D&D 4e General

>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
Reduce the number of classes and give each of them a core gimmick that applies to how they interface with the AEDU system. For example:
- Fighters have -Reliable- maneuvers; if they miss with an Encounter or Daily power it's not expended, and their At-Will attacks might (perhaps) let them recharge their Encounter powers on a hit or something
- Rogues have -Flexible- maneuvers; they can declare what maneuver they're using AFTER they attack, but it has to fulfill certain conditions (see 13th Age for examples). Maybe their At-Will attacks build Momentum if they hit and their maneuvers have a bonus effect if they have momentum (again, see 13th Age)
- Mages have -Versatile- spells; they can use each of their spells in a variety of ways, such as making a fire spell into a single-target blast, a cone of flame, or an explosion around them
- Priests have -Enduring- spells; each power has a lasting effect that can only be partially removed with a Saving Throw, and buffs have an immediate large bonus and a lasting smaller bonus
- Psions have -Augmentable- powers; they get a reserve of Power Points they can spend to boost their At-Wills, just like they do in normal 4E.

>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
You've got a false premise here, sir. There are rules for social encounters and exploration, they're just less detailed because the game focuses on

>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
Don't let them play vampires.

>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
Evaluate the specific benefits of Str and Con compared to other attributes and, if you find them to be superior, remove some of those benefits. Test until your players are satisfied.

>because the game focuses on
Apologies for the unfinished sentence. I meant to say that the game focuses on tactical combat, for better or worse. Personally I would prefer more rules for 'social combat' and stuff like building settlements, managing estates, and otherwise becoming land-owners and people of note rather than just assuming the characters are murder-hobos.

I also recommend going with the Intrinsic Bonuses option instead of the 'magic item treadmill' that the core game introduces. Make magic items optional and powerful relics and tell players they'll have to earn them. That way they become a much more enjoyable reward, and you can build whole adventures around getting something as ordinarily 'commonplace' as a +1 Flaming Longsword.

Oh, and use the Monster Manual 3 math for monster creation, it's far superior.

>reliable, flexible, versatile, enduring, augmentable

Not that I want to bump a 4E thread, but this is very cool and some of the best advice i've seen about the game.

The only problem with lazylords is that they aren't bravura.

So ignoring the troll OP, I'm going to be running a game soon for some friends of mine, and one of them is stuck on hybrids. Is there anyway to break down hybridizing for someone new to 4e in general?

Hybrids really aren't worth it unless you're aiming for a very specific combo of some description. I've seen people do decent things with the rules, but overall it's just way more trouble than it's worth.

Hybrids should not be played by new players

It is far too easy to fuck it up and end up with something far weaker than the sum of it's parts. Sometimes unplayably weak if they do something stupid like rogue/wizard

It's not really in an optimizing sense, the player wants to make a warlord who also keeps the faith of a dead god alive as one of the few clerics of that god. I'm just wondering if there's like a 'quick guide to hybriding' floating around like the MM3 math card.

They're a lot better off going Warlord multiclass Paladin or Cleric, maybe taking a divine theme like Knight Hospitalier alongside.

I can understand the attraction of Hybrid, but what said is accurate

Don't hybrid, just take a multiclass feat

Multiclassing into cleric from warlord is hardly optimal, it recquires you to be a wis-based warlord, which requires giving up most of the warlord's feat support, but it's not a debilitating option. Especially considering how strong warlords are inherently

Sounds like a challenge to me!

Warlord/cleric is actually a pretty good hybrid, mostly because clerics hybrids can get Battle cleric's lore.

Buuuut, as a beginner he's probably still better off grabbing a few multiclass feats, maybe play a half elf to dilettante some Cleric stuff.

I'll bring it up with the player, from what I recall she wanted to be a hybrid archer/lazylord and then most direct offensive powers would be cleric spells. It was either that or only taking STR warlord powers and STR cleric spells.

>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
I wouldn't since it feels more like a Tactics game than an MMO.
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
They don't already. They have overarching ideas but all of them play differently.
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
Except I never got that vibe from them. Sure, both have their daily, encounter and at-wills but they feel different enough that one can't confuse them.
>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
By, um, roleplaying? Do you need anything more than an outline and not the stupid skill encounters rules?
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
By banning it from your table.
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
Don't, since I've never seen the issue myself.

Anyone here try Strike! yes?

I did.

I think it's pretty good. A bit rough around the edges, but I even kinda like the non-combat module.

Is there a trove anywhere of 4e books to mine conversion content for 5e? I want to see some of these things people liked about warlords straight from the source.

Yeah I did

The non-combat stuff is basically FATE but worse, and operates so separately from the combat stuff that I'm confused why they've been lumped together into one game.

Meanwhile the combat stuff screams in agony at being forced to use a single d6 when a dice pool mechanic would fit much better

me
Couldn't disagree more.

The out of combat is more like *World games than FATE (or maybe a mix, if you consider it has skills instead of stats). The results for the d6 roll are the same for both skills and attacks, so they are definitely the same game both in and out of combat.

I am interested in what you mean by dicepool mechanic tho.

>mmo on tabletop.
For the most part I'd more compare it to disgaea.

But if you wanted to drop the MMO feel, it's going to take a bit of doing.

>Abilities
4e has a wide variety of limited use abilities, all with their own individual resource pool, and a refresh after combat mechanic that feels a *lot* like an mmo cooldown.

You'd have to rework that. Maybe move everything to a single fatigue system, and have the refresh require like, 5-10 min of rest.

That's the biggest part.

>Aggro Mechanics
These are super MMOy

You'd want to drop the aggro/mechanics entirely. If you want to stop someone from going after your friends, you'll need to either a) be the bigger threat, or b) use a combination of positioning and perhaps some sort of short distance reactive move abilities to block their path. Adding in AoOs would also help.

>Rigid party roles by class
This is also super mmoy.

I'm not sure what the best approach for this would be, but allowing people to more fluidly be in multiple roles would help get rid of the mmo style party roles feel.

Those would be the main things.

As I said, it would take some doing.

Except none of that is actually new to 4e. 4e just stated it explicitly rather than leaving it implicit, and made most of it, y'know, actually work, rather than leaving large chunks of it completely worthless, boring, or both.

>If you want to stop someone from going after your friends, you'll need to either a) be the bigger threat, or b) use a combination of positioning and perhaps some sort of short distance reactive move abilities to block their path. Adding in AoOs would also help.

This is literally how Defenders already work.
All marking does is give an enemy a -2 to hit if they don't hit you and every defender has an ability that punishes marked targets for not hitting them in some fashion.

Fighters literally stop people from moving with their AoO's.

Why do so many people in dnd edition threads not read the books?

>all with their own individual resource pool, and a refresh after combat mechanic that feels a *lot* like an mmo cooldown.
>You'd have to rework that. Maybe move everything to a single fatigue system, and have the refresh require like, 5-10 min of rest.

Literally how encounter abilities refresh already in 4e.

>Maybe move everything to a single fatigue system, and have the refresh require like, 5-10 min of rest.

Encounter powers already refresh on a 5-10 min rest.

There are essentials classes that only get multiple single encounter powers.

The thing you are looking for is already the game.

Most of it isn't new or exclusive to 4e, but some of it is, and the refresh mechanics are one of the things people often complain about from bo9s.

But they are the elements that give it an "mmo" vibe, and if you're wanting to get rid of that, they're the things you'd want to be different.

Character role isn't nearly so strict in 3.x as it is in 4e, for instance.

>-2 to hit people besides you.
>ability to punish targets for not hitting you.
Right. Those are the aggro mechanics I'm suggesting be reworked/dropped if you're looking to ditch the mmo vibe.

Fighter aoos are the basic idea. I'm suggesting they'd be the only means of aggro management.

And I've read the 4e books and played 4e for about a year before I stopped playing it. I just haven't looked at 4e since around 2012.

Not so. I'm suggesting all your encounter/daily powers using a single shared fatigue/strain system. Which means you could use the same encounter power more than 1/fight , and the same daily more than 1/day.

Yeah, again, I'm talking a shadowrun style fatigue system or mp, with some number of points recovering with a short rest.

>Played for a year before i stopped
Just wasn't my thing. I like tactical skirmish games, what I didn't really enjoy was the mmo feeling mechanics. No they're not exclusive to 4e, they just took the resource mechanic I don't like from 3.x and brought it from "widespread" to "omnipresent", gave most things mmo style cooldowns, and reduced the fluidity of character role which I liked, by class.

>Character role isn't nearly so strict in 3.x as it is in 4e, for instance.

And yet the ideal party had been Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue (Fighting man/Magic User/Cleric/Thief) since OD&D. Roles had been in the game, they just adjusted over time.

Plus, 3rd was actually supposed to have roles, it was the shitty execution that led to some characters not being able to cover any, and others being able to cover all. This is also the basis for the fucking tier system.

>Right. Those are the aggro mechanics I'm suggesting be reworked/dropped if you're looking to ditch the mmo vibe.

You probably don't even play MMOs, because that's not what a fucking aggro mechanic is.

Cooldowns also don't work like in 4e (you actually get to reuse your abilities on a cooldown in MMOs in the same fight, for one).

But of course you don't care, because anything reminding you of vidya must be bad.

>Yeah, again, I'm talking a shadowrun style fatigue system or mp, with some number of points recovering with a short rest.

It's functionally the same as Slayer or Thief having a re-usable, adjustable encounter power.

Essentially, what you are vying for is just obfuscation.

>because anything reminding you of vidya must be bad.

You do realise that he talks about ways to reduce MMO-feel which is what OP (however baity that is) asked?

And the way to reduce the MMO feel is >obfuscation.

Or paying a WoW subscription for so he can actually try a fucking MMO.

Don't overreact, the idea behind punishing for not hitting is to concentrate fire on defender. Which is what taunting in MMO does. The idea is the same, the execution is different.

I played WoW. Cooldowns for powerful abilities in WoW can be pretty long and some fights can be pretty short. Not exactly AEDU but once again, the idea is there, not specific execution.

>roles were already present
Sure. But by 3.x they're less forced.
And yes, 3.x had lots of problems. Pathfinder may be my favorite d&d, but I'd still rather play a different game, like shadowrun or gurps.

>aggro mechanic
It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy, for largely incomprehensible reasons.
The punishing people for attacking others thing is especially mmo gamey, and reminds me strongly of the log horizon tank classes.

>probably don't play mmos.
I've played a few, but you're right that i realized i didnt really like them in 2009 or so, and no longer try to pick them up anymore.

>cooldowns
Yes I'm aware that a timer based cooldown is different from an encounter based cooldown. Similar though. And everything still has per-ability resource pool.

>anything reminding me of vidya is bad.
Nah. Just not what I'm generally looking for from an rpg.

>functionally the same as slayer or thief powers
Reading heroes of fallen lands now. Doesn't seem like they have a single resource pool. But even if they did, I'm referring to making something like that as the *standard* resource pool for powers, used for *all* limited resource powers.

>obfuscation!
Naw, that's just you strawmanning real hard.

Also this.

Played wow. Didn't care for it. I've tried it three times, and canceled my subscription within 4 months each time.

Exactly.

Nah, that's a bonus.

Bravura work to hard.

Implying I didn't grab moves from both

>Which is what taunting in MMO does

No. Taunting in MMO tells the AI to attack the fighter. Marking is an incentive to attack the fighter, but doesn't force it.

Removing the -2 for attacking others doesn't change this. It just changes the incentive from "you are less accurate, and fighter gets to smack you in your face" to "fighter gets to smack you in the face".

How would that remove the idea?

>It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy, for largely incomprehensible reasons.

How the fuck is "the fighter is trained in messing up your attack/face if you don't focus on him" incomprehensible?

What mechanic would you use to allow someone to defend their partymates without such tools?

>Not so. I'm suggesting all your encounter/daily powers using a single shared fatigue/strain system. Which means you could use the same encounter power more than 1/fight , and the same daily more than 1/day.

Essentials does this

>Right. Those are the aggro mechanics I'm suggesting be reworked/dropped if you're looking to ditch the mmo vibe.
>Fighter aoos are the basic idea. I'm suggesting they'd be the only means of aggro management.

MMO aggro works nothing like the marking system and every defender having to work off the Fighter's AoO-centric style would -actually- make the classes more same-ey in a negative sense.

I'd like to keep my Swordmage's ability to telesmack anyone who tries to sneak past me, thanks.

>how else could you represent training in defending others without marking/punishing effects?
Physically blocking their path to your ally with a "step up" type mechanic to intercept enemies during their move, maybe something to let you stick your arm out and provide your shield bonus to an ally in spaces behind you, perhaps something to allow you to physically leap in front of your ally to take a hit for them. Plus aoos for attacking distracted opponents.
One with magical abilities might repertory and swap places with their ally (i think there's a wizard power for that).
But largely it would involve reactive abilities they use on enemy turns.

>Physically blocking their path to your ally with a "step up" type mechanic to intercept enemies during their move
That how certain swordmage, battlemind and warden builds work

Stop shilling Strike!

Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike!?

Uh, the way the noncombat stuff works and the design ideas Jimbozig straight sharked from Fate/Fudge and PBTA to get there have nothing at all to do with the 4e heartbreaker design points of the combat system. They might as well be different games with the same dice mechanics because they literally are different games with the same dice mechanic.

>Physically blocking their path to your ally with a "step up" type mechanic to intercept enemies during their move, maybe something to let you stick your arm out and provide your shield bonus to an ally in spaces behind you, perhaps something to allow you to physically leap in front of your ally to take a hit for them. Plus aoos for attacking distracted opponents.

There's a fighter power for all of these.

>One with magical abilities might repertory and swap places with their ally

There are like four swordmage spells that do this

What you want literally exists in the system, your only problem seems to be marking because the ability to do this sort of thing at-will is bad for some reason.

>Physically blocking their path to your ally with a "step up" type mechanic to intercept enemies during their move, maybe something to let you stick your arm out and provide your shield bonus to an ally in spaces behind you, perhaps something to allow you to physically leap in front of your ally to take a hit for them.

Soooo, it encouraging the enemy to attack you and discouraging him from attacking everybody else? Also, most of those are existing fighter powers.

Actually, wait

>It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy, for largely incomprehensible reasons.

I misread this.
>and discourages them from attacking the enemy

Do you mean the enemy attacking your allies, or your allies attacking the enemy?

Because we hate you and want to drive you to suicide.

Those already exist and are also "MMO" abilities. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>It encourages the enemy to attack you and discourages them from attacking the enemy, for largely incomprehensible reasons.

'Don't ignore the big guy with the sword who is a master of using said sword or he'll stab you' seems pretty comprehensible to me.

>How do you make the game feel less like an MMO on tabletop?
It doesn't
>How do you make all classes stop playing exactly the same way?
They don't
>How do you stop making fighters feel like reskinned wizards casting fighter spells?
They don't
>How do you include rules for roleplaying instead of the game's rules being 100% for combat with nothing for noncombat?
Why do you need written rules for roleplaying ? Do you need the game to tell you how to play pretend ?
>How do you stop people from playing overpowered vampires?
Never had this problem
>How do you make Str/Con characters less overpowered?
They aren't

>in essentials, instead of individual resource pools, all your powers run off of a single resource, so for instance, you could theoretically use the same power every turn until either the fight ends or you run out of juice.
I was not aware of this. When i played 4e everyone in the group didn't like essentials and i was told not to use it by the gm. I was under the impression that essentials characters just had encounter posts instead of encounter +daily.

>mmo implementation is different!
Okay. Same idea though. Not all of the defender powers make a ton of sense, and marking is crazy abstracted and just incentivizes attacking you instead, "just because". Even if it's not identical, it's still very aggro-y. And again, discussion stems from me responding to the op question of "how could you cut down on the mmo feel of 4e?".

A reactive teleport smack would still be a good fit for the other approach of makimg defender types as i mention here
>some builds already do this thing you're suggesting.
Granted. Okay. Point?

How does "some builds do it this way already" mean "all builds do it this way"?

The problem isnt the at-will aspect of marking, it's the abstracted incentive to attack you and unexplicably making them worse at attacking anyone else, which is what makes it very much like building up more aggro/taunting in an mmo.

The degree of abstraction is the issue, not that is "at-will".

I mean discourages them from attacking your friends. Sorry for the confusion.

Again, the "for abstracted unexplained reasons" and "game the math directly to encourage the behavior you want" is what makes it feel like taunting/aggro.

I just do't get it how it's unexplicable. They are your mark. You are harrying them. They can't fight as well while they also have to deal with you.

I mean, even sports have this, right? Isn't that where the term "marking" comes from? Non native speaker here, I may be wrong.

>I was not aware of this. When i played 4e everyone in the group didn't like essentials and i was told not to use it by the gm. I was under the impression that essentials characters just had encounter posts instead of encounter +daily.

Essentials characters (Most of them, the mage and cleric were exceptions because Essentials attempted to capture the '3.5' feel) had one encounter power that they could modify with different options but they could use it multiple times an encounter, instead of each encounter power being expended individually.

>Okay. Same idea though

No. MMO mechanics focus on keeping all the monster's attention on one target, and the monsters can't choose to ignore the 'tank'. 4e Defenders do not work this way. In fact if a Defender is the exclusive target of every creature in a fight that Defender is probably dead. A Defender's job is to actively fuck up creature's attempts to harm his compatriots. He can't force their attention, but he will punish them for ignoring him.

>and marking is crazy abstracted
The whole idea of 4e was abstracted mechanics because of how stupid WoTC's attempts at being simulationist in 3.5 were.

>just incentivizes attacking you instead, "just because"
Swordmage puts a magical sigil on an enemy that lets them teleport to the target, Paladin threatens an enemy with divine wrath, Fighter marks everyone he hits because it's immediately obvious how badly he'll fuck you up if you ignore his mark (and mechanically its true, Fighter is terrifying), Battlemind literally psionically compels a target, Warden is surrounded in nature spirits that mark everyone close to him and drag foes that try to escape, etc.
Repeating an incorrect claim does not make it true.

>discussion stems from me responding to the op question of "how could you cut down on the mmo feel of 4e?".

The OP's question was a bad question because 4e doesn't function like an MMO. If it functions like any video game it functions like FFT.

It may be a sports thing. Im not really into following sports, and have never been into team sports.

But as for them harrying me, i dont need to be within reach for them to do it. You can't harry me with your costs from across a football/rugby field. If you're on the opposite end of the field you're not a threat to me.

>unexplicably making them worse at attacking anyone else

Because there is an angry man threatening them with a large piece of metal that he's very good at hurting people with/A magical sigil seared onto your body that a swordmage can use to teleport his sword into your orifices/The divine will of a god-imbued warrior pressing down on you/Actual psionic compulsion/nature spirits that are keeping the enemy distracted.

'Marked' is a condition that covers a variety of effects, like combat advantage (Or disadvantage in 5e). It means you have trouble concentrating on fighting other foes because someone has done (pick one of the above) to you and you are actively being distracted.

>i dont need to be within reach for them to do it.

Okay, this is a fair point... for the fighter. Buuuut the only way the fighter can mark you is making an attack against you, so you have to be within his reach (or at least start your turn there, which should be enough to mess you up for then).

>But as for them harrying me, i dont need to be within reach for them to do it. You can't harry me with your costs from across a football/rugby field. If you're on the opposite end of the field you're not a threat to me.

Which is why the Fighter, the only defender without some sort of supernatural ability, can only mark someone within his reach.

Now, granted, that reach can vary with certain powers (Come and Get It), but for the most part the Fighter is only marking someone he's actively swinging at.

Which is a lot more realistic and less abstract than the 3.5 Knight's Challenge, which let you 'mark' someone from a distance with words.

With your fists*

>essentials characters have one power they can modify with several uses rather than a ton of individual 1 use powers.
Ah. Then yeah, having everything be sortof like that is the general idea. An mp pool/fatigue system would just allow you to have your stronger abilities (things comparable to dailies) cost more points, but still be available.

Yeah, I'm familiar with fft. It's one of my favorite games.
What I've seen of 4e, not quite close enough to run an fft game I'd be happy with. But that's definitely the same kind of game, for sure.

>mmo they can't ignore aggro. A defender can't take his like a wow tank.
Fair enough, it's a bit different, at least compared to wow.

>is not "just because!"
>swordmage teleport
Sure.
>battlemind compulsion
Sure.
>warden spirits literally prevent you from leaving
Sure.

>Paladin wrath, fighter threat.
Does this work if I go far away? If yes, why am i so distracted by the paladin/fighter who could be like 90 feet down while i fight his wizard friend in the air?

>3.x has some mechanics that make even less sense than the one you're criticizing!
Yep. There's a lot of dumb mechanics people have made in a lot of games, unfortunately.

>Does this work if I go far away?

For the fighter, no. They're marked until the end of the fighter's next turn, which effectively means if he stops being able to swing at them and threaten them, they stop being marked.

Paladin is different because paladin mark is a ranged radiant blast of divine will. But it only works within 25 feet.

That's a cute strawman but what I was saying was that the previous edition's mechanic makes zero sense while this one's makes perfect sense (in the Fighter's case, at least, I feel Warden is the weirdest even if its effective.)

>Then yeah, having everything be sortof like that is the general idea.

Fuck no
Everyone having to work like Essentials is just as awful as no one being able to. If you like that sort of thing, just pick an Essentials class and let the people who want to play base 4e classes continue to do so.

>For the fighter, no. They're marked until the end of the fighter's next turn, which effectively means if he stops being able to swing at them and threaten them, they stop being marked.

Technically, you could be an archery fighter...but then you are threatening with a bow so...

Also worth noting that getting away from the fighter short of literally teleporting is actually pretty hard.

Well yeah, true, you could be a bow fighter...but why when Ranger exists?

And yes if you can't teleport good luck getting away. If a fighter smacks you with an AoO you stop moving.

>Well yeah, true, you could be a bow fighter...but why when Ranger exists?

Well, cause you want to mark at range with a fighter. I mean, you are probably better off with throwing weapons, but still.

If I'm trying to run a game without multiple unrelated single-power resource pools because that's part of what I'm looking to run as the gm, only having some of the characters "follow the laws of physics" while the other ones just choose to build characters incapable of getting tired, simply isn't going to work.

And again, this is continuing the "how would you houserule 4e to achieve a specific and different feel". The answer is to make changes that make that specific feel be a thing.

>only having some of the characters "follow the laws of physics" while the other ones just choose to build characters incapable of getting tired, simply isn't going to work.

What the fuck are you even talking about here. Every character with encounter powers has to take a short rest to get them back, whether they're Essentials or not. No one breaks the laws of physics or doesn't ever get tired.

Seriously if you want to houserule 4e your first step might be actually reading the books.

>And again, this is continuing the "how would you houserule 4e to achieve a specific and different feel". The answer is to make changes that make that specific feel be a thing.

And again, what you want already exists, and its called Essentials. Of course you'll have to remove wizards and clerics and never play any other edition of DnD ever, but sure if you're players are all okay with it, whatever.

>If I'm trying to run a game without multiple unrelated single-power resource pools because that's part of what I'm looking to run as the gm, only having some of the characters "follow the laws of physics" while the other ones just choose to build characters incapable of getting tired, simply isn't going to work.

What.

The way powers recharge (or what pool you use to use them) has nothing to do with physics either way. If a guy had a stamina pool he could use to fly by helicoptering with his schlong by spinning it really fats that would be a "martial style" pool but would have nothing to do with physics... which is fine because why the fuck you'd leave out the martials (a single power source) from breaking physics when everyone else can?

>which is fine because why the fuck you'd leave out the martials (a single power source) from breaking physics when everyone else can?

3eaboos and 5e players.

In a game where you want the inability to do a power to be because of a solid reason, like "too fucking exhausted to do anything strenuous", the guy who instead has a list of "i can only do this trick once, just because" powers strains credulity.

But that was plain as day the first time, which makes me think you're just pretending the past didn't make sense in order to be obnoxious.

>You'd want to drop the aggro/mechanics entirely.
I just checked my books and it looks like someone already did!

>In a game where you want the inability to do a power to be because of a solid reason, like "too fucking exhausted to do anything strenuous", the guy who instead has a list of "i can only do this trick once, just because" powers strains credulity.

Except all of them fall into the 'too fucking exhausted to do anything strenuous' after using up all of their encounter powers/their uses of their single encounter power/their power point pool.

Like if you were complaining about how Vancian casting strained credulity in another edition, sure, yeah, what you're saying would make sense.

>which makes me think you're just pretending the past didn't make sense in order to be obnoxious.

That's ironic, because at this point I think you really need to just read the books, because everything you've been arguing for since the beginning is an already existing thing.

And once again theres a big difference between "want to run a game where things work like___" and "run a game where a few of the things work like ___".

For example, If i wanted to run a 3.x game where everyone's gets access to 6th level spells or better, telling me to allow spellless martials without any houserules is worthless advice, even if you say it over and over 50 different ways.

Likewise, if i want a game where *all* powers run out of a single pool (or where there's no pools at all but you have to make rolls to not start accumulating strain when you use your powers based on how good they are and your level and the like (like shadowrun), and "dailies" simply take up more points/have a higher difficulty on the roll, the advice of "it already exists in these limited circumstances there's nothing to change" isn't helpful in the least.

>For example, If i wanted to run a 3.x game where everyone's gets access to 6th level spells or better, telling me to allow spellless martials without any houserules is worthless advice, even if you say it over and over 50 different ways.

But spelless martials are useless in 3.5 compared to 6th level casters, while Essentials characters and psionic characters work just fine alongside other characters. (Discounting the vampire, of course).

>Likewise, if i want a game where *all* powers run out of a single pool

Make an essentials and psionics only game, done.

>the advice of "it already exists in these limited circumstances there's nothing to change" isn't helpful in the least.

But the advice isn't that it already exists in limited circumstances, it's that 'it already exists in about seven books worth of material and is balanced to run alongside everything else.'

There is, quite literally nothing to change, because telling someone you're homebrewing their fighter to function like the essentials fighter that already exists is dumb.

>essentials and psionics only
Is there actually an essentials version of literally everything, or just the most commonly chosen stuff?
Can you incorporate/allow daily powers on an essentials character, such that you could make use of all the existing powers in a character with a unified resource pool?

And again, most of the discussion I've been talking about shadowrun style strain rather than an mp system, i only tangented into mp because thats what everyone else kept bringing up.

Though i suppose the essentials system would make an easier staying point to balance against.

Thank you! I'm working on integrating it into some of my own works, so that martial characters and casters actually feel different.

If that kind of thing interests you, I recommend 13th Age. The Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger classes are pretty terrible (relying on passive abilities mostly) but the others are all quite interesting and feel distinct.

>Is there actually an essentials version of literally everything,

Almost everything, yeah. Assassin, rogue, barbarian, fighter, sorcerer, wizard, cleric, paladin, fighter again, warlock, two different flavors of ranger, wizard again, wizard again, druid, blackguard, vampire (avoid this, literally the only bad 4e class)...

The only things that come to mind that DON'T have an essentials variants are the warden, the phb3 classes, and the warlord, because warlord doesn't really work without the encounter/daily/at-will split.

>Can you incorporate/allow daily powers on an essentials character

Depends on the class. Most of the 'casters' (cleric and wizard) keep daily spells/prayers and seperate encounter spells but that's why I said ban them earlier. I THINK Sha'ir wizard doesn't use dailies but if it does just use Elementalist sorcerer. No dailies there.

>such that you could make use of all the existing powers in a character with a unified resource pool?

Almost every Essentials class (see above) has a single encounter power that they can use multiple times. Slayer fighter, for example, just has a bunch of at-will stances and a single encounter ability. Where other 4e classes gain powers as they level until they reach a maximum of 4 encounter powers (after getting a paragon path), the essentials Slayer gets 4 uses of his single encounter power.

Psionics, on the other hand, buffs their at-will powers using Power Points, and tend to have certain effects happen when they're out of power points. The exception is the monk, which works differently to psionic and regular classes.

>most of the discussion I've been talking about shadowrun style strain rather than an mp system, i only tangented into mp because thats what everyone else kept bringing up.

Strain works for shadowrun but not for most other places and certainly not for 4e. An mp (actually two mp) style resource system already exists in 4e without removing everyone else's 'classic' option.

Don't essentials classes scale like shit starting from, like, level 3?

Isn't there a warlord essentials called marshal? Also, the non-martial essentials classes are rather traditional in their power setups.

They have ups and downs. They definitely fall off for a bit after 3-ish, then rise back up at 11, then a bit of a falloff again... depending on class. The non essential versions are usually better, but the essentials ones can really optimize things like basic attacks.

There are also some essentials only classes that are really freaking cool, Like the Eladrin Knight. Coolest fucking shit ever.

Naw.
They're perfectly functional, they just have less options than their counterparts (by design because a lot of martial options were what made people reee in the first place.)

With the exception of the Slayer, they start to fall off numerically around level 15, but that's just by comparison. They can still make it to epic tier (though personally I couldn't play essentials for 30 levels, I have a friend who can and is playing vampire. Again.)

>Isn't there a warlord essentials called marshal?

Fuck me you might be right. I never got that Neverwinter sourcebook and they added more Essentials classes in that, didn't they?

I looked it up. It's actually just an errata'd, updated version of the core Warlord. Like "Weapon Master" fighter is just the core fighter.

Ah okay. I was about to kick myself cuz I was sure there wasn't an essentials version.

>They're perfectly functional, they just have less options than their counterparts

And this is why they lag in power.

Yes, exactly. But if you embrace a core design as flawed as 'cool stuff for casters only' you're going to lag as a consequence.

They're not as powerful as their core counterparts, but I never claimed that they were, just that they existed and could function alongside their compatriots just fine, which is true.

With the exception of the vampire, which is terrible unless you hybridize it and even then.

>literally the only bad 4e class
>forgetting Seeker
Oh, how I wish the Seeker was good. I really love the idea behind it and the way it's few good powers play, but it is just shafted so hard....

>>forgetting Seeker

By design, user
We all wish we could forget Seeker.

It is actually pretty passable if you hybrid it with Ranger as it doesn't actually have any features to lose and there are only a few (really good, Feywild Jaunt, Biting Swarm) powers you want.

I think this is relevant.

archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/47343473/#47422558

You'll need to read 2hu's other posts there for context.

>archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/47343473/#47422558

>2hufag

Not with a rented dick.
He thinks the MM1 is entirely unusable because some of the monsters have daze, despite MM3 card existing.

Shush you.

MM1 IS fucking unplayable. That's why they made the Monster Vault.

It's not the daze on low level monsters, it's the STUN/dominate/constant dazing.

MM1 can be fixed without a lot of effort, 2hu's just too autistic for it. Though MV is better.

Also
>Good but slides down
So literally exactly what I claimed then?

I mean ignoring the fact that 2hu is only discussing how to hardcore optimize (because he's a powergaming autist) and we're discussing if something is just playable...lagging behind is exactly what I said they do.

>Remove stun and make daze effects end on next turn
>Replace dominates with free action attack of monster's choice at end of target's turn

Don't get me wrong, the MM1 is fucking terrible but it's certainly fixable if you apply MV and MM3 design + math.

>most essentials classes get a single encounter power they can use multiple times.
Gotcha, as i said, I'm not too familiar with those since I was told I couldn't use them when I played.

Is there much that gives you a selection of encounter powers with a shared resource pool? That would be more of a "all classes use mp" type thing.

So like, youd still eventually get your 4 fighter encounter powers plus 4 dailies, but you share uses between them all, with some sort of conversion such that dailies take more points, maybe lower level powers you haven't updated take less or something like that.

What is aedu

At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility.

It's just shorthand for 'the Powers system'

>Gotcha, as i said, I'm not too familiar with those since I was told I couldn't use them when I played.

I allow both in my games, but I would discourage them in most places unless the player in question is HUGE on the 'muh feels like DnD' thing.

>Is there much that gives you a selection of encounter powers with a shared resource pool? That would be more of a "all classes use mp" type thing.
>So like, youd still eventually get your 4 fighter encounter powers plus 4 dailies, but you share uses between them all, with some sort of conversion such that dailies take more points, maybe lower level powers you haven't updated take less or something like that.

Psionic classes (aside from the monk) KIND of work this way. They select a large variety of at-will powers and they have a pool of power points. They can augment their at-wills with power points, and each point spent (or each two-three points depending on the level of the power) adds an effect and eventually damage to the power.
So you can have multiple psionic disciplines but a finite pool of power points that make them have that 'encounter' effect.
The reason I say it's only 'kind of' is because psionic dailies work the same as everyone else's.

Power points are also things you can use on feats, a racial power or two, etc.

Elementalist (Essentials Sorcerer) also sort of works this way in that they have a large selection of at-will powers that they empower and modfiy using a single resource, the Elemental Escalation power. (Although I could be wrong on this one because it might only work on elemental bolt, I never played essentials sorcerer)

So when someone says a class didn't get proper aedu, they just mean it has shit options for powers?