D&D 4e General

Thread starter question: Do you disapprove of item- and damage type-dependent builds like "frostcheese," the "radiant mafia," the Mark of Storm, and the Firewind Blade?

If you are GMing, remember...
1. To strongly consider giving out at least one free "tax feat," like Expertise and pre-errata Melee Training.
2. To use Monster Manual 3/Monster Vault/Monster Vault: Nentir Vale/Dark Sun Creature Catalog math. Avoid or manually update anything with Monster Manual 1 or 2 math.
3. That skill challenges have always been scene-framing devices for the GM, that players should never be overtly told that they are in a skill challenge, and that the Rules Compendium has the most up-to-date skill DCs and skill challenge rules.

If you would like assistance with character optimization, remember to tell us what the what the rest of the players are playing, what books are allowed, your starting level, the highest level you expect to reach, what free feats you receive, if anything is banned, whether or not themes are allowed, your starting equipment, and how much you dislike item-dependent builds.
If you wish to talk about settings, 4e's settings are Points of Light (the planes and the natural world's past empires are heavily detailed in various sourcebooks and magazines), 4e Forgotten Realms, 4e Eberron, 4e Dark Sun, and whatever setting you would like to bring into 4e.

Nentir Vale locations: web.archive.org/web/20130520012550/http://community.wizards.com/nentir_vale/wiki/Nentir_Vale_Locations
Points of Light timeline (ignore everything else on this mostly-fanon wiki): nentirvale.wikidot.com/world
D&D 4e Compendium (for those who still have Insider subscriptions): wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx
PDFs for 4e books: Search thepiratebay for "Dungeonsand_Dragons_4th_Edition_books_update__1[Nov_2012]"
Previous thread:

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20101226194257/http://gregbilsland.wordpress.com/house-rules/
wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateCompiled.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

can you explain this?
>1. To strongly consider giving out at least one free "tax feat," like Expertise and pre-errata Melee Training.

my group us level 7, and doing the H3 module
the PCs seem to never really get into trouble
I have yet to drop a PC

Handing out free tax feats is less related to difficulty, and more of a matter of giving the players the feats the system's math expects them to have. These feats are necessary to match up PCs' attack bonuses with monster' defenses, PCs' non-AC defenses with monsters' attack bonuses, and PCs' melee basic attack and damage bonuses with those of Strength-based PCs (because frontliners like battleminds, monks, and swordmages having to spend a feat to have a viable melee basic attack is exceedingly stupid).

Such feats are so effective that nearly every character will want to pick them up sooner or later, and indeed, the game assumes you will have them. With that in mind, why not hand them out for free and give players room for customization?

For some unfathomable reason, WotC never saw it fit to integrate these into PCs' math via errata, despite the game's March 2012 errata document being 136 pages long. This is presumably because they were attempting to sweep the fiasco under the metaphorical rug.

However, throughout 4e's run, there was a certain designer and editor for the game named Greg Bilsland. He was in charge of combing over books, resolving balance issues, and writing up errata. Greg Bilsland used house rules to patch up the game's math with tax feats:

web.archive.org/web/20101226194257/http://gregbilsland.wordpress.com/house-rules/

Think about that. If 4e's official errata-writer thought it was a good idea to hand out free tax feats, then it is probably a good idea.

>my group us level 7, and doing the H3 module
Also, modules H1-3, P1-3, and E1 are all written under Monster Manual 1 math, which means enemies inflict laughable amounts of damage yet have the aggravating tendency to have high defenses, inflict brutal conditions, and, in the case of solo monsters, have far too much HP. Overall, such monsters are significantly weaker than their Monster Manual 3 math counterparts, which would explain why the party is having little trouble.

>Thread starter question: Do you disapprove of item- and damage type-dependent builds like "frostcheese," the "radiant mafia," the Mark of Storm, and the Firewind Blade?

I dislike it because damage types are the biggest limit to refluffing, and all those rely on cheesing out elements/vulnerabilities/etc.

You can't just tell your blackguard "sure, replace all necrotic with radiant", cause then suddenly that's a huge buff, because damage types were not created equal.

I mean, you totally can cause blackguards suck, but you get my point... right?

I do agree that damage types are by far the greatest obstacle to reflavoring, second only to powers targeting different defenses. This is perhaps why Strike! has no damage types and defense types by default.

I do not think that damage type resistances and vulnerabilities amongst monsters should even exist to begin with. I can fully accept that magical fire and ice operate differently from environmental fire and ice, and that they would be no more or less effective against a creature of elemental fire or ice. It would be more interesting if exploiting an elemental fire or ice creature's vulnerabilities involved having to wield the environment to one's advantage (e.g. pushing a fire elemental into water), rather than just bringing out the right type of magic weapon or magical power.

The blackguard is actually a rock-solid, high-defense striker at levels 1-2. Only at level 3+ does it start to slide downhill.

If you are interested in my assessment of the Essentials and post-Essentials classes, you can read more starting from here , but do note my retracted statement on the paladin (cavalier).

>Every character has a character theme song in the battle music playlist. Whenever that song comes up, there character gains an action point that he or she must spend during his or her next turn.

Who care about feats, I'm stealing THIS houserule!

>want to play 4e
>it's entirely overshadowed by 3.pf and 5e

I like 5e, but there are some things 4e just seems perfect for.

where can I get this
> March 2012 errata document

So here's what I've got for a striker/fighter class feature:


Vicious strike

When you make a weapon attack and hit an enemy, that enemy takes extra damage based on your level. You can deal Vicious strike damage once per turn

1d6 at levels 1-10, 2d6 at levels 11-20, 3d6 at levels 21-30


Choose on of the following:

cutting strike:
Add your wisdom modifier to your vicious strike damage

swift strike:
add your dexterity modifier to your vicious strike damage

heavy strike
add your constitution modifier to your vicious strike damage

What do you think?

Have an even more up-to-date errata document from August 2012:
wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdateCompiled.pdf

That is a heinously powerful out-of-the-box striker feature, especially at the heroic tier.

Consider the two standard striker damage progressions:

Heroic: +1d6 damage
Paragon: +2d6 damage
Epic: +3d6 damage

Heroic: Secondary ability modifier
Paragon: 2 + secondary ability modifier
Epic: 4 + secondary ability modifier

Yours exceeds both of these. I would strongly recommend picking one of the above two, unless you have something more creative in mind.

Somewhat true, but also false

Consider this. 1. It is straight weaker than a brutal scoundrel rogue's damage bonus at level 1, and 2. Your "standard damage progressions" are taken from the ranger (who deals pretty much all of their damage via massively damaging powers, not the striker feature), and the sorcerer (who can apply it to every attack the sorcerer makes, no limit based on turns or rounds).

Maybe it should be once per round rather than once per turn though

You are also applying this to a chassis of scale armor and heavy shields, 6 hit points per level, Combat Superiority/Combat Agility, and Fighter Weapon Talent, like a much better paladin (blackguard).

Your class feature, as currently written, is quite powerful out-of-the-box with no investment whatsoever, whereas other strikers generally need to invest in their offense potential (e.g. warlocks taking Mindbite Scorn, rangers stacking static damage bonuses, monks improving their flurry damage).

A Brutal Scoundrel rogue deals 2d8+3 damage at best, and that is with a feat spent on Backstabber. The rogue is going to have to invest further if they wish to reliably gain combat advantage. Such a character will also be decidedly frailer than a fighter.

hmm, true

better make the three variants feats, rather than out of the box choices

Even so, you are still placing a very high damage output in the hands of a character with defender-tier durability.

The closest benchmark you will find for that is an Iron Soul monk.

what would you suggest then?

Just making it a weaker ranger by removing the secondary stat modifier entirely?

Reducing the chassis down to 5 hit points per level, 6 base healing surges, and light shields would give you somewhat more leeway with which to emphasize damage output, and perhaps even inject some utility in the form of another trained skill to make up for the fighter's woeful three.

Remember that Fighter Weapon Talent is already conferring a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

>Maybe it should be once per round rather than once per turn though
And limit the leaders supporting? No.
Just make it deal damage based on the ability modifier, and create 3 feats, 1 per tier, increasing the bonus by 1d6 each.
Want the goods? Pay the price. It will still be better than the other striker features, but it's 3 feats, quite hefty as a pricetag.

So make it the sorcerer striker power, but much, much weaker.

I guess that works, sorcerers are super frail as a cost for their awesome striker feature

I'd probably remove heavy shield proficiency as well though

I was thinking more on the lines of the Slayer striker feature, so maybe make it apply to all attacks and not just 1/turn?
Epic Slayer goes up to 8+Dex, this would go to an average of 10.5+Stat, getting less than 1 point of average damage per feat. Crits would get fun, tho.

the slayer striker feature would be OP if tied to a true fighter. You could blow everything up at level 3 with insane damage from rain of blows

So make a fighter that's more frail than an avenger.

>Just make it deal damage based on the ability modifier, and create 3 feats, 1 per tier, increasing the bonus by 1d6 each.

Damage-granting feats should scale with either tier or ability modifier. (Mindbite Scorn might be mandatory for warlocks, but it is not a well-designed feat.)

Strength/Wisdom fighters already receive a major damage upgrade at paragon via Marked Scourge (Wisdom modifier damage), and at epic through Slashing Storm (Wisdom modifier damage again). This new striker fighter could have a replacement paragon feat for Marked Scourge, as well as an alternate version of Slashing Storm.

so make it 1d6 per tier once per round, with a paragon feat for addind ability modifier damage?

>So make a fighter that's more frail than an avenger.

To look at it another way, a striker more durable than a standard, pure-classed TWF ranger.

+1d10 damage per tier, once per turn, might not be entirely out of the question considering the steep competition from other strikers.

Not if your advice is taken, that makes it the same as a standard two weapon fighter. And dealing less damage

*ranger, sorry

Nigga I don't like 4e at all but it's not terrible at what it does, it's just not really DnD in my eyes.

Now I have fifth edition which is nice but also has so many literal fucking mistakes in game design that I feel a surge of sympathy for 4e by comparison. I have played and run 4e and it is okay. I like tactical combat. 4e does that well and is the only edition to have a level based AC buff.

A standard TWF ranger does not have any heavy armor proficiencies, has targeting restrictions on Hunter's Quarry, has a Hunter's Quarry that deals only +1d6 damage, and lacks Tempest Technique.

The ranger does have more single-target multiattacks, however, which certainly slants things in the ranger's favor.

A standard twf ranger has twin strike and is wearing hide armor with 16 dex, giving equal AC as chainmail, and may not have tempest technique, but does have a bigger off-hand weapon, and toughness.

So yeah, a twf fighter has a tiny bonus thanks to either scale AC or tempest technique, but not both

>A standard twf ranger has twin strike and is wearing hide armor with 16 dex
That is not quite a "standard TWF ranger" as it is a TWF ranger aiming for Stormwarden. The ranger benefits from Wisdom for encounter power riders, such as that of the crucial encounter attack power that is Lashing Leaves.

Toughness is generally negligible compared to defenses against Monster Manual 3 math monsters.

>Do you disapprove of item- and damage type-dependent builds like "frostcheese," the "radiant mafia," the Mark of Storm, and the Firewind Blade?
Yes. But I'm against any build that does not derive naturally from the story. These builds are not organic from the story, and also require the other players to acquiesce to your build preferenves.

Did I want to play a dryad? Not really. Do I want a cursed 2h Great sword on my chaladin maintank? Not really. But I'm rolling with it, and it's awesome.

If only the rest of my party would...

anyone have a good build for human cleric/shaman?