and interesting interactions far faster than you would in 4e, where there's a huge amount of new stuff for all thirty levels.

Eh, I think one of the strengths of Strike! is that they removed all the powers that are "that power that you had 10 levels ago but actually doing level appropriate damage and effects" and instead just have everything scale.

Plus hey, you can always just add in multiclass/power feats, and expand the feat list in general, as they also tend to be way more interesting than 4e feats.

Are the DnD novels any good? Keep in mind I'm a tasteless pleb only looking for comfy reading material.

The comics are real good. I read one of the story-times on here a ways back, and liked it.

will read

GM's of 4E:

How are your game sessions typically structured?

When I've played 4E in the past there would usually only be one combat encounter per game session with a bit of roleplay before as everyone is preparing for the fight and after while treasure is split up and XP is awarded.

How about it?

What's the best weapon type?

Polearms/spears!

You haven't lived until you've played a druid using an alfsair spear and light shield, who multiclasses fighter and takes polearm momentum, battering shield, and hindering shield with the magic stones at will power.
Wizard multiclass fighter is also good with a glaive and polearm momentum.

The thing I like about 4E is that there are so many good choices. It really depends on what class you are playing though.
If you're playing a fighter, you can do some really cool stuff with polearms or flails that will leave your enemies prone and slowed and in exactly the spot you want them. Or you can use axes or heavy blades to dish out huge amounts of damage with headman's chop.
So many choices!

>Shadow being all strikers all the time is such a pity exactly because there's so many ways that it could have been done; vampire could also have been a great defender, his "mark" being a hypnosis and blood drain/regeneration instead of high defenses as well.

A shadow defender could have been really cool.

Shadow isn't a thematic power source.

Ran a lvl 20 fight with 2 friends, paladin and fighter, agains a single marilith.
Encounter and daily powers were spent in the first rounds, then all that was left were at will ones.
After 40min deep in the fight we got too bored to keep playing.

Did we do wrong or its supposed to be this monotone?

Was it a 2v1 in a white, featureless room starting within 10 squares of each other?
If so, yes, that is doing it incorrectly.

>escalation die
I'm not reading 13th age in to find that
what is that? What does it do?

Does the marilith use the updated math? Monster Manual 3 onwards basically halved HP and doubled damage. HP bloat is still an issue however, but nerfing it a second time often helps.

Yeah, man. You just have two defenders. You have no striker for damage dealing, you have no leader for buffs, so your DPR is going to lag.
Dealing damage is how you end fights. If you want to end the fight quicker, deal more damage. Or else use morale rules/intimidate checks.

Basicaly it would work on a full party? The most I can get in my tables are 3 players, so unless I use some DMPC it will fail again?

How about damaging terrain? Could you include some traps and hazards the PC's can push the monster into to make up for the lack of striker damage?
What about magic items? What did the two guys have equipped?

>two defenders vs a solo creatures (I think marilith is solo or elite)
also
>playing for the first time and using level 20 right away

you literally did everything wrong.
First of all, start at lower levels, read the DM guid m8.

You need at least 1 striker OR to redo the math to accommodate for the party. Don't be afraid to run a leader/controller as a DMPC, especially if they specialize in buffs. Most players don't find that enjoyable and you get to make the actual pcs feel more important.

This is true. Every other power source has a broad set of possible thematics, while "shadow" is locked into a single theme.

Two defenders are unlikely to dole out a meaningful degree of damage. Furthermore, a marilith is a level 24 elite monster, which creates an encounter level 24 battle for two PCs, leading to a difficult and arduous battle.

On top of that, a marilith is a level 24 elite *skirmisher*, and skirmishers tend to be on the defensive/mobility-oriented side of monsters. A single skirmisher as the sole monster in a battle is wasting the potential of its role entirely, and will absolutely lead to a meaningless slog.

Mariliths in 4e *also* happen to be designed to be anti-weapon-user, since their at-will attack power grants them a +6 bonus to AC. They go down quite easily to implement-users targeting Fortitude and Will, but a fighter or a paladin will have a very difficult time against a marilith. (Contrast this to the balor, which is the opposite: as a brute, it is most vulnerable to weapon attacks.)

if you did a combat like that in any D&D edition it would still be doing it wrong.

It was a 3.5 game we decided to "upgrade" to keep playing. We returned to 3.5 later but the paladin guy convinced me to use tome of battle and it all went to shits again.

Thanks, I guess I'll give it another try.

This is false. Contrary to what others believe, monsters did *not* have their hit points or defenses lowered in any way by Monster Manual 3 math.

The Monster Manual 2 already lowered defenses across the metaphorical board (especially for elites and solos, which had overinflated defenses due to "increase elite/solo defenses" guidelines in the Dungeon Master's Guide 1) and lowered the HP multiplier of solos to four, rather than five.

What the Monster Manual 3's math *did* do was substantially increase the damage output of all monsters, and remove the accuracy bonuses and penalties of soldiers and brutes respectively. By doing this, it made all monster roles roughly equal with one another, and allowed combats to be faster and have less overall monster hit points, because the DM could then field less monsters and lower-leveled monsters (which added up to much less total hit points than before) and still meaningfully challenge characters. This was an indirect reduction in hit points and defenses, and it worked very well.

>It was a 3.5 game we decided to "upgrade" to keep playing. We returned to 3.5 later but the paladin guy convinced me to use tome of battle and it all went to shits again.

Characters should never, *ever* be translated from editions "literally." Have a look at what the characters mechanically specialized in in 3.5, and then port them over while keeping that mechanical specialization.

Perhaps one of them was far more damage-oriented than the other in 3.5, meaning one should take up a striker class instead. That said, 4e ultimately does not work too well with only two PCs; either give each of them an additional PC or run a DMPC.

>I personally think I could brush up even its combat side and repackage it into my own rewrite of Strike! for free.
If you're doing all that, why not file off the copyright names and make your own game? If it's by you, I would definitely give it a shot at least. And you could release the core game free and splats for money when you want cash influx.

For one, a wholly revamped noncombat system based on what amounts to point-buy for skills and extraordinary powers. I would use 1d6, but allow any given roll to work under either binary or trinary resolution mechanics. "Critical" successes and failures outside of combat would be the exclusive domain of Action Points/Fate Points.

There is little to change about the combat system itself save for minor adjustments to the various classes and roles. I also have in mind a subsystem wherein any character can access any power, although some would be exclusive to certain classes and roles.

I cannot do so because the one RPG I would have the most interest in authoring at the moment is a Touhoufied 2e/3.X (with diminutive dashes of 4e, 5e, and Pathfinder) Planescape RPG, wherein anime foxboy/girl arcanaloths engage in Strike!-based spell card battles with anime wolfboy/girl-with-snake-tail molydei over the miles-long vorpal ice shards of pitch-black Ocanthus.

Given that the setting is not my intellectual property and that the rules are not mine to create either, I do not think there is any hope of selling this.

Strike! is already a generic RPG, and I think it would be more palatable to the main author if I was to present my game as a setting-specific version of Strike! rather than a setting-agnostic rewrite outright.

>I cannot do so because [I would rather do something I can't do]
I'm not seeing the relevance of this. Acknowledging that something it would be cool to do is not within your legal abilities, does it not make sense to move on to something else?
A version of Strike shipping with its own setting wouldn't be worse, nor would it preclude your mechanical improvements.

>I cannot do so because the one RPG I would have the most interest in authoring at the moment is a Touhoufied 2e/3.X (with diminutive dashes of 4e, 5e, and Pathfinder) Planescape RPG, wherein anime foxboy/girl arcanaloths engage in Strike!-based spell card battles with anime wolfboy/girl-with-snake-tail molydei over the miles-long vorpal ice shards of pitch-black Ocanthus.

That sounds pretty goddamn cool! I would love to play that.

I do not think you understand. I would like to make that ideal RPG of mine simply for pleasure, but I could not commercially release it.

sharing on Veeky Forums is not commercial release.

Oh, well that's fine but you could non-commercially release it and, at your discretion, have a patreon or paypal tip jar.

Games that can't do white room combats well don't have good combat.

keep reading the thread m8, that wasn't the real problem with that situation.

So now that it's been long enough that the edition wars are over, what is 4e actually good for? What are its flaws/

A lot of that comes down to taste, man. One man's flaw is another man's feature.

I'd say that some parts of the game weren't as developed as they could have been. The classes introduced later on didn't receive nearly enough support, and the Essentials materials could have been better integrated.
Some of the later classes, especially Vampires, were missed opportunities. Could have been better.
Skill challenges could have been better developed.

4E shines in two areas: the character creation mini-game, and tactical combat. Otherwise, it's just a competently designed dungeon adventure game in the tradition of D&D. It's emphasis on war game mechanics feels (to me) like a spiritual successor to D&D's war game roots going back to Chainmail.

It is a die.
It escalates.

Hunter Ranger is actually okay. The (save ends) on Disrupting Shot works pretty well, and Twin Strike can be achieved through a feat for damage purposes.

I wouldn't so much frame it in terms of merits vs flaws, and more in terms of the what it's suited for and what it's not suited for.

What it does well:
>Combat is its own minigame that is a fun enough game to literally be a tabletop wargame: think Warmhordes, but deeper, and faster.
>PC's actually feel like fantasy novel heroes out of the box, without house-rules.
>You can refluff into almost any concept you can imagine without having to worry about it making the crunch not make sense, because of fluff-crunch separation. TLRD, every concept is mechanically viable thanks to seamless refluff.
>Encounter building is a BREEZE. Actually, everything about DMing is a breeze.
>Classes are balanced, with a few exceptions, mostly from essentials.

What it's NOT good for
>Realism takes a back-seat to a balanced game and genre-imitation. If you want the world to feel like a gritty real medieval world where you are a small insignificant cog trying to amass enough wealth to retire off of deathtrap-delving, you will not like 4e.
>Combat takes much longer than other editions of D&D. IF you don't like combat heavy games, or often find yourself saying "man I wish we could get this combat over with and get back to the game," you won't like 4e.
>Some people do not like the separation between fluff and crunch, saying it cheapens both since neither enforces the other.
>Some people do not like the class balance, because the difference between a high-optimization character and a mid-optimization character in 4e is much smaller than many are used to, and the "reward" for mastering the system is not as great.

Personally I LOVE 4e.

Combine Skald weapon buffs with Cavalier smites for nova turns.

Combat in 4e does not have to take long.
If the players have a solid grasp on their characters' abilities and options and pay attention, combat can be quite fast. But that is a pretty big 'if'.

Depends on the session. I've rarely had sessions with more than one combat, but the combat itself can last between an hour and 1-1/2 session, depending on factors such as player timeliness, complicated enemies and distractions from the game itself. Skiller challenges are good for the variation, and not all face-offs should be resolved through actual combat.

It's true, and if you compare it to wargames like 40k, warmhordes, or even mordheim, it's MUCH faster, with no loss in depth of combat, it's just when you compare it to other editions of D&D, it's slower. You can totally get it down to 30-45 minutes per combat with an experienced group, but that's still comparatively longer.

>The (save ends) on Disrupting Shot works pretty well
By controller standards, Disruptive Shot is dreadfully bad. It is, at best, a single-target immobilized (save ends) or dazed (save ends). Compare this to what other controllers can have for a level 1 encounter power: a Primal Predator druid's Thorn Spray for a gigantic defense debuff in an area, a Covenant of Wrath invoker's pinpoint multitarget dazing and pushing with Thunder of Judgment, or a wizard's area control with Grasping Shadows, Illusory Obstacles, or Twilight Falls.

At levels 3 and 7, where another controller class would receive even better encounter attack powers to expand its repertoire, all a ranger (hunter) receives is... another use of Disruptive Shot at level 3, and yet another use of it at level 7 (plus another Aspect of the Wild that will probably never see use). That is pathetic.

The only meaningful upgrade to Disruptive Shot comes at level 13, with the blinding and the weapon-based rider, but by then, other controllers are working with seriously potent powers. Primal Predator druids render an enemy extremely vulnerable to a nova with Rending Claws, Covenant of Wrath invokers can set up a close blast 5 of enemies with near-guaranteed attacks against them and dazing with Brilliant Revelation, and wizards are laying down hard control in area burst 2s with Dark Gathering or Prismatic Burst. The ranger (hunter) cannot keep up with these.

This does not even begin to cover another damning weakness of the ranger (hunter): no daily attack powers with which to apply truly devastating control.

>Twin Strike can be achieved through a feat for damage purposes
Twin Strike is probably better than actually bothering with Clever Shot or Rapid Shot, but in this case, I am wondering why one is not simply playing a PHB1 ranger instead.

I made a silly fighter/rogue build a while back, basically just using fighter as a means to get the shock trooper paragon path while also multiclassing into monk for monk unarmed strike.

It was really feat intensive for very little reward, but those d12 sneak attack punches were fun as hell

Did 4e ever get siege rules, or is that another thing I'm importing from C&T?

Slap a d6 on the table after the first round of combat, 1 facing up.
It goes up by one every turn, and players add it to attack rolls.

Do people have any suggestions for some fun 4e campaign modules for a beginner-level 2nd level party? I'm gonna DM a campaign soon and I'm not completely comfortable with the system either, and I want to ease them in with something nice and structured.

New (GM) to 4e here, how necessary is the 4 player, C/L/D/S role spread? Is it viable/reasonable to adapt the game for 3 players, and if so, what roles should they take?
Right now I have a party of a tree warden, caster cleric, and archery ranger, played by mostly new players. Can I make up for the lack of controller by reducing the number of minions/large groups of enemies in encounters?

Not the 2huposter who knows what he's talking about, just felt like joining in.

Reavers of Harkenwold is absolutely and undoubtedly the best 4e adventure available for 2nd-level characters. It presents a cohesive storyline, makes good use of both combat encounters (with Monster Manual 3 math) and skill challenges (with Rules Compendium DCs), and is actually quite epic in scope for such a low-level adventure.

The only truly necessary role is leader.

As long as a party has a leader, it can be built to compensate for a lack of other roles. It is really quite easy to turn any character into a secondary striker, there are many classes with naturally high defenses that can make a defender actually superfluous, and AoE and control options abound for any class.

2/encounter minor action healing, on the other hand, is much rarer. Not just anyone can pick that up. This is what makes having a single leader necessary.

4e works somewhat well in a three-person party, but not as well as with four or five party members. The most noticeable downsides to running for three PCs are that combat encounters will be relatively simplistic due to having less moving parts, and anything AoE-based (for both PCs and monsters) will be underpowered for the same reason.

In a three-person party, defender/leader/striker is perhaps the best setup, since, as said above, AoE is weak in such a context, thereby diminishing a controller's value. However, the warden is an AoE defender, so I would recommend a switch to a single-target defender such as a fighter or a Strength/Wisdom paladin.

It would help to have two melee characters so that the defender has someone to flank with, so I would also suggest that the ranger be a two-weapon melee ranger instead. Lastly, the ranged cleric should absolutely swap out Healer's Lore for Battle Cleric's Lore for the sake of survivability.

Controller is easily the least important. Your warden should have enough close bursts and your ranger should have twin strike to deal with mobs of enemies

That helps a lot, thanks.

I would disagree with your recommendation for a single-target defender based on the fact that both other party members are ranged-based, and the defender should therefore be trying to keep every enemy adjacent at all times

Is Reavers included in that TPB books torrent or is that found elsewhere? That sounds perfect, though, thank you!

It's part of the DM Kit, which I believe is in the torrent.

I truthfully consider the *defender* to be the most unnecessary role in four- to five-person parties. Between the number of classes that have naturally high defenses and the sheer number of ways to increase defenses, a defender can find themselves with little niche left.

Consider that a level 3 Virtue of Cunning bard with Intelligence 18 and a Rhythm Blade Spiked Shield has the exact same overall value of defenses as a fighter or a warden. A level 3 Iron Soul monk with Dexterity 20 and Unarmored Agility actually has 1 more AC than a fighter or a warden, even without a Rhythm Blade.

A defender is only really necessary given the presence of classes whose defenses are difficult to salvage, like an ardent or virtually any shaman.

In a three-person party, however, the controller is the least necessary role due to there being few monsters with which to apply a meaningful amount of AoE against.

The ideal of an AoE defender like a warden keeping every enemy glued to them at all times is a lofty one, but it simply does not hold up that well. An AoE defender trades in stickiness for breadth of marking, which loosens the restrictions on each individual enemy. It is not that difficult for a number of determined enemies to slip by a warden with shifts and charges, for example.

Compare this to, say, a fighter, who absolutely *will* keep a single enemy pinned down to them... and who can bring out AoE defending via Glowering Threat at level 2 and Kirre's Roar at level 6 anyway.

In any event, I have already suggested that the ranger be a melee ranger.

What is this party's starting level anyway?

I would strongly recommend *against* using the escalation die in 4e, as it provides a negligible benefit to characters whose specialty is high-accuracy attacks (e.g. avenger, rogue), making them much weaker in comparison to characters who have middlingly accurate yet potent attacks on a hit (e.g. two-weapon ranger).

13th Age's PC attack bonus vs. monster defense math was built with the escalation die in mind.
4e's equivalent math was *not* constructed with such in mind. Thus, the escalation die would be a hamfisted fit.

Consider a level 8 rogue with Dexterity 22, a +2 dagger, Light Blade Expertise, and Nimble Blade. Their attack bonus with combat advantage (trivial with the options a rogue has available to them, such as the Acrobatic Strike at-will and the Cunning Stalker feat) is: 4 half level + 6 Dex modifier + 3 proficiency + 1 feat + 2 enhancement + 1 Rogue Weapon Training + 3 combat advantage with Nimble Blade = +20. Just how high is such an attack bonus?

Level 4 soldier, level 6 controller/lurker/skirmisher, level 8 brute, some level 6 artilleries, some level 8 artilleries: AC 20 (hits on a natural 2+, so 2 points of attack bonus are wasted)
Level 5 soldier, level 7 controller/lurker/skirmisher, level 9 brute, some level 7 artilleries, some level 9 artilleries: AC 21 (hits on a natural 2+, so 1 point of attack bonus is wasted)
Level 6 soldier, level 8 controller/lurker/skirmisher, level 10 brute, some level 8 artilleries, some level 10 artilleries: AC 22 (hits on a natural 2+)

This might be impressive, but consider that one of the rogue class's somewhat unique gimmicks *is* constant accuracy.

Imagine what would happen if the escalation die was to be introduced here: the rogue would receive *absolutely nothing* from it, thereby making the rogue weaker in comparison to the rest of the party. This would be particularly insulting when there are already enemies that the rogue's points of attack bonus are being wasted against.

How would a competent DM handle AoE mark situation like a paladin's Call of Challenge? Would every enemy in the room feel obligated to swing at him, or would they have a to take the free damage and try and go after the squishies anyway?

Depends entirely on the situation, and what kind of DM it is

A DM that focuses on tactical combat would weigh the enemies attack roll capability and health against the amount of damage it could deal to the squishy and take from the paladin, and make her decision based on which one favours the enemy more.

A story-driven DM would consider whether or not the enemies in question would acknowledge or recognize the mark, and if they do, whether or not they care, and would base his decision off of that

Page 57 of the Player's Handbook 1 makes clears that enemies know *exactly* what a power has done to them, and can thus weigh their options appropriately.

>Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed. For example, when a paladin uses Divine Challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin.

The same would apply to the fighter's own version of Call of Challenge, Glowering Threat, which is worse in some respects (especially the area) and better in others (it applies even against close and area attacks).